I think it’s a fair assumption that nearly every country that developed engaged in some form of slavery, but I struggle to think of any country that achieved the status of a world power that didn’t employ it in some form.
This isn’t to excuse US’ history of slavery, which was barbaric, just that the singling out one country tends to ignore that slavery isn’t an exceptional thing.
Probably true, but some countries moved to feudalism or even capitalism at this point of history
Slavery and feudalism aren’t mutually exclusive - the most fascinating thing that I heard when I studied the US Civil War was the concept of the US South itself as a feudal society. The Southern aristocrats maintained their client networks of subordinate white folk with which they utterly controlled the social, economic, and political life of the South by the economic coercion of ‘owning’ a labor force, rather than extensive legal protections for themselves. By contrast, Northern plutocrats struggled to cultivate long-lasting client networks because, like most plutocrats, their power is based on the fluidity of their capital. You can be getting richer with every dollar, or cultivate loyalty with it - not both.
(the notion of ‘feudalism’ itself is often disputed amongst medievalists, but we’ll ignore that for now, lmao, as a casual term it works)
ThisEvery country was built on slavery.Probably true, but some countries moved to feudalism or even capitalism at this point of history
I think it’s a fair assumption that nearly every country that developed engaged in some form of slavery, but I struggle to think of any country that achieved the status of a world power that didn’t employ it in some form.
This isn’t to excuse US’ history of slavery, which was barbaric, just that the singling out one country tends to ignore that slavery isn’t an exceptional thing.
Slavery and feudalism aren’t mutually exclusive - the most fascinating thing that I heard when I studied the US Civil War was the concept of the US South itself as a feudal society. The Southern aristocrats maintained their client networks of subordinate white folk with which they utterly controlled the social, economic, and political life of the South by the economic coercion of ‘owning’ a labor force, rather than extensive legal protections for themselves. By contrast, Northern plutocrats struggled to cultivate long-lasting client networks because, like most plutocrats, their power is based on the fluidity of their capital. You can be getting richer with every dollar, or cultivate loyalty with it - not both.
(the notion of ‘feudalism’ itself is often disputed amongst medievalists, but we’ll ignore that for now, lmao, as a casual term it works)