Meta: Abolitionists and Slaves
Oct. 16th, 2008 07:59 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
telesilla.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
whatwekeepSo, I have a bit of a meta question....
We've seen people like Jeff, Dylan and even the Catholic Church, argue that, given the state of things in the USNA, keeping slaves and treating them well is the right/humane thing to do.
Then there's the argument that keeping slaves at all is wrong, and that it's better to either pay the fines and remove yourself from society (Cate Blanchett is a good example) or to deliberately live poor so that you don't have to own slaves (although we haven't gone into this much yet, David Hewlett's mother and his sister Kate live like this).
I'm kind of curious as to what people here think: which way makes more sense in the context of the AKB verse and which way is more ethical in that same context?
PS: There may be other examples of both sides, I'm kind of behind on the more recent additions to the 'verse.
We've seen people like Jeff, Dylan and even the Catholic Church, argue that, given the state of things in the USNA, keeping slaves and treating them well is the right/humane thing to do.
Then there's the argument that keeping slaves at all is wrong, and that it's better to either pay the fines and remove yourself from society (Cate Blanchett is a good example) or to deliberately live poor so that you don't have to own slaves (although we haven't gone into this much yet, David Hewlett's mother and his sister Kate live like this).
I'm kind of curious as to what people here think: which way makes more sense in the context of the AKB verse and which way is more ethical in that same context?
PS: There may be other examples of both sides, I'm kind of behind on the more recent additions to the 'verse.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-18 01:54 am (UTC)(IIRC, Cate does have slaves--just not a body-slave.)
As Dylan points out, the only way to not be part of the system is to live completely off the grid: growing your own food, cutting the wood to build your house, shearing the sheep to spin the thread to weave the cloth for your clothes....how many people are willing to do that? How many are willing to do that and have it negatively affect their children?
Doing the morally pure thing like Kate and her mother is a valuable symbolic gesture--but that's all it is. They still benefit from the products of slave labor. And in terms of actual results, how many slaves have Kate and her mother been able to affect directly? How about Dylan? By complying with the system, he gains money and status, which he can then use to work for change. People listen to him because he's an attractive, charismatic, rich free white guy. On a more personal level, the slaves he owns don't have to worry about being sold or abused (as long as he lives, and after because trust me, he has a will). Sure, it's only a handful of people, and they're still slaves, but they also have as much dignity and freedom as is possible in that world.