One of the things I've been thinking about lately is how old slavery actually is. Joseph, for instance, was sold into slavery.
The other thing I've been thinking about is how little those with Some or Much care about those with Little or Less. That makes it an economic motive. And I do see that in much of what Republicanism is and has been. At least Democrats for the most part seem to care however bad they are at it.
Slavery is likely older than recorded history. Many civilizations relied upon it or more limited forms of it on both the social and economic levels.
Slavery in Rome was not a racial thing as it was in the US or in other places--at least it was not usually seen or talked about in those terms. It WAS still an in/out group thing... either on the basis of straight out power, of civilized v. barbarians, rich v poor.
Slavery was often characterized as something of a mercy--to those defeated in war it was supposedly better than death (though it usually simply meant a delayed death, often in unpleasant circumstances, plus it meant greater profit for the victor)--to those on the edge of starvation it meant potential life. People would sell their children or themselves into slavery in order to survive... because there were no social insurance programs.
In the end, machines largely replaced slavery because it was more economical, and you didn't have to worry about rebellions.
I read an excellent book last year, "Dark Places of the Earth"; much more than just the story of the slave ship Antelope. But clearly you are right that it isn't based on race but money and conquest.
One of the things I've been thinking about lately is how old slavery actually is. Joseph, for instance, was sold into slavery.
The other thing I've been thinking about is how little those with Some or Much care about those with Little or Less. That makes it an economic motive. And I do see that in much of what Republicanism is and has been. At least Democrats for the most part seem to care however bad they are at it.
Slavery is likely older than recorded history. Many civilizations relied upon it or more limited forms of it on both the social and economic levels.
Slavery in Rome was not a racial thing as it was in the US or in other places--at least it was not usually seen or talked about in those terms. It WAS still an in/out group thing... either on the basis of straight out power, of civilized v. barbarians, rich v poor.
Slavery was often characterized as something of a mercy--to those defeated in war it was supposedly better than death (though it usually simply meant a delayed death, often in unpleasant circumstances, plus it meant greater profit for the victor)--to those on the edge of starvation it meant potential life. People would sell their children or themselves into slavery in order to survive... because there were no social insurance programs.
In the end, machines largely replaced slavery because it was more economical, and you didn't have to worry about rebellions.
I read an excellent book last year, "Dark Places of the Earth"; much more than just the story of the slave ship Antelope. But clearly you are right that it isn't based on race but money and conquest.