|
MemphisDsCouple -> RE: Define Slave (7/8/2005 9:53:27 AM)
|
Slave Ownership - Truth or Charade?
My compliments, Elektra. You show insight, thoughtfulness and reason beyond your peers.
Like you have said about yourself, slavery is for me a topic of intense and ongoing interest, and has been for some time. You may be interested in reading:
"Aspiring To Slavery" here: http://www.collarchat.com/m_53926/mpage_1/key_slavery/tm.htm#54177
and
"The Choice of Slavery" here: http://www.collarchat.com/m_53926/mpage_1/key_slavery/tm.htm#54201
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElektraUkM
The essential quality of slavery is that one is OWNED.
Exactly.
I will not be surprised if you encounter writers who attempt to dispute this truism. However, they can be ignored. Any intelligent and reasonable reader will consult the dictionary (or dictionaries) where they will find reported the unbiased truth that you quote.
For their own reasons, people often want to subvert, confuse and obfuscate the meaning(s) of word(s). These attempts are usually the product(s) of either ignorance or of personal agendas founded in such emotions as envy. In professional circles such as scientists, medical professionals and so on, similar attempts at confusion through disputing accepted definitions or through denial of demonstrable fact are simply ignored. Such writers discredit themselves by their own words. We can do the same when similar instances arise as we discuss d/s and s&m. We simply ignore the nonsense.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElektraUkM
Now there is a good argument to say that no-one in the societies in which we live (at least) can be legally owned. And to me, that is the best argument against the term 'slave' that there is.
I have considered addressing this topic in writing for some time. As you say, it does appear on its face that the illegality of slavery would argue against the literal possibility of being or owning a slave. But let's look at this a little more closely.
If you are under legal age, have liquor in your car, and you are stopped by a traffic cop - what is the first thing that cop says? In my experience, the cop says, "Is this your liquor?" If you possess illegal drugs and the police find the drugs, what is the first thing they say? "Are these your drugs?"
The illegality of ownership of something does not change the fact that you own it! This is very important if we want to see the truth in the argument against slavery that we are addressing. Therefore, I repeat for emphasis: The illegality of ownership of something does not change the fact that we own it!
Let's look further. We are talking about slavery. Slavery, though outlawed, though illegal, exists today. I refer any reader who would dispute this fact to USA Today, NY Times (and so on) archives. You will find a multitude of documented accounts of slavery that exists in the world. You will find successful, documented prosecutions of slave traders in the USA who smuggle slaves (usually for the purpose of sex workers) into the USA. You will find the same type cases in Europe. You will find institutions from the western world who go to the Sudan to buy slaves from slave traders in order to free those slaves they just bought.
In spite of the illegality of slavery, slavery exists. Slaves exist. And slave owners exist. These are facts we can document.
Therefore, I conclude that the fact of illegality does not equal that a person can not give herself to be owned. The fact of illegality does not preclude me from owning my girl.
Illegality and Slavery are not mutually exclusive. They can (and do!) both exist simultaneously.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElektraUkM
All arguments about other aspects of slavery ~ that no-one can submit to being murdered, that we know of examples of extreme cruelty and privation, etc ~ to me cut any ice, since equally valid arguments of generally accepted and historically documented slavery can show slaves to be treated with respect and love, to be able to earn their own money, buy their own freedom, and so on.
Exactly so. Citing a personal prejudice against slavery, being misinformed about slavery or citing examples of the abuse of slaves neither precludes or argues against the slavery some of us practice.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElektraUkM
However, I would argue that if one enters into a personal relationship in which there is an understanding that one person takes on the responsibilities of ownership over another, and the other person takes on the responsibilities of being owned, then that can be called 'ownership', even if it is not legally binding.
Exactly.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElektraUkM
I agree that this is debatable, and perhaps a debate on this issue could be useful.
Truth and fact are not debatable. A thing is as it is. If a thing is demonstrable, then it is a self proof. The usefulness of discussion, I think, is to educate those who labor under falacious conclusions based on untruths presented as truths. There are always some, of course, who do not want to learn. .... Shrug ....
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElektraUkM
There is one other example you give in your post, and that concerns consensuality:
quote:
ORIGINAL: dark~angel
Now, as you rightly mention, slaves of the past are no less of improtance than slaves of today. Yes, property was well prized in some cultures - the Romans for one - but it was still non consensual. Now, it can be argued that some slaves signed contracts. This is true - but usually under false pretenses(much like some today) - also, those that signed contracts often had no other choice/fear/forced and the genuine slaves who signed contracts were service based and maintained. Servants.
Of course, as with every part of a community, even some servants were abused - but that isn't what the post is about.
It is a small point (perhaps) but not only was it possible to buy your way out of slavery in Roman society, it was also a possibility to 'sell yourself' into slavery. Now this might not have been most people's ideal and life-wish, but it was certainly 'voluntary'. This could be an option if for example you were tired of, or could not cope with farming as a farm-owner, for reasons of the onerous taxation for example.
So there is at least one example from history of 'consent' to slavery. But as I say, this (to me) is a minor point.
In my mind, this is more than a minor point. It is important to realize, I think, that the things we feel today did not just spring up in us all of a sudden. The things we feel, practice, do - these things are a part of the makeup and very soul of our humanity.
I think it is part and parcel of the disinformation and prejudice we have been taught about slavery to conclude as we look back on slavery in history that people who sold themselves into slavery or by some other means gave themselves into slavery were somehow *always* coerced into doing so either by force or by financial circumstances. I do not believe this! I believe there were people then, just as now, who were happiest in their lives by living as slaves. I believe that in the generations that preceded us, there were many people who felt the pull of slavery as a lifestyle choice. I think it was easier then for them to fulfill their personal need to be held as property than it is for someone today to fulfill that need. Some people want to be slaves! Personally, I love and cherish that in a girl.
Again, see "The Choice of Slavery" here: http://www.collarchat.com/m_53926/mpage_1/key_slavery/tm.htm#54201
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElektraUkM
quote:
Now, Is it our duty and position as individuals to take a word - and change its definition to suit us and is this why and how word usage evolves... or should we respect those that have lived, bled and died under a specific label - and find an alternative word?
My question here is: is it an acceptable argument against the use of the word 'slavery' to take ONLY negative examples of the state of slavery and therefore extrapolate that slavery per se is wrong, negative, something undesirable and to be avoided? Why are we called upon to listen only to the voices of those trapped in a pitiable state of slavery in order to make up our minds about the word?
~ Elektra
Exactly.
Many of us cherish the depth of commitment and surrender which go hand-in-hand with the word "slave". Many of us are fulfilled by the all-encompassing level of responsibility and possessiveness that go hand-in-hand with the word "owner". Many of us cherish the actual, literal, living of the truth of slave and owner - regardless of the nominal legality.
Is your cup half empty, or half full? Do you choose to see the bad, or do you choose to see the good?
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)
|
|
|
|
