Seanchan and their slaves

[Caelan Arendor]

Since we are all (hopefully) agreed in condemning slavery and in regarding this kind of “ownership” of other human beings as abhorrent and repugnant, the Seanchan attitude on this issue should not surprise us, especially when viewed against our own far-from-flattering history.

 

The Christian doctrine of salvation goes so far in its "holy book" as to enshrine slavery and its "rules," effectively normalizing it.

 

Some examples appealing?

 

Deuteronomy 20:10–14

• In war, women and children may be taken as plunder.

• Deuteronomy 21:10–14

• Female captives may be taken as wives after a waiting period.

• This effectively institutionalizes forced marriage / sexual slavery.

• Permanent, hereditary slavery of foreigners

  Leviticus 25:44–46

• Israelites may acquire slaves from surrounding nations.

• These slaves are property for life and may be inherited by children.

• In contrast, Israelite slaves must not be treated as slaves permanently. They are to be freed after a servitude of 7 years, unless they are tricked (I can expand on this if you wish in another place...)

• Exodus 21:20–21 (NRSV)

  “When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished.
  But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.”

  The New Testament does not call for the abolition of slavery. Instead, it generally accepts it as a social reality and instructs slaves to obey their masters.

  So here is my conclusion: just as our own history (up until modern times) regarded slavery as a normal institution—benefiting countless people massively by it (Liverpool’s wealth in the 18th and 19th centuries was largely built on the then-already illegal slave trade)—a social order like that of the Seanchan, living at a cultural level comparable to our European Middle Ages, should really come as no surprise.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Greetings and best 73 --.../...-- de

Calean

[DojoToad]

2 hours ago, Caelan Arendor said:

Since we are all (hopefully) agreed in condemning slavery and in regarding this kind of “ownership” of other human beings as abhorrent and repugnant, the Seanchan attitude on this issue should not surprise us, especially when viewed against our own far-from-flattering history.

 

The Christian doctrine of salvation goes so far in its "holy book" as to enshrine slavery and its "rules," effectively normalizing it.

 

Some examples appealing?

 

Deuteronomy 20:10–14

• In war, women and children may be taken as plunder.

• Deuteronomy 21:10–14

• Female captives may be taken as wives after a waiting period.

• This effectively institutionalizes forced marriage / sexual slavery.

• Permanent, hereditary slavery of foreigners

  Leviticus 25:44–46

• Israelites may acquire slaves from surrounding nations.

• These slaves are property for life and may be inherited by children.

• In contrast, Israelite slaves must not be treated as slaves permanently. They are to be freed after a servitude of 7 years, unless they are tricked (I can expand on this if you wish in another place...)

• Exodus 21:20–21 (NRSV)

  “When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished.
  But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.”

  The New Testament does not call for the abolition of slavery. Instead, it generally accepts it as a social reality and instructs slaves to obey their masters.

  So here is my conclusion: just as our own history (up until modern times) regarded slavery as a normal institution—benefiting countless people massively by it (Liverpool’s wealth in the 18th and 19th centuries was largely built on the then-already illegal slave trade)—a social order like that of the Seanchan, living at a cultural level comparable to our European Middle Ages, should really come as no surprise.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Greetings and best 73 --.../...-- de

Calean

 

Christian doctrine is much more closely tied to the New Testament; your Biblical references are exclusively Old Testament.  That said, I think there were references to slaves obeying masters and for citizens to submit to the government and pay taxes. - Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and so on...

 

Slavery benefitted many societies throughout history at the direct cost of the slaves and the nations they were gathered from.  I think that the slaveholders paid an indirect price of the moral degradation of their own society.  Slavery was (and still is) normalized by many peoples.  Eventually I think it reaches a tipping point where the abolitionists rise up, the slaves revolt, or it just kind of peters out...  Seems cyclical.

[Caelan Arendor]

10 hours ago, DojoToad said:

 

Christian doctrine is much more closely tied to the New Testament; your Biblical references are exclusively Old Testament.  That said, I think there were references to slaves obeying masters and for citizens to submit to the government and pay taxes. - Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and so on...

 

Slavery benefitted many societies throughout history at the direct cost of the slaves and the nations they were gathered from.  I think that the slaveholders paid an indirect price of the moral degradation of their own society.  Slavery was (and still is) normalized by many peoples.  Eventually I think it reaches a tipping point where the abolitionists rise up, the slaves revolt, or it just kind of peters out...  Seems cyclical.

So did the God of the Old Testament suddenly change his mind in the New Testament? Is Jesus himself not identical with the God of the Old Testament? Did Jesus ever, even once, state clearly and unequivocally that owning people is an abomination?

God never tired of insisting on dietary laws, dress codes, and strict observance of the Sabbath—yet it never occurred to him to include the monstrosity of slavery among the Ten Commandments. It would have been so simple: “Thou shalt not own people.”

Basta.

[DojoToad]

3 hours ago, Caelan Arendor said:

So did the God of the Old Testament suddenly change his mind in the New Testament? Is Jesus himself not identical with the God of the Old Testament? Did Jesus ever, even once, state clearly and unequivocally that owning people is an abomination?

God never tired of insisting on dietary laws, dress codes, and strict observance of the Sabbath—yet it never occurred to him to include the monstrosity of slavery among the Ten Commandments. It would have been so simple: “Thou shalt not own people.”

Basta.

Jesus changed many things from the Old Testament.  Try Mark 7:18-20.  And Mark 2:27.  

 

No, the Bible never forbids slavery.  But Christians were central to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the US.  Also, some Christians defended retaining the institution of slavery.  While never directly condemning slavery, Jesus did seem to at least hint at change in the days' societal norms - Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:39.  And what I think is a direct knock on slavery - Luke 4:18.

 

People throughout history interpret the Bible differently.  They can hone in on one verse without taking context into account - what came immediately before and after doesn't matter, much less the context of the Bible as a whole.  They take the salad bar approach - a little of this and a little of that, whatever fits into the way they want to live.  Whatever would be inconvenient for them they ignore.

[Mailman]

12 hours ago, DojoToad said:

Jesus changed many things from the Old Testament.  Try Mark 7:18-20.  And Mark 2:27.  

 

No, the Bible never forbids slavery.  But Christians were central to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the US.  Also, some Christians defended retaining the institution of slavery.  While never directly condemning slavery, Jesus did seem to at least hint at change in the days' societal norms - Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:39.  And what I think is a direct knock on slavery - Luke 4:18.

 

People throughout history interpret the Bible differently.  They can hone in on one verse without taking context into account - what came immediately before and after doesn't matter, much less the context of the Bible as a whole.  They take the salad bar approach - a little of this and a little of that, whatever fits into the way they want to live.  Whatever would be inconvenient for them they ignore.

Lol at giving credit to the christian religion for the abolition of slavery only 18 centuries after the new testament and that after specifically supporting it earlier in the "holy" book.

Edited Friday at 12:54 AM by Mailman

[Mailman]

13 hours ago, DojoToad said:

 

 

People throughout history interpret the Bible differently.  They can hone in on one verse without taking context into account - what came immediately before and after doesn't matter, much less the context of the Bible as a whole.  They take the salad bar approach - a little of this and a little of that, whatever fits into the way they want to live.  Whatever would be inconvenient for them they ignore.

Hilarious the clearly out of context support of slavery.

The salad approach or choosing to ignore the parts that are no longer morally acceptable is a joke. As mankind advances it drags the morals of the church with it as they desperately attempt to stay relevant.

The bible especially the old testament is a book of evil.

[DojoToad]

10 hours ago, Mailman said:

Lol at giving credit to the christian religion for the abolition of slavery only 18 centuries after the new testament and that after specifically supporting it earlier in the "holy" book.

Even though the church, and christians more broadly, supported/encouraged retaining slavery for centuries, that does not nullify the fact that christians also were the driving force in its abolition in the late 1700's and 1800's.

Edited Friday at 11:13 AM by DojoToad

[Mailman]

44 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

Even though the church, and christians more broadly, supported/encouraged retaining slavery for centuries, that does not nullify the fact that christians also were the driving force in its abolition in the late 1700's and 1800's.

Well thats great for a religion guided literally by GOD.

 

Far more likely that some good men who happened to be christians fought for freedom than that good chrisitians fought for freedom because of their faith.

 

[DojoToad]

5 minutes ago, Mailman said:

Well thats great for a religion guided literally by GOD.

 

Far more likely that some good men who happened to be christians fought for freedom than that good chrisitians fought for freedom because of their faith.

 

True that.  Being christian doesn't make one good, obviously...

[Caelan Arendor]

18 hours ago, Mailman said:

Lol at giving credit to the christian religion for the abolition of slavery only 18 centuries after the new testament and that after specifically supporting it earlier in the "holy" book.

Many of the slaveholders in the Southern states were devout Christians who took perverse pleasure in whipping runaway slaves to death. So let's dispense with the nonsense that it was Christians who championed the liberation of Black people from slavery. Far too many of them profited immensely from it.

[Caelan Arendor]

17 hours ago, Mailman said:

Hilarious the clearly out of context support of slavery.

The salad approach or choosing to ignore the parts that are no longer morally acceptable is a joke. As mankind advances it drags the morals of the church with it as they desperately attempt to stay relevant.

The bible especially the old testament is a book of evil.

I quote Richard Dawkins verbatim: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control‑freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

[Caelan Arendor]

7 hours ago, Mailman said:

Well thats great for a religion guided literally by GOD.

 

Far more likely that some good men who happened to be christians fought for freedom than that good chrisitians fought for freedom because of their faith.

 

When discussing the role of Christians in the abolition of slavery, we must not overlook the fact that even in the 18th and 19th centuries, nearly the entire population of Europe and the United States belonged to some form (version) of Christianity. It was not Christianity itself that freed the slaves, but rather people capable of empathy and compassion, who stood up for their fellow human beings, even when they were of a different skin color.
Side note: William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the Atlantic slave trade.

[Caelan Arendor]

19 hours ago, DojoToad said:

True that.  Being christian doesn't make one good, obviously...

Exactly my thoughts as well!

[DojoToad]

On 12/19/2025 at 2:21 PM, Caelan Arendor said:

When discussing the role of Christians in the abolition of slavery, we must not overlook the fact that even in the 18th and 19th centuries, nearly the entire population of Europe and the United States belonged to some form (version) of Christianity. It was not Christianity itself that freed the slaves, but rather people capable of empathy and compassion, who stood up for their fellow human beings, even when they were of a different skin color.
Side note: William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the Atlantic slave trade.

 

No, it was not Christianity itself that freed the slaves, but as I mentioned earlier they were often in the forefront of the abolition movement (despite others that used Christianity to justify slavery).  Wilberforce was one of these Christians, as were the people highlighted in green below that he worked with.  Their passion for the abolition movement often came after a conversion experience to Christianity.

 

 

[Caelan Arendor]

5 hours ago, DojoToad said:

 

No, it was not Christianity itself that freed the slaves, but as I mentioned earlier they were often in the forefront of the abolition movement (despite others that used Christianity to justify slavery).  Wilberforce was one of these Christians, as were the people highlighted in green below that he worked with.  Their passion for the abolition movement often came after a conversion experience to Christianity.

 

 

It is undisputed that there are religious people who do good, and they deserve full credit for it. On the other hand, there is nothing in the realm of human empathy or humanism that atheists could not also do — or perhaps even do better. In any case, when they perform good deeds, they do not cast a glance toward a heavenly reward, but act for the sake of the good itself.

And one more thing: good people do good things, bad people do bad things — but it takes religion to make good people commit atrocities.

 

Have a nice Christmas holiday, best 73, --.../...-- from Calean

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

2 hours ago, Caelan Arendor said:

And one more thing: good people do good things, bad people do bad things — but it takes religion to make good people commit atrocities.

That is not true, Caelan. All that is needed is a concept of the greater good that can justify any lesser evils. 

 

Nationalism and patriotism provide that, but so do things like "protecting children", unfortunately people are amazingly good at justifying horrors and religion is far from the only culprit. 

 

If I may be so bold as to touch back upon the Wheel of Time (off topic as that is, lol), it is the rejection of the greater good by Rand that so impresses Ingtar. Yet at other points, Rand brings war and destruction for the greater good of peace. It is a complex issue, but can be far too easily abused. 

[Caelan Arendor]

6 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

That is not true, Caelan. All that is needed is a concept of the greater good that can justify any lesser evils. 

 

Nationalism and patriotism provide that, but so do things like "protecting children", unfortunately people are amazingly good at justifying horrors and religion is far from the only culprit. 

 

If I may be so bold as to touch back upon the Wheel of Time (off topic as that is, lol), it is the rejection of the greater good by Rand that so impresses Ingtar. Yet at other points, Rand brings war and destruction for the greater good of peace. It is a complex issue, but can be far too easily abused. 

What you say is probably true: evil deeds are not committed solely at the behest of religious dogma (one need only recall the atrocities of Stalinism and National Socialism). Yet since God evidently represents the highest authority for believers, His mandate—be it commandment, injunction, or imperative—is the least likely to be questioned and is followed with the greatest zeal and devotion. When God curses the descendants of Ham and relegates them to the status of second-class beings, is it any wonder that people then set about enslaving and persecuting them with fervor, regarding them as second-class human beings—right up to the present day? Critical thinking has no room to arise in such a context. But of course you are right again: 

This subject seems only loosely connected to the history of Randland. Or perhaps not?

It keeps that subtle tension and invites the reader to question the connection.

 

Its late, and tired recruits love their evening-Grappa, and thats exactly what I intend to do. Have a nice evening and love to hear from you again!