Slaves

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Black Leviathan

Solid catch! That didn't even occur to me. But still Sci-fi isn't lacking for slave armies or police forces or priests castes that are given privileges above rank-and-file citizens.

Also women who are given privileges above rank-and-file citizens. But they are still women and in a sexually inegalitarian setting that means they will still be denied certain things that even common men will have.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Also women who are given privileges above rank-and-file citizens. But they are still women and in a sexually egalitarian setting that means they will still be denied certain things that even common men will have.

"Sexually egalitarian setting"? Is that really what you meant to say? It seems as if, in a sexually egalitarian setting, "but they are still women" would have no legal significance.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by whswhs

"Sexually egalitarian setting"? Is that really what you meant to say? It seems as if, in a sexually egalitarian setting, "but they are still women" would have no legal significance.

They could be equal under the law but subject to social pressure in areas outside the law's jurisdiction. Just like, strictly speaking there is no law forbidding my lobbying for the enslavement of all women by Constitutional Amendment and in fact the police are required to protect me while I so lobby. But I will (in this case rightfully) be sent to Coventry, hence the need for said protection from the unfortunate excesses of the sending to Coventry.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by whswhs

"Sexually egalitarian setting"? Is that really what you meant to say? It seems as if, in a sexually egalitarian setting, "but they are still women" would have no legal significance.

No, I meant to write inegalitarian.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No, I meant to write inegalitarian.

That was my guess, but I prefer to check with the author.

[pawsplay]

I found this old thread while searching for topics related to slavery. Banestorm says slaves cannot own property, which isn't true. A plantation slave or a miner might not own property, and de fact, their owner might take their things, but the owner of a slave is entitled to their labor, their person, and their location. They aren't distinctly deprived of any other ability they might have. Even under the American system, which was racialized and historically brutal, skilled slaves sometimes had housing of their own and even side-jobs during their non-working hours. Even plantation slaves sometimes baked and did other artisanal work outside their defined duties, and exchanged those for small personal benefits and belongings. Valuable slaves, when and where this was possible, sometimes accumulated savings and bought their freedom. This was even possible in much of the USA, until the pre-Civil War racial tensions and "the slavery question" caused increasingly oppressive standards.

So I find it curious that Banestorm, without even naming a particular nation, just casually says slaves can't own things, which historically was true only of the most used plantation workers, other hard laborers, and slaves by law, and then only in places that permitted true chattel slavery. Even and perhaps especially in Megalos, which is a seething plutocracy with an oppressive slave system, I would expect favored slaves to be able to own things, and at least attempt to buy their freedom.

[Farmer]

Roman slaves could not own property. They might be permitted to keep certain things, even money, but they could not legally own anything.

Is there a particular reason you're only looking at one instance of slavery to declare that Banestorm is somehow "wrong" (it's a fictional setting and the world can be built any way the creator wants)?

Also, even in the US, there doesn't seem to be a single standard to support the view that slaves could own anything.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/slav...gal%20standing.

[Ulzgoroth]

Slaves always have the possibility of possessions, regardless of whether their possession of those things is protected (or even permitted) by law.

But without some source of effective protection, those things can simply be taken away at any time.

[Ashtagon]

I don't pretend to know the details of plantation era slavery in the USA. But I do know that slavery laws from that time probably bore only a passing resemblance to slavery laws from those cultures that seeded the Ytarria (medieval Europe and the middle east). I don't think you can really draw a line connecting "these plantation era slaves were under these laws" and "those Ytarrian slaves must therefore be under the same set of laws".

Note that depending on the culture, it is possible that although a slave may not be able to own anything, their owner could choose to emancipate the slave. The slave can't actually buy their freedom, but a sufficiently favoured slave could still earn it. The difference is that that 'earning' is measured in intangibles rather than in cold hard cash.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Banestorm says slaves cannot own property, which isn't true.

Different settings treat slaves differently. If Banestorm says slaves on Yrth can't own property, that means part of being a slave on Yrth is that you legally cannot own property - it doesn't mean anything about Roman slaves, Greek slaves, American slaves, modern slaves, slaves in Star Wars, etc.

The Stormlight Archives has slaves not being able to control what job they are assigned to, but their owners are legally obligated to pay them (at IIRC half the rate of a free worker of the same job) and things they purchase belong to them, they aren't subject to being taken by the slave's owner (they can also opt to put their money toward buying off whatever their slave-debt is, such that they will become free upon paying it off, although many owners cook the books to prevent them from actually achieving freedom). Alien Dice has slaves become such willingly, with contracts stipulating what they can be required to do, how they are to be treated, etc (although, again, you wind up with corruption, with people being tricked into signing away their rights or even having the documents modified, with them being forced to do things outside their contracts with no way of reporting this, etc). Mistborn has slaves whose owners can murder them for sport and otherwise subject to all manner of horrible treatment with no repercussions. There are many different ways a setting can have slavery function.