Slavery

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
The best thing to do, really, is to read the primary sources for yourself...

I'll certainly agree with that.

Did you people not notice that I qualified my statements with "MOST", or that I specified texts only?

Rian, I KNOW that the current lot of texts will suffer from revisionism ... that's how it works. Which is why it is generally better to use more contemporary texts in conjunction with the primary texts. (well, it's always better to go with primaries, rather than secondaries anyway, then you can make your own judgements...)

Guillaume, I did archaeology as my major, so I'm quite familiar with the need to stick with current articles.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Did you people not notice that I qualified my statements with "MOST", or that I specified texts only?

Originally posted by RÃ*an
... (and I note that you did use the modifier "general", which was good, IMHO) ...

[Valandil]

Sorry Sheeana - and anyone else who missed my tone. The "trust no book under 30" thing was meant purely in jest. Cultural reference to the US youth movement of the 60's & 70's that said "Trust no one under 30"

[EDIT: thought I was clever until I realized I was misunderstood!]

I suspect some of the other responses to your statement were also made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

[Ruinel]

Valandil, I thought that was "trust no one OVER 30"

[Valandil]

WHOOPS! You're right! I said (wrote) it right the first time but did it wrong just above. Sorry... mind must be going multiple directions...

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Valandil
WHOOPS! You're right! I said (wrote) it right the first time but did it wrong just above. Sorry... mind must be going multiple directions...

I always tell my ESL students- don't try and read every word; just grasp the meaning.

Perfect example- everybody got the point even though it was exactly the opposite of what you actually said.

'Course then there's always people like Ruinel...

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
...'Course then there's always people like Ruinel...

O_o
Hey, I wasn't sure. I've never used that saying, but I've heard it somewhere. So, I could have been mistaken.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Ruinel
O_o
Hey, I wasn't sure. I've never used that saying, but I've heard it somewhere. So, I could have been mistaken.

Now you're making me feel really old

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Now you're making me feel really old

Oh, hey, don't feel bad. I'm a 10K year old Elf (though I pass for 7K). I'm probably older than you.

[Valandil]

What's up? Is today "Ruinel's Resurrection Day for Old Threads"???

[Rían]

Yeah, that's what I was wondering, too!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
What's up? Is today "Ruinel's Resurrection Day for Old Threads"???

There wasn't anything really interesting going on. So, I thought I'd go digging.

[Rían]

Hey, I have 7 questions waiting for a thoughtful response from anyone over on the GLB thread

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
As a monarchist, I can’t allow this to stand without comment.

Slavery and the monarchial system of governance (including the various systems of economics and jurisprudence connected to monarchy) are two distinct realities, and by mingling them together runs the risk of watering down the terminology, and unfairly condemning monarchy.

You say "Slavery" in one broad word. You also use "Monarchy" in one broad word. The monarchial system of governance. There have been many different kinds of monarchies, over time.

However, in the past the power of the monarch was absolute. When I say this, I'm making another of the quotes from the World Book that I'm always making .

Slavery is involuntary servitude whereby one person is owned as chattel by another, in the same way a person would own an inanimate object. It is the complete subjection of one person to another. Slavery does not involve a contract between the person owning and the person owned, and does not necessitate the observance of civil or human rights beyond what is defined by the will of the owner in accordance with established civil laws. In other words, the slave was equivalent to a piece of land that is used according to the will of the landholder and in accordance with existing zoning laws. While the good of the land or the slave may benefit the owner, that “good� is determined by the owner, not the owned.

Israelite slaves had large numbers of freedoms that are listed in the Bible. Slaves of Israelites from other cultures don't seem to have had nearly as many freedoms, but there were some civil laws guarding them. Also the slave had one important right which very, very few inanimate objects have today. They were able to be freed every 50 years. Other sources that I believe I referenced in earlier posts, like the Bible Dictionary (I think I referenced that), had quotes describing how the Israelite slaves were treated much better than slaves in all the nabouring countries.

While a monarchy presupposes a hierarchy of governance, it does not by its nature claim ownership of subjects under the definition of slavery. Monarchy depends significantly upon mutual support and contract. For example, medieval vassalage was a contract, both in material aid, and familial loyalty and affection. Both material aid and loyalty/affection were reciprocated between subject and suzerain.

I'd like to see evidence that this warm hearted relationship had to exist between noble and serf.

Thus a viable monarchy must be limited by this reciprocation in the practice of affording privileges and advantages as defined, not by the monarch, but by existing social mores (civil rights to use modern terminology), and the monarchy could even be forced to afford these privileges and advantages, which was the case with Magna Carta.

John Plantageanet didn't pay much heed to the Magna Carta after he signed it. There are many more reports, I think, of kings smashing revolts from starving peasants than of starving peasants forcing kings to grant them rights.

Many times kings have behaved absolutely brutally to their people. Even in modern times, we can see governments doing the same thing. Look at India and the caste system. Those people are living in a status of abject poverty and are forced to remain as they are.

As I quoted before, from the World Book, monarchies in the past gave absolute power to the monarch, over his people.

Monarchies are one kind of rulership which can hold a country in slavery. Other kinds of governments can do the same thing.

Medieval monarchy was not without its checks and balances. Thus, monarchy as a method of governance can not by any stretch of the imagination be considered in the same way as owning slaves.

The checks and balances you refer to were more present with some leaders than with others. Some monarchs have been able to smash revolts by peasants with ease. They had vast power to impose taxes (before Parliament), etc. Yes, they were somewhat limited by their populations, but the strength they had over the populations they commanded was usually much greater than the power the populations held over them. Whenever there was a civil war,

Monarchy is a perfectly viable form of governance (and the manorial system a perfectly viable form of social and economic life), and has the potential, if properly applied to given social mores and economic factors, to be just as, if not more, humane than democracy (and self-interested capitalism).

--Dave

I actually would not disagree with this final statement. It sounds pretty accurate to me.

[Lief Erikson]

I realize that was a very incomplete post. In many areas, I don't provide it with sufficient backing. Alas, it's very late right now where I live, so I don't have time to give it the depth I should.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

We are definitely looking at the same coin, but at two different sides. I can’t disagree with any of your comments, because they all contain certain truths about the historical reality of life in the Middle Ages. I don’t think anyone today would be willing to jump back in time to a day when people could die of a really bad case of the runs. However, there were aspects of medieval culture and society that were humane, and even better, than some aspects of our modern culture and society. One of those aspects is the communal nature of medieval life, something that we certainly could learn much from to our benefit.

I'd like to see evidence that this warm hearted relationship had to exist between noble and serf.

Actually, there are plenty of examples that could be taken from court records, wherein we find more than one case of a noble taking an active interest in the right ordering of village and manor and the allocation of human rights. Generally, the welfare of the manor lord was directly dependant on the welfare of those who put food in his mouth, his family’s mouths, and in his horses mouths. It served the manor lord very little if his villeins were starving or abused, as his welfare directly depended on the villeins to provide for the lord’s household.

This, however, I admit is a generalization, and does not take into account the abuses, that equally fill court records. It should be noted, however, from these records, that what was being dealt with were circumstances that were contrary to custom. What we find in these primary sources is a greater degree of freedoms than we might expect, even some advantages... freeholders could hold land without fee, in other words they could actually purchase land for their own use without having to promise service outside of what they owed in the form of boons (which they would have to perform regardless of holding property or not)... in this we have the emergence of freehold tenure. On the other hand, nobles could only hold land by fee, by pledging their service to a suzerain. It can be argued that the difference is merely an academic one, but in point of fact, the peasant freeholder was more free to use his smaller portion of property to his personal benefit, than the noble was able to use his larger portion of property to his personal benefit. Another advantage was the ability to marry whomever you might choose... a luxury that very few nobles enjoyed.

Abuses against peasants seldom came from manor lords, but from injuries incurred in disputes between peasants, both freedmen and villein. When peasants were abused by nobles, this was almost always due to the consequences of war, where peasant property was generally ransacked, stolen and burned to ash, men, women and children slaughtered. This policy was particularly destructive in northern Italy in the late Middle Ages. However, it should be born in mind that such practices were not primarily aimed at making the lives of the poor miserable (though in fact it did, a fact of which the perpetuators were well aware), but by decimating the works and the workers both present and future, an invading force could do an immeasurable amount of damage against its enemy by undercutting its enemy’s resources for years to come. (This, of course, is not to take away from the monstrosity of medieval slash and burn strategy that did far more harm to the peasants than to their lords.)

In addition we see dramatic increases of rents into the 14th century and the later Middle Ages. This happened because of three factors: 1. the decreased population due to the plagues of the 14th century dramatically decreased the amount of production and thus decreased the amount of available capital; 2. the increasing level of technology used in the wars of Italy and the Hundred Years War incurred an equal increase in the amount of capital required to field late medieval armies; 3. increasingly the manor lord was absent from the manors under his (or her) control, and new forms of income were utilized by taking advantage of the growing urban industries as opposed to agrarian industries. These circumstances--increased rents, a decreased pool of available labor, and a nobility increasingly indifferent to the plight of their subjects working the fields--set the stage for the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381, and the literary backdrop for Piers Plowman.

However, to judge medieval society based solely on its weaknesses and on the problems that surfaced in its waning years, without taking into account the advantages it afforded medieval peoples, is a bit unfair. After all, I can paint a very inhumane and gross picture of modern western society by only taking into account its weaknesses and all the problems that are surfacing in these waning years of western technological and economic dominance. (Did my bias just come out?).

Wow, you know you have written way too much when you can't post the whole thing at one time!

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

John Plantageanet didn't pay much heed to the Magna Carta after he signed it.

This is a good point, but it still doesn’t take away from the fact that Magna Carta was the most influential event in the medieval English history of jurisprudence and social law. Within only two generations after King John we have a king that not only follows Magna Carta wholeheartedly, but goes the extra lengths of reinforcing it to protect the rights of peasants in opposition to the heavy handed policies of the petty nobility, such as those in the mold of Simon de Montfort. Of course, we moderns aren’t accustomed to Longshanks being anything other than “the cruel pagan� that Braveheart unfairly made him out to be.

Monarchies are one kind of rulership which can hold a country in slavery. Other kinds of governments can do the same thing.

I think we are in total agreement here, except I still cringe at the use of the world “slavery.� Perhaps its because I was a philosophy major, or something. I still think that this is too general of a way to use the word. I’m a slave to the IRS in a figurative way, not in a literal way. Is this how you are using the word?

You say "Slavery" in one broad word. You also use "Monarchy" in one broad word. The monarchial system of governance. There have been many different kinds of monarchies, over time.

Right. I would agree, and I apologize for being so vague. There have been good forms of monarchy and bad forms of monarchy. However, I’m not sure if you can say the same thing about slavery. Have there ever been good forms of slavery? At any rate, I might be a monarchist, but I’m not a monarchist of the Victorian or Elizabethan ilk. My monarchist tendency is an equal mix of Platonic political theory and hereditary title (... yip, you’re right--I’m not very popular at cocktail parties).

Regards,
Dave

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
John Plantageanet didn't pay much heed to the Magna Carta after he signed it. There are many more reports, I think, of kings smashing revolts from starving peasants than of starving peasants forcing kings to grant them rights.

I only skimmed this and caught this. Actually - the Magna Carta did nothing for the common man or the peasant. it was the noblemen who forced the Magna Carta onto King John and it only protected their rights. They were tired of constantly being taxed and stepped on by the King. It granted no rights to the peasants.

Magna Carta

I have always especially liked this one...

23. Neither a town nor a man shall be forced to make bridges over the rivers, with the exception of those who, from of old and of right ought to do it.

They seem to have had a problem with King John demanding bridges to be built.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
This is a good point, but it still doesn’t take away from the fact that Magna Carta was the most influential event in the medieval English history of jurisprudence and social law. Within only two generations after King John we have a king that not only follows Magna Carta wholeheartedly, but goes the extra lengths of reinforcing it to protect the rights of peasants in opposition to the heavy handed policies of the petty nobility, such as those in the mold of Simon de Montfort. Of course, we moderns aren’t accustomed to Longshanks being anything other than “the cruel pagan� that Braveheart unfairly made him out to be.

I'm not claiming that there aren't any good kings. I think that king was named Edward, correct?

However, this doesn't seem to me a very good example of your point. This is because Edward would have decided to do give these priviledges to the people on his own. He didn't have to, but he chose to.

I think we are in total agreement here, except I still cringe at the use of the world “slavery.� Perhaps its because I was a philosophy major, or something. I still think that this is too general of a way to use the word. I’m a slave to the IRS in a figurative way, not in a literal way. Is this how you are using the word?

What I defined slavery as in my earlier posts was strong limitation of an individual's freedom. I argued there that everyone alive is a slave, to one level or another. Laws or addictions, can all keep all of us under the yoke of slavery to one level or another. Some people alive today can be absolute slaves to alchohol, or drugs, in terms of those two elements dictating their lives without them having any control in the matter.

Insidious Rex would probably say that we are all absolute slaves to our genes, though I disagree with him .

Slavery all has different kinds of forms and levels.

Right. I would agree, and I apologize for being so vague. There have been good forms of monarchy and bad forms of monarchy. However, I’m not sure if you can say the same thing about slavery. Have there ever been good forms of slavery?

People in the past have been willing to sell themselves at certain times. I rather doubt that this would happen if it was not of greater benefit to the individual than remaining a free man would be.

There's one example. I am not convinced that slavery in ancient Israel was extremely terrible either, really. I'll have to think about it some more.

At any rate, I might be a monarchist, but I’m not a monarchist of the Victorian or Elizabethan ilk. My monarchist tendency is an equal mix of Platonic political theory and hereditary title (... yip, you’re right--I’m not very popular at cocktail parties).

lol