There are scales. I think OOC that slavery as practiced by the vikings was significantly better than slavery as practiced by the North American colonials. But they were both slavery.
Interesting statement considering the records regarding Viking slavery tend to be much rarer and written by Vikings or by non-slaves in cultures that had slaves. N. American slavery on the other hand has extensive records written in some cases by those who opposed the practice and later on by former slaves. The N. American memory is significantly closer with the descendants of slaves able to point at great-great-grandpa/ma and say he was born a slave.
All the above goes into the discussion of defining "evil." Perspective matters, absolutes are hard to come by.
Hadnt had a chance to read Backstage for a bit do to real life, and started catching up on some threads that I was reading. And I wanted to say, this is a great post, one thats really important when making historical statements, morality statements, and to roleplaying in EVE (or in any game really).
The point about Viking slaves is quite important. "History is written by the victors" and all of that. And, really, its easy to lose perspective in simple language. Mitochondrial DNA studies from Iceland have shown that a good portion of the people there are descended from women taken in raids from the eastern shores of England.
These women were forced to watch their fathers, brothers and sons killed in the raids, they were forced aboard ships, taken to a far off land, forced to work for their captors, raped repeatedly, and forced to give birth to the children of the men who had murdered their sons, brothers and fathers.
This was a horrible fate, every bit as awful as slavery from other eras. The fact that the Vikings called them "wives" doesnt make their slavery any less real. By using Viking terms and definitions, we inadvertently are hijacked by Viking morality as well (and Viking morality was laughably cruel to modern eyes). Its easy to lose perspective on that.
Also, Ulf's characterization as slavery being practiced by "North American colonials" is morally incomplete and in many ways outright dangerous. Slavery wasnt practiced by just the British colonials in North America, it was practiced by the entirety of the British Empire.
Thats an important distinction to make, because by merely saying "the colonials did it", you're ignoring the merchant elite who controlled the British Empire itself. They were the ones who set the laws, most likely owned the slave ships and gave the capital to start the ventures, they produced the guns that were used to buy slaves, and they prospered from the sell of rum and sugar from the Caribbean, and from textile profits made from slave-produced cotton from North America. ( 90% of African slaves ended up in the Caribbean Islands, not North America proper)
Ultimately, Ulf's characterization of slavery as something that was only done by the colonials is dangerous in that it misses those who allowed it, funded it, legalized it, and most likely ultimately profited the most from it (after all, the whole purpose of the British Empire and colonies was to benefit the British people). Of course the colonials were quite responsible, but the practice of slavery is more than simply what overseers do, slavery is practiced by those who allow it and profit from it, regardless of who actually holds the whip. When you're trying to assign blame and get a clear picture of who's doing what, it helps to follow the money and those who set the laws.
All of this is easy to miss, which is why perspective is so important.
Author
Topic: selective atheism gets really old really fast (Read 22736 times)