MemphisDsCouple
Posts: 146
Joined: 11/1/2004
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline
|
The Choice of Slavery
"Slavery" is a topic near and dear to my heart, and one to which I have devoted no small measure of both thought and research. I would like to write more on the topic, and probably will in future. I hope the reader finds some value in the contribution offered here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoddessJules
So I guess what puzzles me is when you put "consensual" in front of the
word slavery, it seems to me that the connotation of the word "slavery"
changes as well.
When we study the history of slavery we find no small number of examples of consensual slavery. We should not let it distract us to know that consent is predicated on other external factors, for indeed all consent is predicated on external factors. Life is, in large part, a series of choosing from a list of options available to us. The fact that in some instances our choices are few, or onerous, or both few and onerous does not change the fact that we have a choice. We simply find ourselves in the proverbial circumstance of being "between a rock and a hard place".
There is nothing new to people finding themselves in these undesirable circumstances. And, while the terms "slave" and "slavery" can be applied to these situations dysphemistically as Mercnbeth have done..... (continued below)
(I learned a new word while writing this (or at least re-learned one I had forgotten) so I reference the definition for those readers who, like me, were/are unfamiliar with the term, dysphemism: http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dysphemism)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
If someone demands that you do something and you can say “no” and refuse to do it without consequences of restriction whatsoever, then you are a free human being. If you can be forced to do something or surrender something that you do not wish to, then you are a slave. No other test need be applied.
The fact of having only onerous choices (for example, to either obey a law you prefer to disobey or be jailed) does not by itself create the existence of a state of being in slavery.
Nor does the fact of some other person or organization being physically able to impose their will on a person create the state of being of slavery. True enough, these are slave-like situations. But that likeness to slavery ends beyond the situation. By the test proposed, the world is populated entirely by slaves. There aren't even any owners who are not themselves slaves, for there is no person in this world who can not be forced by someone else to do (or not do) something. Therefore, it seems clear that this definition, as proposed, is overly broad to have any value to us.
It is difficult to study the history of slavery. As GoddessJules alluded to, our (and I have found the world's) view of slavery is focused almost exclusively on the brief period of time (historically speaking) during which slavery was legally practiced in the USA. In any study of slavery one must wade through countless volumes dealing solely with that brief period of history. Moreover, our society's abhorrence of slavery, the subsequent and highly publicized civil rights movement in the USA and the ongoing claims of racism and discrimination that abound in our society invariably taint those works.
Notably, after a great deal of reading I have found not one reference to a happy slave in pre-civil war America. (If any reader can direct me to a reference to happy slavery in the USA, I will be most grateful. Feel free to email me privately if you prefer not to post publicly.) This history that we read, then, can not be a full history. People, some people at least, always find happiness. Some people always find good in their lives, advantages in their circumstances. We never read of this in studies of slavery in the Americas.
Having lived in the south of the USA, I have heard anecdotal references to slaves who, at least at first, refused to leave their homes and slavery at the end of the Civil War. And, this must be true in at least *some* cases. Imagine having your whole world changed by some occurrence (the surrender of Lee at Appomatox) hundreds of miles away. Where would you go? Where would you sleep? How will you find food? How will you provide for your children? Yes. Upon reflection, it seems clear to me that there had to have been instances in which slaves in the USA, once freed by the triumph of the Union army, at least at first refused their new freedom. However, I have never found this documented. (Again, if anyone can direct me to documentation of this, please do so.)
To me, this is a very revealing omission. I see revealed by this historical omission of the refusal to leave slavery the fact that all our society's research into slavery of that period, and likely all modern research into slavery in any period, is tainted and skewed by our anti-slavery socialization.
So how does the above affect us in understanding, learning about and living slavery in the context of d/s? It indicates we must understand the things we are taught by society about slavery may not be true. We must rethink things for ourselves. We have been taught that slavery, in all its forms and in all cases is nonconsensual. Is this true? In a word, no. That is not true.
There is a famous instance of a citizen of ancient Rome, whose name escapes me at the moment (asking again for help from readers) who sold himself into slavery and uttered the famous line that has survived the millennia (and I paraphrase) "now I will no longer have to pay taxes!" This is a real, documented, historical example of consensual slavery. In point of fact, though in this informal discussion I am not going to dig out my notes from the books I've read on Roman history, noncitizens of Rome often sold themselves into slavery. Sometimes they needed money. Sometimes, selling oneself into slavery was the only way to eventually earn Roman citizenship and all the benefits that went with it. You see, by serving in an exemplary fashion slaves of Roman citizens were sometimes (perhaps even often) rewarded with their freedom which also made them a citizen of Rome.
So, very importantly in our examination of the question at hand: We do find historically documented examples of consensual slavery. Slavery by choice.
Now I pose a question to the reader in this d/s forum:
Knowing what we know about submission and submissives, do you believe that there were also people, though their lives and reasons may be undocumented by history, who sold themselves (or otherwise conveyed themselves) into slavery simply and primarily for the sake that slavery fit their own nature and needs? I, for one, am certain of it. Those instances and the instances cited above are examples of "real", actual, legal and binding consensual slavery. Based predominantly, if not solely, on the personal lifestyle preferences and goals of the slaves.
Let's look further at consensuality in slavery. Is it an inherent contradiction? No. I think it is not.
In fact, there is almost always a measure of consensuality in slavery. For galley slaves in Roman and Greek ships, probably there was no consensuality to the degree we are speaking of consensuality in this forum. However, for other slaves in Roman society there was usually a large measure of consensuality. Consider this:
During the famous slave revolt led by Spartacus, if one reads historical accounts one learns that the ranks of the slave army in rebellion continued to swell with each victory over the armies of Rome by the slave army that Spartacus commanded. The ranks continued to swell. Where did these fighters come from? Why, they simply walked away from their owners and made their way to the hills and joined up. They just walked away. In the night, one presumes. At least for the most part. But they just walked away. Well..... they could have walked away any time! True, they faced punishment if caught, but that punishment was rarely death. Spartacus hid out in the hills. One presumes a runaway slave could have done the same before Spartacus.
(Roman law codified slave punishment. What punishments could be inflicted for what offenses. Death was rarely employed as a punishment. And, the slaves had an appeal process available to them. But that's another topic.)
I, upon my own personal and individual examination of examples of "real", codified, legal, actual slavery, find an element of consensuality in most historical examples of slavery. There is almost always a choice to be taken to run away. To simply leave.
That same choice is available to slaves today. Is it easier for a d/s slave to exercise the choice to leave than it was for slaves in the pre-civil war south? Yes. Is it easier for a d/s slave to exercise the choice to leave than it was for Roman slaves to do so? Yes. Does the fact that it is easier for the modern d/s slave to exercise the choice to leave make the modern day d/s slave any less a slave? No, I do not think so.
Postscript:
You are welcome to print or save this post for your own use. Please do not copy it to any public or semi-public forum (including email groups/lists) without my express permission. Thanks. All rights reserved. (I write this postscript because after-the-fact someone wrote to me to inform me that they had copied a prior post I wrote to another list. So, I thought I'd better clarify what my preference/policy is regarding use of what I write.)
B. (the male half of MemphisDsCouple)
|
Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread