Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Yes, they would be anomalies.

I have a lot of sympathy for the indentured servants but I think it's wrong -- and dismissive of the kind of horrific treatment dealt out to black and Indian captives -- to call them "slaves." The conditions of their servitude were limited by a body of laws, and most, if they survived, eventually earned their freedom. Black and Indian captives were slaves forever, as were their children and their children's children.

Terminology differs from time to time. What I meant was
that the terminology of 17th century colonial affairs might not have differed so much between indentured servants and slaves. This might explain this:

Apparently, my distant ancestor Tormut Rose was deported to America by Cromwell and sold as a slave.

I've always had the notion that slavery in America was a purely black African affair, but according to this copy of a page from an out of print book my father has, it was not.

And the fact that he was released after 10 years.

On the question of proper terminology to use today I think it is a bit americo-centric to reserve the term "slave" for the type of slavery suffered by black and indian captives in American history. Slavery has existed in various forms in different cultures and the term has usually covered anything from the short-lived and brutal existence of mine or galley slaves to the more privileged position of a roman house slave that could own property, had the right (by law or custom) to buy his or her freedom and had a week-night of that could be spent earning money.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Mar 17th, 2007 at 05:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series