Brushfire of Freedom
The Irritable Pundit
Liberal on the radio: "My people were slaves!”
What the host should have answered: "All of us were. The question is, why do you want to be one now?"
Now before you snap and fling a metric ton of politically correct indignation my direction, let’s go back and look at a few examples of what I mean. Ok?
…
Sure, they were called “serfs” not “slaves”, but to the poor in Eastern Europe it was really only a matter of wordplay -- distinctions without a difference.
It always was slavery of course, but somewhere around the 11th century, eastern European Feudalistic Serfdom became codified into law in such a way as to negate any hope of believing it was anything but slavery. Serfs could be killed for the equivalent fine of a few cents. They could never leave their land or lord unless sold along with parcels of land, and “runaway serfs” were hunted for 5-10 years (depending) with appropriate fines for anyone keeping them safe. Now dear reader lest you think “if a serf can stay free for 5-10 years, then they are free forever”, it should be noted that the life expectancy of a serf in the eastern regions was only a bit greater than a modern household terrier. In other words, from the time they escaped they were generally dead within 5 to 10 years anyway. Specifically as the only places to run was where it was even colder.
“Serfdom, or freeze our Chechnyas off further east Boris?”
“Serfdom Igor!”
Yes, in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king. But In the land of deadly cold, the man with a Snuggie™ is king.
Odd side note: I was always fascinated by the protestations of the various leaders and Tsars/Czars (spell it how you will, you are all wrong... its царь) and their amazing death defying leaps of rhetorical whimsy, as they found ways to deny that Eastern European serfs were in fact, slaves. My personal favorite went along the lines of "I do not own the serfs! The serfs are owned by the very land upon which they stand!" Ok, so who owns the land Lord Borscht? "I do, but that is completely different! Hey is that Nicholas II naked by the fountain?" /runs away
Around the 15th century, the ability to buy yourself out of serfdom was introduced (if you were of a certain class) where the Serf could pay a fee for his freedom (pre-echoes of the later “indentured servant” of Western Europe). The reality however is 1) They didn’t have much and 2) even if they did, they could really only go back into “serfdom” for a new master. Around 1597, this was simply done away with as the sham that is was. Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, more and stronger punishments were instituted by the state.
Meanwhile, back in the West…
The peasants of Western Europe didn’t have it much better until after the 1340s or so, and even that is debatable by region. For the most part, the medieval Feudal lords were brutal, (all Hollywood imagery aside) and they could, and sometimes did, kill and rape at will. They had food, armor, a sword and a horse. You had a poor diet, a stick and some mud (not much to stop them). In fact some of the lords were said to have a particular right known as “primae noctis” or the right of the “first night”, wherein the lord gets to sleep with any bride he choose on her wedding night (before her husband was to receive her).
Odd side-note: Several scholars, quibbling over minutiae as only they can, have questioned if the right existed at all. Their rationale was that there is little written codified support for it in history, you know apart from all the mentions in literature, paintings showing the event etc... None of which is apparently to be believed until they find where some noble has written "I rapeth verily the maiden Ethel at ten past the midday hour, I musn't be late!" in his daybook. The smart-alec in me wants to say something along the lines of “Well there is little written by daily scribes about urination by lords, but doubtless it occurred as well” but the historian will instead point out that they simply miss the major while arguing the minor. A lord could essentially rape at will and there was nothing to be done about it – first night or not. It really wasn’t until the Church took over greater power that the Feudal lords were even vaguely restrained (at best). “Primae noctis” as written may simply have been flowery stories or tales, but they were stories and tales told about very real cruelty (gussied up and romanticized). By example, even in the 20th century, we have known cases of Kurdish chiefs with “primae noctis” rights to Armenian brides. So yes, dear ivory tower "Free Polanski!" types, it occurred. Not in the way discussed in Braveheart (granted) but occur it did. Hmmm… I've digressed a bit too long, back to the point!
Both Eastern Serfdom and Western Peasanthood were slavery, pure and simple. There is no other word that describes it. Unless you were lucky enough to be born noble, you were a slave. Of course, the same systems, though even more brutal in many respects, existed in the Middle East, in Africa, in North, Central and South America and so on. The lamentable and most recent plight of African slaves is well known but not the only. In fact slavery continues today in some parts of Africa, so those particular unfortunates were not even the last slaves of that continent. The much older plight of Jewish slaves is less well known outside of Charlton Heston’s “10 commandments” or annual Jewish retellings of the Exodus that begin with “I was a slave in Egypt”, but even that ancient people were not the first to be enslaved. It has been everywhere at one time or the other, including the far less mentioned indigenous peoples of the northern continents of our spinning blue marble. For example, many a native American died under the blows of another tribe’s foremen and in case you are confused, the Mayans did not have willing sacrifices on their pyramids, they had slaves. It has happened to every people or their progenitors at one time or another. It is the application of power by the stronger over the weaker, the many over the few. Please note: That still occurs.
Regardless of the location, name or particulars, slavery is where someone (or a collection of “someones”) automatically takes the earnings and sweat from your brow and against your will. Generally they have this right from birth to death. Got it? This "owner" gets most of the value you generate if not all, and hands you a pittance (say a living stipend, a housing stipend, and a weekly food allowance) to survive on. There is no choice. If they (or them) do not get the fruit of your labor through some action on your part, you are punished, jailed, or worse. You do not live on what you have, but survive on what you are allowed. Maybe you get nothing. Perhaps in the best of slave conditions you keep 10% of your earnings, maybe 15%, even 25% if you were in a skilled craft (depending on century and location.) You live where they tell you, or among the places they allow you to live. You do what you are told. Any questions?
Most interestingly, as Western Europe moved away from their form of slavery (feudal peasant system) to indentured servant-hood, to the precursor of the sharecropper, to “small holder”, the East fell behind and tried to modernize and free their own slaves (the serfs). Although only to a point, it was really only window dressing at first. Much like the Jim Crow laws, it was better than slavery, but still had the intent of retaining control. Oddly enough, it was the communist revolution that truly freed the Eastern people from slavery -- only to immediately put them right back into it with the “State” as the owner.
Wait, what?
This particular twist was not noticed initially as the mantra “we are all the state” meant everyone owned each other – what could be more fair? But as it turns out, if the State takes most of what you make or all of what you make, and hands you a pittance (say a living stipend, a housing stipend, and a weekly food allowance) to survive on, you are still a slave. Worse, you are a slave trapped and controlled by a faceless machine that will grind its gears around you endlessly until you are gone. I would tell you to ask the Jews who were unable to flee Poland about faceless state-controlled gears, but for the most part they are all dead so it is hard to find anyone to ask.
Why am I giving this history lesson? All of this is because of that caller on the radio believe it or not. Sean Hannity was doing his usual shtick when someone started speaking about taxes. When Sean pressed him he said 75%, even 85% of your salary was not too much to give in taxes. I literally pulled over. This is where we’ve come to? Better said, this is where we’ve come BACK to? If you are allowed to keep 15-25% it is ok? That is not a free man, that is a peasant.
But it is ok, right? The caller was speaking about how much the government gave back after all. The government may take your money in taxes, but so long as they give you assistance (welfare), HUD assistance (into approved housing projects) and food stamps, I guess everything is fine! Wait, isn’t that “a living stipend, a housing stipend, and a weekly food allowance”? That is not a free man, that is a serf.
Why are some people rushing back to slavery? The caller is apparently one of many clamoring to be taken, willingly giving their arms forward for chains that are no less real for their lack of iron bite. Why would you stand for any man taking that which is yours, and allowing only the dregs he feels you need? It is not “hope and change”, it is rope and chains.
Serf, peasant, slave… what is in a name? I've heard it said that "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
True, but a slave by any other name would sound as weak.
Go ahead caller, you are next...
Contact The Irritable Pundit Brushfire Home
Copyright 2009. The published content is the sole property of the author. Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.