{"id":99995,"date":"2026-03-31T01:00:57","date_gmt":"2026-03-31T05:00:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=99995"},"modified":"2026-03-30T10:28:26","modified_gmt":"2026-03-30T14:28:26","slug":"qotd-slavery-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2026\/03\/31\/qotd-slavery-2\/","title":{"rendered":"QotD: Slavery"},"content":{"rendered":"<blockquote><p><a href=\"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/QotD-thumbnail-400x400.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" style=\"float:right; padding: 0px 0px 10px 25px\" src=\"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/QotD-thumbnail-400x400.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"400\" class=\"alignright size-full wp-image-48672\" srcset=\"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/QotD-thumbnail-400x400.png 400w, https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/QotD-thumbnail-400x400-150x150.png 150w, https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/QotD-thumbnail-400x400-50x50.png 50w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px\" \/><\/a>As sociologist <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Orlando_Patterson\" target=\"_blank\">Orlando Patterson<\/a> (b.1940) has observed:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<p><em>It is impolite to say of one&#8217;s spouse or one&#8217;s debtor that they are part of one&#8217;s property. With slaves, politeness is unnecessary. (<strong>Slavery and Social Death<\/strong>, P.22)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/ul>\n<p>What makes a slave different from a wife, professional player or even a serf is that a slave is in a state of social death: they have no claims of social connection that their master (or anyone else) need pay attention to beyond that to the master.<\/p>\n<p>This is not to say slaves have no <em>legal<\/em> personality \u2014 all slave systems are very well aware that slaves are people. Rather, the relationship of exclusive domination was such that they had no connections that anyone had any obligation to respect <em>other<\/em> than to their master.<\/p>\n<p>Other individuals might be in relationships of servitude under a master but still retained connections with others subject to presumptive respect. This was true even of serfs and is what distinguishes various forms of serfdom from slavery. Even under Russian serfdom, a serf marriage was a legally recognised marriage; a serf father had legally recognised authority over his family; a serf could legally own property. Once somebody had suffered the social death of slavery, they were utterly bereft of any such connections.<\/p>\n<p>Both serf and slave lacked any choice of master or about the nature and content of that mastery: that is what makes both forms of labour bondage. Nevertheless, a serf had legally recognised relationships, and choices about them, that a slave simply did not.<\/p>\n<p>Slaves are <em>violently dominated<\/em>: the whip or equivalent has been a control device in every known system of slavery. They are <em>natally alienated<\/em>: both from from any (positive) standing from their ancestors or claims over their descendants. They are <em>culturally degraded<\/em>: whether in naming, clothing, hair style, marks on the body or required acts.<\/p>\n<p>All this serves to establish, mark and reinforce the relationship of domination. For that level of domination is required to turn one human into the possession, and so the property, of another. (Karl Marx&#8217;s talk of &#8220;wage slave&#8221; is not only rhetorical excess, it is <em>contemptible<\/em> rhetorical excess: a manifestation of his comprehensive mischaracterisation of commerce.)<\/p>\n<p>None of these key features of domination require the acknowledgement of the wider society. There are likely slaves in every major city in the world, even in economically highly developed democracies with the rule of law.<\/p>\n<p>While it can be helpful to have your relationship of domination over a slave recognised by others, the crucial thing is the acknowledgment <em>by the slave<\/em>. Slavery is a relationship between people about an owned thing, where the slave acknowledges that <em>they<\/em> are the owned thing. This is a key element in the humiliation of slavery.<\/p>\n<p>The mechanisms of domination are, however, obviously much more powerful if they are embedded in wider institutional acceptance of slavery. Where there is no such wider acknowledgement, then even greater isolation from the wider society is required to establish and maintain the relationship of domination.<\/p>\n<p>In social systems that openly incorporate slaveholding, a slave&#8217;s state of domination, of the social nullity of no independent connection, normally meant that they could not be a <em>formally<\/em> recognised owner of property: that they could not be a <em>legal<\/em> owner of property, not a person <em>who could have property<\/em>. They lacked the sort of legal standing that could legally own things.<\/p>\n<p>To do so would require the slave to have social and legal connections, beyond the claims and decisions of their master, that others are bound to accept or respect, and that is precisely what slavery, as a structure of domination of one by other, denies. The Ahaggar Tuaregs express this feature of slavery very directly, holding that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<p><em>without the master the slave does not exist, and he is only socializable through his master. (<strong>Slavery and Social Death<\/strong>, P.4.)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Slavery is, always and everywhere, a created relationship of dominion. As the Kel Gress group of the Tuareg say:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<p><em>All persons are created by God, the slave is created by the Tuareg. (<strong>Slavery and Social Death<\/strong>, P.4)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In a society that accepts slavery, the conventions of acknowledged possession will operate for the master about the slave in a far more complete way than any other claim of property in another human. If other mechanisms of delegated control were sufficiently absent or attenuated, then slaves became preferred agents. The use of slaves as commercial agents was <a href=\"https:\/\/arizonalawreview.org\/enslaved-agents-business-transactions-negotiated-by-slaves-in-the-antebellum-south\/\" target=\"_blank\">surprisingly common<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>In societies dominated by kin-groups, slaves could make preferred warriors or officials precisely <em>because<\/em> they had no other connection entitled to presumptive respect than that to their master \u2014 hence the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lorenzofromoz.net\/p\/escaping-the-kin-group-trap\" target=\"_blank\">slave warriors<\/a> of Greater Middle Eastern (Morocco to Pakistan) Islam.<\/p>\n<p>The danger of kin-groups is that they readily colonise social institutions \u2014 rulers come and go, the kin-group is forever. Slave warriors and officials were a solution to that problem in societies where suppression of kin-groups was not a practicable option.<\/p>\n<p>Imperial China found kin-groups useful for economising on administrative costs and Emperors used distance \u2014 officials could not be assigned to their home counties \u2014 and rotation of officials to inhibit kin-group colonisation of their administrations. Even so, much of the appeal of eunuchs to Emperors was precisely the presumed severing of kin-group ties. (They also had the advantage of being the only males, other than the Emperor, permitted overnight residence in the imperial palace.)<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, slavery can exist without such wider acknowledgement by laws. For turning someone into a slave requires forcing <em>them<\/em> to acknowledge the relationship of domination to the point of being a possession of another.<\/p>\n<p>So, slavery is not, at its core, a matter of property but of domination. Domination to the extent that the conventions of acknowledged possession can apply <em>to<\/em> slaves entire. Slaves can be turned <em>into<\/em> property without any other connections with presumptive respect or standing. Yet, even a slave could be a beneficial participant in the conventions of acknowledged possession.<\/p>\n<p>For, so powerfully useful are the conventions of acknowledged possession, that masters have, surprisingly often, allowed slaves to also be accepted beneficiaries of the conventions of acknowledged possession. To be owners of property in practice, if not in law. This was done to lessen the burdens of control, the cost of subsistence or to enable the slave to buy their freedom. The Romans acknowledged this through the concept of <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wiktionary.org\/wiki\/peculium\" target=\"_blank\"><em>peculium<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The Romans, being relentlessly logical in such matters, held a slave to be an owned animal. That is, a human on which such a comprehensive social death has been imposed that they are the legal equivalent of a domesticated animal. (Yet, somewhat awkwardly, still people.)<\/p>\n<p>Just as you can geld an animal, you can castrate a slave. Despite <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world\" target=\"_blank\">the Islamic slave trade<\/a> being on a comparable scale to, and lasting centuries longer than, the Transatlantic slave trade, there is no ex-slave diaspora within Islam, unlike the Americas. All children of a Muslim father are members of the Muslim community while so many of the male slaves were castrated.<\/p>\n<p>The Roman concept of property as <em>dominium<\/em>, as absolute ownership of a thing, may have transferred the domination of slavery into a more general conception of property so as to absolutely separate slave (who suffers <em>dominium<\/em>) from citizen (who possesses it). Rome ran one of the most open slave systems in human history, such that a freed slave could become a citizen. This necessitated particularly sharp legal delineation of the difference between slave and citizen.<\/p>\n<p>Such <em>dominion<\/em> is not a relationship between a person and thing (despite claims to the contrary) for it is still setting up a relationship with others regarding what is owned, remembering that the crucial thing in property is not <em>mine<\/em>! but <em>yours<\/em>!: the acknowledgement by others of possession and so the right-to-decide. Hence the importance of the signals of possession for slavery.<\/p>\n<p>The Greeks also had citizenship and \u2014 particularly in the case of Athens \u2014 mass slavery. Greek citizenship was, however, far more exclusive than Roman citizenship and the existence of <em>metis<\/em>, resident non-citizens, further separated citizen from slave. The Greek city-states also operated much more convention-based, and distinctly less developed, laws than did Rome. If law is a matter of such abstraction as is needed to establish functional differences, and no more, the Romans perhaps felt more need to establish that a citizen could possess <em>dominion<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Conversely, as Romans were not moral universalists, they felt no need to generate some justificatory abstraction about slavery: a slave was simply a loser. If a slave later became a Roman citizen, then, congratulations to them, they had become a winner (and few cultures have worshipped success quite as relentlessly as did the Romans). Hence freedmen would put their status as freedman on their tombstones.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Aristotle\" target=\"_blank\">Aristotle<\/a> \u2014 as his moral theory did tend towards moral universalism \u2014 came up with a clumsy justificatory abstraction (<em>natural slaves<\/em>) as to why slaves could be morally degraded. Indeed, the combination of moral universalism and slavery invariably led to justifications that held some essential flaw in the slave justified their domination by others. A process much easier to manage if slaves were from a different continental region, so with distinguishing physical markers of their continental origin.<\/p>\n<p>The Romans had no need of such Just-So stories to justify slavery and did not generate them. Muslims and Christians are moral universalists and so did manifest the need to tell such Just-So stories about enslaved groups: why children of God were being enslaved. (Because that is what they were fit for, clearly.)<\/p>\n<p>Islamic writers generated the first major discourses of skin-colour racism, applying them to the populations they enslaved. In their case, generating both anti-black and anti-white racism, as they systematically enslaved both Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans, particularly Eastern Europeans. It also led to some awkward rationalisations as to why the inhabitants of South Asia could have dark skins but not suffer from any deemed inherent inferiority.<\/p>\n<p>Just as slavery continues, modern totalitarian Party-States have used forced labour \u2014 labour bondage \u2014 on massive scales, starting with <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Forced_labor_in_the_Soviet_Union\" target=\"_blank\">the Soviet Union<\/a> and then <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II\" target=\"_blank\">wartime Nazi Germany<\/a>. Such continues to the present day in CCP China \u2014 infamously <a href=\"https:\/\/www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au\/research\/commentary\/un-report-xinjiang-abuses-leaves-no-room-plausible-deniability\" target=\"_blank\">of the Uyghurs<\/a> \u2014 and the Kim Family Regime <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Prisons_in_North_Korea\" target=\"_blank\">of North Korea<\/a>. From 1940 to 1956, the Soviet Union banned workers moving jobs <a href=\"https:\/\/www.hoover.org\/sites\/default\/files\/uploads\/documents\/0817939423_23.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">without the permission<\/a> of their existing workforce, the key element of serfdom.<\/p>\n<p>Lorenzo Warby, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lorenzofromoz.net\/p\/owning-people-owning-animals-controlling\" target=\"_blank\">&#8220;Owning people, owning animals, controlling attributes&#8221;, <em>Lorenzo from Oz<\/em><\/a>, 2025-12-25.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As sociologist Orlando Patterson (b.1940) has observed: It is impolite to say of one&#8217;s spouse or one&#8217;s debtor that they are part of one&#8217;s property. With slaves, politeness is unnecessary. (Slavery and Social Death, P.22) What makes a slave different from a wife, professional player or even a serf is that a slave is in [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,7,9,41,1119],"tags":[1527,262,47,139,1343,605],"class_list":["post-99995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-china","category-history","category-law","category-quotations","category-russia","tag-ancientgreece","tag-culture","tag-islam","tag-psychology","tag-romanempire","tag-slavery"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-q0P","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99995","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=99995"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99995\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":101616,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99995\/revisions\/101616"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}