Slavery in history and today

[Etoile]

I'd like to probe your minds for a bit, if I may. What's your opinion on the slavery experienced by African-Americans before the Civil War as compared to slavery experienced by those of us owned by our masters and mistresses today? (I know there are slaves elsewhere in the world and throughout history, not just those in early America, but those are the ones I know enough about to speak on at all.)

My thinking is that to some extent we are slaves in the same way they were. We may call ourselves property and say we belong to our master/mistress, and we may even be whipped and manacled for no reason (or with reason!). There are even markets today at which slaves may be bought and sold, and slaves may perform a specific, non-sexual task for their master/mistress in much the same way slaves worked on the old plantations. I think one difference is that the sexual component is much greater now than it was then - certainly many masters had sex with female slaves (never heard of mistresses doing such with the male slaves), but the primary relationship was a working relationship, not a personal one.

And yet despite most of those similarities, we don't usually associate our slavery with that of pre-Civil War slaves in the New World. Please share with me your thoughts on why this might be, and what you think the similarities and differences really are.

 

[Pure]

My personal view is that the 'erotic slavery' seen around Lit a great deal, is no where in the realm of, say, 1840s slavery in South Carolina.

A good many 'slaves' here, reserve the right to walk out; end the relationship. If you look at the thread in the Cafe at the moment,
"an unorganized rant on pussy" you'll see some saying the sub/slave has a right to sexual satisfaction.

If you read threads about 'punishment' you'll see a big difference too: what's recommended is the gentlelest of 'time outs' with lots of explanations and hand holding afterwards; indeed many so called punishments are thought to have an erotic potential.

That's my idiosyncratic and bizarre 'take' on these matters.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I don't think you can put both in the same basket except in terms of physical activities. For most slave in this time and place, it is still primarily a service relationship, but by no means one which is involuntary as was the case in the US and many white slavery markest of today. Slaves in the BDSM context have a choice to commit to that relationship, and as I point out often, should not take that lightly thinking the door is open if they are unhappy unless they are sure those are the terms of the agreement. Their is that choice element, and an accepted set of guidelines for most as to what is acceptable and SSC within the community. Of course there are variations on those areas of acceptance, but it still comes back to no-one hopefully is in the slave role because they were snatched from a street corner and forced. That constitutes abuse, kidnapping, and assault which are not part of BDSM slavery.

Catalina

 

[Ms_Kat]

Not Even Close

Slavery in early America came about by kidnapping someone from Africa, sticking them in the hold of a ship in inhuman conditions for several months, then selling them to someone they had never seen and who spoke a different language. If they ran, the full resources of the law, and even special bounty hunters, could be used to bring them back. If they were allowed to marry, it was at their owner's discretion, and he or she could sell the whole family or parts of it at any time, at which point no part of the family was likely to see the others again.

If the person were born on this continent, rather than in Africa, then the first part is not applicable.

The slavery we talk so blithely about here (on this board) generally has its roots in sexual attraction and gratification. It is well known that many Southern men took extreme liberties with their Black slaves, however that was usually not the basis for having them. The basis of slavery was mostly economic, with a small bit of cultural dominance.

One last major difference, most of the slaves in early America (even in New York and New Jersey, the last Northern States to abolish slavery - after the civil war) would choose freedom if offered it. I'm guessing that isn't true for most of the slaves we talk about today.

Hugs,



Kat

 

[NCShin]

I do not think that you can even compare the two.

Pre-civil war slaves were beaten, raped and only given enough food and water to keep them doing thier job.

They were bread like animals, pairing the largest male with the largest female in order to get bigger and stronger offspring. (so of course they could do heavier labor)

They had no choice, ever. They did not enter into a contract with thier masters, did not have any option to get out.

They were denied any education, often worked from the moment they woke up to the moment they were allowed to sleep. They were not provided warm clothes in the winter, shoes to wear in the field, or any form of comfortable living conditions.

I think that the easiest way to seperate the two is to listen to some of the doms that own willing slaves. From what I see, most of them have some sort of goal to keep thier "slave" happy.

That was certainly not a goal in historical slavery.

 

[Bikewer]

Right. D/S activities are relationships. It's a contract of sorts, entered into willingly by both parties. The submissive gives up a certain amount of volition (but always with limits!) to the dominant party as part of the contract.

Not so with real slavery (which exists today; human rights orgainizations estimate at least 40 million worldwide) wherein the slave has NO rights whatever, and can be bought, sold, punished, killed torn from thier familes, raped, or tortured at the whim of the owner.

I believe that D/S activities are deeply rooted in basic human behaviors we evolved along with other aspects of our nature.

Slavery might be as well, primitives all over the world kept slaves for various purposes.

 

[ownedsubgal]

aside from forced M/s relationships (which do indeed exist, where someone is physically kidnapped or otherwise coerced with no means of escape into this lifestyle)...i don't see much of a correlation between pre-civil war slavery in the u.s. and D/s slavery. for me, there is more of a connection between marriages of old and current M/s. there was a time where, in the west even, a female was considered the property of Men...first of her father as a child, and then the property of her husband whenever she married. she had no rights. no choice about anything. the Men in her life had complete control over her fate. They had the right to beat her, sell her, work her, kill her., all under full protection of the law. she was very much property, very much owned, the word slave just wasn't used. but we moved away from such a time and such thinking towards the 50/50, everybody's equal relationships of today. i think for some of us, M/s relationships are a way for those of us who are just "old-fashioned", and just do not fit in this modern age of relationships, to live as close as possible to what is in our hearts. most modern thinkers looking back on traditional marriages of long ago and traditional Male/female roles of long ago would refer to it as a form of slavery. so i don't think those of us who live such a lifestyle now are using the term lightly or incorrectly. i can't leave my Master. i don't have rights. it's very much like those old days, except our ways aren't protected by law. but it bears little resemblance to pre-civil war slavery. some M/s relationships however do....there can be overlaps.

 

[Pure]

Interesting post, as always, OSG. Good point about the marriages of yester-year being close to slavery. Still the case in places like Afghanistan.

J.

 

[sunfox]

I feel much the way everyone else does, if not moreso, being
mixed-racial. I don't feel there's any comparison between
forced slavery and dehumanization, rape, murder, and the
breaking apart of families; fathers and sons, wives and husbands,
mothers and daughters, and the ritualized, consensual
slavery of a Master/slave relationship.

A person enters into such a relationship because it's what
they're looking for in their life. The African slaves can hardly
be said to have desired being treated like animals, whipped,
starved, and sold.

My two cents.

 

[Etoile]

I want to thank those of you who have posted already, and I'd like to hear others' thoughts too!

Thanks for clarifying this for me...at first I was thinking "there's no similarity at all" but then I did start to find some and got a little confused. I agree with those of you (sunfox, Catalina, and others) who have said that the difference is that a D/s relationship is entered into by the slave with their full consent. I also agree with NCShin's comment about Masters today tending to want their slaves to be happy (in an overall kind of way, not just in a particular scene, but happy as individuals), unlike the masters of early America who didn't even acknowledge their slaves had feelings.

Bikewer and Pure have made reference to modern-day slavery. Just to reiterate what I said in my original post - I'm aware that it exists, but I'm only knowledgable enough about the slavery we learned about in American History class to be able to talk about it.

I especially appreciate OSG's mention of "protection of the law." I think that's one of the most important differences between pre-Civil War slavery and M/s relationships today. In the 1800s, if you beat your slave so badly they died, well, you were out the cash. These days, it's murder.

 

[WriterDom]

Susan Hamlin
Slave Narratives: Volume 14, Part 2, Pages 225-232
"A man come here about a month ago, say he from de Government, and dey send him to find out 'bout slavery ... He ask me all kind of questions. He ask me dis and he ask me dat, didn't de white people do dis and did dey do dat but Mr. Fuller was a good man, he sure good to me and all his people, dey all like him, God bless him, he in de ground now but I ain't going to let nobody lie on him."
"If you want chickens for fat (to fatten) you got to feed dem," she said with a smile, "and if you want people to work dey got to be strong, you got to feed dem and take care of dem too. If dey can't work it come out of your pocket." "I goin' down now tuh see my people I use to cook fuh." (BLM: At 104 years of age, Ms. Hamlin still visits her old masters.)


Harriett Gresham
Slave Narratives: Volume 3, Page 156-158 "Honey I aint know I was any diffrunt fum de chillen o' me mistress twel atter de war. We played and et and fit togetter lak chillen is bound ter do all over der world."
Pearl Randolph (Mrs. Harriett Gresham's interviewer) "While they must work hard to complete their tasks in a given time, no one was allowed to go hungry or forced to work if the least ill." "Harriett remembers her master as being exceptionally kind but very sincere when his patience was tried too far. Mrs. Bellinger was dearly loved by all her slaves because she was very thoughful of them."
"She still corresponds with one of the children of her mistress, now an old woman living on what is left of a once vast estate at Barnwell, South Carolina. The two old women are very much attached to each other and each in her letters helps to keep alive the memories of the life they shared together as mistress and slave."

 

[sunfox]

In response to WD, all I can say is that few slaves were so
well treated, insomuch as farm equipment is well taken care of
so that it doesn't break down... I still feel there is no comparison
between the two situations.

Being treated as an animal, an expensive piece of equipment..
that is not about choice or enjoyment or love. It was a cruel
chapter of human history, and it's sad that true slavery still
occurs today.

A good question, though, Etoile, and well worth discussing.
I admit, the subject gets my hackles up a bit, but I think that's
true of most people of African-American descent.

 

[snoozebutton]

Well D/s today would more closely resemble the indentured servants who paid their way to this country by a period of servitude. Seeking a fresh start a lot from debters prisons they were sold for a period of time to settle their debts. Thus they had more choice than being captured and ripped from all you knew and deposited here.

 

[Netzach]

Indentured servitude was a pretty brutal institution as well, the participants fared little better than most slaves, and the main difference was the lack of kidnapping. It'd be like comparing being a sweatshop laborer to a D/s relationship.

WD's narratives are certainly not indicative of most slave experience.

I think that Greco-Roman and Hebrew Biblical slavery might have more in common with D/s relationships. In these cultures there were often specific periods of time and durations for slavery and slavery was not always hereditary. There were rules and laws about the treatment and sale of slaves, and redress for the abused slave. There were also ways for a slave who enjoyed their position to commit to the Master for good. While no bed of roses, I think there was more emphasis on out-clauses and care and maintenance and responsibility TO the slave, at least in the abstract.

 

[snoozebutton]

Indentured servitude was a pretty brutal institution as well, the participants fared little better than most slaves, and the main difference was the lack of kidnapping. It'd be like comparing being a sweatshop laborer to a D/s relationship.

WD's narratives are certainly not indicative of most slave experience.

I think that Greco-Roman and Hebrew Biblical slavery might have more in common with D/s relationships. In these cultures there were often specific periods of time and durations for slavery and slavery was not always hereditary. There were rules and laws about the treatment and sale of slaves, and redress for the abused slave. There were also ways for a slave who enjoyed their position to commit to the Master for good. While no bed of roses, I think there was more emphasis on out-clauses and care and maintenance and responsibility TO the slave, at least in the abstract.

True but compared to debters prison their servitude was a godsent to most. The prisons of that time were co-ed and you were in a large comunal cell. Not to say servitude was a picnic. But was generally better than the animalistic order of things in prison. And being indentured was a fresh start and many early settlers recieved their wives that way. It was also a choice though a scarey new journey isn't that what the lifestyle is at first. Exciting yet scarey as you truly are entering into the unknown on your personal journey.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Interesting post, as always, OSG. Good point about the marriages of yester-year being close to slavery. Still the case in places like Afghanistan.

J.

yes! which is why i have always in some ways envied those women raised in cultures/societies that are still strictly male-controlled. i had a few orthodox islamic friends growing up who had very "traditional" beliefs and ways regarding the roles of men and women...not being permitted to work outside the home, not being permitted to speak in the company of other men, not being permitted to leave the home without permission and without being covered completely, not being allowed to argue with your husband, etc...many of these values to me seemed logical and even beautiful and i would often wish i could have a similar relationship, and even now i wish i could live in a place where a relationship such as i have with my Master would be considered more the norm, and just the way things should be, between Man and woman.

 

[Ms_Kat]

Indentured servitude is nothing more than

slavery with a pretty name.

A large number of these people did not enter into the bargain willfully. A lot of Scots and Irish (those that looked like trouble) were waylaid in bars and sent over with the promise of eventual freedom. A lot of the rest were convicts - guilty of such crimes as stealing a loaf of bread or a few scraps of clothing. Sometimes it was to pay off debt, a man might sell himself or his children into servitude.

Indentured servants were legally the property of their owners. Many colonies had nice little laws like preventing a woman from gaining her liberty if she was unmarried and had children under 18. Of course, she had to have her owners permission to marry. In some cases, the cost of raising her children was added to her indentured contract, meaning that she would never see freedom.

This form of slavery died out slowly as blacks were imported. An Irish or Scot who escaped was hard to track, they blended in too well. Not so with a black person.
Hugs,


Kat

 

[snoozebutton]

Re: Indentured servitude is nothing more than

slavery with a pretty name.

A large number of these people did not enter into the bargain willfully. A lot of Scots and Irish (those that looked like trouble) were waylaid in bars and sent over with the promise of eventual freedom. A lot of the rest were convicts - guilty of such crimes as stealing a loaf of bread or a few scraps of clothing. Sometimes it was to pay off debt, a man might sell himself or his children into servitude.

Indentured servants were legally the property of their owners. Many colonies had nice little laws like preventing a woman from gaining her liberty if she was unmarried and had children under 18. Of course, she had to have her owners permission to marry. In some cases, the cost of raising her children was added to her indentured contract, meaning that she would never see freedom.

This form of slavery died out slowly as blacks were imported. An Irish or Scot who escaped was hard to track, they blended in too well. Not so with a black person.
Hugs,


Kat

True but what options did the poor really have if they were down on their luck. I know was a terrible instition that flushed the undesirables from the United Kingdom but the other option was prison or the work houses. At least in America there was a chance to get out.

 

[Nonchalant]

lol theres no way you can even compare the two.

 

[Ms_Kat]

So you trade being poor and free for being poor and enslaved?

Most recent researchers agree that the majority of endentured servants were brought against their will.

 

[snoozebutton]

So you trade being poor and free for being poor and enslaved?

Most recent researchers agree that the majority of endentured servants were brought against their will.

If in prison or a debter you weren't free. But will say it was a bad solution to the times urban poor.