When is it appropriate to use the term slavery?

[Zor]

Anyone with a basic grasp of history knows of the horrors of slavery. And we all know that people use slavery to refer to scenarios in which human beings are not legally owned as property but are still forced to work for little or no compensation under tight control, such as the victims of human trafficking and Serfs in Russia. And that some people who were slaves in the literal sense of the word could be put into high position well above that of the common man (personal clerks to Roman Emperors and many officials of the Ottoman Government). And that the term gets thrown allot in rhetoric in a myriad of ways, from "we fight to free Europe from the shackles of slavery under the third reich" which could be seen as justifiable given the things that the nazis were doing to things like "taxation is slavery", which is not really applicable.

My question here is when is it appropriate to refer to something as slavery? Should we stick to being literal in its use or is there some room for its use informally.

Zor

[Sarevok]

The meaning of a term evolves and slavery itself has changed forms across history. I had there is nothing wrong with using it in a new meaning in modern context as long as people are not being too literal in drawing a historical comparison.

[InnerBrat]

As slavery still exists, and as historical slavery still has an ugly legacy in our world, I generally follow the rule of thumb that:

Times it is appropriate to use "slavery:"
When a human being is treated as an object to be owned, bought or sold, with little or no regard to their humanity and with a complete loss of their personal freedom.

Times it is inappropriate to use "slavery:"
- when you don't like your job
- when your spouse asks you to do the dishes.
- when you're asked to contribute financially to the cost of running the country.
- every other time.


[I have similar rules of thumb about when it is appropriate to use "Nazi" or "rape." Bet you can guess what they are.]

[K. A. Pital]

Serfdom for example is quite close to slavery in my view. Though some might disagree, the similarities are quite strong between the two and the forms of slavery are quite diverse.

from "we fight to free Europe from the shackles of slavery under the third reich

Considering the fact that the Third Reich utilized over ten million abductees as slave labour, this is not a huge departure from the truth. Though of course that's a propaganda metaphor.

[Alkaloid]

I'd say there also an element of classism in there as well. There always seems to be some sort of social tag, freemen and slaves, ubermensch and untermensch, Spartan and Helot, as much as there is a word for someone who is a slave, there is a word for someone who isn't. That really seems to me to be the difference between an individual practising slavery and a society condoning it, those that aren't slaves are desperate to mae it clear to everyone that they aren't.

[Irbis]

As slavery still exists, and as historical slavery still has an ugly legacy in our world, I generally follow the rule of thumb that:

Times it is appropriate to use "slavery:"
When a human being is treated as an object to be owned, bought or sold, with little or no regard to their humanity and with a complete loss of their personal freedom.

What bout modern slavery? One that doesn't regard humans as property, doesn't sell them, or anything, but is still about exploiting others? Like Chinese/Indian businessman that force others into debt and exploit them without hope of ever paying such debt? Even if they don't keep them locked and still consider them humans, it would still be slavery, IMHO.

[Broomstick]

That's why we have terms like "wage slavery" and "debt slavery", to mark them out as conditions that while not "true" slavery, or classical slavery, do have results that resemble some of those caused by slavery.

[Thanas]

Slavery is often defined as the social death, when you cease to be regarded as a member of society and become an object. In this context I think it is quite appropriate to - for example - speak of sex slavery as true slavery. Obviously, wage slavery and debt slavery do not qualify, because the person is not regarded as being socially dead.

[Irbis]

Ah, well, to me, the latter two are little if any better than the other kinds, but I guess that distinction makes sense.

[Thanas]

I think there is a massive difference between the various kinds. If you are a true slave, nobody will talk to you except other slaves. You will have no rights in society. You will cease to be accessible to your friends (if they even dare to be seen with you) and family as there will be no contact with you except if your master allows it. None of those massive inflictions happen to people who are in debt or are getting paid very little. They still have civil rights and can exercise them. Their family can see them if they wish so without having to ask for permission. Their children do not belong to a master. They cannot be raped, killed or otherwise harshly mistreated at the will of the master.

Of course, in the case of the Eastern European and Asian women that make up the majority of the slave trade today, all of the above applies. This is why there is more than a little difference between the two IMO.

[K. A. Pital]

A true slave isn't "socially dead" either; he socialized both with his master and the family and the circle of his master and other slaves. The master's family can have lots of communication with the slave, just as the master or masters themselves.

So I wouldn't say true slaves are thrown out of society. The American South and serfdom are certainly representing forms of slavery (which is a wider concept than just "forced labour"), yet the slave is certainly not cast out of society like in the classical Roman slavery perhaps. Even "ancient" (not specifically Greco-Roman but pre-feudal) slavery had different forms of socialization for slaves, which varied across continents and nations.

[Thanas]

A true slave isn't "socially dead" either; he socialized both with his master and the family and the circle of his master and other slaves. The master's family can have lots of communication with the slave, just as the master or masters themselves.

He can have communication, but not unless the master wants it. The master is in total control of the communication. And the slave is usually not allowed to speak with the master unless given permission.

[K. A. Pital]

He can have communication, but not unless the master wants it. The master is in total control of the communication. And the slave is usually not allowed to speak with the master unless given permission.

The same conditions apply to many Third World workers. There are even certain aspects of contacts that prohibit communication on certain matters between employees in the First World (though sometimes such provisions are struck down by the law, and that's good). The boss is usually separated from the employees and may not be accessed or spoken to without prior permission. I'm not even speaking about the faceless owner or owners, the "employers", who many live in a walled-off mansion and never even see the people toiling under their command.

[Thanas]

He can have communication, but not unless the master wants it. The master is in total control of the communication. And the slave is usually not allowed to speak with the master unless given permission.

The same conditions apply to many Third World workers. There are even certain aspects of contacts that prohibit communication on certain matters between employees in the First World (though sometimes such provisions are struck down by the law, and that's good). The boss is usually separated from the employees and may not be accessed or spoken to without prior permission. I'm not even speaking about the faceless owner or owners, the "employers", who many live in a walled-off mansion and never even see the people toiling under their command.

And of course in all the conditions displayed the master may abuse the slave at will, right? He owns him and can actually sell him?

Context, Stas.

[K. A. Pital]

Exactly! The critical difference between the slave and the non-slave is the level of control over the slave's life and work, and the concept of ownership. Not the exclusion of the slave from socialization par se (although still an important observation). That's what I meant to say.