Direct all of your questions and inquiries of Drowtales and its world setting here. You can also participate in the construction of the world setting wiki

Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby H'K'Maly » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:16 pm

This thread continues the debate started in Chapter 43 Page 39 topic ... it would be actually good to move few previous post here as well but I don't know how.

============================================

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Not sure where you think I'm heading but I'm almost sure you're wrong. You seem pretty sensitive on the slavery topic ...

... but going that way is offtopic anyway.

I'm well aware of the conditions of today's african and middle east countries (and is definitely where you're trying to get), with even as far as slavery still taking placing in this time. But saying there is no thick line of thinking between the Middle Ages and now is stretching it. Yes, not everyone is the same and not every part of the world has evolved in the same way or as well as desired, but surely the topic of slavery and human rights has gained a lot of attention of the peoples and in no wonder that bumping to someone trying to justify an act as vile as slavery will cause an uproar, I don't get your surprise there.

The way plenty of things that in the Middle Ages were regarded as acceptable, canon, or even dogma are now seen as shocking and retrograde shows a lot of difference. The way these matters are seen by the people and how it sounds on their ears is different, and how the world reacts to such atrocious situations. I cannot speak for everyone, no one can, but you are either pretty close-minded or you've been in seclusion the past few centuries, or I don't know, very deepshit pessimistic, and I'm not even optimistic.


Oh. That bit. I'm not saying that there is no difference. I meant that the change was gradual. There is no point where you could say "people before this point were barbars who keep slaves and though earth is flat, people after this point are enlightened anti-slavers believing in evolution". Not even country-wise. Instead, the view on slavery, astronomy and biology (to name few other examples) is changing gradually, with some areas faster, some slower, and with lot of people on both sides from the average. I'm specifically saying areas instead of countries, because the view on slavery in US depended (and maybe still depends) a lot on state for example. And, despise statistical colleration, many people changed their view only on SOME of issues which we see as changing between Middle ages and now.

(Also, about my surprise ... I'm not surprised the radical anti-slavers exists, but I'm little surprised they are reading drowtales or fantasy in general.)

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:With recent news, first place with people obviously having different society that western world occuring to me. But even "western world" is not as homogenous society as seems to me you see it.

Yes, I should have let a "sarcasm" tag on that last question. I figured that you would mention the recent news and the contrast of West and East, I still don't see the relevance of saying you could be posting from Damascus?? o_O It is not like I would change my argument or my views according to where you are posting from.

I have in no way said that I think the western world is homogeneous. We are not evaluating 'individuals' here.


Yet you are surprised if someone is evaluating something from point of society different that yours. To quote:

HoneyBee wrote:We were not comparing confinement and slavery with "Middle Ages & Co" mindset. We were comparing them with the mindset we hold of it today (most apparently, not all), even if referring to "Middle Ages & Co".


HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Technically yes, but if the slave army is supposed to be anything better that literal cannon fodder, it must be step UP for those slave soldiers. (Of course, if you talk about that Sharen slave army, I think they WERE meant to be literal cannon fodder.)

Oh come on, please, do me a favor and just be straightforward already. Do you recognize as a legitimate military position or not ??


I'll try it again. There are two options how to use slaves in army. One is as cannon fodder: this is not legitimate military position, this is just giving slaves task which get them killed. Second is to actually train them to be usefull soldiers. I personally can't see how you could do that and still keep them in slavery: you need to "upgrade" them to something better and I would assume they would revolt if you tried to make them slaves again. Case in point, Spartacus: in that case, the better status was called gladiator. Gladiators were not slaves: For the poor, and for non-citizens, enrollment in a gladiator school offered a trade, regular food, housing of sorts and a fighting chance of fame and fortune. Gladiators customarily kept their prize money and any gifts they received, and these could be substantial.

(To be sure, explicit question: how would you compare Shinae situation with situations of gladiators?)

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Slave is totally on mercy of his owner, who have no reason to treat him better that necessary.
Shinae didn't have any say in her geting this position. Her mother did the deal. But from what we know about twin system, she might actually did it because she though it will be good for Shinae. I may be little optimistic there but I'm assuming she did.

Uhhh seriously ?? That is what you bring on table ?? Please...
You label me as radical and sensitive on topic of slavery and you still have the audacity to bring an argument like this-- ugh-- Not that I see myself as radical or sensitive, anyway.

Why do you think it matters if her mother was the one who sold her into slavery ? Thinking it was good or bad for her, it matters, how ? It does not change the fact that one is still being thrown into slavery by decision of other people (moreover family which is quite more common to happen).

How would binding someone to another's mercy be seen as something good for that person ?? She may have given birth to her, but that doesn't give her right to decide someone else's fate or strip her from her rightful freedoms.
Just because I'm selling you to slavery because I find it is "good" for you (given survival chances) does not change the fact that I'm still depriving you from your rights.

What you say here is like you could shrug off the situation of one being in slavery by his/her own accord given he/she deems there is no other viable choice for survival. Y'know, given the option of freedom most slaves only stay slaves if their chances of survival by their own are extremely low, that in such case prefer to stick to their "wealthy" master so they can at least have something to gain from it (yes, who have thought you could "gain" something).


... I see you didn't stop even for moment to consider that her mother might not consider twin system to be type of slavery. Ok. It's true that there ARE families who sold their child to slavery, so if you think this is the case then I have nothing to convince you otherwise .... given that we didn't even SAW her mother in comic.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:From the new pages of chapter 9, her mother was probably commoner ("of none"). Also, seems Shinae may actually remember something from her life before being twin, looking at her age there ... and it probably weren't good memories.

It. does. not. matter.

Or even better, you only give me more reasons to support that her status should give her green light to search for a better one. So I was right the first time, you agree ?
I mean, if you say that her memories as non-slave were not good, it is most likely due to the lack of conditions to live on her own, or without said status (slave) and that is (or one of) the chain that 'binds' her to slavery, even if she were given the option of freedom.

Comparing it to slaves in Mauritania where there exists this 'caste system', it is no much different. That is to say, they ARE slaves, and they are "paid" (or some at least) but it does not make it a job now only because of it. And I'm sure some of them could simply run and/or try to go live by themselves were it given the chance, the fact they don't go and decide to stay doesn't make it any less slavery-ish either, do you understand what I'm saying ??

According to your words (I'm not twisting anything, note this), you think it is not slavery if a person consents to it, which is awkward and disgusting, particularly awkward whereas most people would only remain slave if there was no other better option.


Yes you do. This was actually excelent way to twist it, with first you saying how the key word is consent and then turn it against me when I speak about it. Is this how you want to talk? If not, maybe you should try to read what I'm saying in the context I'm saying it in. I might reply otherwise, but after you added how it's awkward and disgusting, it looks pretty clear to me that you WANTED to twist my words.

HoneyBee wrote:That is why I said before her status calls for a better one, not simply a different one, if different is worse, affecting your chances of survival significantly, otherwise what is the point ?? It is the same as if no choice were given but: Death x Life; I assure you a lot of people would choose 'life'.


I never asked her to pursue worse status. I was just saying that I'm not giving her free pass to ANY status just because she's not ready to give up luxuries of Vals.

It's true that in caste-based societies (which includes most of Chel, except Sarghress, apparently), the list of available castes is limited and seriously limits the statuses people can hold. Does that mean they should give up? No. Does it means that their only justified option to get better status may be to break the caste system or get away from it? Quite possibly. If you say that being commoner is worse for her (I'm not sure if you do, but "if"), it doesn't mean she is justified to became true Val.

Also note that for someone who doesn't support her becoming true Val, you are suspiciously often returning to it.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:No matter how you did there, once you are soldier, you can't change your mind and quit without being marked deserter. Sure, it's less fair if they tricked you actively into signing, it's even less fair for Shinae. But it still isn't slavery.

*Slow claps* wow.. for someone who used the scenario of McDonalds as modern-day 'slavery' actually say something like this gives you merit. I'm sorry you're just falling very, very low.
In all honesty, I believe you had more chances going that way than the way you are heading now, it's not particularly making you look"good". At this point, I can certainly say that you are only burying yourself.


I didn't say McDonald employers were slaves, did I? I was just using this as parallel. I'm trying to show you repeately that there are cases where your options are limited and it doesn't mean you are slave.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Another bit which is not fair is that most soldiers supposely have fixed term to be served. I suspect that in war, these fixed terms are rarely kept, but still, Shinae's duty is not even supposed to end. On the other hand, again, compare it to Chrys.

What ? Comparing it to Chrys will soon make everything go away ?? I'm failing to see what you are trying to accomplish with this.


To say it directly, Chrys is also supposed to fight for Sharen whole life.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:With the way the war is continuing, her cousins from Imperial Family - Sarv's daughters - seem to have lot less chances of survival that Shinae. But yes, Shinae is supposed to have smaller chance of survival than Chrys.

Careful, I request you have more attention on the words you use. It may confuse on what you are trying to say as to what you previously said as your opinion on Shinae's position.


... Yes, sometimes the words can be deceiving. So, to clarify: Shinae position (her job as twin), similarly to job of bodyguard, reduces her survival chances because part of those job requirements are to prevent injury of protected person (Chrys) even if it means injury to herself. I suspect that I did used the word "supposed" in different meaning previously.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:I'm not entirely sure about the options here. I mean, again, comparing to Chrys. It seems that her options are limited by Zala (and it's not even Zala as mother, more like Zala the Illharess of something which only pretends to be still part of same clan as Sarv's part of Sharen) - she only get any because she's on good terms with Zala. Again, from this point is really unfair how much harder for Shinae is to be on good terms with Zala.

Hardly.. there are those kinds of parents who like to choose, and/or enforce, the career of their children according to their ideal image (the parent's, I reckon), especially in the Middle Ages and such. Chrys, as many others, can have the chance of getting parents like those (more even given the settings), however I doubt the way it is enforced upon a child is the same as the way it is imposed on some random "achieved" individual, or even has the same meaning behind it. I will not leave behind exceptions though, so even if it was the case, what makes you think I would not step up for the situation of said person ??

Let me tell you, I don't believe using the example of Chrys (comparison or whatsoever) is helping you in any way, or in bringing any light to this debate.


Well I sort of hoped you will agree that Chrys is not slave. Remember that I'm not saying that just because Shinae is not slave (in my opinion) that her live is all rainbows etc.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:On the other hand, she did got the option of choosing her mate, didn't she? So, again: not fair, but not slavery.

Please, draw your line when you're approaching this with an in-comic view of when you're approaching this with your view on today's standards of human rights for us to continue discussing further.
(wow-- "but you have a bonus, you can choose your mate, hein? doesn't that make up for everything??")


... uh ... I'm not completely surprised you ask for this (that's why I brought the topic of no thick line), but why HERE of all places?

But if you insist, I'm officially saying that I will support an United Nations resolution against human rights abuse in Chel, although if they ask I wouldn't support adding a mention about Shinae being slave in it. There are more pressing matters they would need to address before being accepted in our society.

Wait ... human right abuse? I think we would need two resolutions, one for goblin right abuse and one for elven right abuse.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Being Val is a position/status. I know, hard to distinguish, because you get a Val status as part of "being twin job".

But ok, even if you consider "twin thingie" a separate status, it still doesn't make sense to saying it's same as being slave (which is status ; some slaves have only this status, but slave working on plantation for example have slave as status and work on plantation as job).

In fact, if Shinae would be slave, being twin would be her job. But this really doesn't match the facts.

Okay, let's do it this way, I will give you the chance to redeem yourself from the opprobrious statements you have thrown thus far in the matter of slavery, what about it ??
Here is the deal:

"Slavery is alive and well in Mauritania"

Yes, I'll resort again to this scenario, while it's still fresh.

The people in there (these slaves) don't even "know they are slaves", mind you, they still get "paid", even if they are yet found in horrible conditions, because for them that that is their purpose in life as it is openly indoctrinated in their society (religious excuses). Nonetheless, were they to "know" they are slaves but did not want to quit and live on their own, what would you think of it ?? Were they aware that the way they are treated now is not how it should be but still decided to stick with their masters for, obviously, still have any chance of survival, what do you say ??

Are you the kind that would say that if they don't have strength or will to rid themselves of such chains and in fact give "consent" to that treatment, that they are not slaves and/or deserve to be treated that way ??

Given how even if they were freed, living on their own would be almost impossible without returning after to their master as a labourer of some kind, and I'm sure the terms of condition would not be much different, other than not referring to them as slaves.


I must admit that I didn't readed the articles whole, but didn't this part (I mean the "not referring to them as slaves") already happened?

Also, no, they don't deserve to be treaded as slaves no matter if they are or not. Not sure what they should do with it, and in fact, aren't the articles specifically saying that there is nothing ANYONE can do with it without changing the society as a whole, most importantly the poverty? Note that even slave revolt may fail in this case, because there may simply not be enough money for decent living for everyone in whole country (and wars rarely attract investments nor raise education).

HoneyBee wrote: Slaves don't have "jobs", even if you buy one to do a one specific task, say run your farm fields, it does not make that person a slave with the job of a farmer, that "job" is still being a slave. I mean seriously, one can only buy/get slaves because he/she needs them to perform a specific task. Or do you think being slave is only getting whipped or raped for no absolute reason ?? Whatever your work as a slave is: miner; farmer; fisher; mistress; or all of them, that does not turn to be your "job", it is simply the work you are entitled to do, ACCORDING to your master's will. Considering you're a slave, he/she (the master) can, of course, change it to whatever and whenever it feels suit.


Ok. Let's use the word "task". It still doesn't make being slave a job. Unless being Val is a job for you. We may want to talk about vocabulary here. So, Ariel is a Val. Thats "status", or how would you call it? She's also raider currently. That's military position, it can also be considered her job, or would you say her job is being soldier?

Then we had merchants and land owners in Chel. I suppose thats job, at least being merchant sounds like it. They aren't Vals, usually. I would assume they are commoners or clan members. Is there even difference between it?

HoneyBee wrote:Now, please, get this right. Just because there is no "slave" denomination in a status does not make it not-slavery, alone. One can even hold the status of a noble-- no, make that an emperor, if you are treated the same as a slave then you are a slave, there's no margin for discussion here.


Oh.

In that case, being slave is not status, job, position, caste .... nothing. If you see it this way, then being slave is completely ortogonal to all of this. Shinae can even stop being slave and keep being Chrys protector twin, does she? Well in that case I can completely support her wanting to stop being slave, although I'm not sure how can she do it without changing anything else. Hmmm ... perhaps she should start with being nice to Chrys. Zala is probably lost case, but Chrys already doesn't see her as slave ... although it is possible she sometimes treat her as such, out of habit or something like that.

====================

Ash'arion wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:And I think we know each of them by name. Perhaps we can make a list. Let's see ... Quain? Hmmm ... debatable. Zala, Sarv, Snadhya. Waes. Kharla? Well ... in a sense ... Kiel? Possibly. Ash? Maybe technically ... Rel'Lumia Val'Nal'sarkoth, if you consider her being in Chel. Asira'malika Val'Jaal'darya. Did I forget anyone?


Don't know, don't care, but at least you seem to have a grasp of what I was implying.

H'K'Maly wrote:I see a conflict between those two parts of your post. Which non-slaves you speak about?


There is no conflict in what I said. And which non-slaves? Try all the ones that refer to Vals as nobles, and especially those who've had to deal with Shin'nae waving around the pseudo-authority tacked onto her position.


The conflict is in the point that according to first part, there are hardly any non-slaves. It's mostly commoners (who you labeled slaves) who had to deal with Shin'nae waving around the pseudo-authority tacked onto her position.

Ash'arion wrote: I am curious though. What's the point of a Protector Twin if everybody knows they're two different people and most can even identify them on sight? I've only seen two Protector Twins, and neither of them have protected their 'sisters' from anything, and for the most part it appears to be the latters' faults.


Also not sure about this. But note that you saw three. Khaless is protector twin of Snadhya, Shinae protector twin of Chrys and Yaeminira was protector twin of Vy'chriel Vel'Sharen.

Also, Perciva Val'Sharen is supposed to be protector twin of Dindr'aen Val'Sharen, and in their case the protection part seem to work as they actually ARE hard to recognize.

Ash'arion wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:
Ash'arion wrote:Now please end this discussion, or at least take it off the forums.


Why? If you insist, we can move from "Chapter 43 : page 39" forum and create specific one, but the discussion IS on the topic of drowtales.


Ok, then do that, provided you have a solid, logical argument for Honeybee's post. There's no need to keep this thread alive and so far out of order with the rest of them. This argument might be DT related, but I would hardly call it on-topic, especially for the page this thread is made for.


Ok, moved.
Last edited by H'K'Maly on Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
H'K'Maly
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:39 am

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby Dalvyserran » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:29 pm

I think I've already expressed in that thread long ago that Shinae (and protector twins in general) is no different than a glorified slave. You only graduate from being a glorfied slave if you successfully help your trueborn to adulthood and beyond, like Khaless or Perciva
User avatar
Dalvyserran
Dragon of the Nether
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: You can't make me have fun!
Clan: Beldrobbaen

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby Junglefowl26 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:44 pm

I'd just like to point out that while US chattel slavery is the most infamous kind of slavery, it isn't the only kind. In many places, slaves were allowed to own property, have an education, and even hold positions of power. Heck, some Middle Eastern empires were run by slaves.

So with Shinae....I think the important thin is that she doesn't have a lot of choice with her life...and her life is constantly on the line, as Zala has demonstrated a willingness to torture and kill Shinae despite her loyalty.
User avatar
Junglefowl26
Dark Chibi Demon
 
Posts: 7970
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:04 pm
Clan: Nal'sarkoth

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby H'K'Maly » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:53 pm

If I knew this will attract others I would put a poll in this thread. Although ... it would probably only means we wouldn't be able to agree on what the options mean. Hmmm ... wait, I still can add a poll ... hmmm ...

Dalvyserran wrote:I think I've already expressed in that thread long ago that Shinae (and protector twins in general) is no different than a glorified slave. You only graduate from being a glorfied slave if you successfully help your trueborn to adulthood and beyond, like Khaless or Perciva


Well, real slaves (the "non-glorified ones) don't have this option. The comparison to gladiators seems very fitting in this regard.

Note that as far as we know, Khaless is dead. As dead as Lu, actually.

Junglefowl26 wrote:I'd just like to point out that while US chattel slavery is the most infamous kind of slavery, it isn't the only kind. In many places, slaves were allowed to own property, have an education, and even hold positions of power. Heck, some Middle Eastern empires were run by slaves.


I know that slaves could have education (in fact, weren't many Greek teachers in ancient Rome slaves?), but position of power? This really doesn't look like slavery to me.

Junglefowl26 wrote:So with Shinae....I think the important thin is that she doesn't have a lot of choice with her life...


... neither does some other, true-born Vals ... recently someone called Mel slave ...

Junglefowl26 wrote:and her life is constantly on the line, as Zala has demonstrated a willingness to torture and kill Shinae despite her loyalty.


This is hardly related to being slave. It's more about Zala for some reason not believing Shinae being loyal. (Note that I agree that it suck, it's not fair etc., I just don't think it makes Shinae slave.)
User avatar
H'K'Maly
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:39 am

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby Dalvyserran » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:15 pm

Khaless lived for a long ass time as Snadhya's protector twin before she got eaten. The same still applies.
User avatar
Dalvyserran
Dragon of the Nether
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: You can't make me have fun!
Clan: Beldrobbaen

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby H'K'Maly » Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:01 pm

Dalvyserran wrote:Khaless lived for a long ass time as Snadhya's protector twin before she got eaten. The same still applies.


Did she? .... Oh, wait, she did, Snadhya mentioned that the incident happened 50 years before timeskip and it was apparently pretty public so we can believe she didn't lied. In that case you have point, it was really centuries.
User avatar
H'K'Maly
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:39 am

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby Pelinore » Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:38 pm

I think the key-point here is: what do you put in the definition of slave here. Where is the difference between a servant and a slave? If you consider than being a slave is to be considered as a commercial good and being possibilly sold, then Shinae is not a slave. She is stuck with the sharen familly and, even if she hasn't the same treatment as a true val born, she is socialy relatively (very) well considered. I see her that way. A glorified servant, with a harsh life, but not worse than many other in those dire times and harsh society.
If you consider than you are a slave when your life is influenced by the heavy expectations of your family and the society and the responsabilities and rights they fixed for you...well, who isn't a slave, in DT setting and beyond? If she had stayed a commoner, her family could still have treated badly, favoring her elder sister over her.The family, the vals, the landlady, a street gang or whatever external circunstances would still influence her life and "restrain her freedom". So with this definition of slave, It totally depend of where you say "okay, this is too much ingerence, this personn is not free", which without clear line is arbitrary and non-consensual.
Words are very flexible, and to my mind the concept of freedom is far from being as simple to define as we (and the western society)use to think. So on this matter, the answer to the question "slave or not?" could be easily answered by using the clear and conventionnal definition of slave we have (which is somewhat arbitrary too, but have a delimitation clear enough to be a consensual definition and thus allow us to answer on each case "slave or not?" easily).
Or it can be treated as the question "free or not?" which to my mind doesn't offer us any satisfactory answer, as explained above.
Or it can be treated in a comparative way: "Is the life of an average twin protector better than the life of an average commoner?". It's a subject on which we can debate but in this case we quit the theoricals and morals arguments which seems at the heart of the current controversy to take a pragmatical approach.
User avatar
Pelinore
Tainted
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:08 pm
Clan: Tei'kaliath

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby Ash'arion » Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:58 am

H'K'Maly wrote:
Ash'arion wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:I see a conflict between those two parts of your post. Which non-slaves you speak about?


There is no conflict in what I said. And which non-slaves? Try all the ones that refer to Vals as nobles, and especially those who've had to deal with Shin'nae waving around the pseudo-authority tacked onto her position.


The conflict is in the point that according to first part, there are hardly any non-slaves. It's mostly commoners (who you labeled slaves) who had to deal with Shin'nae waving around the pseudo-authority tacked onto her position.


I referred to the commoners as non-slaves, thus eliminating the possible conflict. You even repeated the term when you asked for clarity. I think the source of Shin'nae's spite for commoners is despite the fact that they are poorer than her, they still have more freedom. At least in the sense that freedom is understood in Chel, which in all likelihood varies from person to person.

H'K'Maly wrote:
Ash'arion wrote: I am curious though. What's the point of a Protector Twin if everybody knows they're two different people and most can even identify them on sight? I've only seen two Protector Twins, and neither of them have protected their 'sisters' from anything, and for the most part it appears to be the latters' faults.


Also not sure about this. But note that you saw three. Khaless is protector twin of Snadhya, Shinae protector twin of Chrys and Yaeminira was protector twin of Vy'chriel Vel'Sharen.

Also, Perciva Val'Sharen is supposed to be protector twin of Dindr'aen Val'Sharen, and in their case the protection part seem to work as they actually ARE hard to recognize.


I didn't know about Khaless until just recently, and forgot about Perciva until you mentioned her. I think the last two are the only ones actually doing it right, and they're cameos. At least, my mind's idea of "right" regarding Protector Twins is just the term being a stand-in for 'body double', which is supposed to be a bodyguard whose job it is to look like an important person so the assassins will attack them instead.

Instead rather, and I think this is the point that leads most (myself included) to believe the Protector Twin is a slave status, is the fact that they seem to also serve the purpose of 'whipping girls' for their respective charges. At least, that seems to have been Yaeminira's beef with Vy'chriel and also what happened to Shin'nae when Chrys'tel was captured by the Sarghress. In fact, I'm starting to think that's why the Sharen don't beat their kids like Quain'tana does: they beat the Protector Twins instead. In that case, it could be said that they are fulfilling the role of a body double (loosely), and can fairly be called slaves. Although there is a prettier term for their gilded collars, and that is what is known as 'indentured servants'. The Protector Twins are helpless to evade these beatings, regardless of how they've tried to prevent their charges from engaging in the actions that resulted in them.

But I do agree on your point that the Chelian (and perhaps entire drow and possibly elven) caste system is a massive clusterfuck, especially since each clan had different ideas on what they consider slaves and appropriate treatment for them.
User avatar
Ash'arion
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:47 am
Location: Chel (MA), and Felde (RH)
Clan: Sarghress

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby H'K'Maly » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:22 pm

Pelinore wrote:I think the key-point here is: what do you put in the definition of slave here. Where is the difference between a servant and a slave? If you consider than being a slave is to be considered as a commercial good and being possibilly sold, then Shinae is not a slave. She is stuck with the sharen familly and, even if she hasn't the same treatment as a true val born, she is socialy relatively (very) well considered. I see her that way. A glorified servant, with a harsh life, but not worse than many other in those dire times and harsh society.


Good point. She is certainly not for sale.

Pelinore wrote:If you consider than you are a slave when your life is influenced by the heavy expectations of your family and the society and the responsabilities and rights they fixed for you...well, who isn't a slave, in DT setting and beyond? If she had stayed a commoner, her family could still have treated badly, favoring her elder sister over her.The family, the vals, the landlady, a street gang or whatever external circunstances would still influence her life and "restrain her freedom". So with this definition of slave, It totally depend of where you say "okay, this is too much ingerence, this personn is not free", which without clear line is arbitrary and non-consensual.


This is what I was trying to say. If everyone, who have freedom limited, is slave, then Shinae is not alone. In fact, as I was answering to Ash'arion, hardly anyone in whole Chel is free.

Pelinore wrote:Or it can be treated in a comparative way: "Is the life of an average twin protector better than the life of an average commoner?". It's a subject on which we can debate but in this case we quit the theoricals and morals arguments which seems at the heart of the current controversy to take a pragmatical approach.


Average commoner? That's some multicoloured hermaphrodite with one eye tainted? I would say that variety between commoners is so big it's almost impossible to find out what is average.

Ash'arion wrote:I referred to the commoners as non-slaves, thus eliminating the possible conflict.


... ok. There must be some part of your original post I understood incorrectly but apparently you have no idea which.

Ash'arion wrote:I think the source of Shin'nae's spite for commoners is despite the fact that they are poorer than her, they still have more freedom. At least in the sense that freedom is understood in Chel, which in all likelihood varies from person to person.


Some earth businessmen are complaining the same. I think that many Vals have less freedom that many commoners. Nothing specific to Shinae.

Ash'arion wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Also not sure about this. But note that you saw three. Khaless is protector twin of Snadhya, Shinae protector twin of Chrys and Yaeminira was protector twin of Vy'chriel Vel'Sharen.

Also, Perciva Val'Sharen is supposed to be protector twin of Dindr'aen Val'Sharen, and in their case the protection part seem to work as they actually ARE hard to recognize.


I didn't know about Khaless until just recently, and forgot about Perciva until you mentioned her. I think the last two are the only ones actually doing it right, and they're cameos. At least, my mind's idea of "right" regarding Protector Twins is just the term being a stand-in for 'body double', which is supposed to be a bodyguard whose job it is to look like an important person so the assassins will attack them instead.


I also think those two are doing it right. It matches the old worldsetting :)

Ash'arion wrote:Instead rather, and I think this is the point that leads most (myself included) to believe the Protector Twin is a slave status, is the fact that they seem to also serve the purpose of 'whipping girls' for their respective charges. At least, that seems to have been Yaeminira's beef with Vy'chriel and also what happened to Shin'nae when Chrys'tel was captured by the Sarghress. In fact, I'm starting to think that's why the Sharen don't beat their kids like Quain'tana does: they beat the Protector Twins instead. In that case, it could be said that they are fulfilling the role of a body double (loosely), and can fairly be called slaves. Although there is a prettier term for their gilded collars, and that is what is known as 'indentured servants'. The Protector Twins are helpless to evade these beatings, regardless of how they've tried to prevent their charges from engaging in the actions that resulted in them.


Actually that would be even worse that whipping girls, as the nobles are supposed to CARE that the whipping girl is beated. Also, it was Zala herself who punished Shinae. I would still say that it doesn't make them slaves, but ... damn that would be crazy. I mean, combining the whipping boy idea with the kind of punishment drows are using ... and for centuries ... that might be even worse that being slave.

... luckily, it doesn't really match. here Shinae speaks about them both being punished. And here Shinae is scolded, but not beaten. So I would say that it's not so bad - that Shinae's primary function is not to be punished for what Chrystel did wrong. Although it might end that way several times and I agree with Shinae that it's not fair.

Even with Vy'chriel it seems more like Zala'ess blaming the twin instead of actually recognizing that it was Vy'chriel who did something bad and punishing Yaeminira anyway.

(Oh, BTW, there was the canon source of "No, Shinae doesn't have option to return being commoner". At least not unless she desert the Sharen.)

BTW, Shin'nae? She had an apostrophe? When did she lost it? Was it another unfair punishment from Zala?

Ash'arion wrote:But I do agree on your point that the Chelian (and perhaps entire drow and possibly elven) caste system is a massive clusterfuck, especially since each clan had different ideas on what they consider slaves and appropriate treatment for them.


Well caste systems in general use to be clusterfuck. I don't think we know enough about other dark elven cities, only city we know for sure have even more fucked system is Vanaheimr.
User avatar
H'K'Maly
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:39 am

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby HoneyBee » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:40 pm

H'K'Maly wrote:Oh. That bit. I'm not saying that there is no difference. I meant that the change was gradual. There is no point where you could say "people before this point were barbars who keep slaves and though earth is flat, people after this point are enlightened anti-slavers believing in evolution".

I never said that was the case. Don't start putting words in my mouth. From the Middle Ages to now it had already plenty of time to evolve, you know that, and hopefully it still has more room to evolve even further.

H'K'Maly wrote:Not even country-wise. Instead, the view on slavery, astronomy and biology (to name few other examples) is changing gradually, with some areas faster, some slower, and with lot of people on both sides from the average.

And you can only notice the change now !!??!! Since the Middle Ages ? Was I right about your seclusion ??

H'K'Maly wrote:I'm specifically saying areas instead of countries, because the view on slavery in US depended (and maybe still depends) a lot on state for example.

No. Source ??

H'K'Maly wrote:And, despise statistical colleration, many people changed their view only on SOME of issues which we see as changing between Middle ages and now.

Oh right, tell me about it... If everyone thought the same and the matter of slavery was already passed over we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we ??

H'K'Maly wrote:(Also, about my surprise ... I'm not surprised the radical anti-slavers exists, but I'm little surprised they are reading drowtales or fantasy in general.)

1. Those assumptions are baseless.
2. Good thing is your surprise is wrongly located.
3. It surprises ME that you feel the need to label someone radical anti-slaver simply by a case like this, because someone disagrees with your view. Truth is that this case even turns out to be legitimate slavery.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Yet you are surprised if someone is evaluating something from point of society different that yours. To quote:

We were not comparing confinement and slavery with "Middle Ages & Co" mindset. We were comparing them with the mindset we hold of it today (most apparently, not all), even if referring to "Middle Ages & Co".

Uhhh what ?!?! Where on earth does it say there that I'm surprised with your views ?? And what if I am ?? But I'm not, you're not the only one, y'know ?????
I was just drawing the line here on this discussion, telling you we started off from today's society POV on the matter. Unless you're trying to tell me that you stopped in time and hold dear the traditions and habits of the good ol' Middle Ages and, after all, you are pro-slavery, is that it ?? I know some people do, why would you not, correct ??

H'K'Maly wrote:I'll try it again. There are two options how to use slaves in army. One is as cannon fodder: this is not legitimate military position, this is just giving slaves task which get them killed. Second is to actually train them to be usefull soldiers. I personally can't see how you could do that and still keep them in slavery: you need to "upgrade" them to something better and I would assume they would revolt if you tried to make them slaves again.

Hah ! You start to get funny now. That is assuming you have the option, right ?? Even if I upgrade your "status" to soldier (as you say), if you are still against it is not like you can just say "mehh, I don't feel like it". They will put you in there no matter what, so you are still a slave by all means, except in name. You're forced to the military because you have no rights as a slave, the upgrade is there just to make you feel you do. And honestly, I'm baffled to see someone actually believes they do.


Have you actually read the whole article ?? I recommend you do.

H'K'Maly wrote:(To be sure, explicit question: how would you compare Shinae situation with situations of gladiators?)

Slaves upgraded to a status that is not slave only in name ?? Yep, sounds about right.

H'K'Maly wrote:... I see you didn't stop even for moment to consider that her mother might not consider twin system to be type of slavery.

Yes, all the shame to her for being ignorant, but it is normal to assume that if you're selling someone to be servant of another, without the consent of the person, it is in every form slavery.

H'K'Maly wrote:Ok. It's true that there ARE families who sold their child to slavery, so if you think this is the case then I have nothing to convince you otherwise .... given that we didn't even SAW her mother in comic.

We don't need to see her. She can be pretty; ugly; mean; affectionate; regretting her decision; it doesn't matter because her action's already done and it doesn't change it from being slavery.

H'K'Maly wrote:Yes you do.

Do what now ??

H'K'Maly wrote:This was actually excelent way to twist it, with first you saying how the key word is consent and then turn it against me when I speak about it.

Whoa whoa, buddy. We are getting ahead of ourselves, aren't we ?? Did you actually understand what I meant by "consent" ?? If so, then please do explain how ~ I ~ Turned this against you ??!
Consent to military duties are consent to military duties. You have your clauses, and you know them well and it is not like you apply to it or, to retain the word, 'consent' to it in order to save your life. You apply to the military voluntarily, you don't apply to slavery the same way. Let's not compare potatoes with onions.

Yes, I'm aware there are cases where military applications are/were sort of forced. It applies the same sh*t.

H'K'Maly wrote:Is this how you want to talk? If not, maybe you should try to read what I'm saying in the context I'm saying it in. I might reply otherwise, but after you added how it's awkward and disgusting, it looks pretty clear to me that you WANTED to twist my words.

What the-- I don't even....... Now you even enter the conspiracy theories that I'm here to get you.
I'm not saying you are awkward nor that you are disgusting. However, let's suppose I do. What is there to make you say I twisted your words ?? After all, all you told me now it is that I twisted them but I don't see you say if you agree with it or not. What did I twist ?? Please review again what I said in the previous post. What I said: If that's not how it is, you have nothing to lose, if that's how it is, then yeah, awkward and disgusting-- but not twisting !!

During this discussion I've given you many opportunities and benefits of doubt and consider that you actually meant something different, like the torture part and so on. I'm tired of trying to make this look pretty and say we are in a confusion here (on both sides). I'll just follow the tide of your words as I did and that was exactly where they took me. If you wanted it to come out differently, word it differently, don't blame it on me now.

H'K'Maly wrote:I never asked her to pursue worse status. I was just saying that I'm not giving her free pass to ANY status just because she's not ready to give up luxuries of Vals.

Going back to the old thick skull again, are we ?? I never said anything about that. I don't care if she's willing to die, give up luxuries, morality, what the f*ck ever, that is not the point here and it never was. Stop bullsh*tting me.

H'K'Maly wrote:It's true that in caste-based societies (which includes most of Chel, except Sarghress, apparently), the list of available castes is limited and seriously limits the statuses people can hold. Does that mean they should give up? No. Does it means that their only justified option to get better status may be to break the caste system or get away from it? Quite possibly. If you say that being commoner is worse for her (I'm not sure if you do, but "if"), it doesn't mean she is justified to became true Val.

Blah blah blah, something about becoming Val. Discard ? Yes.

H'K'Maly wrote:Also note that for someone who doesn't support her becoming true Val, you are suspiciously often returning to it.

Listen, for real, because this will most likely be my last post to you as I'm not going to debate with someone who refuses to see what is thrown right in front of their eyes for sheer stubbornness, or simply as a way to tire the opposition in order to appear to come on top.

I, and focus this well, have never been defending Shinae as a person (personality-wise), I have been merely defending her as slave (her position). Again, separate her moralities, desires, ambitions, and all that good stuff from her position as a slave, which is how I see her and it is what she is.

H'K'Maly wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:I didn't say McDonald employers were slaves, did I? I was just using this as parallel. I'm trying to show you repeately that there are cases where your options are limited and it doesn't mean you are slave.

I used this (...) because it's a job most people don't want to do, because it's as close to slavery as is legal today.

You did not blatantly scream "IT'S SLAVERY!!!", yes, that I can't tell, but compared it as being the "new-kind" of slavery, the modern one. And, not to drag this point further, let me get clear that that was never what I was saying. But for someone to use this analogy (and I did say "use this scenario" in my other post so..) as slavery and then tell me that when someone is literally sold into servitude is not slavery, hmmmm... I don't think I need to tell you more.

H'K'Maly wrote:To say it directly, Chrys is also supposed to fight for Sharen whole life.

Oh wait, was Chrys also sold to Zala to fight for her the whole life ?? I didn't know that. o_O
Note: If your parents are forcing you to do something you don't want and/or you're not even supposed to, legally, let me advise you, don't try to raise the slavery banner. You'd probably have more luck trying to bring it to a child abuse case.

H'K'Maly wrote:... Yes, sometimes the words can be deceiving. So, to clarify: Shinae position (her job as twin), similarly to job of bodyguard, reduces her survival chances because part of those job requirements are to prevent injury of protected person (Chrys) even if it means injury to herself. I suspect that I did used the word "supposed" in different meaning previously.

Great, something you don't 'stubborn' about.

H'K'Maly wrote:Well I sort of hoped you will agree that Chrys is not slave.

Above you.

H'K'Maly wrote:Remember that I'm not saying that just because Shinae is not slave (in my opinion) that her live is all rainbows etc.

Shinae is a slave. The rainbows reference is irrelevant, by the way. Her life COULD be all rainbows, so to speak, and still be a slave.

H'K'Maly wrote:... uh ... I'm not completely surprised you ask for this (that's why I brought the topic of no thick line), but why HERE of all places?

But if you insist, I'm officially saying that I will support an United Nations resolution against human rights abuse in Chel, although if they ask I wouldn't support adding a mention about Shinae being slave in it. There are more pressing matters they would need to address before being accepted in our society.

Wait ... human right abuse? I think we would need two resolutions, one for goblin right abuse and one for elven right abuse.

Sincerely, I have to admit, you can be funny even when trying hard, but you are the most when not entirely trying.

I'm not telling you to use today's documents and clauses. But if you think that the ability of choosing your mate makes up for everything she has to go through then you're seriously messed up. And yes, you have permission to start your conspiracy theories again, if you feel so inclined to do.

H'K'Maly wrote:I must admit that I didn't readed the articles whole, but didn't this part (I mean the "not referring to them as slaves") already happened?

No. There, yes, they are everything but slaves. Mauritania government will obviously continue to claim that there exist not slaves in the country. I meant that as we, on this side, would not be able to call them slaves, only but in still slavery-ish conditions = Slaves, anyway, only not "officially" exposed.

H'K'Maly wrote:Also, no, they don't deserve to be treaded as slaves no matter if they are or not. Not sure what they should do with it, and in fact, aren't the articles specifically saying that there is nothing ANYONE can do with it without changing the society as a whole, most importantly the poverty? Note that even slave revolt may fail in this case, because there may simply not be enough money for decent living for everyone in whole country

Yeah, yeah I know all of that, I've read and participated in a lot of arguments on the matter already, sanctions are to be up and running and all of that crap, that's not what I'm trying to get into-- again.

H'K'Maly wrote:(and wars rarely attract investments nor raise education).

Unless, there's OIL in Mauritania!! No, ok, no jokes.

H'K'Maly wrote:Ok. Let's use the word "task". It still doesn't make being slave a job.

No, please, note that my word of "job" in the other post was between commas, because that was the word YOU used. Don't try to drip it on me now.

H'K'Maly wrote:Unless being Val is a job for you.

No.

H'K'Maly wrote:We may want to talk about vocabulary here.

Like-- that's not...

H'K'Maly wrote:So, Ariel is a Val. Thats "status", or how would you call it? She's also raider currently. That's military position, it can also be considered her job, or would you say her job is being soldier?

Seriously, stop it.

H'K'Maly wrote:Then we had merchants and land owners in Chel. I suppose thats job, at least being merchant sounds like it. They aren't Vals, usually. I would assume they are commoners or clan members. Is there even difference between it?

Seeing how you are trying to build an argument based upon your own mistake, I don't think I can tell you much other than letting you carry on your monologue in this part.

H'K'Maly wrote:Oh.

In that case, being slave is not status, job, position, caste .... nothing.

I can give you the benefit of doubt, again, seeing how (I think) english is not your main language.
- Slave is a status.
- It is definitely not a job.
- It is always, however, a position. That is to mean a position you're into.
- Difference between caste system and classicism is that caste does not have to be officially implemented, but you can nonetheless see the difference in treatment based upon something. And is just that, upon ~ something ~. So yes, it can be a caste.

In summary, it is always a position, can be also a status and a caste. One does not eliminate the other.

H'K'Maly wrote:If you see it this way, then being slave is completely ortogonal to all of this. Shinae can even stop being slave and keep being Chrys protector twin, does she?

If her treatment is that of a slave AND she sees there is barely any chance for her to survive on her own, she will keep being a slave. She is slave as long as she is there because she was sold. She will stop being a slave when the pact between Zala and her mother is broken as she is given free pass to do as she pleases (with due consequences of course). If she still thinks of staying in order to have a slightly better life than on her own, then it is consensual slavery-- slavery nonetheless.

H'K'Maly wrote:Well in that case I can completely support her wanting to stop being slave, although I'm not sure how can she do it without changing anything else. Hmmm ... perhaps she should start with being nice to Chrys. Zala is probably lost case, but Chrys already doesn't see her as slave ... although it is possible she sometimes treat her as such, out of habit or something like that.

That, I don't care. My position in this argument has been established since the beginning. If you are still unsure of what it is, please do go back and read the first posts again.
User avatar
HoneyBee
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:23 pm
Location: Anywhere burning one HERETIC at a time. . .
Clan: Kyorl'solenurn

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby HoneyBee » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:54 pm

Pelinore wrote:I think the key-point here is: what do you put in the definition of slave here. Where is the difference between a servant and a slave? If you consider than being a slave is to be considered as a commercial good and being possibilly sold, then Shinae is not a slave.

She was sold, that is all you need to know. "Fortunately" for her, the position of "slavery" it was required for her to do is not the lowest one. But considering she was sold into it-- not even if she was sold to be queen. If she did not consent, she is a slave. That is all you need to know.

Pelinore wrote:She is stuck with the sharen familly and, even if she hasn't the same treatment as a true val born, she is socialy relatively (very) well considered. I see her that way. A glorified servant, with a harsh life, but not worse than many other in those dire times and harsh society.

You can put that in all the pretty words you want. Glorified slave; master slave; privileged slave; grand slave; servant; maid; baby-sitter; bodyguard; she was sold into, she is a slave, no matter how you look at it. Just because I name my country Free Republic of Whatever, it doesn't make it so if in practice I keep it as authoritarian as f*ck.

Pelinore wrote:If you consider than you are a slave when your life is influenced by the heavy expectations of your family and the society and the responsabilities and rights they fixed for you...well, who isn't a slave, in DT setting and beyond?

That's not what's happening in her case. You have a very, very disrupted view on Shinae's (and all twin-system's, for that matter) case. I recommend you to take a little more effort in analyzing their situation, if you are still at that stage.

Pelinore wrote:If she had stayed a commoner, her family could still have treated badly, favoring her elder sister over her.The family, the vals, the landlady, a street gang or whatever external circunstances would still influence her life and "restrain her freedom". So with this definition of slave, It totally depend of where you say "okay, this is too much ingerence, this personn is not free", which without clear line is arbitrary and non-consensual.

Again, she. was. SOLD! Sold to servitude = Slavery.

Pelinore wrote:Words are very flexible, and to my mind the concept of freedom is far from being as simple to define as we (and the western society)use to think. So on this matter, the answer to the question "slave or not?" could be easily answered by using the clear and conventionnal definition of slave we have (which is somewhat arbitrary too, but have a delimitation clear enough to be a consensual definition and thus allow us to answer on each case "slave or not?" easily).
Or it can be treated as the question "free or not?" which to my mind doesn't offer us any satisfactory answer, as explained above.
Or it can be treated in a comparative way: "Is the life of an average twin protector better than the life of an average commoner?". It's a subject on which we can debate but in this case we quit the theoricals and morals arguments which seems at the heart of the current controversy to take a pragmatical approach.

I understand where you're coming from, however, it very much could depend on several approaches to the definition of slavery... but being literally sold into servitude does not grant any margin of doubt. It IS slavery.

I'm on a hurry soooo-- I'll see what I can do about the other responses that seem very interesting too, so I'll probably edit this later (or post another one).
User avatar
HoneyBee
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:23 pm
Location: Anywhere burning one HERETIC at a time. . .
Clan: Kyorl'solenurn

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby Ash'arion » Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:12 am

Ok this is getting out of hand, and you guys' posts keep getting bigger and bigger without getting your points across. So please, allow me to clear things up.

HoneyBee's point is that Shinae is a slave because she was sold into service by her family, one that she can't escape because as HK posted Yaeminira saying 'The only way out is death'.

H'K'Maly's point is that Shinae is not a slave because of how well she is treated as a Val, and because he views Protector Twin as essentially a position of drafted military service. And that the reason 'The only way out is death' is because leaving would basically be desertion in a time of war because Chel is, regardless of how they actually label it, in a perpetual state of war.

Pelinore's point is that whether or not Shinae is a slave is dependent on how one defines slavery. He believes that she is in essence an indentured servant.

Now. Here's my point: Shinae is a slave. Defining whether or not she was sought out and demanded by the government for the purpose of military service (definition of a 'draft') is not clear (depends on how you define 'government' in DT). Fortunately, however, it is also irrelevant. Contrary to Maly's assertions, Protector Twin is not a military position.

If you'll note, Shinae has no more authority over any given military unit than the average Val, which in the Sharen is practically none since they're almost all Vals and she's one of the youngest. That's why she has no riding dragon, and was making a big deal about Chrys'tel's shiny new Overseer title. And given Chrys'tel's age and position in the royal pecking order, is probably the lowest rank one can have while still holding a position of command. On the other hand, she also doesn't receive any orders from the military.

Additionally, I must point out that not only is Shinae a slave, she is fully indoctrinated into that mindset, while somehow being unaware that's the reality of her position. In fact, it's to the point where she thinks resisting the demands of the regime is a crime rightly punishable by slavery. Further, and I'm not sure where in the comic the conversation was had, but she discussed her position with the guy Sarvy axed, and the implication was that her position was equal to or lower than his, so she was pretty lit when he suggested that he was a servant. She apparently got over that since then, and if it wasn't for her frequent conversations with her charge, Chrys'tel, she would probably be more loyal to the Vel'Sharen than she is to her senses. Fortunately, she's more loyal to Chrys than to the clan.

Regarding indentured service as Pelinore implied, there is a reason this term cannot be applied to Protector Twins, and that is the service is the means by which the subordinate person is attempting to pay off a debt, and the implication is that they will be released once the debt is paid. Normally, this is where it gets fuzzy on the exact border between this and outright slavery, but the fact is that if there really is no option of freedom as Yaeminira suggested, then any variant of the term 'servant' would be incorrect. Servants, while holding a generally unfortunate job and may be mistreated and work disproportionately to their pay, are still free to quit and find something else to do with their lives. And it's supposed to be possible for indentured servants to buy their own contracts to this end as well. Lacking any similar ways out is what cements the position as one of a slave.

Personally, while I agree with HoneyBee's point the most, I still feel it is incomplete. It is not only that the PTs are bought from their families, it's also that they have no freedom to do anything with their lives BUT serve as Protector Twins, for as long as the Sharen deem necessary.

...ok, I got a bit carried away with that one.
User avatar
Ash'arion
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:47 am
Location: Chel (MA), and Felde (RH)
Clan: Sarghress

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby HoneyBee » Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:47 am

This already got out of hand many posts ago.
I'm sorry, but I feel necessary to explain why these last posts are more shallow; it is just that, they're the last posts.

Allow me to explain: my point was not only because she was sold into slavery, I said more than that. If you go back (I'm sure you won't, just pointing) you'll see that we already had the discussion about how much freedom/choice the Protector (slave) Twin is given and how the system [may] work. So in that regard my point is not incomplete. I cannot, though, continuing to say over and over the very same points I've been using since the beginning of this discussion only for those to be trampled over (not even well approached) and to be replaced/deviated to something else in order to avoid admitting one was wrong.

And at the last (I want to keep this short), the discussion never ever started with this of considering "Shinae slave or not"... And the previous one is where the misinterpretation is placed.
However when you argue with stubborn people that refuse to acknowledge they committed a mistake in the first place, that's how things go.

Off I go!
User avatar
HoneyBee
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:23 pm
Location: Anywhere burning one HERETIC at a time. . .
Clan: Kyorl'solenurn

Re: Shinae Vel'Sharen - Slave or not?

Postby H'K'Maly » Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:12 pm

Ash'arion wrote:Ok this is getting out of hand, and you guys' posts keep getting bigger and bigger without getting your points across. So please, allow me to clear things up.

HoneyBee's point is that Shinae is a slave because she was sold into service by her family, one that she can't escape because as HK posted Yaeminira saying 'The only way out is death'.

H'K'Maly's point is that Shinae is not a slave because of how well she is treated as a Val, and because he views Protector Twin as essentially a position of drafted military service. And that the reason 'The only way out is death' is because leaving would basically be desertion in a time of war because Chel is, regardless of how they actually label it, in a perpetual state of war.

Pelinore's point is that whether or not Shinae is a slave is dependent on how one defines slavery. He believes that she is in essence an indentured servant.

Now. Here's my point: Shinae is a slave. Defining whether or not she was sought out and demanded by the government for the purpose of military service (definition of a 'draft') is not clear (depends on how you define 'government' in DT). Fortunately, however, it is also irrelevant. Contrary to Maly's assertions, Protector Twin is not a military position.

If you'll note, Shinae has no more authority over any given military unit than the average Val, which in the Sharen is practically none since they're almost all Vals and she's one of the youngest. That's why she has no riding dragon, and was making a big deal about Chrys'tel's shiny new Overseer title. And given Chrys'tel's age and position in the royal pecking order, is probably the lowest rank one can have while still holding a position of command. On the other hand, she also doesn't receive any orders from the military.


Of course she DOES receive orders from military. Specifically, from Zala and Chrys.

... ok, it's not so clear, personally I would say that there is no clear distinction between military and civil "government" in Chel ... on the other hand it's true that the orders she got doesn't look very military.

Ash'arion wrote:Additionally, I must point out that not only is Shinae a slave, she is fully indoctrinated into that mindset, while somehow being unaware that's the reality of her position. In fact, it's to the point where she thinks resisting the demands of the regime is a crime rightly punishable by slavery.


Yes, her complains about her own position looks hypocritically in context of this speech.

Ash'arion wrote:Further, and I'm not sure where in the comic the conversation was had, but she discussed her position with the guy Sarvy axed, and the implication was that her position was equal to or lower than his, so she was pretty lit when he suggested that he was a servant.


He said that if she would be servant, then he would be too. Actually similar to one think I repeately pointed out: that lot of things which points to Shinae being slave or servant are equally valid for other Vals.

Ash'arion wrote:She apparently got over that since then, and if it wasn't for her frequent conversations with her charge, Chrys'tel, she would probably be more loyal to the Vel'Sharen than she is to her senses. Fortunately, she's more loyal to Chrys than to the clan.

Regarding indentured service as Pelinore implied, there is a reason this term cannot be applied to Protector Twins, and that is the service is the means by which the subordinate person is attempting to pay off a debt, and the implication is that they will be released once the debt is paid. Normally, this is where it gets fuzzy on the exact border between this and outright slavery, but the fact is that if there really is no option of freedom as Yaeminira suggested, then any variant of the term 'servant' would be incorrect. Servants, while holding a generally unfortunate job and may be mistreated and work disproportionately to their pay, are still free to quit and find something else to do with their lives. And it's supposed to be possible for indentured servants to buy their own contracts to this end as well. Lacking any similar ways out is what cements the position as one of a slave.

Personally, while I agree with HoneyBee's point the most, I still feel it is incomplete. It is not only that the PTs are bought from their families, it's also that they have no freedom to do anything with their lives BUT serve as Protector Twins, for as long as the Sharen deem necessary.


As I repeately said, just because she's not slave doesn't mean her position doesn't suck (or is fair). I just think that the Val privileges she got are something more that jewel on slave's chest ... that they are something that make her different from slaves (or "normal" slaves if you want).

HoneyBee wrote:And at the last (I want to keep this short), the discussion never ever started with this of considering "Shinae slave or not"... And the previous one is where the misinterpretation is placed.
However when you argue with stubborn people that refuse to acknowledge they committed a mistake in the first place, that's how things go.


I think I acknowledged some mistakes ... but seems that by failing to acknowledge that slavery is root of all evil I was denied proper discussion. I tried several times to close that with "agree on disagree" (although not explicitly) and tried to move elsewhere, yet you returned to it every time.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Oh.

In that case, being slave is not status, job, position, caste .... nothing.

I can give you the benefit of doubt, again, seeing how (I think) english is not your main language.
- Slave is a status.
- It is definitely not a job.
- It is always, however, a position. That is to mean a position you're into.
- Difference between caste system and classicism is that caste does not have to be officially implemented, but you can nonetheless see the difference in treatment based upon something. And is just that, upon ~ something ~. So yes, it can be a caste.

In summary, it is always a position, can be also a status and a caste. One does not eliminate the other.


English is not my main language and I think I even stated it. I'm still certain that english is not as rigid language as you are trying to say. I know something about rigid, exact languages, namely mathematic. And I find easier to explain something if you define terms instead of insisting that your definition is correct and not saying it anyway.

Back to point: With proper definition, you can divide all drows in groups without anyone lacking one and with noone being in two. It's easier that doing it in our world, because of caste system. Then you can talk about drows moving between those groups and you can compare if some group as a whole is "better" - more free, or having more privileges - that other or if they can't be compared because some drows in one group are "better" that second group and others are "worse".

You cannot talk about moving between groups if only group you define are slaves. And you can't talk about moving to "better" group if the groups can't be compared. Or, to be exact, you can ... but then no wonder communication problems follows.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Oh. That bit. I'm not saying that there is no difference. I meant that the change was gradual. There is no point where you could say "people before this point were barbars who keep slaves and though earth is flat, people after this point are enlightened anti-slavers believing in evolution".

I never said that was the case. Don't start putting words in my mouth. From the Middle Ages to now it had already plenty of time to evolve, you know that, and hopefully it still has more room to evolve even further.


Of course you never said it. But some of your arguments looked as you think that way anyway. I hoped that by pointing it out, you will stop dividing all my arguments between "middle-ages" and "modern".

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Not even country-wise. Instead, the view on slavery, astronomy and biology (to name few other examples) is changing gradually, with some areas faster, some slower, and with lot of people on both sides from the average.

And you can only notice the change now !!??!! Since the Middle Ages ? Was I right about your seclusion ??


Are you accusing me of being monk who spent several hundreds years in cave? Unlike some people in US, I never though that earth is flat and was created in 7 days ... damn ... this really isn't direction I would like to continue.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:I'm specifically saying areas instead of countries, because the view on slavery in US depended (and maybe still depends) a lot on state for example.

No. Source ??


Washington Post, why? Note the "maybe", I'm not saying I'm qualified to evaluate US law system from this point of view.

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:And, despise statistical colleration, many people changed their view only on SOME of issues which we see as changing between Middle ages and now.

Oh right, tell me about it... If everyone thought the same and the matter of slavery was already passed over we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we ??


Exactly.

HoneyBee wrote:It surprises ME that you feel the need to label someone radical anti-slaver simply by a case like this, because someone disagrees with your view.


I'm not labeling you because you disagree. I'm labeling you that because of a way in which you disagree.

HoneyBee wrote:telling you we started off from today's society POV on the matter
... well maybe you did.

HoneyBee wrote:you are pro-slavery
... that's radical speaking. My position is that adressing slavery without looking at society doing it is useless. I think that explaining my position on slavery in general terms would take long and don't want to do it here, that's why I only commented specific societies, including present "western" countries, where slavery have no place (at least in my opinion), antic rome, which wouldn't be possible without slaves (and actually, shortage of slaves was between causes of collapse of Roman empire), and drowtales settings.

HoneyBee wrote:That is assuming you have the option, right ??
... actually, I was speaking about the military commander having those two options.

HoneyBee wrote:According to your words (I'm not twisting anything, note this), you think it is not slavery if a person consents to it, which is awkward and disgusting


HoneyBee wrote:You apply to the military voluntarily, you don't apply to slavery the same way.


I may really have problems with understanding where is that difference. If YOU say that you apply to the military voluntary, it's ok. When I said it, it's awkward and disgusting?

(I must add that your reaction really looks like I didn't understood something, but I'm not sure what.)

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:I didn't say McDonald employers were slaves, did I? I was just using this as parallel. I'm trying to show you repeately that there are cases where your options are limited and it doesn't mean you are slave.

I used this (...) because it's a job most people don't want to do, because it's as close to slavery as is legal today.

You did not blatantly scream "IT'S SLAVERY!!!", yes, that I can't tell, but compared it as being the "new-kind" of slavery, the modern one. And, not to drag this point further, let me get clear that that was never what I was saying. But for someone to use this analogy (and I did say "use this scenario" in my other post so..) as slavery and then tell me that when someone is literally sold into servitude is not slavery, hmmmm... I don't think I need to tell you more.


Well it's true that my opinion on McDonald is little affected by fact they consider themselves to be part of "modern western society", while Zala doesn't even know what modern western society is. (Also I apologize for not specifying "today" better ... I mean, my later arguments about "today world is not homogenous" are labeling it as sloopy at best.)

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:To say it directly, Chrys is also supposed to fight for Sharen whole life.

Oh wait, was Chrys also sold to Zala to fight for her the whole life ?? I didn't know that. o_O
Note: If your parents are forcing you to do something you don't want and/or you're not even supposed to, legally, let me advise you, don't try to raise the slavery banner. You'd probably have more luck trying to bring it to a child abuse case.


... you know, the same may aply to Shinae. I mean, twin system is considered kind of adoption, isn't it? Also the stuff she's complaining most looks more like child abuse that slavery (child abuse is not only sexual, right?).

HoneyBee wrote:
H'K'Maly wrote:Well I sort of hoped you will agree that Chrys is not slave.

Above you.


Ok, this I may really don't understand simply because english is not my main language. Unless you refer to Ash'arion's post, then I simply don't know why.

HoneyBee wrote:Sincerely, I have to admit, you can be funny even when trying hard, but you are the most when not entirely trying.

I'm not telling you to use today's documents and clauses.


I was trying - I mean, it's true but the switch of language was deliberately abrupt to make it look out of place and therefore funny.

As I understand, there is no difference in our opinion on slavery in "modern western society", so I was trying to not discuss it at all (since I concluded that) and concentrate on drow society, where our opinions differ.

HoneyBee wrote:But if you think that the ability of choosing your mate makes up for everything she has to go through then you're seriously messed up.


I didn't said that. I was using it as example of choices slaves generally aren't allowed to make ... or are they?

....

(Note: This took me long to answer. I expected that and it's the reason I didn't get to it sooner.)



EDIT: Maybe one example about my opinion on slavery: in Path to Power, Tei'kaliath are taking slaves. I wasn't at the original decision and didn't readed whole archive (much less all possibly relevant discussion), but from what I read, it seems that slaves are not treaded as bad as they could AND that they are given the option to join the clan if they swear loyalty and prove they can be trusted.

Considering that the first slaves were themselves slavers and the slavery was used as a punishment, I think it's fair in that context (and most of clan agree with me, apparently). It wouldn't be fair in current western society, it wouldn't be fair even in 19th century USA, maybe not even in 18th century USA (this would need more analysis than I care to do), but in Chel slavery is common while prisons not, unless you count dungeons where most prisoners can expect to be tortured. Tei'kaliath also don't really have resources to spare for "more civilized" solution AND they would have hard time to EXPLAIN it to the captured (not speaking about fact it would be out-of-character for them to know how modern western society treats convinced criminals).

Individual can rarely change whole society in radical manner (well ... actually can, but not for better). Therefore, in similar settings, I would support attempts to make lives of slaves gradually better, more than some pipe dreams about freeing them all.
User avatar
H'K'Maly
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:39 am


Return to Questions and World setting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests