slavery in novels is annoying

[TotallyHuman]

The world outgrew roman society-wide slavery but slavery is still done in modern age for specific tasks and slice of world population such Uyghurs.

for this statement I would ask some reliable sources

 

[owotrucked]

for this statement I would ask some reliable sources

Oh, I meant that there's no country where legally owned people work in every layers of society. If it's underground slavery, I can't tell.

Like if there are still societies sneakily using slaves, I dont think any of them have the balls to publicly recognize it.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

This Site has a lot of info on modern slavery.

Walk Free

We can end modern slavery in our lifetime.

www.walkfree.org

 

[OP1000]

It's a rant fueled by frustruation, rather than a rational critisism of a trope, but I hate it when they add slavery into a setting and then virtue-signal (is it the right word? Hell if I know) their mc to hate it.

"Oh look these people have SlaVEs, what fucking savages, I am so triggered, but I hate slavery and I will free them so I am so much better than them - never mind that the author added slavery themselves for the sole and cheap reason of letting me act all nice and just for a reason nobody can argue against. The author didn't even bother to add any depth to the social circumstances and the characters painting all the slavers as absolutely evil and predatory in some way or form and the whole setting is completely self-serving and adds nothing to a possible social commentary, or a way for characters' growth. It's just there to be to be a convenient evil. But still, since it is there and I am acting against it, I'm a good character!"

An analogy I'd like to make is landlords. Landlords fundamentally are evil. They make a living off of leeching of those who cannot afford their own housing - which makes for arguably one of the most vulnerable layers of society.
Does it make hating landlords justified? Sure, go at it. Would you feel annoyed if somebody generalised it and said that landlords all were personally evil people? I sure would.
If some person went around racketing people's property from landlords and gave them to the homeless that would make them, at least to me, rather morally grey, and very offputting (but based but that's of topic)

It's the way how these scenarios are usually written here when, say, a person from another world, arrives there and encounters a practice that is, from their point of view, barbaric and evil, and choose to force their values on a population (and thus indirectly on the readers by assuming for them that something is good or bad) that makes me annoyed.

And don't get me wrong, I do not support slavery of any sort, but I am sure that the authors could work with it a bit more tastefully.

rant over.

I agree with you on the fact that slavery is bad, but the way that the slaves and slavers are written into the story can definitely be annoying.

 

[J_Chemist]

I am now adding slavery to my story at some point.

 

[TotallyHuman]

This Site has a lot of info on modern slavery.

Walk Free

We can end modern slavery in our lifetime.

www.walkfree.org

frankly this looks like a western exceptionalism thing.
Most photos (all really) show colored people, for example.
My brain on autopilot translated it to:

Those savages people from other cultures live in a way that we cannot understand, so it's time to introduce them to our modern civilized values™ because we™ are obviously so much better than them, here, look at these clearly biased sources that we made up or distorted, they say it all

Maybe I'm wrong, but at this point I just find it simpler to look at anything that speaks corporate in the worst way and it usually works well

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

frankly this looks like a western exceptionalism thing.
Most photos (all really) show colored people, for example.
My brain on autopilot translated it to:

Maybe I'm wrong, but at this point I just find it simpler to look at anything that speaks corporate in the worst way and it usually works well

Well, western nations are the only one who want to end slavery in the first place. The old world is where the majority of slavery is. So, of course they use pictures of colored people. (Also, all people are colored people.)

 

[TotallyHuman]

Well, western nations are the only one who want to end slavery in the first place.

From their homepage:

EVERY HUMAN DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE A LIFE THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY.

If that is how they define slavery (i.e "a life that is not safe, offers no freedom or opportunity") then literally all the countries in the world officially bear such an agenda.
Besides, looking at the wikipedia definition

Slavery is the ownership of a person as property, especially in regards to their labor.

Most modern countries around the world ban such a practice.

The old world is where the majority of slavery is.

no comment due to lack of sources.

So, of course they use pictures of colored people.

See no connection with previous statement

Also, all people are colored people.

Anybody can just slap a definition that they decide is right and play around like that, but then talking would be pointless. Let's stick to conventional meanings:

The word colored (Middle English icoloured) was first used in the 14th century but with a meaning other than race or ethnicity.[3][4] The earliest uses of the term to denote a member of dark-skinned groups of peoples occurred in the second part of the 18th century in reference to South America. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "colored" was first used in this context in 1758 to translate the Spanish term mujeres de color ('colored women') in Antonio de Ulloa's A voyage to South America.[4]

The term came in use in the United States during the early 19th century, and it then was adopted by emancipated slaves as a term of racial pride after the end of the American Civil War until it was replaced as a self-designation by Black or African-American during the second part of the 20th century. Due to its use in the Jim Crow era to designate items or places restricted to African Americans, the word colored is now usually considered to be offensive.[4]

The term has historically had multiple connotations. In British usage, the term refers to "a person who is wholly or partly of non-white descent," and its use is generally regarded as antiquated or offensive.[5][6] Other terms are preferable, particularly when referring to a single ethnicity.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

From their homepage:

If that is how they define slavery (i.e "a life that is not safe, offers no freedom or opportunity") then literally all the countries in the world officially bear such an agenda.
Besides, looking at the wikipedia definition

They provide their definition of slavery on a different page.

What is modern slavery? | Walk Free

Its victims are bound to toil for little or no pay, are forced to engage in exploitative sex work, or are married against their will. Its cost is individual freedom and economic stagnation. Its impact is global, and no country is immune.

www.walkfree.org

Anybody can just slap a definition that they decide is right and play around like that, but then talking would be pointless. Let's stick to conventional meanings:

You see, i reject the idea of different races, there is only one human race.

 

[Hanne]

Well, western nations are the only one who want to end slavery in the first place. The old world is where the majority of slavery is. So, of course they use pictures of colored people. (Also, all people are colored people.)

the only one?

that's not right, take china for example:

Beginning with the Han dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD), one of Emperor Gao's first acts was to manumit agricultural workers enslaved during the Warring States period, although domestic servants retained their status.[1] The Han dynasty promulgated laws to limit the possession of slaves: each king or duke was allowed a maximum of 200 slaves, an imperial princess was allowed a maximum of 100 slaves, other officials were limited to 30 slaves each.[9]

Men punished with castration during the Han dynasty were also used as slave labor.[14]

Deriving from earlier Legalist laws, the Han dynasty set in place rules penalizing criminals doing three years of hard labor or sentenced to castration by having their families seized and kept as property by the government.[15]

In the year AD 9, the Emperor Wang Mang (r. 9–23 AD) usurped the Chinese throne and, to deprive landowning families of their power, instituted a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of slavery and radical land reform. Slavery was reinstated in AD 12 before his assassination in AD 23.[16][17]

During the Three Kingdoms period (220–280 AD), a number of statuses intermediate between freedom and slavery developed, but none of them are thought to have exceeded 1 percent of the population.[1]

That's 2200 years ago

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

the only one?

that's not right, take china for example:



That's 2200 years ago

Oh boy a whopping 3 years, and it was to weaken his rivals, not out of any morals.

Edit:
and look at china now...

 

[Hanne]

Oh boy a whopping 3 years, and it was to weaken his rivals, not out of any morals.

Edit:
and look at china now...

it seems you have trouble in reading long passages.

Industry and commerce developed rapidly in China during the last three centuries before Christ, as they did also in the Mediterranean world. Contemporary Hellenistic and Roman businessmen made extensive use of slave labor, and slavery gradually developed an industrial character. Nothing comparable occurred in China. Private and government slavery had a marked growth under the Han empire, but the use of slaves for industrial purposes—even commercial farming— did not become an important characteristic of the Chinese institution. This fact raises questions concerning the “style” of ancient Chinese slavery, and concerning the economic organization of which it was a part.

-https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/abs/industrial-slavery-in-china-during-the-former-han-dynasty-206-bcad-25/0B268B57193E3634DA61B8DEEBA38213

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

it seems you have trouble in reading long passages.

I read the whole passage you quoted. Legal slavery at the beggining, middle, and end. Only a 3 year abolition for selfish purposes.

-https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/abs/industrial-slavery-in-china-during-the-former-han-dynasty-206-bcad-25/0B268B57193E3634DA61B8DEEBA38213

It says china had slaves... what do domestic slaves not count or something?

Slavery used to be common and accepted around the world. If it wasnt for western powers, it still would be.

Edit
I do wonder how long slavery will stay abolished, as it feels there are many factors leaning towards a non-free world.

 

[owotrucked]

The main point is that slavery is officially illegal everywhere.

I think it's a spontaneous necessity for local population to thrive when they gain education and skills. It's more profitable for the society as a whole to avoid enslave doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc. (Now that I think about it, it sounds like a pretty good technique against brain drain)

What happens in practice in each country is another problem. There can be all sort of incidents of people trying to illegally take advantage of others that may or may not be close to slavery.

Like bonded labor that comes with the justification of debt to get the moral highground. It allows you to decide arbitrarily how much your debtor earn and leave them little enough so they're forced to borrow more from you lol.

In the case of illegal slavery, there's little chance that slaves are well treated and used for high educated skill like it could happen in ancient rome.

Honestly though, it's not the west concern. On the contrary, western companies would gain more to enslave labor and be as untransparent as possible.

Maybe western individuals will say they care about slavery in third world country, but the truth is that they don't care enough to face armed angry gangsters defending their business lol.

Maybe Prince said the west are the only one who want to end slavery because he was thinking the universal rights and the UN were originally a western thing?

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

The main point is that slavery is officially illegal everywhere.

I think it's a spontaneous necessity for local population to thrive when they gain education and skills. It's more profitable for the society as a whole to avoid enslave doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc. (Now that I think about it, it sounds like a pretty good technique against brain drain)

What happens in practice in each country is another problem. There can be all sort of incidents of people trying to illegally take advantage of others that may or may not be close to slavery.

Like bonded labor that comes with the justification of debt to get the moral highground. It allows you to decide arbitrarily how much your debtor earn and leave them little enough so they're forced to borrow more from you lol.

In the case of illegal slavery, there's little chance that slaves are well treated and used for high educated skill like it could happen in ancient rome.

Honestly though, it's not the west concern. On the contrary, western companies would gain more to enslave labor and be as untransparent as possible.

Maybe western individuals will say they care about slavery in third world country, but the truth is that they don't care enough to face armed angry gangsters defending their business lol.

Maybe Prince said the west are the only one who want to end slavery because he was thinking the universal rights and the UN were originally a western thing?

More like British empire used its influence to end slavery worldwide.

But yeah, i think its wrong that we champion abolition yet profit from big businesses that take advantage of 'slaves' on the other side of the world.

 

[PinaEverlue]

That's why only Christians should be allowed to have slaves. Good morals are necessary to rule over people. This is why surfs in the middle ages actually had it better than most people do now or ever in the entire history of the planet.

More like British empire used its influence to end slavery worldwide.

But yeah, i think its wrong that we champion abolition yet profit from big businesses that take advantage of 'slaves' on the other side of the world.

the british only ended slavery in areas where they could use the slaves to halt rebellion. segregation in south africa, india and hong kong and many many other countries was almost exclusively the fault of the british. its like the us. they had slaves but they didn't *refer to them as slaves*

 

[Lloyd]

the british only ended slavery in areas where they could use the slaves to halt rebellion. segregation in south africa, india and hong kong and many many other countries was almost exclusively the fault of the british. its like the us. they had slaves but they didn't *refer to them as slaves*

The Empire part of the British Empire was more Jewish than Christian. In fact the main financial hub of the Empire, located in London, was called Old Jewry, and it remained the financial hub of the entire world until the Jews fled for New York City during WW2. Coincidentally afterwards America became the new Global Superpower, and New York City became the new financial center of the world.

 

[CarburetorThompson]

for this statement I would ask some reliable sources

Report by Canadian Parliament

China has the shortest wait times for organ transplants in the world, but have one of the lowest rates of organ donors ( about 1 in 10 million)

I’m tired of having to pretend this is a conspiracy theory

 

[TotallyHuman]

Report by Canadian Parliament

China has the shortest wait times for organ transplants in the world, but have one of the lowest rates of organ donors ( about 1 in 10 million)

I’m tired of having to pretend this is a conspiracy theory

Vice as a reliable source? Canadian govt? Srsly? I'd rather believe the local seer

 

[CarburetorThompson]

Vice as a reliable source? Canadian govt? Srsly? I'd rather believe the local seer

Okay keep living in make believe land even though the facts are out there and easily obtainable