Talk:Slavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject African diaspora (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations / United Nations / law (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

Could slave-owners always kill their slaves?[edit]

Has there ever been a society with large-scale slavery where slave owners did not have the right to kill their slaves? I don’t count societies like Victorian Britain were large-scale slavery was only possible due to loopholes in legislation. In such societies there would be no legislation to regulate slavery at all.

2015-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.144.9 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

owners did not have the legal right to kill slaves in the US (except in cases of revolt or self defense). that was legally murder. see Thomas D. Morris (2004). Southern Slavery and the Law, 1619-1860. pp. 172–73.  Patterson on Europe says "From the seventh century on, the murder of slaves was a legal offense, although the penalty was much less severe ... In Rome it was not until the first century A.D. that some restraint was placed on the power of the master to kill his slave." Orlando Patterson (1985). Slavery and Social Death. p. 153. 


So, slave owners in the U.S. did have the right to kill slaves. Also, it wasn't for "revolts" it was for any resistance, with some colonial laws allowing the punishment of slaves to result in death.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
No--only in case of organized insurrection. otherwise it was legally murder. Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
From your own source by Morris: "Owners could punish to the point of killing a slave even if the punishment was for picking trash tobacco rather than resisting authority." That's on page 164. Also from Higginbotham "In 1669, the Virginia legislature, by passing the following statute, notified slave owners that they would not be criminally prosecuted for the 'casuall killing of slaves.'...Virginians revealed that they were prepared to beat, mutilate, and even kill slaves in order to extract profits from their plantations." Both of these sources discuss the laws regarding slavery and both acknowledge the multiple ways these societies supported the killing the slaves and the lack of punishment for people who killed slaves. So not only could they "legally" kill slaves and that was acceptable, but the OP's question wasn't about legislation, it was about societal acceptance. Both of the aforementioned sources discuss how killing slaves was acceptable in many U.S. and colonial societies.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
That was before the U.S. was formed in 1776. Colonial laws were then changed to make killing a slave = murder. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It continued after the U.S. was formed in 1776, especially since the pages you referenced talk about laws passed in 1788 and onward. Not only that, after talking about these changes in some(fourish) states, Morris says "Whatever the variations the trend was clear. Unless slaves resisted or died under a moderate correction for some misconduct, their killing usually would be placed on a level with the homicide of whites." The "moderate correction for some misconduct" part is the "killing through punishment" part, and that both authors discussed before. Again, still, both sources discuss how easily justifiable killing a slave was in these states, and how unlikely it was for a person to be convicted of murdering a slave. Again, the question wasn't about legislation, but about societal acceptance. So referencing laws is mostly moot, especially when those laws were rarely enforced in many states and people knew a jury of their peers wouldn't convict them for killing a slave. Morris explains this by referencing a quote from a jury foreman saying "(I) would not convict the defendant, or any other white person, of murdering a slave."Scoobydunk (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
the original question was "Could slave-owners always kill their slaves?" the evidence shows that after 1776 the US slave states declared the killing of a slave to be murder, albeit with a possible defense. (Today there is a self-defense against a murder charge.) Scoobydunk sees that several men are known to have said they would never vote to convict and assumes all jurymen had that position. Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
No, the question is "Has there ever been a society with large-scale slavery where slave owners did not have the right to kill their slaves?" What you quoted was the title to the section, but the actual question elaborates on the title and is very clear. The U.S. and many of its states were not societies that forbid the killing of slaves. The multiple quotes from peer reviewed sources show that slave owners did have the right to kill slaves for a variety of reasons, even as punishment for some "moderate misconduct" which you incorrectly claimed was false. Also, it's the peer reviewed authors that made the point about lack of prosecution and the failures of these laws, not me. They speak at length about how these slave societies killed slaves, therefore the U.S. was not a slave society where owners "did not have the right to kill their slaves", they could kill them for any number of reasons with impunity.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Scoobydunk, you are the person who wrote "Could slave-owners always kill their slaves?" and now you deny that you meant that. As for "right to kill" that has to do with the U.S. state laws and they made killing a slave murder. Rjensen (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
What? I never wrote that. A simple ctrl-F shows that phrase 4 times, twice by the person who made the title and twice by you, quoting the title. So I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe your simply distorting what you're reading, which would explain your misinterpretation of slavery in the U.S. Also, the laws that you've referenced did not make "killing a slave murder" and I've supplied multiple quotes where peer reviewed sources explicitly explain when slaves could be killed, which included behavioral discipline. Again, I've supplied direct quotes for this, I don't know why you continue to ignore them, even when they come from your own source.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So it appears, it can be confirmed that it was De Facto procedure, in several US states, that killing Slaves for minimally justified reason was practiced. The scale in which it occurred, is debatable but it's unreasonable to state it DIDNT happen or was not at any period permitted, as it occurred with legal authorities knowing, and taking no action to prevent or punish it, It was de facto acceptable. This is where legal determinations ARE important. There is no consensus of the De Jure(official) laws in ALL states, but it CAN be confirmed That it DID occur. The amount of slaves, slave owners makes it somewhat statistically unreasonable that no slaves would be severely abused and killed by their owners, there ARE instances of Slave Owners treating (I mean as much as you can a slave) somewhat decently and knowing the historical view the future would hold for slavery. This should ALSO be included. However, since multiple sources that are reasonable have differing opinions on the official decree, when, where and if it was enforced...the fact that it DID occur on multiple occasions and was not punished, similar to Laws regarding slavery or superior responsibility, indicates, up to a certain point in the US, in SOME states these actions were permitted and legal authorities were fairly complicit in it. The scale of slavery in the US now, does for historical purposes (comparison, and historic views), be compared to the much, much more massive and brutal slave operations conducted by the Spaniards and Portugese in South, Central America and the Carribean. These areas (I will find sources)...held MUCH more slaves and were SIGNIFICANTLY more brutal in its implementation. However it does not discard the fact that slavery was permitted to a scale that today would constitute "Crimes Against Humanity", in the United States, and during early periods many slave owners killed slaves due to minimally restrictive measures that were not appropriately enforced. It's incorrect to cite it as policy in the US as a whole because clearly it wasn't, but in some states it was... again regardless of official decree or not...permitted. The article should only include what this debate in my opinion and other people who look at that debate and have their own OBJECTIVE conclusions. Mine is that slavery in the US, while not on the scale of other nations in the Americas WAS substantially implemented, and in SOME states was restricted by laws that prohibited cruel treatment and murder, but at times was not enforced and was ignored in states obviously based on this conversation...it's confirmed and should remain states in the article that, many states held de facto traditions in which killings occurred and many laws that DID exist weren't heavily enforced. Does that sound like a reasonable, objective analysis of the views of the people who are debating this? Wikipedia can't appear to take sides COMPLETELY. It is obvious it cannot justify or attempt to justify slavery, the factual behavior of slave owners though can be addressed and the one thing the people before me DO agree (or appear to) on...is that in some states it was illegal, but it's yet to be determined to a standard appropriate for a professional encyclopedia enough to include other states after 1789 where the regulations were ambiguous at best, and ignored a significant number of times, and others which DID enforce those laws should be addressed. It's statistically...nieve to dismiss ANY multiple instances of slave murders, however it is also nnot objective to state that ALL states failed to enforce the laws and that none really existed. They did it appears, but we're not enforced as a matter of fact.

Chattel Slavery[edit]

Chattel slavery is a particular form well-divorced from ancient concepts. Generations of slaves were born into servitude under the english/american slave trade. Why is this section not it's own article? 96.42.56.141 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016[edit]

Please change "e. g." to "e.g." 155.143.144.97 (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Arjayay (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016[edit]

Slavery is the illegal economic system

62.69.52.249 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Slavery amongst other species[edit]

When reading this article I was surprised to find absolutely no mention that slavery is not a practice limited to humans, and that other species, most notably ants, practice slavery as well. This is an extremely well sourced fact. For example see here [[1]], regarding slave rebellions in ant colonies. I feel for the article to be complete and neutral, there should be at least some mention of it in the article. For example, the article on warfare mentions that warfare is not limited to humans and is also found in animal species, see War#Evolutionary.XavierGreen (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I think a simple sentence stating "slavery is also found amongst several insect species, most notably ants" would suffice to resolve this issue.XavierGreen (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

let's not go there. people can read Slave-making ant -- which notes that "piracy" is a better comparison. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Practically all reliable sources on such ants call it slavery, see for examples here [[2]] and here [[3]]. In fact, there are souces which directly compare and relate ant-slavery to human-slavery as in the latter source I just mentioned. For a neutral article, this source should at least mention the existence of slavery amongst insects.XavierGreen (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
it's morally repulsive to systematically compare the moral status of humans & insects. Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Morality is meaningless in terms of neutrality, the vast majority of reliable sources on insect slavery directly relate it as a concept to human slavery, in the same ware that warfare amongst insects and chimpanzees is equated to warfare among humans. The concept of slavery is not limited to the human species, just as tool use, warfare, and countless other cross-species concepts are.XavierGreen (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The "morality" of a fact should have no bearing on its inclusion in a neutral encyclopedia. Facts have no morality. To suggest otherwise is absurd. Given that other subjectively deplorable human behavior is indeed compared to that of other species within Wikipedia, I have seen no good reason to not include this fact here. It doesn't need to be anything more than a single sentence or two, but as of now there sounds like no legitimate justification to not include it beyond personal ethical codes, which have absolutely no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B074:1B7F:7466:444D:86C1:79F4 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

" Facts have no morality" is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about "facts" it's about reporting what the reliable secondary sources say. Morality is a major component of the coverage of slavery --it infuses every RS without exception. There is no Wiki rule whatever requiring editors to drop their moral sensibility when dealing with this issue. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

If the content is framed properly, such as a section called "Alleged slavery in other species", I do not see any problem in including it considering there is considerable citation from reliable sources. So go for it. JustBeCool (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's best framed as WP:BADIDEA. It isn't even a question of morality. Read the very first line of the lead: "Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law are applied to humans allowing them to be classified as property..." (my emphasis). Other species are WP:OFFTOPIC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Slave owners is being considered for deletion[edit]

Just to let you know Category:Slave owners is being considered for deletion. This nomination is part of a discussion of several related categories. You can share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Eartha78 (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)