CaptainPatch wrote:I readily grant that I'm making many assumptions. However, my assumptions are derived from observation of actual History; your assumptions lean more towards idealistic theories. The reason I brought up the reference to the VERY pervasive culture of submissive Muslim women was to underscore when oppression has been multi-generational. "Why does an abused dog NOT run away from its owner? Because abuse is the ONLY Life it knows." Slaves whose grandparents had been slaves really have very little concept of what Life is like "out there". To have an inkling, there would have to be channels of communication that come from beyond the slave-owning community into where the slaves are held -- something that slave-owners would generally try to suppress as a matter-of-course. That leaves the slaves with little more than oral history, family legend, and speculation concerning the tidbits that have leaked in. Nothing in the way of solid knowledge of what Life is really like outside of the community. Add to that a lifetime of the owners repeatedly telling them, "You are sooooo lucky to be my property. I am saving you from ___(a long list of horror stories)___."
Except there are plenty of examples of what I am referring to as well, even in the US civil war history. And in many ways they would be stronger for it. Oral histories are often more powerful as they have the passing it on element involved. Especially if secret. So imagine them passing on the history of a time when all men were equal. When Slavery didn't exist etc.
The Submissive muslim women culture is true. But curiously even in the most stringent of regimes there was rebellion. Amusingly the burqa that they are forced to wear actually assists them in some ways. I read a very interesting article on a group of women in one of the more stringent nations (I think it was Iran, but I can't recall). They would secretly wear makeup under their Burqa's. If they were caught, they could literally be stoned to death. But they still did it. Because it was rebellion.
Don't get me wrong, I am not outright dismissing what you say, at all. I honestly agree with most of it. But I think you are overplaying the "don't want to be free" as much as I am overplaying "You are free to make your own choice"
A source of information to slaves about outside conditions would be from "fresh" slaves. But that wouldn't be as positive of an effect as you might think. First and foremost, such a new slave would be "persuaded" to keep his mouth shut and be obedient or (at best) "sold down the river" to _really_ harsh owners -- things can alwaysbecome worse -- or be (at worst) executed out of hand as being too troublesome to bother with. Secondly, there is the aspect that such new slaves would actually confirm just how bad it is "out there". After all, wherever it is that they were taken from was so chaotic and unsafe that he or she was taken by Slavers -- and no one stopped the Slavers from doing so. The outside world IS a dangerous place.
You are assuming it is that bad out there. There is no reason a group of people were simply captured whilst hunting or trading or something, you can't be protected at all times. People have an amazing ability to survive. We really should be lumped with Rats and pigeons, we can and do survive anything and anywhere.
From an organizational consideration, for the Desert Rangers to adopt an overarching policy that "We WILL destroy Slavery wherever we encounter it" would be to start out their expansion as being effectively at war with nearly EVERYWHERE they go. (If as pervasive and institutionalized as I suspect it would be.)
Ah see I don't think it would be as pervasive. Sure you have the Rednecks etc, but lets face it, you also have a very strong fundamentalist christian element, that remember that the israelites were slaves. I know that sounds odd, but that really was a key element, the whole slavery thing. Christianity was the religion of the slaves. Don't forget that.
Plus there would no doubt be a few people like me, who find the very idea abhorrent. Or people who'se ancestors were enslaved in the not too distant past and still have some knowledge of it.
However if you are more correct than I, then yes, obviously diplomacy at the end of a barrel is not going to be as effective.
Any and all communities that have integrated Slavery into its code of Laws would NOT drop the practice just because some upstart Goody Two-Shoes outfit breezed into town and demanded that they do so.
Even a Goody two-shoes outfit that has burnt out the last couple of slavers?
Genghis Khan was very very effective with this sort of thing. Go in, demand surrender, if you don't get it wipe out town, send 1 person to next town, go in demand surrender. Pretty soon the towns started surrendering. People look at him as a monster for that, and indeed he was. But it worked, and in the long run (because he was coming no matter what) it saved more lives than it ended.
Without a doubt the Powers That Be in EVERY community would be property-owners
True, but that is not the same as everybody, in Rome for example, only the very richest had slaves. They were expensive. This is part of why they were treated ok in some respects.
So if you have a society where only the rich have slaves, that will breed a certain discontent. Essentially the lower classes, now have to compete not only with other freemen, but with slaves, who by definition will be cheaper. Then they hear that the Slavers in the community down south were wiped out, and someone has just given their own leaders the same ultimatum. I'll put money on the regular townsfolk being a bit pissed at management if they didn't take it seriously.
After the first community that condones Slavery is battered by Ranger Justice, word _would_ spread to all other communities that condone Slavery. They will also see just what havoc the Rangers wrought on the first (or second, or third) town and conclude, "We can stand together or hang separately.) A highly-motivated alliance of Slaver towns with the singular goal of ending the Desert Rangers. Any Desert Ranger Administrator with an IQ over 12 would be smart enough to see what the inevitable conclusion to such a confrontation: the Desert Rangers with their idealistic goals shattered and the few survivors scattered with Wanted Dead or Alive posters hounding them. To not eventually achieve its goals would be the greatest fear of such idealists.
Oh I agree, you would need to deal with that situation completely differently. First by building up allies, second by undermining the Slaver towns. Gradually break them up and turn them against each other. Make it look like one group is atacking the other. Cause them to fight. Then come in and smash them hard. Leave them so shocked an awed that they don't have time to organise and rally. Hit the strongest and most influential. Until the remnant either join and fight or surrender. You may lose, nothing would be certain. But it would be worth it. Because the longer you leave slavery the more entrenched it becomes. Both from the point of view of the slaves (your own genarational comment) and the Slave societies. (but who will clean the latrines!!!!)
Your assumption is that I would treat every situation the same. Thats just silly. I was talking about a relatively isolated group of slavers. You have gone the other way. Of course my method wasn't going to be the best solution in your situation. By the same token your way is not the best solution in mine.
Whereas, a head-on confrontation relying on brute force WILL fail
Not necessarily. Especially if you offer the rescued slaves a chance to fight back, and start training them in Guerilla warfare. If a slaver government is that organised that it can resist a concerted effort by guerilla's who have a personal hatred of it, and the backing of a group that can train and possibly outfit them, then you wouldn't be roaming their territory anyway.