These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Conventions on a slavery lexicon
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#21 - 2011-09-15 11:21:31 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Merdaneth wrote:

Definition
A slave is a person who is allowed to be treated as property by another person or group by their society for an indefinite amount of time and can be traded freely to another person or group.

I don't think that it is a necessary condition for a slave that he 'can be traded freely to another person or group'. In fact as anything else that is treated as property, I think that a slave can be subject to all kind of controls of trade - including a ban on being traded. If e.g. someone receives a slave as a gift of HRM with the obligation not to trade it, this wouldn't make the status of the slave as slave obsolete.


This makes sense to me. We can add a "sometimes" to take these cases into account.

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
[quote=Merdaneth]I'd also like to give a definition for what I'd call 'slave by convention' and 'slave by nature'. I have to admit though that this might venture already into the normative realm you'd like to avoid, Paladin.


  • slave by convention - a slave that is held in accord to the norms, rules, laws etc. of the society he is held in
  • slave by nature - a slave that is not competent to run his own life


The first one, slave by convention, is another word for my "slave by ideology". Usually, societies that use slavery by ideology (ie, the Amarr Empire and its affiliates, and the Sansha Nation), have precise conventions or rules to enforce it.

The second one is an interesting concept. I... suppose it has actually its place in this debate. I am pretty sure that two sides will soon form themselves : those that agree, and those that disagree, but this can be an interesting discussion on the human nature. In any way, this category can be added to the index along with the "slave by analogy", in the various uses of the term (usually the non legal uses).
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#22 - 2011-09-15 11:53:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkady Sadik
Ms. Farel, I think you do not understand my concerns. At all. Out of respect for your topic I will try and avoid reiterating them. Feel free to ask again if you are actually interested.

Lyn Farel wrote:
Arkady Sadik wrote:
That is why I said I do not like the term "voluntary slave", not that I think you are wrong.
Well, I do not understand what bothers you. One can definitly volunteer himself/herself to slavery. Examples are not many, but they exist nevertheless.
Indeed. You can enter slavery voluntarily, but once you are a slave, it stops being voluntary. If it was still voluntary, you could exit the slavery at any time, which I do not think fits to what I commonly understand as "slavery" (outside of a few chic society uses of the term), and I do not think that that is what you mean when you use the term "voluntary slave". So I think the term is misleading, and suggested a different term.

Maybe "voluntarily entered slavery" might work better than "bonded slavery" for you?

I think another issue we have been facing a few times now is that different people mean different things when they say "slavery", and that is not necessarily about how someone came to be a slave. For example, the mere concept of "slave by nature" does not make sense to me - slavery for me is a completely orthogonal concept to the ability to run your own life. Using the same term for different concepts will necessarily cause a lot of misunderstandings.

Quote:
Arkady Sadik wrote:
What kind of mutual understanding are you looking for if you put a "criminal slave" who happens to be forced to work for ten years because he killed a hundred people in cold blood into the same bucket as a child who stole an apple and is as punishment taken from its family and re-educated as a servant to a foreign family on a different planet, never allowed to see its own culture again? Those cases are different, and a discussion that ignores that difference can not sensibly discuss the "legitimacy" of the process.
Unless I have not expressed myself clearly enough, I never put them in the same basket. I created a category for "criminal slaves" and a category for "ideological slaves" / "slaves by power or might".
A "criminal slave" is always a "slave by power" as well as an "ideological slave": That you can actually put someone in slavery for a crime if they do not wish to enter slavery means you are forcing them with power, and the idea that slavery is an appropriate punishment or rehabilitation method for a given crime is an ideological idea.

The example I gave (and apologies for using the much-abused "but think of the children" there, I needed two extremes) has two forms of "criminal slaves." Both have been made slaves because of a crime. So, in your categorization, they are indeed both in the same basket. Is this intended?
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#23 - 2011-09-15 14:30:51 UTC
Lyn Farel wrote:
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
I'd also like to give a definition for what I'd call 'slave by convention' and 'slave by nature'. I have to admit though that this might venture already into the normative realm you'd like to avoid, Paladin.


  • slave by convention - a slave that is held in accord to the norms, rules, laws etc. of the society he is held in


The first one, slave by convention, is another word for my "slave by ideology". Usually, societies that use slavery by ideology (ie, the Amarr Empire and its affiliates, and the Sansha Nation), have precise conventions or rules to enforce it.


I didn't mean it to be understood as another term for the 'slave by ideology' and indeed I see a big difference: It's meant to be an umbrella term for all categories that are accepted withing a given society or culture as societal conventions, whether it is ideological norm, as punishment for crimes and thus as an execution of laws or entering slavery voluntary - as long as it is accepted by the society it would be 'slavery by convention'.

Lyn Farel wrote:
The second one is an interesting concept. I... suppose it has actually its place in this debate. I am pretty sure that two sides will soon form themselves : those that agree, and those that disagree, but this can be an interesting discussion on the human nature. In any way, this category can be added to the index along with the "slave by analogy", in the various uses of the term (usually the non legal uses).

I think it's in the right place there.

In regard to the term 'voluntary slavery' I think it might indeed easily bring about misunderstandings of the form that it might be confused with 'slavery by analogy'. I'd agree with Cpt. Sadik that a term like 'voluntary entered slavery' or 'slave by voluntary contract' maybe also simply 'slave by contract' might be less confusing in this place.

Arkady Sadik[/quote wrote:
I think another issue we have been facing a few times now is that different people mean different things when they say "slavery", and that is not necessarily about how someone came to be a slave. For example, the mere concept of "slave by nature" does not make sense to me - slavery for me is a completely orthogonal concept to the ability to run your own life. Using the same term for different concepts will necessarily cause a lot of misunderstandings.

I agree on the first sentence, entirely: Still, I think that the legal side of it - which corresponds mostly to the 'how someone became a slave' - is of main importance here, for it is indeed easily defined and here are already most of the misunderstandings located that arise while debating slavery.
That the concept of 'slavery by nature' doesn't make sense to you is an interesting point there. I'd venture that all real attempts to justify slavery within the Empire rest on this concept or a concept of 'slavery by divine right' - and thus imply by their very nature certain standards for slavery, if it is to be justifiable.

That said, I'd like to add two further definitions:

  • slave by divine right - a slave that is (claimed) to not only be slave according to human convention, but also out of divine predestination.
  • slave by war - a slave that has entered into slavery by being captured in war. (Compare: Prisoner - prisoner of war)
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#24 - 2011-09-15 15:17:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkady Sadik
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Arkady Sadik wrote:
I think another issue we have been facing a few times now is that different people mean different things when they say "slavery", and that is not necessarily about how someone came to be a slave. For example, the mere concept of "slave by nature" does not make sense to me - slavery for me is a completely orthogonal concept to the ability to run your own life. Using the same term for different concepts will necessarily cause a lot of misunderstandings.
I agree on the first sentence, entirely: Still, I think that the legal side of it - which corresponds mostly to the 'how someone became a slave' - is of main importance here, for it is indeed easily defined and here are already most of the misunderstandings located that arise while debating slavery.
Hm. Maybe. I'm not sure about the "most", but ok - I might have been a bit too focused on my own opinions of slavery and the problems therewith, I don't really participate in many discussions on the topic so I would not know what other problems you regularly face there.

So, let me see if I can find some more "definitions" for your collection. It should be noted that these "sets" are not mutually exclusive.

First of all, as for my own understanding of what a "slave" is: A person is a "slave" if they are considered (1)property, are (2)forced to work and are (3)held against their will. All of these have to apply. For example, if only (2) and (3) apply, it's a "prisoner", not a "slave". I'm not sure if the other combinations exist at all. Still, it's a very vague concept without clear borders, and especially (1) is a vague condition (property implies the right to usage and the right to deny others usage).

I think I can come up with two ways of how people enter slavery: Either they enter voluntarily (to repay a debt, because they feel it's their duty, or similar), or they are forced to become slaves. If the person could voluntarily stop being a slave, the definition above would not hold anymore ("Voluntarily entered slavery" vs. "involuntarily entered slavery")

You can further subdivide those two categories. Voluntarily entered slavery could come to pass for repayment of a debt, for personal spiritual enlightenment, or out of sexual preference (most cases of the latter are not "slavery" according to my definition above, but there are some who are). Involuntarily entered slavery can be inner-society (punishment for crime, reeducation, hereditary status) or extra-society (captives of slave raids or those defeated in a war).

This describes why a person has become a slave.

The other side of the process is the legitimation, why those who enslaved him believe that it is "right" to enslave someone. These are all ideological reasons. I think I would separate those into religious slavery ("we believe that slavery should be used"), practical slavery ("using slavery is useful for us") and traditional slavery ("we have always had slaves", usually based on a prior society order consisting of either of the two others). By writing down those reasons into laws, those generally develop into "statutory slavery" ("the law says we should have slaves"). And in particular "practical slavery" then can be split up into "slavery for protection" (e.g. punishment for crime) and "slavery for quality of life improvements" (of the rest of the society, of course).

This gives us:

- Voluntarily entered slavery
-- Slavery to repay a debt
-- Slavery for spiritual reasons
-- Slavery for sexual reasons
- Involuntarily entered slavery
-- Inner-society slavery
--- Slavery as punishment for crime
--- Slavery as reeducation (usually due to a crime)
--- Hereditary slavery
-- Extra-society slavery
--- Captives of raids
--- Defeated party in a war

And:

- Ideological slavery
-- Traditional slavery
-- Practical slavery
--- Slavery for protection of the society from the slave
--- Slavery for improvement of the quality of life of the society by the slave
-- Religious slavery
-- Statutory slavery

I think all of the forms mentioned in this thread so far would fit into this categorization scheme. Some of them will further sub-categorize them.

This any helpful?
Merdaneth
Angel Wing.
Khimi Harar
#25 - 2011-09-15 16:49:04 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

I don't think that it is a necessary condition for a slave that he 'can be traded freely to another person or group'. In fact as anything else that is treated as property, I think that a slave can be subject to all kind of controls of trade - including a ban on being traded. If e.g. someone receives a slave as a gift of HRM with the obligation not to trade it, this wouldn't make the status of the slave as slave obsolete.


Ms. Mithra,

I do think it a necessary condition. Being able to trade slaves that is. Perhaps ' freely' is to strong a word, but if a property cannot be traded, than it loses one of the fundamental aspects that makes it property.

If you don't think it a necessary condition, you need to provide additional clauses to the definition to differentiate slaves from prisoners because currently a decisive difference between a slave and a prisoner. Unless you want to argue that prisoners and slaves are not fundamentally different of course.

I stand by my decision to include tradeability into the definition.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#26 - 2011-09-16 12:49:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Arkady Sadik wrote:
Indeed. You can enter slavery voluntarily, but once you are a slave, it stops being voluntary. If it was still voluntary, you could exit the slavery at any time, which I do not think fits to what I commonly understand as "slavery" (outside of a few chic society uses of the term), and I do not think that that is what you mean when you use the term "voluntary slave". So I think the term is misleading, and suggested a different term.

Maybe "voluntarily entered slavery" might work better than "bonded slavery" for you?


Yes, that description can work better.

Arkady Sadik wrote:
A "criminal slave" is always a "slave by power" as well as an "ideological slave": That you can actually put someone in slavery for a crime if they do not wish to enter slavery means you are forcing them with power, and the idea that slavery is an appropriate punishment or rehabilitation method for a given crime is an ideological idea.



I must respectfully point you to the original criterias again :

Slave by power/might : without any other justification than the owner's own volition."

Slave by ideology : "without any other reason than said spiritual or ethical belief."

If I made this distinction, it was indeed for the very purpose to differienciate them from the other categories.


Arkady Sadik wrote:
The example I gave (and apologies for using the much-abused "but think of the children" there, I needed two extremes) has two forms of "criminal slaves." Both have been made slaves because of a crime. So, in your categorization, they are indeed both in the same basket. Is this intended?


Ah yes, indeed, they are in the same categorization in my criterias. But as I said, for complete and serious discussions on slavery, you need as much as to know the "why" than the "how". And with that in mind, it is where comes the differenciation. The potential moral issue for children in slavery is actually more part of the "how", with a very moral issue. I am not sure that they have their place here, and even if they had, where would you put them ?

Merdaneth wrote:
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

I don't think that it is a necessary condition for a slave that he 'can be traded freely to another person or group'. In fact as anything else that is treated as property, I think that a slave can be subject to all kind of controls of trade - including a ban on being traded. If e.g. someone receives a slave as a gift of HRM with the obligation not to trade it, this wouldn't make the status of the slave as slave obsolete.


Ms. Mithra,

I do think it a necessary condition. Being able to trade slaves that is. Perhaps ' freely' is to strong a word, but if a property cannot be traded, than it loses one of the fundamental aspects that makes it property.

If you don't think it a necessary condition, you need to provide additional clauses to the definition to differentiate slaves from prisoners because currently a decisive difference between a slave and a prisoner. Unless you want to argue that prisoners and slaves are not fundamentally different of course.

I stand by my decision to include tradeability into the definition.


Your points are sound, though I think both of your points are. You can definitly find several slaves that are bound to one specific Holder for example, for judicial reasons.

I think the term you are looking for, instead of trading, is the more general one cited by Mr Thosis : bound by a contract, as any property.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#27 - 2011-09-16 13:17:19 UTC
This is another attempt at something more exhaustive, taking in account your remarks, Mr Sadik :



Definitions wrote:
1. A slave is by definition a person who is the property of another person or a group of persons, and whose labor and/or also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition.

2. A slave is a person who is allowed to be treated as property by an entity by their society for an indefinite amount of time and is also subject to a contract, including (or not) trading to another person or group.




Index Part I wrote:
What is usually designed by the broad legal 'Slave' term in the different cultures using slavery

VOLUNTARILY ENTERED SLAVERY



  • Slave by debt : Someone that chooses to take the status of slave to repay a debt to another party.

  • Slave by spirituality : Someone that chooses to take the status of slave for spiritual reasons (ex: the Amarrian orthodox path to enlightement).




INVOLUNTARILY ENTERED SLAVERY - Inner Society



  • Slave by crimes : Someone sentenced to slavery for his/her crimes, which can include reeducation purposes.

  • Slave by legacy : Someone put in slavery due to his/her parents or relatives being themselves into slavery.



INVOLUNTARILY ENTERED SLAVERY - Inter Societies



  • Slave by official raiding : Someone enslaved by a foreigner culture raiding his/her territorial space. This is made official at least by the foreigner culture in question.

  • Slave by unofficial raiding : Someone enslaved by a foreigner person raiding his/her territorial space. This is made unofficial if no legal authority recognizes the raid in question.

  • PoW slave : Someone put in slavery due to his military status after having been defeated by another military forces that practices slavery.







Index Part II wrote:
The different ideological reasons behind slavery



  • Slavery by tradition : Slavery that has no other meaning other than the fact it has been a tradition. Please note that it can be a case anchored in a present time, but every case of slavery has real reasons other than traditions. A slavery that has no other meaning than tradition has to have started for something else, be it spiritual, economical, military, etc.

  • Practical slavery : Slavery implemented by a culture for the protection of said society from the slave, or slavery implemented by a culture for the improvement of quality of life by the slave.

  • Slavery by religion or divine right : Slavery implemented by divine right by a culture, for various spiritual and religious reasons.

  • Slavery by might : Slavery implemented by the right of the most potent.




Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#28 - 2011-09-16 14:13:43 UTC
I like that new attempt, thank you.
Previous page12