Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Slavery and evil
- Thread starter JackGiantkiller
- Start date
JackGiantkiller
First Post
This is an intelligent and interesting debate, people. Keep 'em coming. Good points, Fusangite, Raven, John Morrow, Doug.
Fusangite: I agree totally about playing in a mindset that is pre-modern being one of the big draws of RPG's, D&D in particular.
Raven Crowking:
"There is plenty of evidence that slavery was considered undesirable throughout human history. Roman citizens weren't lining up to become slaves. The Greeks believed that the state of slavery dulled your body heat, and by extension your wits and very humanity. "
Undesirable does not equal evil. To me, working all my life to enrich someone else while merely barely supporting myself and my family is undesirable. But i do not argue that working for a large company is evil. It's not good, but it isn't evil either. Arguing that something is evil just because the word slavery is used doesn't make sense. As noted by many people above....*not all slaves were oppressed*. There were a great many slavery models where slaves were well treated and had more rights under law than a free man...even in the US, where slavery was more obviously evil, the plight of a slave was less desperate than the plight of a Chinese-American or an Irish American during the railroad building. The railroad used Irish and Chinese instead of slaves because you could work them to death and no one cared...one had to pay to replace a slave, and had to feed and clothe them...but there was always another Irishman or Chinaman so desperate to work that they would accept pennies a day for insanely difficult labor.
The Mamluks were slaves, definitely. But *they ruled their society*. They fulfilled every major government position.
Fusangite: I agree totally about playing in a mindset that is pre-modern being one of the big draws of RPG's, D&D in particular.
Raven Crowking:
"There is plenty of evidence that slavery was considered undesirable throughout human history. Roman citizens weren't lining up to become slaves. The Greeks believed that the state of slavery dulled your body heat, and by extension your wits and very humanity. "
Undesirable does not equal evil. To me, working all my life to enrich someone else while merely barely supporting myself and my family is undesirable. But i do not argue that working for a large company is evil. It's not good, but it isn't evil either. Arguing that something is evil just because the word slavery is used doesn't make sense. As noted by many people above....*not all slaves were oppressed*. There were a great many slavery models where slaves were well treated and had more rights under law than a free man...even in the US, where slavery was more obviously evil, the plight of a slave was less desperate than the plight of a Chinese-American or an Irish American during the railroad building. The railroad used Irish and Chinese instead of slaves because you could work them to death and no one cared...one had to pay to replace a slave, and had to feed and clothe them...but there was always another Irishman or Chinaman so desperate to work that they would accept pennies a day for insanely difficult labor.
The Mamluks were slaves, definitely. But *they ruled their society*. They fulfilled every major government position.
Last edited:
JackGiantkiller
First Post
Not getting a vote means disenfranchised, not oppressed. If you don't get a vote, but the laws of the society still protect your civli rights and liberties, it cannot be considered oppressive. Societies where you do get a vote, but your civil rights and liberties are not protected *are* oppressive. Do not confuse liberty with the somewhat academic ability to vote in elections of people who then make your laws, when you are only given a small subset of very similar candidates from which to choose and all of your choices are informed only by a media machine that belongs to those same candidates.
/end rant.
/end rant.
Ok... now, how exactly is feudalism protecting my civil rights? The idea that someone is better than I am by right of his or her birth and therefore has more rights is not evil?
I consider equality in front of the law as part of my civil rights, and feudalism and monarchies violate that.
(If we use historic examples: Does anyone think the serfs and peasants were not oppressed in the medieval age and later?)
I consider equality in front of the law as part of my civil rights, and feudalism and monarchies violate that.
(If we use historic examples: Does anyone think the serfs and peasants were not oppressed in the medieval age and later?)
JackGiantkiller
First Post
Under a constitutional monarchy equality under the law *is* a guaranteed civil right, often. Feudalism just means a layered form of government wherein each layer owes fealty to the layer above, and protection to the layer below. Take a look at the Magna Carta, which did in fact give civil rights to a a huge number of people, while still being a feudal monarchy.
And no, the idea that someone is better than you by right of birth is not evil. Wierd, but not evil. Not good...but not evil. Lawful neutral, generally. You are being way too post-modern about this. In game, specifically, one cannot apply a totally modern concept of freedom to the alignment system. Not and retain any facsimile of a pseudo-medieval culture, which many of us like to use.
Your 'historic examples' are to vague to be useful. Some serfs were oppressed. Some were not. Some peasants were oppressed. Some were not. Serfs are not the same things as peasants. Neither is the same as a slave.
And no, the idea that someone is better than you by right of birth is not evil. Wierd, but not evil. Not good...but not evil. Lawful neutral, generally. You are being way too post-modern about this. In game, specifically, one cannot apply a totally modern concept of freedom to the alignment system. Not and retain any facsimile of a pseudo-medieval culture, which many of us like to use.
Your 'historic examples' are to vague to be useful. Some serfs were oppressed. Some were not. Some peasants were oppressed. Some were not. Serfs are not the same things as peasants. Neither is the same as a slave.
Captain Tagon
First Post
JackGiantkiller said:
Which is exactly why this whole argument is flawed because the modern concept of freedom wasn't understood during the time that many cultures had slaves, thus by their standards it couldn't possibly be evil. If there is no concept of individual freedom in a society, then how can you deny someone the right of freedom?
JackGiantkiller
First Post
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The men who wrote these lines, and instituted a Republic here in the America's thereafter, enfranchised only men. Many of them, if not most, were slave owners. Most of them were wealthy landowners, intelligentsia, and somewhat contemptuous of the common man. Read their own writings, if you doubt me. Read the Declaration of Independance in its entirety. Then read the Magna Carta. It makes very similar guarantees, again, only to free men...in the year 1215 AD. Which is firmly medieval, firmly historical, and still firmly feudal.
Then do your research on the sometimes oppressive nature of the Venetian Republic, the Spartan Republic, and the Roman Republic, as opposed to the freedoms given by the Magna Carta, or the ways in which pre-Roman Celtic monarchs and some Dark Ages monarchs were and were not allowed to treat their people.
Freedom is not limited to republics, nor is oppression limited to principalities.
The men who wrote these lines, and instituted a Republic here in the America's thereafter, enfranchised only men. Many of them, if not most, were slave owners. Most of them were wealthy landowners, intelligentsia, and somewhat contemptuous of the common man. Read their own writings, if you doubt me. Read the Declaration of Independance in its entirety. Then read the Magna Carta. It makes very similar guarantees, again, only to free men...in the year 1215 AD. Which is firmly medieval, firmly historical, and still firmly feudal.
Then do your research on the sometimes oppressive nature of the Venetian Republic, the Spartan Republic, and the Roman Republic, as opposed to the freedoms given by the Magna Carta, or the ways in which pre-Roman Celtic monarchs and some Dark Ages monarchs were and were not allowed to treat their people.
Freedom is not limited to republics, nor is oppression limited to principalities.
Storyteller01
First Post
Captain Tagon said:
Even without a concept of freedom, everyone in a given society knew 'which end was up' so to speak. They knew that others born into better circumstances had it easier, and wanted the same.
Given historical accounts from slaves (I'm at work, so I can't give direct quotes), many questioned this layering. Even if 'freedom' was not understood (and I would beg to differ on this point), self conceptualizing and self realizing had been. It may have not been given the same name, but the concepts were a concrete part of the psyche. If not, such questions would never have been asked, and AMerica probably wouldn't exist.
As for freedom...
The concept may never have been given a name either, but many fought for it none the less. The storming of the Bastille seems to set this precident (imho). The bastille existed in a time when one was subservient to God, King, and country. Peasants still revolted when they could take no more abuse. If they didn't fight for freedom, then possibly respect?
What about examples from the French Revolution, or those countries that broke from England shortly after the American Revolution?
I think that freedom was understood well enough. Pewople wanted it, even if they couldn't name it.
Slavery may not be evil, but neither is it good. It seems to stifle growth of self and of the community (even if only a perticular community), as well as allow justification for incredibly evil acts. Again, slavery may not be evil, but compared to other systems it all to easily saw abuse.
As for serfs...well, sometimes safety took precidence over liberty... Not good, but possibly necessary... The worst part had probably been that one could almost never rise above ones station.
Last edited:
JackGiantkiller
First Post
Captain Tagon said:
There is a difference between a concept of individual freedom and a *modern* concept of freedom. The Romans had a highly developed concept of personal freedom that did not match modern notions thereof.
As shown by my above quotes, the English of 1215 understood personal freedom, as did the Colonials of 1776. Both those cultures had slaves.
Similar Threads
- Locked
