Que obrigações um escravo libertado tinha para com seu antigo mestre na Inglaterra anglo-saxônica?

Que obrigações um escravo libertado tinha para com seu antigo mestre na Inglaterra anglo-saxônica?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Como na Roma Antiga, os escravos na Inglaterra Anglo-Saxônica podiam ganhar sua liberdade:

A alforria (libertação) de escravos foi solenizada por meio de cerimônia, presença de testemunhas e documentação legal ...

A cerimônia de libertação pode ser realizada na igreja ou em uma encruzilhada - um símbolo de que o libertado agora escolhe seu próprio caminho.

e

escravos que conquistaram sua liberdade se tornariam parte de uma subclasse de libertos abaixo do posto de ceorl.

Nota: ceorl ou churl = homem livre comum, "um camponês não servil",

De acordo com o artigo Libertados romanos - escravidão na Roma Antiga, o livro O homem livre na arte romana e na história da arte (pdf), bem como Liberdade e escravidão no direito romano e Oxford Classical Dictionary, Os libertos romanos às vezes (mas nem sempre) tinham algumas obrigações legais e / ou sociais para ou dependência de seus antigos proprietários, pois havia diferentes condições de alforria. Isso pode incluir ter que trabalhar meio período para o ex-patrão, restrições sobre com quem um liberto pode se casar e disposições legais relativas à propriedade. Também era comum que eles adotassem o nome de seu antigo mestre (por exemplo, Marcus Tullius Tiro foi libertado por Marcus Tullius Cicero).

Os libertos tinham obrigações para com seus antigos senhores na Inglaterra anglo-saxônica? Em caso afirmativo, sabemos o que eram?

Para o período de tempo, qualquer época desde a ascensão dos reinos anglo-saxões na Inglaterra até a conquista normanda seria de interesse, embora eu duvide que muito se saiba sobre o período inicial. Vou restringir isso se for muito amplo (o que pode ser o caso se a presença Viking mudou as coisas).

Nota: Não deixei claro no texto original desta pergunta que estou citando Roma apenas como uma fonte de exemplos de quais obrigações os libertos podem ter. Ao esclarecer este ponto, não pretendo de forma alguma invalidar a resposta útil e informativa de Pieter Geerkens.


o Anglo-saxão os reinos se formaram na Grã-Bretanha no início do século 6, ou seja, 150 anos após a queda do Império Romano. Durante este período:

A lei anglo-saxônica foi escrita em vernáculo e estava relativamente livre da influência romana encontrada nas leis continentais que foram escritas em latim. A influência romana na lei anglo-saxônica foi indireta e exercida principalmente por meio da igreja. Houve uma influência escandinava definitiva sobre a lei anglo-saxônica como resultado das invasões vikings dos séculos VIII e IX. Somente com a conquista normanda a lei romana, tal como incorporada na lei franca, fez sua influência ser sentida nas leis da Inglaterra.

Portanto, a tradição romana é o lugar errado para procurar os costumes e legalidades da alforria na segunda metade do primeiro milênio EC. As tradições germânicas originais dos invasores (e governantes) anglo-saxões teriam lentamente se fundido com as influências escandinavas dos vikings de a partir do século VIII. As tradições formalizadas e registros de Lei Comum Inglesa pode ser rastreada até a conquista normanda.

Minha resposta à pergunta "Como as leis foram promulgadas na Idade Média?"fornece links adicionais para Descrição e História da Lei Comum e um artigo acadêmico sobre O Júri e a Lei Inglesa de Homicídio 1200-1600.

Não tenho tempo agora para fazer mais do que examiná-los rapidamente, mas aqui estão uma descrição casual da escravidão na Inglaterra anglo-saxônica e uma introdução mais acadêmica a A Igreja e a escravidão na Inglaterra anglo-saxônica.


Escravidão na Roma Antiga

Escravidão na Roma Antiga desempenhou um papel importante na sociedade e na economia. Além do trabalho manual, os escravos realizavam muitos serviços domésticos e podiam ser empregados em empregos e profissões altamente qualificados. Contadores e médicos muitas vezes eram escravos. Os escravos de origem grega, em particular, podem ser altamente educados. Escravos não qualificados, ou aqueles condenados à escravidão como punição, trabalhavam em fazendas, minas e engenhos.

Os escravos eram considerados propriedade pela lei romana e não tinham personalidade jurídica. A maioria dos escravos nunca seria libertada. Ao contrário dos cidadãos romanos, podiam ser submetidos a castigos corporais, exploração sexual (as prostitutas eram frequentemente escravas), tortura e execução sumária. Com o tempo, porém, os escravos ganharam maior proteção legal, incluindo o direito de registrar queixas contra seus senhores.

Uma das principais fontes de escravos foi a expansão militar romana durante a República. O uso de ex-soldados inimigos como escravos levou talvez inevitavelmente a uma série de em massa rebeliões armadas, as Guerras Servis, a última das quais liderada por Spartacus. Durante o Pax Romana do início do Império Romano (séculos I-II dC), a ênfase era colocada na manutenção da estabilidade, e a falta de novas conquistas territoriais secou esta linha de abastecimento do tráfico humano. Para manter uma força de trabalho escravizada, aumentaram as restrições legais à libertação de escravos. Os escravos fugidos eram caçados e devolvidos (geralmente em troca de uma recompensa). Também houve muitos casos de pessoas pobres que venderam seus filhos para vizinhos mais ricos como escravos em tempos difíceis.


Colômbia, 1757: berço da abolição da escravidão na América?

Há dois pontos e sete anos, Martin Luther King Jr. fez seu famoso “Discurso de um sonho” nas escadarias do Lincoln Memorial. Em 28 de agosto, o 47º aniversário do apelo de King por igualdade e pelo fim da discriminação, os colombianos continuam clamando pela realização de seus próprios sonhos. O verão sufocante de nosso legítimo descontentamento não passará até que haja um outono revigorante.

King preparou um texto quando deu os passos do Lincoln Memorial, mas o que se tornou conhecido no mundo como o “Discurso de um sonho” foi parcialmente improvisado a partir de fragmentos de sabedoria e gritos de liberdade de seus discursos anteriores. Se você assistir King proferir o discurso, poderá ver quando ele começa a se afastar do texto preparado. Alguns dizem que o que pode ter causado esse derramamento espontâneo foi um telefonema de Mahalia Jackson para "Conte a eles sobre o sonho, Martin!" A declaração pública de seu sonho veio dos telefonemas de outras pessoas que compartilharam sua visão.

Essas chamadas uniram uma insatisfação coletiva que, nas escadarias do Lincoln Memorial, já havia culminado em um movimento de massa de não violência e desobediência civil, e forçou o país e o mundo a tomar conhecimento. Como King disse uma vez, “A liberdade nunca é dada voluntariamente pelo opressor, ela deve ser exigida pelos oprimidos”. Mas essas demandas não precisam ser violentas por natureza. Como seu movimento pelos direitos civis demonstrou, a consciência coletiva de um povo, que se uniu, em conjunto, para parar de cooperar com as ações e políticas injustas de um regime opressor pode criar, transformar uma nação. Menos de dois meses depois de King proclamar publicamente o sonho coletivo de milhões de cidadãos dos EUA, o Congresso dos EUA aprovou um projeto de lei dos direitos civis.

Dez vintenas e seis anos antes de o Congresso dos EUA legitimar o sonho de King, alguns escravos africanos na Colômbia podiam ser ouvidos cantando as palavras do velho espiritual negro: “Finalmente livre! Finalmente livre! Graças a Deus Todo-Poderoso, finalmente estamos livres! ” O resto do mundo demorou a responder a tais lamentos e ondas de júbilo.

A Inglaterra fez seu primeiro julgamento em 1772 (o Caso Somersett) que considerou a escravidão ilegal. Milhares de escravos logo foram emancipados. A rebelião de escravos do Haiti, que se concentrava na expulsão dos colonizadores franceses, só começou em 1791. Em 1804, depois de muito derramamento de sangue, o Haiti se tornou a primeira nação independente da América Latina e a primeira nação independente pós-colonial liderada por negros no mundo. A constituição nacional do Haiti de 1801 é considerada um dos primeiros documentos progressistas de direitos humanos já declarados por uma nação. Chegou a afirmar planos de importar escravos estrangeiros para o Haiti para depois libertá-los. Em 1808, os Estados Unidos tomaram medidas para proibir a importação de escravos africanos.

Mas, em 1757, na Colômbia, a liberdade ressoava na encosta da montanha do leste de Antioquia, na cidade de El Retiro. A trinta e três quilômetros de Medellín, está esta cidade histórica, conhecida tanto por sua mineração quanto por sua história de liberdade. Como alguns moradores locais, como Lazarito, afirmaram: “É uma cidade de pobres cercada por ricos, uma simbiose entre uma população rica e escravos libertos. & # 8221 Ao fazer pesquisas para este artigo, encontrei três diferentes históricos populares interpretações do ato formal real de libertar os africanos da escravidão, concedendo-lhes a liberdade em El Retiro.

Um relato, de Javier Ocampo Lopez, em seu livro Mitos y Leyendas de Antioquia la Grande, descreve como, em 1757, cerca de 127 escravos africanos foram libertados por uma viúva de Antioquia, dona Javiera Londoño. Esta foi a primeira vez que isso ocorreu em todas as Américas no século XVIII. A escultura da foto à direita simboliza esta ocasião. Londoño - uma mulher, não vamos esquecer - se tornou a primeira verdadeira libertadora de escravos da Colômbia e da América (Norte, Central e Sul): La Libertadora!

Ocampo conta que doña Londoño e seu marido, o sargento Ignacio Castañeda, eram conhecidos por serem gentis e afetuosos com seus escravos, e garantiam cuidar deles. A justiça social, dizem, era muito importante para o casal. Quando o marido de Londoño morreu, la doña concedeu liberdade a todos os seus escravos.

Outro relato é narrado no livro Solo quiero que me escuche: Cronicas del Oriente antioqueño y la sub-região Nus, onde a versão da historiadora Marta Agudelo de Pelaez do ato de alforria da família Castañeda Londoño é recontada. Segundo Agudelo, em 1734, os recursos naturais do subsolo de El Retiro, como ouro, quartzo e sal, seduziram Dona Londoño e seu marido. Eles logo começaram a explorar as minas com a ajuda de seus escravos africanos. Devido às adversidades e aos altos custos de manutenção de escravos, o casal teve que libertar 32 escravos. Agudelo concorda com Ocampo que esta foi a primeira vez nas Américas quando escravos africanos receberam formalmente sua liberdade.

Chris Cameron, historiador e especialista em tráfico de escravos africanos e movimentos antiescravistas, confirma esse fato. Em minha entrevista com o Dr. Cameron, ele disse que antes de 1757, não havia casos legais de alforria nas Américas. Houve, no entanto, muitos casos de matrimônio na “América do Sul e na Jamaica, onde um grande número de escravos fugiram juntos e acabaram assinando acordos com seus antigos senhores, na prática libertando-os”. O caso mais próximo de algo que se assemelha à alforria foi em Massachusetts, quando em 1700 um tribunal concedeu a um escravo, Adam Saffin, sua liberdade depois de "processar seu mestre, John Saffin, porque ele alegou que havia recebido a promessa de sua liberdade". No entanto, não se tratou de um caso de libertação com fins humanitários, como parece ser a história do El Retiro.

O pátio principal do El Retiro combina as contas de Ocampo e Agudelo. Em 27 de dezembro de 2007, o prefeito da cidade inaugurou um monumento a la doña e ao sargento pela libertação de 127 de seus escravos. A escultura em si é de doña Londoño cortando um escravo de seus pulsos amarrados. O seguinte testamento de 1757, que você pode encontrar em uma placa ao pé do monumento, no entanto, é atribuído a la doña e ao sargento: & # 8220Eu dou-lhes liberdade em todas as formas de direito que as pessoas livres que não estão sujeitas a a escravidão fez e pode fazer tudo o que as pessoas livres querem e deveriam fazer. & # 8221

Embora esse ato seletivo de alforria não tenha feito diferença no esquema mais amplo (no que diz respeito à política nacional, já que os colombianos não realizaram a abolição total da escravidão até o século seguinte), fez diferença para os que antes escravizado. A lei também estabeleceu a base que ajudou a mudar a percepção pública sobre quem deve ser considerado um ser humano e quem merece ser tratado com total dignidade e respeito. Embora alguns questionem a motivação para libertar os escravos Londoño e Castañeda, o fato é que eles foram libertados e, ao fazê-lo, os dois deram o exemplo. É assim que a lenda de El Retiro deve ser lembrada e homenageada por todos os colombianos, não apenas pelos afrodescendentes.

Ocampo escreveu que os “escravos libertados receberam o sobrenome Castañeda e se comprometeram a celebrar anualmente” sua liberdade. No final do ano, em dezembro, os ex-escravos encontrariam o caminho para sua antiga cidade para se reunir e comemorar sua aposentadoria da escravidão. Por isso, a cidade se chama El Retiro. A celebração anual da nova família Castañeda deu origem ao que os colombianos hoje chamam de “Fiesta de los Negritos”.

Estou rompendo com a tradição hoje e em vez de celebrar esta história apenas no final de dezembro e início de janeiro para coincidir com a Fiesta, estou narrando-a agora em paralelo à proclamação do "Discurso de um sonho" de King, porque as duas histórias complementam uma outro. É hora de celebrar a herança da Colômbia e também de sonhar mais.

A nota promissória de igualdade da qual todo colombiano seria herdeiro por meio da constituição de 1991 foi um “cheque sem fundo”. Este cheque sem fundos foi devolvido às pessoas marcadas como "fundos insuficientes", devido à incapacidade do país - como um coletivo - de viver de acordo com o espírito da lei e suas obrigações. Esses grupos armados - como as forças armadas colombianas, paramilitares, guerrilheiros e cartéis de drogas - que supostamente lutaram por uma Colômbia unificada, pela dignidade humana, pela vida, pela liberdade e pela busca da felicidade de TODOS os colombianos, tentaram incessantemente manifestar uma Colômbia grandiosa em tentativas fracassadas.

Por que foi esse o caso? Em sua busca militarizada pela unidade, eles justificaram o extermínio de um segmento da população colombiana, cada grupo armado com um alvo diferente & # 8220 menos humano & # 8221 que pode ser eliminado sem culpa. Nas palavras de James Madison, não podemos unificar um país por meio de uma cura pior do que a própria doença. A justificativa da violência para atingir certos fins é drasticamente prejudicada se esses fins não puderem ser garantidos.

Como Hannah Arendt tão eloquentemente colocou em seu clássico Sobre violência, “A própria substância da ação violenta é regida pela categoria meio-fim, cuja principal característica, se aplicada aos assuntos humanos, sempre foi que o fim corre o risco de ser subjugado pelos meios que justifica e que são necessários para alcançar. Uma vez que o fim da ação humana, distinto dos produtos finais da fabricação, nunca pode ser previsto com segurança, os meios usados ​​para atingir os objetivos políticos são na maioria das vezes de maior relevância para o mundo futuro do que os objetivos pretendidos. ”

Os colombianos têm sido escravos dos incêndios florestais da violência que assolam o país e seu povo há muito tempo. Os colombianos são escravos dos próprios meios que justificam para lhes trazer liberdade. Os colombianos são escravos de sua própria incapacidade de encontrar soluções criativas e pacíficas para a resolução de conflitos. Os colombianos são escravos de rótulos que desumanizam e zombam. Os colombianos são escravos de si mesmos e dos dispositivos de sua própria escolha. Os colombianos escolheram a violência. Pegar em armas é uma escolha, não um ato pré-determinado, mecânico e predestinado. Se os colombianos - independentemente da cor da pele, da religião, da filiação política, do nível de escolaridade e da orientação sexual - desejam viver o sonho da família Castañeda e El Retiro, devem optar por fazê-lo e ajudar fazê-lo para os setores vulneráveis ​​de nossa sociedade.

Se os colombianos quiserem viver o sonho que Simón Bolívar deixou para trás como um verdadeiro artefato americano de humanidade e liberdade, então devemos escolher nos unificar. Devemos parar de passar a bola da responsabilidade. Devemos parar de apoiar políticas que condenam, estigmatizam e desumanizam nossos vizinhos, nossos irmãos e irmãs, políticas que apoiam inequivocamente a instrumentalização de nós mesmos.

Como ditou o sonho de Bolívar, “Para libertar nossa república nascente deste caos, nem mesmo todo o peso de nossas faculdades morais será suficiente, a menos que possamos aprender a unificar nosso país: sua estrutura governamental, seu corpo legislativo e seu espírito nacional. Unidade, unidade, unidade - esse deve ser o nosso lema. Se o sangue de nossos cidadãos é diverso, vamos torná-lo um. Se nossa constituição dividiu os poderes, vamos unificá-los. Se nossas leis são relíquias moribundas de todo despotismo antigo e moderno, vamos derrubar este edifício monstruoso e, obliterando até suas ruínas, construir um templo da justiça em cujos recintos sagrados podemos ditar um & # 8230 código de lei. ”

Neste dia de homenagem e lembrança, vamos honrar não apenas o Dr. King, não apenas um sonho, mas uma possibilidade. O movimento dos direitos civis dos EUA forneceu evidências de que estender a igualdade e erradicar a discriminação era possível por meio de medidas pacíficas. A lenda do El Retiro de Antioquia deu aos colombianos um exemplo de que não é preciso esperar que um exército ou uma guerrilha ganhe uma guerra, ou que um governo transforme a justiça em lei para corrigir os erros. O povo também tem poder para isso, como demonstrado pelo Dr. King, como demonstrado por la doña e seu sargento. Como Gandhi afirmou, seja a mudança que você deseja ver no mundo. Não espere que isso aconteça. Agir.

A Colômbia tem muito o que comemorar. Os colombianos têm uma história rica e multicultural de uma pluralidade de identidades e tradições. Nossos muitos carnavais e festivais - um para cada dia do ano, como orgulha-se o comercial Colombia is Passion - são testemunho de uma rica cultura. Mas isso não significa que o sonho foi totalmente realizado. Espero ver o dia em que toda a Colômbia possa ser reconhecida como El Nuevo Retiro. Aguardo um momento tão glorioso.

O sufocante verão de nosso legítimo descontentamento não passará até que haja um outono revigorante. Pacientemente, espero por uma mudança de estação.

Julián Esteban Torres López é editor, escritor, pesquisador e educador com quase duas décadas de experiência no trabalho com publicações, sociedades históricas e instituições culturais e de pesquisa, e ocupou cargos de liderança na academia, nas artes, nos periódicos e no setor empresarial e museus de história. Você pode segui-lo no Twitter.


Novidades e Eventos

OBSERVE: À luz das preocupações de saúde pública devido à Covid-19, nosso conselho de diretores tomou a difícil decisão de cancelar nossos programas no local e passeios em grupo do museu & # 8217s e permanecer fechado ao público até novo aviso.

Somos profundamente gratos pelo apoio contínuo da Cummings Foundation.

O Boston Globe apresenta nosso Museu e Diretor Executivo na edição de domingo:Visite nossa página de mídia para ler: Detalhes.

Apoie o RH e ampSQ usando o Amazon Smile
Se você for um comprador da Amazon, considere designar suporte para a Royall House & amp Slave Quarters por meio da campanha Amazon Smile. Clique aqui para começar a comprar. Detalhes.

A Royall House and Slave Quarters está no Twitter! Detalhes.


Comunidade v. Griffith (1823)

A constitucionalidade da Lei do Escravo Fugitivo de 1793 foi contestada em um caso envolvendo um escravo da Virgínia chamado William Mason. Propriedade de Edgar McCarty e morando perto de Alexandria, Mason fugiu para New Bedford, Massachusetts, onde morou por quatro anos, se casou e possivelmente teve um filho. Em algum momento, ele mudou seu nome para John Randolph. Após a morte de McCarty & # 8217, sua propriedade contratou Camillus Griffith para encontrar e devolver Randolph. Em novembro de 1822, Griffith viajou para New Bedford, onde apreendeu, supostamente espancou e confinou Randolph, e então buscou um certificado de remoção pelo qual poderia transportar Randolph de volta para a Virgínia. Em vez de receber um certificado, no entanto, Griffith foi preso, julgado e condenado por falsa prisão e agressão e agressão. Randolph, entretanto, teria viajado para Nova York e depois para Barbados.

Griffith apelou de sua condenação para a Suprema Corte Judicial de Massachusetts, argumentando que estava dentro de seus direitos, de acordo com a Lei do Escravo Fugitivo de 1793, de capturar Randolph. Os advogados do estado se opuseram, argumentando que esse direito, embora garantido pela lei, era inconstitucional porque violava a Quarta Emenda. O advogado de Griffith respondeu que & # 8220a cláusula contra buscas e apreensões desarrazoadas não protege um escravo & # 8221 e que a exigência da lei & # 8217s por prova de propriedade fornecia proteção suficiente para negros livres.

O tribunal concordou com Griffith. A maioria dos juízes concluiu que, como a Cláusula do Escravo Fugitivo na Constituição não descrevia os procedimentos pelos quais escravos fugitivos seriam capturados e devolvidos aos seus proprietários, cabia ao Congresso preencher os detalhes, e que se um fugitivo acusado alegasse para ser livre, um comparecimento ao tribunal era suficiente para determinar a verdade. O presidente do tribunal Isaac Parker enfatizou que a Constituição dos Estados Unidos representava um compromisso entre os estados livres e escravistas. & # 8220Era um pacto ao qual todos nós estamos vinculados & # 8221 escreveu ele. O juiz George Thatcher discordou, argumentando que as leis de Massachusetts não reconheciam a escravidão, tornando livres todas as pessoas dentro das fronteiras do estado. Eventualmente, a lei de Massachusetts estipularia que os fugitivos podiam ser considerados escravos, e que todos os outros se tornavam livres ao entrar no estado.


Abraham Lincoln fala contra a escravidão

Em 16 de outubro de 1854, um obscuro advogado e esperançoso no Congresso do estado de Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, fez um discurso sobre a Lei Kansas-Nebraska, que o Congresso aprovou cinco meses antes. Em seu discurso, o futuro presidente denunciou o ato e expôs seus pontos de vista sobre a escravidão, que chamou de & # x201Cimmoral. & # X201D

De acordo com os termos da Lei Kansas-Nebraska, dois novos territórios & # x2014Kansas e Nebraska & # x2014 seriam permitidos na União e os cidadãos de cada território & # x2019s teriam o poder de determinar se a escravidão seria permitida dentro das fronteiras do território & # x2019s. Acreditava-se que o ato abriria um precedente para determinar a legalidade da escravidão em outros novos territórios. A controvérsia sobre o ato influenciou as corridas políticas em todo o país naquele outono. Abolicionistas, como Lincoln, esperavam convencer os legisladores nos novos territórios a rejeitar a escravidão.

Lincoln, que praticava a lei na época, fez campanha em nome dos republicanos abolicionistas em Illinois e atacou a Lei Kansas-Nebraska. Ele denunciou membros do Partido Democrata por apoiar uma lei que & # x201C presume que pode haver direito moral na escravidão de um homem por outro. & # X201D Ele acreditava que a lei ia contra o princípio fundador americano de que & # x201Chame os homens são criados igual. & # x201D Lincoln era um abolicionista de coração, mas percebeu que a proibição da escravidão em estados onde ela já existia poderia levar à guerra civil. Em vez disso, ele defendeu a proibição da disseminação da escravidão para novos estados. Ele esperava que esse plano preservasse a União e eliminasse lentamente a escravidão, confinando-a ao Sul, onde, ele acreditava, & # x201Cit certamente teria uma morte lenta. & # X201D


Relações jurídicas entre proprietários de escravos

Havia mais uniformidade entre os sistemas em relação às relações jurídicas entre proprietários de escravos. Todas as sociedades tinham disposições para a recuperação de fugitivos e a maioria impunha sanções aos proprietários que roubassem os escravos de outras pessoas (uma ofensa capital em alguns sistemas) ou os ajudassem a fugir. Também havia leis relativamente uniformes sobre a passagem de escravos de uma geração para outra.

Havia uma variabilidade considerável entre as sociedades na lei das transações de escravos. Enquanto as sociedades de direito romano tinham normas elaboradas sobre contratos, Moscóvia não tinha praticamente nenhuma. Considerando que os sistemas jurídicos da Babilônia, Atenas, Roma, Alemanha antiga, China e Etiópia às sociedades islâmicas e Louisiana permitiam garantias dos vendedores de que os escravos não fugiriam, estavam livres de doenças ou tinham certas habilidades, essas leis não existiam em lugares como como Moscóvia.


Mais comentários:

Peter Kovachev - 2/10/2010

Que ensaio excelente, Sr. McLaughlin! Como canadense e monarquista por opção, não apenas inadimplente, me agrada ver um tratamento americano da guerra entre a Grã-Bretanha e as colônias como algo mais do que uma guerra entre as forças de Darth Vader e Luke Skywalker.

Este pequeno pedaço de história também destaca que nossas comunidades negras da Nova Escócia não foram estabelecidas apenas por meio de ideais, caridade e brincadeira com infelizes escravos fugitivos, mas tão importante quanto, por meio do respeito às obrigações legais e éticas para com bravos aliados, algo que é tradicionalmente concedido apenas para iguais. Interessante.

Meu MO nesses fóruns é questionar e criticar, então, por uma questão de consistência, minha reclamação é que seu ensaio poderia ter sido um pouco mais detalhado e muito mais longo. Isso significaria um livro, eu acho. Hmmm.

Nancy REYES - 03/02/2010

um dos efeitos colaterais irônicos dos escravos negros que fugiram para ajudar os britânicos é que seus campos explodiram em epidemias de varíola. Ver Pox Americana

Qualquer historiador militar que ignora a conexão entre doença e guerra está ignorando o elefante na sala de estar.

John J. McLaughlin - 2/2/2010

A Sra. Simmons faz uma excelente recomendação. Qualquer pessoa interessada em um estudo mais aprofundado faria bem em fazer uma viagem para a Nova Escócia. Em Birchtown há um Black Loyalist Museum onde, entre muitos outros livros, registros, artefatos fascinantes, etc. está o & quotMuster Book of Free Blacks & quot, uma lista de todos os colonos que se estabeleceram lá em 1784. Debra Hill, a Registradora é ela mesma uma decendente dos Legalistas Negros e um genealogista qualificado, e se dedicou a estudar a história dos Legalistas Negros.


Que obrigações um escravo libertado tinha para com seu antigo mestre na Inglaterra anglo-saxônica? - História

A Sujeição das Mulheres
História Digital ID 3600

Autor: John Stuart Mill
Data: 1869

Anotação: Este clássico escrito feminista foi publicado na América logo após ter aparecido na Inglaterra. Foi apaixonadamente adotado por líderes do movimento pelos direitos da mulher por sua representação das mulheres na sociedade.

O objetivo deste ensaio é explicar tão claramente quanto posso os fundamentos de uma opinião que mantive desde o primeiro período, quando formou quaisquer opiniões sobre questões sociais e políticas, e que, em vez de ser enfraquecida ou modificada, tem se fortalecido constantemente pela reflexão do progresso e pela experiência de vida. Que o princípio que regula as relações sociais existentes entre os dois sexos - a subordinação legal de um sexo ao outro - é errado em si mesmo, e agora um dos principais obstáculos ao aperfeiçoamento humano e que deve ser substituído por um princípio de perfeita igualdade, não admitindo poder ou privilégio de um lado, nem deficiência de outro.

As próprias palavras necessárias para expressar a tarefa que empreendi mostram como é árdua. Mas seria um erro supor que a dificuldade do caso deva residir na insuficiência ou obscuridade dos fundamentos da razão sobre os quais minhas convicções. A dificuldade é aquela que existe em todos os casos em que há uma massa de sentimento a ser combatida. Enquanto a opinião estiver fortemente enraizada nos sentimentos, ela ganha em vez de perder a instabilidade por ter um peso preponderante de argumentos contra ela. Pois se fosse aceito como resultado de um argumento, a refutação do argumento poderia abalar a solidez da convicção, mas quando se baseia unicamente no sentimento, pior se sai na disputa argumentativa, quanto mais persuadidos os adeptos ficarão de que seu sentimento deve ser mais profundo terreno, que os argumentos não alcançam e enquanto o sentimento permanece, ele está sempre lançando novos entrincheiramentos de argumento para reparar qualquer brecha feita no antigo. E são tantas as causas que tendem a tornar os sentimentos ligados a este assunto os mais intensos e profundamente enraizados daqueles que se reúnem em torno e protegem antigas instituições e costumes, que não precisamos nos admirar de encontrá-los ainda menos minados e frouxos do que nenhum dos demais pelo progresso da grande transição espiritual e social moderna nem supõe que os barbarismos aos quais os homens se apegam por mais tempo devam ser menos barbarismos do que aqueles que antes se livraram.

Em todos os aspectos, o fardo é duro para aqueles que atacam uma opinião quase universal. Eles devem ser muito afortunados, bem como excepcionalmente capazes, se conseguirem ser ouvidos. Eles têm mais dificuldade em obter um julgamento do que quaisquer outros litigantes em obter um veredicto. Se eles extorquem uma audiência, estão sujeitos a um conjunto de requisitos lógicos totalmente diferentes daqueles exigidos de outras pessoas. Em todos os outros casos, o peso da prova deve estar com o afirmativo. Se uma pessoa é acusada de homicídio, cabe àqueles que a acusam dar provas de sua culpa, e não a si mesma provar sua inocência. Se houver divergência de opinião sobre a realidade de um suposto acontecimento histórico, no qual os sentimentos dos homens em geral não estão muito interessados, como no caso do Cerco de Tróia, aqueles que sustentam que o acontecimento ocorreu esperam apresentar as suas provas, antes aqueles que estão do outro lado podem ser obrigados a dizer qualquer coisa e em nenhum momento eles precisam fazer mais do que mostrar que a evidência produzida pelos outros não tem valor. Novamente, em questões práticas, o ônus da prova deve recair sobre aqueles que são contra a liberdade e alegam qualquer restrição ou proibição, seja qualquer limitação da liberdade geral de ação humana ou qualquer desqualificação ou disparidade de privilégio que afete uma pessoa ou tipo de pessoas, em comparação com outras. A presunção a priori é a favor da liberdade e da imparcialidade. Afirma-se que não deve haver restrição não exigida pelo bem geral, e que a lei não deve respeitar as pessoas, mas deve tratar todas da mesma forma, exceto quando a diferença de tratamento for exigida por razões positivas, seja de justiça ou de política. Mas de nenhuma dessas regras de evidência o benefício será concedido àqueles que mantêm a opinião que eu professo. É inútil dizer que aqueles que defendem a doutrina de que os homens têm o direito de comandar e as mulheres têm a obrigação de obedecer, ou que os homens são adequados para o governo e as mulheres inadequadas, no lado afirmativo da questão, e que eles são obrigado a apresentar evidências positivas para as afirmações, ou submeter-se à sua rejeição. É igualmente inútil para mim dizer que aqueles que negam às mulheres qualquer liberdade ou privilégio legitimamente permitem aos homens, tendo contra eles a dupla presunção de que se opõem à liberdade e recomendam parcialidade, devem apresentar a mais estrita prova de seu caso, e a menos que seu sucesso será tal que exclua todas as dúvidas, o julgamento deve contra eles. Esses argumentos seriam considerados bons em qualquer caso comum, mas não o serão neste caso.

Before I could hope to make any impression, I should be expected not only to answer all that has ever been said bye who take the other side of the question, but to imagine that could be said by them--to find them in reasons, as I as answer all I find: and besides refuting all arguments for the affirmative, I shall be called upon for invincible positive arguments to prove a negative. And even if I could do all and leave the opposite party with a host of unanswered arguments against them, and not a single unrefuted one on side, I should be thought to have done little for a cause supported on the one hand by universal usage, and on the r by so great a preponderance of popular sentiment, is supposed to have a presumption in its favour, superior to any conviction which an appeal to reason has power to produce in intellects but those of a high class.

I do not mention these difficulties to complain of them first, use it would be useless they are inseparable from having to contend through people's understandings against the hostility their feelings and practical tendencies: and truly the understandings of the majority of mankind would need to be much better cultivated than has ever yet been the case, before they be asked to place such reliance in their own power of estimating arguments, as to give up practical principles in which have been born and bred and which are the basis of much existing order of the world, at the first argumentative attack which they are not capable of logically resisting. I do not therefore quarrel with them for having too little faith in argument, but for having too much faith in custom and the general feeling. It is one of the characteristic prejudices of the ion of the nineteenth century against the eighteenth, to d to the unreasoning elements in human nature the infallibility which the eighteenth century is supposed to have ascribed to the reasoning elements. For the apotheosis of Reason we have substituted that of Instinct and we call thing instinct which we find in ourselves and for which we cannot trace any rational foundation. This idolatry, infinitely more degrading than the other, and the most pernicious e false worships of the present day, of all of which it is the main support, will probably hold its ground until it way before a sound psychology laying bare the real root of much that is bowed down to as the intention of Nature and ordinance of God. As regards the present question, I am going to accept the unfavourable conditions which the prejudice assigns to me. I consent that established custom, and the general feelings, should be deemed conclusive against me, unless that custom and feeling from age to age can be shown to have owed their existence to other causes than their soundness, and to have derived their power from the worse rather than the better parts of human nature. I am willing that judgment should go against me, unless I can show that my judge has been tampered with. The concession is not so great as it might appear for to prove this, is by far the easiest portion of my task.

The generality of a practice is in some cases a strong presumption that it is, or at all events once was, conducive to laudable ends. This is the case, when the practice was first adopted, or afterwards kept up, as a means to such ends, and was grounded on experience of the mode in which they could be most effectually attained. If the authority of men over women, when first established, had been the result of a conscientious comparison between different modes of constituting the government of society if, after trying various other modes of social organisation--the government of women over men, equality between the two, and such mixed and divided modes of government as might be invented--it had been decided, on the testimony of experience, that the mode in which women are wholly under the rule of men, having no share at all in public concerns, and each in private being under the legal obligation of obedience to the man with whom she has associated her destiny, was the arrangement most conducive to the happiness and well-being of both its general adoption might then be fairly thought to be some evidence that, at the time when it was adopted, it was the best: though even then the considerations which recommended it may, like so many other primeval social facts of the greatest importance, have subsequently, in the course of ages, ceased to exist. But the state of the case is in every respect the reverse of this. In the first place, the opinion in favour of the present system, which entirely subordinates the weaker sex to the stronger, rests upon theory only for there never has been trial made of any other: so that experience, in the sense in which it is vulgarly opposed to theory, cannot be pretended to have pronounced any verdict. And in the second place, the adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation, or forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what conduced to the benefit of humanity or the good order of society. It arose simply from the fact that from the very earliest twilight of human society, every woman owing to the value attached to her by men, combined with her inferiority in muscular strength) was found in a state of bondage to some man. Laws and systems of polity always begin by recognising the relations they find already existing between individuals. They convert what was a mere physical fact into a legal right, give it the sanction of society, and principally aim at the substitution of public and organised means of asserting and protecting these rights, instead of the irregular and lawless conflict of physical strength. Those who had already been compelled to obedience became in this manner legally bound to it. Slavery, from be inn a mere affair of force between the master and the slave, became regularised and a matter of compact among the masters, who, binding themselves to one another for common protection, guaranteed by their collective strength the private possessions of each, including his slaves. In early times, the great majority of the male sex were slaves, as well as the whole of the female. And many ages elapsed, some of them ages of high cultivation, before any thinker was bold enough to question the rightfulness, and the absolute social necessity, either of the one slavery or of the other. By degrees such thinkers did arise and (the general progress of society assisting) the slavery of the male sex has, in all the countries of Christian Europe at least (though, in one of them, only within the last few years) been at length abolished, and that of the female sex has been gradually changed into a milder form of dependence. But this dependence, as it exists at present, is not an original institution, taking a fresh start from considerations of justice and social expediency--it is the primitive state of slavery lasting on, through successive mitigations and modifications occasioned by the same causes which have softened the general manners, and brought all human relations more under the control of justice and the influence of humanity. It has not lost the taint of its brutal origin. No presumption in its favour, therefore, can be drawn from the fact of its existence. The only such presumption which it could be supposed to have, must be grounded on its having lasted till now, when so many other things which came down from the same odious source have been done away with. And this, indeed, is what makes it strange to ordinary ears, to hear it asserted that the inequality of rights between men and women has no other source than the law of the strongest.

That this statement should have the effect of a paradox, is in some respects creditable to the progress of civilisation, and the improvement of the moral sentiments of mankind. We now live--that is to say, one or two of the most advanced nations of the world now live--in a state in which the law of the strongest seems to be entirely abandoned as the regulating principle of the world's affairs: nobody professes it, and, as regards most of the relations between human beings, nobody is permitted to practise it. When anyone succeeds in doing so, it is under cover of some pretext which gives him the semblance of having some general social interest on his side. This being the ostensible state of things, people flatter themselves that the rule of mere force is ended that the law of the strongest cannot be the reason of existence of anything which has remained in full operation down to the present time. However any of our present institutions may have begun, it can only, they think, have been preserved to this period of advanced civilisation by a well-grounded feeling of its adaptation to human nature, and conduciveness to the general good. They do not understand the great vitality and durability of institutions which place right on the side of might how intensely they are clung to how the good as well as the bad propensities and sentiments of those who have power in their hands, become identified with retaining it how slowly these bad institutions give way, one at a time, the weakest first. beginning with those which are least interwoven with the daily habits of lifeand how very rarely those who have obtained legal power because they first had physical, have ever lost their hold of it until the physical power had passed over to the other side. Such shifting of the physical force not having taken place in the case of women this fact, combined with all the peculiar and characteristic features of the particular case, made it certain from the first that this branch of the system of right founded on might, though softened in its most atrocious features at an earlier period than several of the others, would be the very last to disappear. It was inevitable that this one case of a social relation grounded on force, would survive through generations of institutions grounded on equal justice, an almost solitary exception to the general character of their laws and customs but which, so long as it does not proclaim its own origin, and as discussion has not brought out its true character, is not felt to jar with modern civilisation, any more than domestic slavery among the Greeks jarred with their notion of themselves as a free people.

The truth is, that people of the present and the last two or three generations have lost all practical sense of the primitive condition of humanity and only the few who have studied history accurately, or have much frequented the parts of the world occupied by the living representatives of ages long past, are able to form any mental picture of what society then was. People are not aware how entirely, informer ages, the law of superior strength was the rule of life how publicly and openly it was avowed, I do not say cynically or shamelessly--for these words imply a feeling that there was something in it to be ashamed of, and no such notion could find a place in the faculties of any person in those ages, except a philosopher or a saint. History gives a cruel experience of human nature, in showing how exactly the regard due to the life, possessions, and entire earthly happiness of any class of persons, was measured by what they had the power of enforcing how all who made any resistance to authorities that had arms in their hands, however dreadful might be the provocation, had not only the law of force but all other laws, and all the notions of social obligation against them and in the eyes of those whom they resisted, were not only guilty of crime, but of the worst of all crimes, deserving the most cruel chastisement which human beings could inflict. The first small vestige of a feeling of obligation in a superior to acknowledge any right in inferiors, began when he had been induced, for convenience, to make some promise to them. Though these promises, even when sanctioned by the most solemn oaths, were for many ages revoked or violated on the most trifling provocation or temptation, it is probably that this, except by persons of still worse than the average morality, was seldom done without some twinges of conscience. The ancient republics, being mostly grounded from the first upon some kind of mutual conpact, or at any rate formed by an union of persons not very unequal in strength, afforded, in consequence, the first instance of a portion of human relations fenced round, and placed under the dominion of another law than that of force. And though the original law of force remained in full operation between them and their slaves, and also (except so far as limited by express compact) between a commonwealth and its subjects, or other independent commonwealths the banishment of that primitive law even from so narrow a field, commenced the regeneration of human nature, by giving birth to sentiments of which experience soon demonstrated the immense value even for material interests, and which thence forward only required to be enlarged, not created. Though slaves were no part of the commonwealth, it was in the free states that slaves were first felt to have rights as human beings. The Stoics were, I believe, the first (except so far as the Jewish law constitutes an exception) who taught as a part of morality that men were bound by moral obligations to their slaves. No one, after Christianity became ascendant, could ever again have been a stranger to this belief, in theory nor, after the rise of the Catholic Church, was it ever without persons to stand up for it. Yet to enforce it was the most arduous task which Christianity ever had to perform. For more thana thousand years the Church kept up the contest, with hardly any perceptible success. It was not for want of power over men's minds. Its power was prodigious. It could make kings and nobles resign their most valued possessions to enrich the Church. It could make thousands in the prime of life and the height of worldly advantages, shut themselves up in convents to work out their salvation by poverty, fasting, and prayer. It could send hundreds of thousands across land and sea, Europe and Asia, to give their lives for the deliverance of the Holy Sepulchre. It could make kings relinquish wives who were the object of their passionate attachment, because the Church declared that they were within the seventh (by our calculation the fourteenth) degree of relationship. All this it did but it could not make men fight less with one another, nor tyrannise less cruelly over the serfs, and when they were able, over burgesses. It could not make them renounce either of the applications of force force militant, or force triumphant. This they could never be induced to do until they were themselves in their turn compelled by superior force. Only by the growing power of kings was an end put to fighting except between kings, or competitors for kingship only by the growth of a wealthy and warlike bourgeoisie in the fortified towns, and of a plebeian infantry which proved more powerful in the field than the undisciplined chivalry, was the insolent tyranny of the nobles over the bourgeoisie and peasantry brought within some bounds. It was persisted in not only until, but long after, the oppressed had obtained a power enabling them often to take conspicuous vengeance and on the Continent much of it continued to the time of the French Revolution, though in England the earlier and better organisation of the democratic classes put an end to it sooner, by establishing equal laws and free national institutions.

If people are mostly so little aware how completely, during the greater part of the duration of our species, the law of force was the avowed rule of general conduct, any other being only a special and exceptional consequence of peculiar ties---and from how very recent a date it is that the affairs of society in general have been even pretended to be regulated according to any moral law as little do people remember or consider, how institutions and customs which never had any ground but the law of force, last on into ages and states of general opinion which never would have permitted their first establishment. Less than forty years ago, Englishmen might still by law hold human beings in bondage as saleable property: within the present century they might kidnap them and carry them off, and work them literally to death. This absolutely extreme case of the law of force, condemned by those who can tolerate almost every other form of arbitrary power, and which, of all others presents features the most revolting to the feelings of all who look at it from an impartial position, was the law of civilised and Christian England within the memory of persons now living: and in one half of Anglo-Saxon America three or four years ago, not only did slavery exist, but the slave-trade, and the breeding of slaves expressly for it, was a general practice between slave states. Yet not only was there a greater strength of sentiment against it, but, in England at least, a less amount either of feeling or of interest in favour of it, than of any other of the customary abuses of force: for its motive was the love of gain, unmixed and undisguised and those who profited by it were a very small numerical fraction of the country, while the natural feeling of all who were not personally interested in it, was unmitigated abhorrence. So extreme an instance makes it almost superfluous to refer to any other: but consider the long duration of absolute monarchy. In England at present it is the almost universal conviction that military despotism is a case of the law of force, having no other origin or justification. Yet in all the great nations of Europe except England it either still exists, or has only just ceased to exist, and has even now a strong party favourable to it in all ranks of the people, especially among persons of station and consequence. Such is the power of an established system, even when far from universal when not only in almost every period of history there have been great and well-known examples of the contrary system, but these have almost invariably been afforded by the most illustrious and most prosperous communities. In this case, too, the possessor of the undue power, the person directly interested in it, is only one person, while those who are subject to it and suffer from it are literally all the rest. The yoke is naturally and necessarily humiliating to all persons, except the one who is on the throne, together with, at most, the one who expects to succeed to it. How different are these cases from that of the power of men over women! I am not now prejudging the question-of its justifiableness. I am showing how vastly more permanent it could not but be, even if not justifiable, than these other dominations which have nevertheless lasted down to our own time. Whatever gratification of pride there is in the possession of power, and whatever personal interest in its exercise, is in this case not confined to a limited class, but common to the whole male sex. Instead of being, to most of its supporters) a thing desirable chiefly in the abstract, or, like the political ends usually contended for by factions, of little private importance to any but the leaders it comes home to the person and hearth of every male head of a family, and of everyone who looks forward to being so. The clodhopper exercises, oris to exercise, his share of the power equally with the highest nobleman. And the case is that in which the desire of power is the strongest: for everyone who desires power, desires it most over those who are nearest to him, with whom his life is passed, with whom he has most concerns in common and in whom any independence of his authority is oftenest likely to interfere with his individual preferences. If, in the other cases specified, powers manifestly grounded only on force, and having so much less to support them, are so slowly and with so much difficulty got rid of, much more must it be so with this, even if it rests on no better foundation than those. We must consider, too, that the possessors of the power have facilities in this case, greater than in any other, to prevent any uprising against it. Every one of the subjects lives under the very eye, and almost, it may be said, in the hands, of one of the masters in closer intimacy with him than with any of her fellow-subjects with no means of combining against him, no power of even locally over mastering him, and, on the other hand, with the strongest motives for seeking his favour and avoiding to give him offence. In struggles for political emancipation, everybody knows how often its champions are bought off by bribes, or daunted by terrors. In the case of women, each individual of the subject-class is in a chronic state of bribery and intimidation combined. In setting up the standard of resistance, a large number of the leaders, and still more of the followers, must make an almost complete sacrifice of the pleasures or the alleviations of their own individual lot. If ever any system of privilege and enforced subjection had its yoke tightly riveted on the those who are kept down by it, this has. I have not yet shown that it is a wrong system: but everyone who is capable of thinking on the subject must see that even if it is, it was certain to outlast all other forms of unjust authority. And when some of the grossest of the other forms still exist in many civilised countries, and have only recently been got rid of in others, it would be strange if that which is so much the deepest rooted had yet been perceptibly shaken anywhere. There is more reason to wonder that the protests and testimonies against it should have been so numerous and so weighty as they are.

Some will object, that a comparison cannot fairly be made between the government of the male sex and the forms of unjust power which I have adduced in illustration of it, since these are arbitrary, and the effect of mere usurpation, while it on the contrary is natural. But was there ever any domination which did not appear natural to those who possessed it? There was a time when the division of mankind into two classes, a small one of masters and a numerous one of slaves, appeared, even to the most cultivated minds, to be natural, and the only natural, condition of the human race. No less an intellect, and one which contributed no less to the progress of human thought, than Aristotle, held this opinion without doubt or misgiving and rested it on the same premises on which the same assertion in regard to the dominion of men over women is usually based, namely that there are different natures among mankind, free natures, and slave natures that the Greeks were of a free nature, the barbarian races of Thracians and Asiatics of a slave nature. But why need I go back to Aristotle? Did not the slave-owners of the Southern United States maintain the same doctrine, with all the fanaticism with which men ding to the theories that justify their passions and legitimate their personal interests? Did they not call heaven and earth to witness that the dominion of the white man over the black is natural, that the black race is by nature incapable of freedom, and marked out for slavery? some even going so far as to say that the freedom of manual labourers is an unnatural order of things anywhere. Again, the theorists of absolute monarchy have always affirmed it to be the only natural form of government issuing from the patriarchal, which was the primitive and spontaneous form of society, framed on the model of the paternal, which is anterior to society itself, and, as they contend, the most natural authority of all. Nay, for that matter, the law of force itself, to those who could not plead any other has always seemed the most natural of all grounds for the exercise of authority. Conquering races hold it to be Nature's own dictate that the conquered should obey the conquerors, or as they euphoniously paraphrase it, that the feebler and more unwarlike races should submit to the braver and manlier. The smallest acquaintance with human life in the middle ages, shows how supremely natural the dominion of the feudal nobility overmen of low condition appeared to the nobility themselves, and how unnatural the conception seemed, of a person of the inferior class claiming equality with them, or exercising authority over them. It hardly seemed less so to the class held in subjection. The emancipated serfs and burgesses, even in their most vigorous struggles, never made any pretension to a share of authority they only demanded more or less of limitation to the power of tyrannising over them. So true is it that unnatural generally means only uncustomary, and that everything which is usual appears natural. The subjection of women to men being a universal custom, any departure from it quite naturally appears unnatural. But how entirely, even in this case, the feeling is dependent on custom, appears by ample experience. Nothing so much astonishes the people of distant parts of the world, when they first learn anything about England, as to be told that it is under a queen the thing seems to them so unnatural as to be almost incredible. To Englishmen this does not seem in the least degree unnatural, because they are used to it but they do feel it unnatural that women should be soldiers or Members of Parliament. In the feudal ages, on the contrary, war and politics were not thought unnatural to women, because not unusual it seemed natural that women of the privileged classes should be of manly character, inferior in nothing but bodily strength to their husbands and fathers. The independence of women seemed rather less unnatural to the Greeks than to other ancients, on account of the fabulous Amazons (whom they believed to be historical), and the partial example afforded by the Spartan women who, though no less subordinate by law than in other Greek states, were more free in fact, and being trained to bodily exercises in the same manner with men, gave ample proof that they were not naturally disqualified for them. There can be little doubt that Spartan experience suggested to Plato, among many other of his doctrines, t of the social and political equality of the two sexes.

But, it will be said, the rule of men over women differs from all these others in not being a rule a rule of force: it is accepted voluntarily women make no complaint, and are consenting parties to it. In the first place, a great number of women do not accept it. Ever since there have been women able to make their sentiments known by their writings (the only mode of publicity which society permits to them), an increasing number of them have recorded protests against their present social condition: and recently many thousands of them, headed by the most eminent women known to the public, have petitioned Parliament for their admission to the Parliamentary Suffrage The claim of women to be educated as solidly, and in the same branches of knowledge, as men, is urged with growing intensity, and with a great prospect of s


Slavery and Israel

Slavery is almost as old as the Human Race. Slavery is mentioned often in the Bible. The Israelites were warned that if they disbehaved other peoples would make slaves out of them. It was also prophesied that Israelites would make slaves out of Africans. In the End Times it seems that descendants of these Africans will acknowledge the God of Israel. The present article serves as an introduction to these issues.

Duration 35:44 To read article please Scroll Down!

Canaan was cursed to become a slave (Genesis 9:25).

2. Slavery and Scripture
The Israelites had been in Egyptian Slavery for many years.
This message is repeated throughout the Torah i.e. the Chumash or First Five Books of the Bible written by Moses (cf. Exodus 13:3, 14, 20:2, Leviticus 25:55, 26:13, Deuteronomy 5:6, 6:12, 21, 7:8, 8:14, 13:6, 11 ). This is repeated in other books of the Bible.

It may be, as some claim, that taking into consideration the social conditions of the peoples around them, the Bible mitigates against slavery. Whatever the case at the simple literal level the Bible allowed two types of slaves:
(uma) Eved Ivri i.e. a Hebrew Slave. This was in effect indentured labor that could not continue after six years in most cases (Exodus 21:6).
Hebrew Slaves had to be treated well and with respect:

Leviticus 25: 39 And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 And then he shall depart from you, he and his children with him, and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.

(b) Eved Canaani i.e. a Canaanite Slave. By "Canaaanite" is meant bought from the Land of Canaan and not necessarily of Canaanite origin. These were non-Israelite slaves who were bought from foreign peoples.

Leviticus 25: 44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have, from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

Hebrew slaves had to keep all the commandments like any other Israelites. Canaanite Slaves had to keep all the negative prohibitions. They could not work on Sabbath.

Certain basic considerations applied as to how they could be treated.

Exodus 21: 26 If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.

In principle it was forbidden to free non-Israelite slaves unless physical damage had been done them. Nevertheless once a slave was freed (whether in accordance with a priori requirements of the Law or not) he (or she) automatically had the rights and obligations of a full-fledged Israelite.

It was prophesied [Deuteronomy 28:68] that if the Israelites sinned they would be punished by being sold into captivity.
The Israelites from the Ten Tribes were taken into captivity by the Assyrians. Some of those were used as slaves by Assyria as illustrated
on Assyrian engravings.
The Jews of Judah after rebelling were taken into slavery by the Romans. They were sold into Egypt, Italy, and elsewhere.
They fulfilled the Prophecy.
Ver:
Scriptural Reality. Fulfillment of Prophecy in Early Jewish History

3. Slavery in the World
In 1086 ca. 10% of the English population were slaves. in 1102 trade in slaves was made illegal in England.
In other European countries the percentage of slaves was generally higher. At all events statistically there is a good chance that each and every one of us had ancestors who were slaves.

In ca. 1800 Slaves and serfs made up around 75% of the world's population.
In the past millions of Christian Europeans had been enslaved by the Turkish Muslims and the Barbary Pirates of North Africa who would raid the coasts of Mediterranean Lands reaching also up to Ireland. The Germans in WW2 enslaved about 12 million Europeans as slaves to work for them.

Between 12 to 27 million slaves exist in the world today. This includes cases of virtual slavery and forced labor or coerced prostitution which is worse than slavery. African and Islamic nations all practise slavery.

Afro-Americans seem to be attracted to Islam and perhaps for some it is more suitable. Nevertheless it was the Muslims who enslaved blacks more and treated their black slaves in a worse way than the whites ever did.

4. The African Slave Trade
In 1492 Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas. Maize (corn) and the potato were natives of the New World. They had not been known of previously. [Maize may have once been harvested in India but it had disappeared]. Subsequently, the potato was introduced to Europe and maize to Africa. This resulted in a population explosion in Africa and in parts of Northern Europe. The Africans lived in different states of their own. Between a third to two thirds of the Africans were slaves to other Africans. African slave traders sold other Africans as slaves to Arabs and to Europeans. The slaves were mainly taken from central west and southwest Africa.
Up to five out of every six slaves taken by Arabs died before reaching the places they were being taken to. It also appears that there not that many children of Slaves in Arab countries who survived.
About one out of every six slaves taken by Europeans died on the journey. In other words the death rate of African Slaves taken by Arabs was FIVE TIMES AS BAD as that of slaves taken by Europeans!
The present President of the USA, Baruch Hussein Obama, claims to be descended from an Arab slave trader who settled in Kenya.
The number of slaves taken by Europeans who died in journey was not much higher than that of poor whites from Scotland and Ireland who sailed across the Atlantic.
Statistically as much as we can tell if the slaves had not been taken out of Africa most of them would have died in internecine wars, or from famine and disease. From a demographic point of view slavery saved them. This does not justify slavery. Nor does it mitigate the very real suffering of the slaves. Quite a few of them died of a broken heart. It does however place matters in an historical perspective.

Most slaves were taken across the Atlantic by the Portuguese, French, and English with the English playing the main role.

# It is estimated that more than half of the slave trade took place during the 18th century, with the British, Portuguese and French being the main carriers of nine out of ten slaves abducted from Africa. The British were the biggest transporters of slaves across the Atlantic during the 18th century. #

About 12 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic. About 750,000 were taken to North America.

5. The Abolition of Slavery
France abolished slavery, in 1794, but it was revived by Napoleon in 1802, and banned for good in 1848.
Denmark-Norway was the first European country to ban the slave trade, in 1792, to become fully effective by 1803. Slavery itself was not banned until 1848.

# In 1807 the British Parliament passed the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, under which captains of slave ships could be stiffly fined for each slave transported. This was later superseded by the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act, which freed all slaves in the British Empire. Abolition was then extended to the rest of Europe. The 1820 U.S. Law on Slave Trade made slave trading piracy, punishable by death.[89] In 1827, Britain declared the slave trade to be piracy, punishable by death. The power of the Royal Navy was subsequently used to suppress the slave trade.. The West Africa Squadron was credited with capturing 1,600 slave ships between 1808 and 1860 and freeing 150,000 Africans who were aboard these ships.[91] Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against 'the usurping King of Lagos, deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.

"Brit-Am Now"-901
# 4. Melvin Rhodes: How One of Today's 'Bad Guys' Ended the Scourge of Slavery
# Britain's enthusiasm for ending the slave trade "led it to much greater
involvement in African affairs. Additional colonies were acquired (Sierra
Leone, 1808 Gambia, 1816 Gold Coast, 1821) to serve as bases for
suppressing the slave trade and for stimulating substitute commerce." This
"contributed to the expansion of both its commercial and colonial empire"
(The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, Macropedia, "Colonialism," p.
892).

# Certainly, many British people profited from the slave trade before its
abolition, but the British Empire became much wealthier after the trade was
ended.

# A quarter-century later, America would also overturn its history of slavery.
Some 365,000 mostly white males of British descent died fighting for the
Union side in the American Civil War, enabling peoples of African descent to
be free. No other nation sacrificed so many people for such a noble cause.

#The trade in human beings, which includes the sex trade, is now estimated to
be the biggest business in the world, accounting for a full 10 percent of
the world's total commerce.

At all events, it was the British and Americans who ended slavery. They received the help of other nations that encompass Israelite Elements such as Denmark, the Netherlands, and France. They were the ones who did it. Even today they are the ones who still do it. American and British pressure helped end slavery in Saudi Arabia in the 1960s and other places.

6. Slavery Prophesied
Isaiah speaks of freeingn the slaves in chapters 42 and 49. One time he appears to speak of freeing Israelite Salves and on the other of freeing non-Israelites.
Isaiah 49:9 speaks of freeing the prisoners but according to the context he appears to be referring mainly to Israelites. The foundation of British colonies in North America (from which emerged the USA) and Australia was based on the use of prisoners and indentured servants who were eventually freed.

Isaiah 49:
8 Thus says the LORD:
In an acceptable time I have heard You,
And in the day of salvation I have helped You
I will preserve You and give You
As a covenant to the people [Hebrew: "Brit-Am"],
To restore the earth,
To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages
9 That You may say to the prisoners, Go forth,
To those who are in darkness, Show yourselves.
They shall feed along the roads,
And their pastures shall be on all desolate heights.

We saw above that the freeing of the prisoners was primarily associated with Israelites.

Isaiah 42 repeats this message but here the emphasis is on the non-Israelite nations.

Isaiah 42:
1 Behold! My Servant whom I uphold,
My Elect One in whom My soul delights!
I have put My Spirit upon Him
He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
2 He will not cry out, nor raise His voice,
Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed He will not break,
And smoking flax He will not quench
He will bring forth justice for truth.
4 He will not fail nor be discouraged,
Till He has established justice in the earth
And the coastlands shall wait for His law.
5 Thus says God the LORD,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it,
Who gives breath to the people on it,
And spirit to those who walk on it:
6 I, the LORD have called You in righteousness,
And will hold Your hand
I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the Gentiles,
7 To open blind eyes,
To bring out prisoners from the prison,
Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.
8 I am the LORD, that is My name
And My glory I will not give to another,
Nor My praise to carved images.
9 Behold, the former things have come to pass,
And new things I declare
Before they spring forth I tell you of them.

The doing of justice and the teaching of humane behavior to the Gentiles was one of the tasks of the Ten Tribes especially of Joseph. One of the ways this was fulfilled was through the freeing of the slaves.

Genesis 12:
2 I will make you a great nation
I will bless you
And make your name great
And you shall be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

Genesis 18:
18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.

Genesis 22:
18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.

Amos 5:
14 Seek good and not evil,
That you may live
So the LORD God of hosts will be with you,
As you have spoken.
15 Hate evil, love good
Establish justice in the gate.
It may be that the LORD God of hosts
Will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.

We were told to give refuge (Deuteronomy 23:15) to escaped slaves.

Deuteronomy 23:
15 You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him you shall not oppress him.

7. Backlash?
Deuteronomy 28:33 warns us that if we do not go in a straight path the alien who dwells amongst us will take control of us.
Leviticus 25:46 allows us to acquire slaves, to give them rights, but never to free them. If however they were freed they were to receive equal rights.
Immediately afterwards the following verses (Leviticus 25:47-49) speak of an Israelite or stranger (i.e. a freed slave) buying another Israelite as an indentured slave (for the maximum term of six years). There could be a case of cause and effect here. It could be warning that if they transgress the injunction not to free the slaves then the freed alien slaves will take control of them.

At present, the USA is ruled by Barak Hussein Obama who appears to be anti-American and anti-Israel.
About 97% of Afro-Americans voted for Obama in his first term and ca. 95% in his second term. Hispanics who are mostly descended from Spanish males and female Amerindians also voted overwhelmingly for Obama (2008 -57% 2012 - 60%). Hispanic support for Obama actually increased!
Ver:
How Obama Won Re-election
Whites Were Outvoted. Mulheres. Hispanics. Youth

Originally the English were dominant in bringing African slaves across the Ocean to North America and the Caribbean for their own usages and also sold them to the Spanish and Portuguese in Latin America.
Our work, "Joseph. The Israelite Destiny of America", shows how Isaiah in chapters 43 and 45 speaks of the Ten Tribes in Exile. Isaiah mentions African Sabaeans being brought over from Africa in chains. They will eventually acknowledge Israel as the Chosen People and the God of Israel as the only God. Perhaps this means that the Afro-Americans will repent? [Israelite control of India and Africa and especially Egypt is also indicated in these same passages of Isaiah. Such was the situation with the British Empire.]
The slaves who were brought over to North America included not only Sabaeans but also descendants of Canaanites. It had been prophesied that Canaan would be a slave.
We will return to this subject in a ANOTHER TALK.


Assista o vídeo: 211 - 10 PUNIÇÕES SOFRIDAS PELOS ESCRAVOS NO BRASIL