I don't think enslavement is really done with the intent of 'bringing them into' the society.
- 4
- 2
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't think enslavement is really done with the intent of 'bringing them into' the society.
Certain cultures could. Many Romans liked Greek culture and had nothing against the Greeks, but still had Greek slaves. It's more to do with a culture's attitude to slavery than to the other people, for the Romans, slavery was a fact of life, it was common, so they had no qualms about enslaving any culture except their own. I imagine a futuristic space empire could have a similar attitude: great admiration for another species' culture while enslaving them.
- 3
You do realize that aliens are inherently not human, right?
Is anyone offended here?
You realize the takeaway from my argument here wasn't supposed to be "slavery is morally okay" right? As far as your arguments regarding the psychological effects of the treatment of animals, I'd be interested to read your sources on that. There are definitely cases of animals individually showing disapproval for their station in a way comparable to human, and I'd suppose that the real reason for lack of revolts is due to ability to communicate and organize. Regardless of whether your assertion is actually correct, it's something that could just as easily be said about any non-human species and has historically been used about different races and classes of human.
[/quote]3) Pets today in civilized countries are better treated and often have more rights than human slaves in the past had. In fact, pets in media are treated better than humans because for some reason death of a dog brings bigger reaction than death of 25 people in a movie.[/quote]Eh, depends on what point in the past. Some African* slavery could be considered comparable but with greater opportunity to leave the arrangement, and the Roman slave system allowed a lot more dignity.
I never compared it to the latter. I used the word I used because I wasn't talking about its opposite.
No, YOU don't care. I would hazard a guess, based on the subjects of other Paradox games, that there's a fair few folks around here who DO care about these things. And in any game where you can design your culture, people tend to like it when the names for things accurately represent what those things are. Xenophobia doesn't denote slavery is accepted and xenophilia doesn't denote that slavery is reviled, forcing players to make their cultures work that way is a limitation that may or may not be justified for gameplay reasons, though I'd be inclined to think not. Giving players slavery or lack thereof based on a decision that purports to be unrelated, on the other hand, isn't something that can be backed up by gameplay at all.
*As in, slavery perpetrated by Africans, not necessarily the slavery to which Africans were subjected, since you seem to assume by default that we're talking about America-styled chattel slavery whenever any assumption is remotely possible.
- 3
- 2
- 1
Debt slavery, in which people sell themselves or their children into slavery in order to pay a debt, is easily the second most common type of slavery in history. Slavery doesn't have to be about taking a foreign culture and then depriving them of all legal rights.
- 7
The thing is though, the English word "Xenophobe" has had some language drift from the original Greek root. So while it is derived from words that mean fear of strangers, the modern word usually relates more to hatred than fear (although the two are obviously related in many cases).
- 2
I think StarCon's Ur-Quan are a good example of two approaches to extreme xenophobia.
One sub-race enslaved every species they encountered by giving them a choice between being trapped on and limited to their homeworld by means of an impenetrable global shield, or serving as battle thralls to help subjugate other species.
The other sub-race simply reduced other species to atomic vapor.
Both are driven by intense xenophobia and the belief that other species are too dangerous to let run free. But one is prepared to trap or make use of these lesser species while the other isn't.
One sub-race enslaved every species they encountered by giving them a choice between being trapped on and limited to their homeworld by means of an impenetrable global shield, or serving as battle thralls to help subjugate other species.
The other sub-race simply reduced other species to atomic vapor.
Both are driven by intense xenophobia and the belief that other species are too dangerous to let run free. But one is prepared to trap or make use of these lesser species while the other isn't.
I understand what the author is trying to say though. He is talking about the difference between regular xenophobia and xenophobic isolationism.
Fear causes the flight-or-fight response to kick in if your nucleus accumbens is properly designed, fear -> hatred. Fear is the root of hatred, hatred is the fight-response. As you said they are related, hence using xenophobia to denote hatred is totally okay, I mean as in the word not the concept.
I read your post. If you're going to get hung up on semantics, you should go the extra mile and actually get your semantics right. The understanding of the words in question here that you're using is one no one else would use. It's just bizarre.
- 2
- 1
I'm still convinced that xenophobia and slaver should be two separate traits for stellar empires.
It even seems stupid to me that a Xenophobic Empire is also a slaver Empire.
Now, let's speak about the "xenophile" empire. In this thread, it has been used many times as an antonym of "xenophobian" (that is, someone who doesn't hate the other species). But as you probably know, "xenophile" means "who loves the strangers". It's something that doesn't really exist. I mean, a particular individual can be a xenophile, but an entire species ? It's really hard to imagine. Of course, there is Mass Effect's Asari, and maybe other fantasized space Amazons (I think there are some in Futurama, and maybe some male Amazons in Star Trek ? I'm not sure), but as seductive and funny that it may be, that's all, and it must be much rarer than xenophobian slaver empires, non-xenophobian slaver empires, xenophobian non-slaver empires and non-xenophobian non-slaver empires.
It even seems stupid to me that a Xenophobic Empire is also a slaver Empire.
- If you look at human history, even XIXth slave trade doesn't rely on xenophobia, but on racism, which is a different thing (even if racism leads easily to xenophobia). Many slave owners (even in Dixie-land) didn't hate their slaves. They saw them as almost-animals, and treated their slave well according to their ideology. It's in fact very rare that a xenophobic society was also a slaver society, while many multicultural societies (including the biggest Empires fo history: Rome, the Arabian Empire and China) praticed different kinds of slavery. Colonialism isn't either directly linked to xenophobia. I think it's also important to make a difference between "regular" slaves and war prisonners.
- On a more logical aspect, it's easy to distinguish slavery from xenophobia. Slavery is the trade, ownership and/or use of slaves. It doesn't mean that the slaves are treated badly. It only means that they have no legal rights, as they are considered as physical property. A xenophobian AND slaver state will treat its slave very badly. A not xenophobian (I'll come to the "xenophile" empire later) will treat them without hate (except if they do bad things: a rebellious or criminal slave cannot except to be treated as a citizen). They might even be able to buy or earn their freedom. There may even be societies with both native and alien slaves (yeah, why not both ?).
Now, let's speak about the "xenophile" empire. In this thread, it has been used many times as an antonym of "xenophobian" (that is, someone who doesn't hate the other species). But as you probably know, "xenophile" means "who loves the strangers". It's something that doesn't really exist. I mean, a particular individual can be a xenophile, but an entire species ? It's really hard to imagine. Of course, there is Mass Effect's Asari, and maybe other fantasized space Amazons (I think there are some in Futurama, and maybe some male Amazons in Star Trek ? I'm not sure), but as seductive and funny that it may be, that's all, and it must be much rarer than xenophobian slaver empires, non-xenophobian slaver empires, xenophobian non-slaver empires and non-xenophobian non-slaver empires.
- 5
- 2
Is it easier or harder than imagining an entire species hating strangers?
Quick question:
Can two different "space empires" be of the same race (through secession, independence etc?)
Because otherwise, the distinction between own slavery and "xeno-only" slavery loses a lot of meaning if you only ever interact with Xenos anyway
Also "Burn the Xenos!!", sorry... WH40K flashback
Can two different "space empires" be of the same race (through secession, independence etc?)
Because otherwise, the distinction between own slavery and "xeno-only" slavery loses a lot of meaning if you only ever interact with Xenos anyway
Also "Burn the Xenos!!", sorry... WH40K flashback
I think you dismantled your own arguments pretty well here.
- 3
- 2
It's a lot harder for me. A species who love all the other species ? It's not very usual. Of course we can imagine various ways to make this possible (like a "gardener" species who wants to protect every other species... But still, they would hate those who kill and murder each other). If you can imagine the behaviour of a truly xenophile alien state, feel free to share your ideas. But remember that "xenophile" doesn't only mean "pacifist", "open-minded" or "friendly". It means literally "alien-lover".
Hm not really. I mean, if there are two space empires of the same race : Xorg and Yum. Xorg can enslave the people of Yum (which could be also xeno-slavery, because they are from an other "country"). But it can also enslave some of its own people for various reasons (like debts).
No, and I'll try to explain why:
That having no legal rights doesn't mean that you're not treated badly, it's not easy to understand, I agree.
It's because you're reasoning as a XXIth-century human, when slavery is obviously a bad thing. Some Roman slaves, who had absolutely no legal rights, were treated very well. They had the same "jobs" as non-slaves and they could quickly buy their freedom and eventually become the most powerful people of the Empire after the Emperor. It's only a difference of status. Imagine that half of the people that come in your house to repair your boiler or your roof would have been slaves, and he other part free men in ancient Rome. There was practically no difference of life between the two, except for justice and the gods.
In a society without a Declaration of Human Rights, there are no human rights. Be treated as a human being, for a Roman, means that you can have your hands cut if you steal something. It means than your house can be burnt if you're proven to be an adulterer. You're not better treated than a slave in everyday-life, especially if you're poor.
The other thing that matters here is how does justice work. Today, and especially in the USA, Justice in centralized and everywhere. In ancient Rome (and medieval muslim states), it's not always in the hands of the state. It's in the end of the master (dominus / pater familias) - or the qadi, or other important (wo)men. If there is a conflict between a slave and a servant of the house, the pater familias will do justice as he pleases. Of course, the fact that one of them is the slave is not in his favour, but that doesn't mean that he will automatically be punished.
But it has nothing to do with the fact that slaver societies are not always xenophobic anyway. Even if you don't agree whith what I wrote, or if you claim that a slave is always badly treated, it's still because it's a slave, not because it's a stranger. And he's not necessarily a slave because he's a stranger.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
That's fine. I just don't get why you'd find xenophobia an easier generalized aspect of an alien species.
A slave can not leave their owner's land without permission. They can not marry. Their children are not their own and may be sold for quick cash at any time, including immediately after birth. They can not inherit anything. They can not make complaints in tort or criminal cases. They are, in many ways, legally considered children for their entire lives, except that criminal penalties against them are much more severe and for freemen committing crimes against them, the criminal penalties are much less severe. They can have no funeral. If another slave strikes their master, every slave owned by the master can, and generally will, be executed. They can not be raped, legally speaking, but they can be sexually assaulted with impunity by their owner and without impunity by others, but recompense goes to the owner. Even if they are manumitted, they remain economically dependent on their former owner via a patronage system.
This is describing Roman slavery. Even without an explicit bill of rights or declaration of human rights, Roman citizens, allies, and subject peoples did have legal rights and privileges. Slaves did not.
Try this to get into the mindset of a slave. Purchase a USB powered masturbatory aid and plug it into your computer. Use it at random intervals. Try to imagine you are the computer. That is what it means to be property, even if it doesn't mean the computer is treated badly as compared to other property. All slaves are property, but some slaves are treated as people, therefore slavery is not inhumane is a flawed conclusion.
I would agree that xenophobia and slavery are mostly non-sequiturs, but a polity that can acknowledge other species as equals is certainly less likely to divide itself into enslavable groups, as the Romans did. The criteria for dividing itself doesn't need to be genetic or cultural or religious either. In the US it's perfectly legal to enslave convicted criminals for the length of their sentence (it has largely, though not entirely gone out of style, however) and then discriminate against them once they are free, for example. For gameplay purposes, you either have everyone using slavery, a crapsack world indeed, or you put some kind of limitation on what groups can use slavery and a xenophobic trait is better than most for that purpose.
This is describing Roman slavery. Even without an explicit bill of rights or declaration of human rights, Roman citizens, allies, and subject peoples did have legal rights and privileges. Slaves did not.
Try this to get into the mindset of a slave. Purchase a USB powered masturbatory aid and plug it into your computer. Use it at random intervals. Try to imagine you are the computer. That is what it means to be property, even if it doesn't mean the computer is treated badly as compared to other property. All slaves are property, but some slaves are treated as people, therefore slavery is not inhumane is a flawed conclusion.
I would agree that xenophobia and slavery are mostly non-sequiturs, but a polity that can acknowledge other species as equals is certainly less likely to divide itself into enslavable groups, as the Romans did. The criteria for dividing itself doesn't need to be genetic or cultural or religious either. In the US it's perfectly legal to enslave convicted criminals for the length of their sentence (it has largely, though not entirely gone out of style, however) and then discriminate against them once they are free, for example. For gameplay purposes, you either have everyone using slavery, a crapsack world indeed, or you put some kind of limitation on what groups can use slavery and a xenophobic trait is better than most for that purpose.
- 1
I don't think that anyone in this thread is drawing such a conclusion. You are objecting to a strawman.
(Which, by the way, shows the limitations of the agree/disagree buttons. I don't agree with your assessment of the argument, but if I "disagree" with your post it would look as though I somehow condone or justify slavery, which I don't. Perhaps there should be a fourth button: "unhelpful" to be used for those posts that involve a misunderstanding or muddle the discussion.)
Last edited: