Does widespread slave ownership = instability?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's been argued that cultures featuring very high proportions of slaves in the overall populace were inevitably weakened by it. Based on the slaving cultures in history, do you feel this argument has merit?

[Cyclotron]

The slave-owning cultures that immediately come to mind - prewar America and ancient Rome - don't seem to have many parallels in other regards. Rome's imperial transition was certainly made possible only through widespread slave labor and the latifundia system, which together made the "rustic citizen farmer" obsolete and the old method of raising legions obsolete with it. One could say in a very general way that widespread slavery contributed to Roman decline in this way, since the ever-increasing professional army was arguably the prime mover behind the crisis of the third century.

The American South, in contrast, was held back by slavery in different ways. Primarily, a dependence on plantation agriculture precluded industrial development; slave labor was essentially a subsidy for the plantations, discouraging landowners from pursuing the industries that were developing in the North (and which would eventually win the Civil War).

I suppose a loose parallel does develop; the profitability of slave agriculture causes important military/industrial/social changes that lead to an "ultimate downfall" in both cases. The ways in which slave-based agriculture led to those downfalls, however, are quite different. Rome's slavery prompted the consolidation of estates and the creation of a military complex that was too dangerous to control and too important to discard, while the South's slavery hobbled its development and led to a cripplingly large gap vis-a-vis the North in terms of railroads, factories, armaments, and everything else that the South would have needed parity in to win the war.

I can't really comment on other slave societies. As far as I am aware, slaves in the Islamic world tended to be servants and soldiers rather than agricultural workers, which would presumably lead to an entirely different dynamic.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

As far as I am aware, slaves in the Islamic world tended to be servants and soldiers rather than agricultural workers, which would presumably lead to an entirely different dynamic.

There was a notable slave revolt in the Caliphate by African slaves called the Zanj, who established a 'maroon' state in what is now modern day Iraq for fifteen years. They were reclaiming and working marshlands.

The notable difference between slavery in Islam and in the Christian world is that a Muslim is forbidden to own his own offspring- so that Ottoman Sultans could have hardly any Turkish blood and various kings and emirs and sultans could and did have black African ancestry, even as far away as India.

[lord of the mark]

im reading Hugh Thomas, any my impression is you guys are ignoring how widespread slavery was around the world prior to the enlightenment.

Pre 1200 or so, EVERY civ above neolithic or so had slavery. China and India too, though I suppose not so many. Greece AND Rome had massive numbers of slaves. As did the Islamic world. "Dark ages" europe did as well.

Chattel slavery declined in the high middle ages in northern europe, but that wasnt a great rush to human freedom, it was a shift to serfdom as the predominant form of humna bondage, in those highly feudalized societies.

slavery survived in the Med, in Spain, Portugal, Italy, and southern France.

When the Portugese started stealing/buying black slaves in west africa, it was no biggie, cause Iberia was already used to having "white" (muslim) slaves, as well as being raided by the muslims for slaves. Black slavery flowed rather seamlessly into general Med slavery. There continued to be Moorish slaves in Iberia and Italy for some time. (of course the absence of slavery in northern Europe didnt stop the north europeans from entering into the slave trade with a vengeance)

Black slaves were apparently sold as far away as China, IIRC.

The Spanish and Portugese empires in America used African slaves heavily (esp after indian slavery went into decline)

The heavy identification of slavery with the US south, and Rome, misses something, to me.

[lord of the mark]

nm

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
im reading Hugh Thomas, any my impression is you guys are ignoring how widespread slavery was around the world prior to the enlightenment.

Pre 1200 or so, EVERY civ above neolithic or so had slavery.

That's not being disputed. What we're looking at are cultures with very high proportions of slaves in the populace.

[chequita guevara]

Well, the American South is still a basket case today.

[Kuciwalker]

Especially since you live there

[Cyclotron]

The heavy identification of slavery with the US south, and Rome, misses something, to me.

What Laz said. We're well aware that the practice of slavery was widespread, thank you.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



That's not being disputed. What we're looking at are cultures with very high proportions of slaves in the populace.

while thats fewer than all the societies I mentioned, its more than Rome and the US south. It would certainly include much of ancient Greece, and many parts of the Islamic world. And large areas of Spanish and Portugese America. And some areas of Africa - one of the interesting things in Thomas, is that the Portugese made money carrying black slaves to other africans - the gold mines in Ghana were worked by slaves, and there were not nearly enough locally. Many other areas, the data simply isnt all that good.

[Colon™]

Instability arises when there's a mismatch between expectation and delivery. Grotesquely inequal societies can be perfectly stable as long people don't expect any better than what they're getting. Hence I don't believe a high proportion of slavery inherently leads to instability.

[lord of the mark]

Cuba had widespread agricultural slavery AND Spanish rule from about 1500 to after the US Civil War. Ditto Puerto Rico. Brazil, where slavery was more widespread than other major country in South America, was also the most stable country in South America.

OTOH some heavily slave dominated areas in the Islamic world were quite unstable. It really depended on the era, political context, and the rest of the social system. No linear relationship either way, I think.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Brazil, where slavery was more widespread than other major country in South America, was also the most stable country in South America.

? It had more than one slave revolt in the first half of the 19th Century.

The 19th Century Muslim slave revolt in Brazil is reasonably famous.

The kind of slavery in Brazil may also be important in this respect- Brazil imported many more men than women, so unlike the United States, the slave population could not continually reproduce itself.

The pernicious effects of slavery on Brazil's society are still to be seen today, with a huge impoverished black underclass.

[Patroklos]

How was the American South unstable pre Civil War? The poor masses of the urban North caused far more problems than slaves did in the South.

And lack of industry in the South had little to do with where the labor came from. Slaves work just as well in factories as they do in fields (see China). Geography made the difference though advances in technology were already changing this.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


? It had more than one slave revolt in the first half of the 19th Century.

The 19th Century Muslim slave revolt in Brazil is reasonably famous.

The kind of slavery in Brazil may also be important in this respect- Brazil imported many more men than women, so unlike the United States, the slave population could not continually reproduce itself.

The pernicious effects of slavery on Brazil's society are still to be seen today, with a huge impoverished black underclass.

Im assuming "stable" means political stability, like number of coups, etc. By that measure Brazil, was much more stable than the Spanish speaking republics of Latin America in the 19th century. Perhaps I misread what folks meant by "stability" Are we comparing, say, the number of slave revolts in slave societies, to peasant revolts in non-slave societies?

As for pernicious effects, I dont disagree. Stability is not the only social/political goal.