Thanks to Buzz's response to my earlier essay on slavery, I have decided to revisit the topics of slavery and reparations.

First, I would like to address the statement I often hear that slavery was a horrible, brutal institution. Yes, to modern eyes it may very well be so, but to say that is both anachronistic and a bit historically naive. Slavery was, in reality, a much more humane solution tot he problem of conquest than what came before it, and was in many ways a great step forward in the development of the more humanitarian nature of man.

Allow em to explain. In primitive societies, especially hunter-gatherer tribes, but even in very early agriculture, there is no purpose for captives. As an individual can barely produce enough to feed himself, there is no surplus, so keeping another captive makes no sense. However, with the coming of improved agriculture, or more developed herding*, there exists a point where captives will produce enough surplus to make them worth keeping.

However, old traditions die hard. During the early phases of civilization there was still war, but , as captives were of no value, the common practices was to simply exterminate all who did not die in war, men, women and children. In short, early combat was marked, as is combat among the most primitive today, by wholesale slaughter**. And even when society reached a point where captives could be profitably exploited, this genocidal trend continued. So, the transition from slaughter to slavery, when it eventually came, marked an improvement in human relations. Rather than certain death, a vanquished tribe could expect to survive as captives. It may not be ideal, but slavery was surely a step in the right direction.

In addition, as slaves now had economic value, they were also treated a bit better than members of rival tribes would normally be. Yes, slaves could still be abused, maltreated and so on, but for the same reason that most people do not beat their horses or light their cars on fire for no reason, most people did not abuse their slaves. A slave was an asset, with a clear value. And, once trade developed to the point where a regular slave trade evolved, the fate of slaves improved even more. In the past, when one had too many slaves, he could actually afford to overwork or abuse them. Once there existed a market for slaves, that tendency would end, as even an unnecessary slave had value as a commodity, so would likely be sold rather than worked to death.

I am not saying that slavery was a good life, nor that no slave was ever abused. All I am saying is that slaves were treated no worse than any other living asset, such as an ox or horse, and for the same reasons. Also, that slavery, while inhumane to modern eyes, was an improvement over the genocide which was the normal situation prior to slavery.

Now, on to my second point. Some have also argued that either slavery was forced by the West onto the rest of the world. Others, realizing the fallacy of that statement, argue that Western slavery, while not unique, was of a much more brutal nature than that practiced in the rest of the world.

Of course, neither statement is true.

Slavery was practiced world wide long before Europeans started to move out into the rest of the world. If anything, the nomadic situation of much of eastern Europe kept them lagging behind Asia and the Americas in adopting slavery. But, regardless of who adopted slavery first, the fact si that slavery existed in some form or another on every continent (excepting Antarctica and Australia) long before Europeans arrived. The one exception (Australia) was kept from adopting slavery only by the relatively primitive conditions of the inhabitants, as proved by neighboring New Zeeland, whose more advanced Maoris were practicing slavery when the European arrived.

Nor could anyone argue that European slavery was any more brutal than the slavery practiced elsewhere. Of course, even to speak of "European slavery" is to speak of something which did not exist. Some governments offered a degree of legal protections to slaves while others allowed owners full control of a slave, even allowing a slave to be killed arbitrarily, the range of practices mean that European practices ranged form much more civilized than those of the rest of the world, to every bit as brutal*. Still, whether we look at the treatment afforded slaves in the Americas, where they often provided sacrifices, or in China where they were treated in a manner about equal to those in Europe, there is no reason to think other cultures provided any better treatment than Europe did. Slavery was not a European creation, and neither was maltreatment of slaves.

Finally, the last argument I want to address is that somehow Americans need to pay reparations to blacks whose ancestors were slaves. I have already addressed the logical fallacies of this argument, but I want to point out one more, and much larger problem.

If we accept that the descendants of slaves should be repaid by those descended of slave holders, then where does it end? As I said, slavery was a universal practice, and almost everyone can probably trace ancestry to both sides of the equation. How are we ever going to settle all these debts?

Let us just look at a hypothetical black American.

First, most black Americans are not entirely of African extraction, almost all have some admixture of white blood. As many times this represents the blood of those very same slaveholders, this means that most blacks probably start off as descendants of both slaves and slave owners, already owing themselves money.

Let us go farther, and look at the earliest markets. even before the Dutch and Portugese there were Arab slave traders working in Africa, and they continued to do so throughout most of the period the slave trade was active. For the same reasons that many American blacks have some white blood, many also have some Arabic heritage, adding yet another bit of slave holding ancestry.

Turning form these groups, we also have to ask where the slaves were originally captured. Now, yes, the whites and Arabs did do some hunting on their own, but much of the slave population they sold was not made up of Africans they caught themselves, but of slaves sold to them by other Africans. Sub-Saharan tribes had long been taking captives in war and using them as slaves, and once the Europeans and Arabs began to offer to trade gods for these slaves, the practice became even more widespread. So, even if our hypothetical black has no white or Arab blood, he may still be a slaver's descendant simply by virtue of who his black ancestors are.

Now, let us look at the white American from whom he expects payment.

Let us take me an an example. My ancestors were Irish, Scottish, British, Alsatian, Ukranian and Cherokee. Though, oddly enough, knowing my family tree as I do, the only group possibly guilty of having held black slaves are my Cherokee ancestors, the rest were simply living too far north or too poor to have slaves. In fact, as I share my surname with a number of blacks I know, it is quite possible my paternal family was not only not slaveholders, but also was a bit casual about observing miscegenation laws as well**.

Now, since I am going to be portrayed as a descendant of slaveholders, I should probably look at my ancestry as well. As I said, Cherokees did own slaves, so it is possible my Cherokee ancestors did as well. But that is all I have regarding slavery on this side of the Atlantic.

On the other side, my history gets more interesting. Well, not the Alsatians, as the area was not a particular hotbed of slavery. On the other hand, the Celtic ancestors are, as they were both slave holders and slaves historically, depending upon the period. Similarly, Ukranians were both enslavers and enslaved at various periods.

Actually, let me just cut this short, as I think my point is clear. No one, if we go back far enough, is free of either slavers or slaves. We are all descended of sinners and saints, perhaps the same ones if we go back far enough.

And that is the stupidity of the whole reparations argument, that we are going back at all. Those asking for reparations were never slaves, and those who will pay never owned them. But once we accept the idea that it is not an individual's guilt or innocence, but that of his ancestry, then where do we stop? Can I collect from their descendants for Romans enslaving my Pictish ancestors? Can someone Polish collect from me for a massacre committed by Cossacks in the 16th century? If my father gets a speeding ticket, can I be billed? The logic for all three is the same as that for reparations.

There is simply no logical end point. If we accept the logic of reparations it become an endless engine for manufacturing grievances. Every new finding in history will become a new bill to pay. There will be no end to it.

As I said before, the only solution, whether it is fair or not, is to declare that some issues are too old to be settled fairly. Just as the statute of limitations exists because some things must be settled eventually, even if that leaves justice unfulfilled, I think we should adopt a similar attitude toward historical grievances. Draw a line beyond which claims will not be pursued.

And in this case, I think the line is easy to draw. If a deed was not committed by anyone living, or suffered by anyone now alive, then the time has come to put it to rest.

Any other solution will just allow claims to multiply and will keep wrongs alive forever.

------------------------------------------------------------

* Very early herding communities had little use for slaves either, as there simply was nothing for the captives to do. Later, once herding societies developed enough wealth to have labor specialization slaves could be put to work. However, it was always difficult to use slaves as herdsmen, as supervising them could take as many men as herding would require, meaning there would be no labor savings by using slaves. A fact which could explain why the Biblical Hebrews, themselves a rather primitive herding society, would slaughter the Canaanites rather than enslave them.

** I have seen those who try to refute this argument only to fall into the opposite fallacy, arguing that Western slavery was more humane than the rest of the world. While that may be true for some nations (Britain for example), it is certainly not true for the bulk of Europe. Most European nations followed to one degree or another the Corpus Iuris Civilis in their handling of slaves, and that ancient text did not provide much in the way of rights for slaves.

--------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Just to make this perfectly clear, in the first part of my essay  I am not saying slavery was a good life, but that it was better than what came before.

Think of it this way: Imagine you are Mrs. Canaanite, and Mr. Canaanite tells you and Baby Canaanite that he is going off to war. Now would you rather he were fighting the Pharaoh or Moses and his crew, who have been told by G-d to slaughter not just Mr. Canaanite, but also you, Baby Canaanite, your sheep, and maybe your house plants?

If Mr. Canaanite wins, it doesn't matter. but if he loses, Moses and company are going to be killing you, while the Pharaoh is only going to haul you and Baby Canaanite off to Egypt to toil away.

Which seems a better outcome for you? Or seems more humane?

That is why I say, rather than being an abomination, slavery is an improvement on earlier answers to how one handles those defeated in battle.