Was Slavery a Moral Advancement in the History of Mankind?

[The Iron Boot]

We tend to look upon slavery as a great evil, a scourge that ravaged
mankind all through history. By our modern moral standards this is
understandable. We believe in ‘human rights’, individual freedom, and
equality of man. So, from our perspective slavery can only be regarded
as a great sin and a terrible stain on those who’ve practiced it. Of
course, white people have been blamed most for slavery, not least
because they were hypocritical in preaching Christian values while
enslaving peoples; also, because of the particularly racial nature of
slavery in the modern Western world, slavery in the Americas came to
regarded as especially evil.


Be that as it may, one could argue that slavery was actually a moral
advancement in the history of mankind. For most of history, the
options other than slavery were genocide, mass expulsion, or mass
human sacrifice. The rules understood and practiced by all sides was
might-is-right. Tribalism or clan-ism was the operative spirit
governing ‘political’ behavior. So, when one side fought another
side, it was usually for total victory. The losing side would be
totally wiped out, expelled, or captured for human sacrifice–
especially in the case of Aztecs in pre-Columbian Mexico. This was
merely an extension of the way animals operate. When a pack of wolves
fight another pack, the goal of both sides is total victory and to
gain absolute dominance over the territory. Of course, as packs tend
to be evenly matched in many cases, most packs come to ‘respect’ each
other’s hunting ground and keep a certain distance from one another,
their differences being settled off and on through skirmishes. But,
there are times when one pack has decisive superiority over another
pack, and a fierce battle will break out whereupon the losing pack
will be driven far away or mauled to death. This is also true among
lions. When a pride gets into a fight with another pride, each side
wants to wipe out the other side or drive it out completely. If a
lion becomes separated from its pride and encircled by enemy lions, it
is as good as dead. In the excellent National Geographic documentary
“Lions and Hyenas”, we see what happens to such a lioness. Failing to
make an escape, she is surrounded and mauled to death by enemy lions.
Animals don’t take prisoners or slaves. They totally expel or kill the
enemy.


Because animals don’t have ideals or visions, their blood-letting
tends to be limited to the needs of survival. Lions hate hyenas and
lions of rival prides but will not embark on a crusade to wipe out all
hyenas and enemy lions. There can’t be an animal Hitler. Even so,
animals–especially predatory animals–tend to be ruthless toward their
enemies and seek to destroy as many of their enemies as possible. They
instinctively ‘think’ in terms of kill-or-be-killed. Oftentimes in
nature, a degree of equilibrium is reached among animals not because
of mutual affection or agreement but because, after much growling and
fighting, they realize they cannot wipe out all their nearby enemies–
like Iran and Iraq finally ended the war in the late 1980s when
neither side could achieve victory. So, they learn to co-exist but not
out of any higher ideal or mutual affection.


Anyway, humanity in its early stage was like the predatory animal
world. Various tribes generally distrusted and hated one another.
While some established relations and learnt to trade with other tribes
from time to time, war and conquest were constant threats. You never
knew when the other side would go into aggressive mode, attack, and
possibly conquer your side; and , your side was tempted to attack and
conquer the other side. But, when wars broke out, it was for total
victory, which meant you’d wipe out the other side totally or at least
drive them out as far away from your territory as possible(even if
your enemies were driven into areas where most of them would die of
hunger or exposure). But, with the rise of slavery, there was another
option. Your side didn’t have to kill everyone nor expel them from the
area that produces bountiful food. You could spare their lives and
accept their place in your world as long as they were your prisoners
or property. They became slaves but were allowed to live. In time,
they could even become part of your community and blend in. So, in
this sense at least, slavery was a moral advancement in mankind.


We need only to consider the policy of the Mongols to see the moral
dimension of slavery. We tend to think in terms of freedom vs slavery
or good vs bad, but for most of history, the options were often death
vs slavery or bad vs worse. Given the nature of such social reality,
slavery could have moral value. Nazis, for instance, sought to kill
all Jews, but they were willing to let most Russians live as long as
Russians became slaves. Slavery and genocide are both evil from our
perspective, but which is more evil? Slavery can be regarded as a
positive good compared to genocide–which was prevalent in the
primitive and ancient world; we need only read the Bible or ancient
documents to know what the Israelites did to the Canaanites, what
Romans did to the Carthaginians, or what Alexander the Great did in
certain places he conquered. In each case, wouldn’t we agree that
conquerors who enslaved the population were morally superior to those
who committed genocide? In the primitive and ancient world, genocide
and slavery were not necessarily evil because much of humanity
operated by ‘either you or me’. If your side didn’t strike first, the
other side might attack you. If you didn’t wipe out the other side, it
might wipe your side out. If you didn’t enslave the other side, they
might enslave you. In a world where genocide, ethnic cleansing, and
mass murder were so common, slavery was preferable to the defeated or
conquered peoples. It meant that the victors allowed the losers to
live. The victors didn’t bestow freedom and equality to the conquered
because (1) such ideals didn’t exist as political concepts in the
first place prior to the rise of modernity and (2) the losers might
use freedom to rebuild their strength and take revenge on the victors
(and turn them into slaves). So, the losers, if they were to be
spared, had to be turned into a subservient people–slaves or members
of a lower caste(as in Hinduism). Also, since ruling over a vast loser
population was going to be expensive, it only made sense to put slaves
to work so as to contribute to the overall economy. We all know how
expensive it is to run prisons; prisoners are owned by the state, but
the state has to take care of their needs. So, it made sense to turn
prisoners into slaves and put slaves to work.
Though communism was a form of slavery, many people think it was less
evil than Nazism because its modus operandi was state slavery than
state genocide. Of course, communism did end up killing millions and
millions of people, but at least theoretically, that was not supposed
to be the case. Communism would take away your individual freedom and
turn you into a slave of the state, but the state would be
‘progressive’ and take care of you; as such, it was supposedly not as
bad as Nazism which was founded on the ideology of genocide(though, to
be sure, Nazis didn’t intend genocide against most peoples but only
particular groups such as Jews and Gypsies).


Anyway, let’s return to the subject of the Mongols and how slavery
fits into their moral order. By our standards–and even by the
standards of many peoples back then–Mongols were a brutal and
murderous people. But, even the Mongol war policy had a moral
component. Mongols sent delegates to towns or cities they were about
to conquer with the message that the people would be spared if they
bowed down to the Great Khan, pledged their loyalty, and became his
slaves. Otherwise, they would all be killed. Slavery, in this
scenario, was a terrible fate but preferable to getting wiped out in
war. Genghis and Kublai Khan were not sentimental men, and they didn’t
care how many people they killed. But, they were willing to spare
lives as long as their prospective victims chose slavery over death.
Prior to the concept of slavery, the general rule was simply to attack
and kill all or drive everyone out of the territory–genocide or ethnic
cleansing. With slavery, the third option became let-them-live-and-
stay. (Of course, once slavery become a well-understood concept,
groups began to raid other groups to capture and bring back and/or
sell slaves. There were also raids to capture wives but it was a time
when a wife was considered the propert or slave of her husband. As it
developed, slavery no longer remained the byproduct of war and
conquest but became the very object various warring groups sought
after and fought for.) Of course, being a slave wasn’t particularly
pleasant, but it was preferable to death. Also, slavery was different
than other kinds of relations known to man. Man had a special relation
to animals, but animals were seen and treated as chattel. Though we
are familiar with the term ‘chattel slavery’, slaves were generally
not looked upon nor treated like animals. They were treated as second
class humans; in most cases, their humanity was not denied. Someone
who owned a cow or horse would use it for labor and then guiltlessly
kill it for food and hide. This was generally not how slaves were
treated–though we can always find exceptions such as mass human
sacrifice, head-hunting, and cannibalism, etc. Slaves were used for
labor like cows and horses, but there was a understanding that they
too had HUMAN needs. Of course, when times were really bad or when
danger loomed, there was little mercy or compassion toward slaves.
But, under ideal circumstances, most slave owners throughout history
didn’t see slaves as mere animals to be exploited and then killed.
Slaves were often forced to live separate lives, but slaves were
allowed to have their fun, joys, and pleasure in life when possible.
Though people could be born into slavery, the original form of slavery
probably grew out of wars between tribes. Instead of killing or
entirely driving out the enemy, some tribes probably spared the lives
of the vanquished. The losers became prisoners of the victorious
tribe. Since the victorious tribe feared that prisoners might seek
revenge, the vanquished had to be forced into inferior status so as to
keep their lids shut.
We have something similar even in the modern era. For instance, the
Allies won the war in World War II. The Soviets imposed communist
slavery on the Eastern Bloc. East Germany became essentially a vassal
state of the Soviet Union. East Germans were allowed to live, but had
to live under communist domination imposed by the Soviet masters.
Japan and West Germany, in contrast, had democracy and their citizens
gained political freedom and rights; even so, Japan and West Germany
became national or political slaves of the United States or NATO.
Though allowed to be sovereign nation-states with their own system of
government, neither Germany nor Japan had military autonomy nor
independence/freedom in its foreign policy or affairs. They had to do
as America commanded or demanded. America was not overtly oppressive
to either of them but the nature of the relationship was not equal.
America was the boss while Japan and Germany were the servants if not
slaves; Japan and Germany were America’s bitches. So, a kind of slave-
status can exist in the modern world on a nation-to-nation basis if
not on an individual-to-individual basis. Even today, it’s true that
Big Powerful Nations ‘own’ smaller ones. China owns North Korea.
United States owns Japan. Israel owns United States.


Anyway, most of history was marked by wars, and no side felt totally
secure in the way that Americans have felt secure since the late 19th
century. Even in the 20th century, few nations felt safe as Americans
too(and even Americans were shocked into fright when Pearl Harbor and
9/11 happened).
WWI resulted from powerful European nations feeling insecure than
confident in their power. Same could be said of World War II. Hitler
had a grand crazy dream, but he also felt hemmed in by enemy or rival
nations on all sides. And, UK and France declared war on Germany in
1939 out of fear than out of confidence. Japan didn’t feel secure in
the 19th century when Western powers pried its gates open. China
didn’t feel secure as imperialism–Western and Japan–encroached on its
territory. Russia felt insecure despite–or because of–its (over-
stretched)size due to perceived threats posed by Germans, Turks, and
Asians. Mexico didn’t feel secure when Americans took a whole chunk
of their territory in the mid 19th century. Finally, white Americans
don’t feel secure as liberal and leftwing Jews have taken over their
country and are using the most powerful institutions(which they own)to
permit(and even encourage)countless non-white immigrants–legal and
illegal–flood into this country.


Until relatively recently, the entire world still lived by the rule of
stronger-forces-gaining-domination-of-weaker-peoples-and-places.
Modern imperialists were not mass murderers for the most part. They
either sought slavery or submission from those they conquered. At any
rate, it made no sense to conquer a people and then grant them
equality and freedom. That would have neutralized or undermined the
whole point of conquest and victory. Why expend so much wealth and
manpower, why take great risks to give the defeated people a chance to
take revenge and counter-conquer the conquerors? The whole point of
conquering is to rule over others; in order to rule over them, it
makes no sense to grant them equality or freedom. You have to maintain
their inferior status if you want to preserve your supremacy or
mastery over what you’ve expended so much in life, limb, and wealth to
obtain.


Slavery and subjugation were a moral improvement from ethnic cleansing
(mass expulsion) and genocide because you let the conquered people
live and carry on with their lives(even if only as inferior beings).
As our moral values advanced and became idealized, we came to reject
imperialism, wars of conquest, subjugation, and slavery. So, slavery
is rightfully seen as an evil in OUR society. And, we believe, at
least theoretically, in the equality of nations. That is why we have
the UN.


It is for this reason that paleo-conservatives oppose expanding
American power around the world. In the past, imperialist expansion
meant gaining superiority over people you conquered or forced into
your political or imperial orbit. There was genuine prestige in the
idea of conquest and victory. Heroes that people admired most were
victors in wars, discoverers and conquerors of new lands. Even Great
Conqueror-Leaders of your enemies were respected out of sense of
awe. There was a sense that great mighty powers were most civilized
and had a divine right or historical destiny to conquer other peoples
and unify the world(in which the Metropole would be the center of
governance. ‘All Roads Lead to Rome’). Your side would bring
civilization, progress, order, improvement, and/or reform to the lives
of people you gained mastery over. It was imperative that the
conquered people understood the basic hierarchy of who was boss and
who was underling. Otherwise, conquest–expensive and dangerous–made no
sense. What’s the point of conquering a people only to make them your
equal and kick you out? Why would a free people want to stay under the
thumb of another people? We’ve seen what happened in Iraq. We invaded
and conquered... and brought them freedom and liberty and equality...
and the Iraqis are telling us get out of their country as soon as
possible. Equality & freedom AND war & imperialism are incompatible.
Iraq may turn out to be a fine country because of what we’ve done, but
if it is to be free and independent, we cannot own it. And, if we
cannot own it, why did we have to sacrifice so many lives and
dollars? Because of the egalitarian ethos shared by both Western and
non-Western nations(even if such values are ideally practiced), it is
a hard sell to conquer another nation and then impose one’s will on
it. The concept of FORCING freedom on a people and then expecting them
to FREELY obey YOUR orders is ludicrous.


We’re living in a schizo world. As US is the richest and most
powerful country in the world, the world expect us to be globo-cops.
But, where ever or whenever US exerts its power, it comes under the
criticism of both the Right and the Left for acting like naive
idealists or devious imperialists. On the other hand, if we do nothing
at all–as with Rwanda–, the world condemns us for not caring and
violating the principle of “Never Again”.