What is the difference between regular slavery and chattel slavery?Slavery>can be bought and sold>no freedom>owner can do anythingChattel slavery>can be bought and sold>no freedom>owner can do anythingYet they insist chattel slavery is an incredibly unique institution?
Just some word fags made up to try and portray enslaving negroes as a completely unique evil. (but only when Europeans do it ofc, not Arabs)
arabs used to snip their BBCs off
>>18487524It's literally just this, there's no difference
>>18487446The same difference that exists historically between brown and white empires, browns conquering land and whites colonizing, browns decolonizing and Iberians reconquistaing.>Nothing
>>18487524I have only EVER seen this fake ass distinction used to make other blacks appear innocent, never Arabs.
european chattel slavery was unique that they don’t allow possible chance of freedommore specifically northern european slavery as spaniards allow freedom per roman inheritance
>>18487727That’s just straight up false. There were many freed slaves in the US and Haiti. Haiti even had a significant population of free Mulattoes powerful enough to be their own faction in the Haitian Revolution. Toussaint Louverture was a freed slave.
>>18487727>european chattel slavery was unique that they don’t allow possible chance of freedomThat's bullshit thoughhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_people_of_colorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Negro
>>18487727>european chattel slavery was unique that they don’t allow possible chance of freedomSlaves have the same chance of freedom in any system of slavery. Their master feels like it and lets them free. That's it.
>>18487784All the supposed good shit about Roman slavery you can find in literal carribean plantations. Intelligent blacks were allowed to work as contractors in trades or even practice white collar professions, and a class system developed between them and the sugar plantation labouring slaves. They could even keep some of the money they earned, and eventually many of these slaves accumulated enough money to outright buy their freedom.
>>18487446OP I don't think anyone makes a distinction between regular slavery and chattel slavery. Most distinctions I found online were between it and indentured servitude. Chattel slavery is regular slavery.Although we could also say that there existed forms of slavery in Europe that can be called "regular" but functioned differently from the chattel slavery we are familiar with because of whatever local laws and circumstances exist. Good example would be the enslavement of Eastern Christians in Western Europe. I could probably even say that multiple contradicting forms of slavery can exist at the same time within the same polity. Early Modern Islamic societies such as the Ottomans would have forms of slavery where the slave could have rights and the owner limited in authority (in the case of slave soldiers) and on the other hand complete plantation style chattel slavery also existed where slaves had a high death count from overworking.
>>18488136>OP I don't think anyone makes a distinction between regular slavery and chattel slavery.People absolutely do lol, and they motte and bailey it all the time.There's a lot of historians and sociologists that make out European colonialism was a particular evil because of it's scale, sophistication and racial justification (using taxonomic classifications of race instead of crude analysis).
>>18488136>plantation style chattel slavery also existed where slaves had a high death count from overworking.Did such a system exist where slaves had a particularly higher death rate than non-slave workers? It wasn't the case in the sugar plantations, for example.
>>18488223>People absolutely do lol, and they motte and bailey it all the time.I can see that, upon searching up "chattel slavery unique," a lot of articles associate chattel slavery with American slavery and therefore tie chattel slavery as one of the features of Trans-Atlantic slavery, but from what I can tell they don't necessarily call chattel slavery itself a unique feature. I can get the confusion though because the vast majority of instances of the term "chattel slavery" that I have seen only exist within texts discussing North American slavery. Some even use "chattel slavery" as a short hand for North American slavery. It's bad practice.However, for any layman going to Wikipedia to read about slavery they would read that chattel slavery is the widespread norm in history (and is therefore "regular" slavery). Wikipedia cites multiple historians for this.>There's a lot of historians and sociologists that make out European colonialism was a particular evil because of it's scale, sophistication and racial justification (using taxonomic classifications of race instead of crude analysis).I do disagree with the characterization that this slave trade was a unique or particular evil. Though, it is true that it is the largest and most sophisticated slave trade, but the only unique racial component it had was the codification of racial laws and systems which is really just a pointer in sophistication.I also don't really see the connection between people thinking this way of European colonialism to people making a distinction between regular slavery and chattel slavery.
>>18487446Slaves in ancient Greece/Rome were members of the household, just very low on the social ladder, while niggers were (mostly) treated like farm animals. There was also little relationship between slave status and race
>>18487727That's not true. Some slaves gained their freedom before general emancipation
>>18488328farm animals aren't treated badly
>>18488343Sometimes. Some people are absolutely horrible with them
>>18488343Would you like to be treated as one? Completely useless discussion anyway. You want to convince normies that modern colonial slavery wasn't any different from slavery from the times of Aristotle, because you're seething at post colonial theory or whatever, but it doesn't fucking matter, no normie is going to see this and think "OH so they lied to me about the white man!", they're just going to think it's all equally bad you retard. I'd have more respect for you if you just owned up to it and said you hate niggers and that they deserved their chains and whipping sessions, at least it's honest.
>>18488328Chattel slavery existed in ancient Greece and Rome. Owners were allowed to kill their slaves in Greece, and in Rome the death of a slave was considered a loss of property. Some ancient writers compared slaves to animals as well.
>>18488351You are assuming way too much about my beliefs and you are reading way too much into that comment I made. I wasn't justifying slavery I think engaging in slave trade was the single greatest mistake US has ever done.>they're just going to think it's all equally bad you retard.fine by me
>>18488328are you really arguing that Greeks and Romans considered slaves their family?
>>18487446>>18487524Fpbp
>>18488328You're talking about Greek and Roman house niggers. All slave owning societies had both personal servants that were usually treated decently well and laborers who were treated poorly, especially on plantations and in mines. People like you act like ancient peoples mostly had the former because they're more prominent in the historical record. A senator's personal servant who is with him in Rome is going to come up more often than the hundreds of slaves he's working to death on his plantation in Sicily.There was also absolutely a racial component to slavery. The primary source of slaves for the Greeks and especially the Romans was enslaving their neighbors. Foreign features were used in art to help communicate that a person was a slave.
