(Hated Trope) "Kind" slave owners

[u/KusanagiGundam]

Speaking as an American who has studied the civil war all throughout my school years, this trope infuriates me to no end. There is no such thing as a kind slave master because slavery itself is cruel and inhumane. PEOPLE ARE NOT PROPERTY!

Naofumi (Shield Hero): Prime example of this trope. He enslaves multiple (underage) girls and an whole village and the fans still say he's a hero.

Rudeus (Jobless Reincarnation): As if being a pedo wasn't bad enough he had to buy a slave in season 2. Worse is that people still defend his actions.

Song of The South (Disney): Possibly the OG example of this trope. And the reason why Disney will never release it again.

[u/Hour_Atmosphere_3852]

Ketil, form Vinland Saga, is a fun subversion of this trope. He is presented exactly that way, he buys slaves but is overall a good man and lets his slaves buy back their freedom through their work, which is a lot more than everyone else does, but the events turn and we find out what the mangaka wanted to tell us. There isn't such a thing as a good person that hurts others.

[u/vangaurd1234523 → u/Hour_Atmosphere_3852]

Yeah it’s a great subversion of the whole idea of a “good” master. Because no matter how nice he is about it, his slaves aren’t his friends, they’re his property. And when push comes to shove that’s how he ultimately treats them

[u/rllrdr → u/vangaurd1234523]

Unpopular opinion, but I don't like the direction the story went. Instead of tackling the far more difficult stance of "slavery is inherently wrong regardless of how well a master treats his slaves" it instead concludes with "slavery is wrong because the master is secretly a violent asshole as soon as things stop going his way". Well yeah, no shit, even your average slave-owning isekai protag would agree beating your pregnant slave to death is wrong, it flattens any nuance towards "there's no such thing as a good slave owner".

[u/_NotMitetechno_ → u/rllrdr]

The message is more that Ketil is a duplicitous man who believes himself to be moral and good yet when faced with tough choices he ALWAYS takes the easier and more cowardly option, meaning his morals are about as strong as paper. He believes himself to be a moral slave owner yet every time he is challenged to be a "good" slave owner he proves himself incapable of being a "good" slave owner. It goes a way to highlight that the inherent cruelty and power differential of slavery lends itself to exploitation and immoral behaviour. He represents far more than just an immoral slave owner, which ironically is pretty nuanced.

The text shows you how a "good" slave owner is still pretty awful, even absent of Ketil. We see the issues that the slaves face, such as being exploited by the mercenaries for entertainment and how the people who were previously slaves poorly treat Thorfinn + Einar.

I think the story does consider slavery wrong even in the context of its time period. Characters in the story react as people in that time period largely would, even Thorfinn. However the cruelty of slavery as we see it is the same as what happens in the story.

[u/rllrdr → u/_NotMitetechno_]

Yes, I know what Ketil was trying to portray, I just think doing so is the far less complex route to write.

[u/_NotMitetechno_ → u/rllrdr]

How?

[u/rllrdr → u/_NotMitetechno_]

It's easy to portray slavery as wrong when the master beats a pregnant woman to death. It takes far more skill having the master not abuse power difference of slavery, and are still able to portray slavery as wrong.

[u/_NotMitetechno_ → u/rllrdr]

That's already done in text

[u/rllrdr → u/_NotMitetechno_]

Ketil clearly does abuse power difference of slavery. What, slavery is wrong because you might get bullied by third parties? As long as those third parties didn't exist, slavery wouldn't be so bad?

[u/_NotMitetechno_ → u/rllrdr]

You're intentionally being stupid lol

[u/rllrdr → u/_NotMitetechno_]

Whatever you say.

[u/person1880 → u/rllrdr]

Slavery inherently relies on an abuse of the power imbalance to maintain it. Can you provide an example of a story where the owner doesn’t abuse the power imbalance in some way? Where there isn’t an inherent threat behind disobedience even if such a threat isn’t carried out?

[u/rllrdr → u/person1880]

I mean explicit abuse, you're talking about implicit abuse which is the far harder route to write that I'm talking about.

[u/person1880 → u/rllrdr]

Implicit abuse is still abuse, it’s not harder to write someone who just does the implicit abuse. It’s in fact easier and was often done as part of the happy slave/moral slave owner as a trope. People have tried to move away from that increasingly.

[u/rllrdr → u/person1880]

The happy slave/moral slave owner trope is also lazy writing because it refuses to engage with the other half of the equation: the actual criticism of it. I'm asking for both halves.

[u/4tetraphobia4 → u/rllrdr]

“It’s harder to write” “it is cliche” has become an excuse for right wingers to claim their favorite tropes (unapologetic slavery and sexism) are in fact oppressed actually.

If you weren’t a coward you would make your comment history public.

[u/rllrdr → u/4tetraphobia4]

"unapologetic slavery" directly contradicts "still able to portray slavery as wrong". There's nothing skillful about portraying unapologetic slavery either, that's why isekai hacks use it.

[u/4tetraphobia4 → u/rllrdr]

There’s plenty of historical Josei that explore this sort of thing. Ofc, with marriage and women’s rights rather than slavery. But given legally women were considered the man’s property until some hundred odd years ago…

[u/KamikazeArchon → u/rllrdr]

But that's what slavery is. It's not a flattening, it's a revealing. Every slave master is secretly a violent asshole as soon as things stop going their way.

Because if the slave tries to leave, the slave master will violently stop them (or have others do it). That's crucial to the "being a slave master" thing.

[u/rllrdr → u/KamikazeArchon]

So if a slave master doesn't stop the slave from leaving, everything prior to that would be okay? Most of those isekai protags are too limp-wristed to do anything, it would be okay for them to own slaves? No, if you want to argue the inherent evilness of slavery, you have to portray it as wrong even if everything about is "good".

I forget where this is from, but there's this novel where two slaves escape from a kind slave owner, who treats his slaves so well that most don't want to leave. The slave owner catches up to them, not to punish, but to ask them to come back because they'd likely starve to death on their own. The slaves respond that they rather die in a ditch than live good lives as slaves. That's how you portray slavery as inherently evil, by portraying freedom as a fundamental core of being human that can't be overridden by kindness, not having the slave master be Evil McBadguy.

[u/BrainBlowX → u/rllrdr]

> So if a slave master doesn't stop the slave from leaving, everything prior to that would be okay?

"if he emancipates the slaves immediately, is he a bad guy?"

The only "good guy slaver" scenario is a schindler's list situation where it is a cover to save lives in a temporary circumstance.

In your good guy slaver story the obvious point would be that the slave master can officially free and employ the slaves, and arrange for them to reach free lands under safer circumstances. Exploiting them being trapped by their material circumstance is not "kindness".

[u/Whole-Economics5215 → u/[deleted]]

Shields hero (the one in the first image) does exactly that

[u/Vermilion_Laufer → u/Whole-Economics5215]

Well to be precise female lead gets freed by the antagonists (just to spite mc), and volunteer to get the brand reaplied because the mc was at a point where he didn't trust anyone who could betray him. He just asks if she is sure anout it.

[u/rllrdr → u/BrainBlowX]

Doesn't have to be immediate, let's say the slave after 10 years of service found something they want to do and wants to leave. The master does not stop this, are those 10 years now moral?

I can't remember all the details, but I think the idea was the slaves had a higher quality of living than your average free citizen. Use whatever semantics you want, what you said is still more nuanced than pregnant-woman-beater.

[u/Nerd_Watching → u/rllrdr]

Are you approaching this argument from a writer's perspective?

Anyways, no. I don't see a case where 10 years of service is moral given my question: how is it enforced? If they just refuse to work what happens?

As for that story, the one where two slaves escape... uh, it sounds pro slavery. It's obviously not assuming the book is in the escapee's perspective, but it's a conclusion that sounds like the slaver is providing protection.

Its important to many people that the slavers are bad people.

Bear with me and let me rephrase: it is important that a book about slavery covers the exigence of slavery.

Those two slaves, could've just been hired as butlers or farmworkers, or whatever that slaver needed. They could stay at the slaver's home all the same. Hell, the pay could be just being able to stay there.

Not covering the exigence, why slaves over butlers, shifts narrative responsibility away from the slaver, because wHo kNoWs wHy tHeY hAd sLaVeS, iT cOuLd bE fOr a GoOd rEaSoN!

[u/rllrdr → u/Nerd_Watching]

Yes, for a writer's perspective. When arguing a stance, it's more skillful to take the hypothetical to the limits and still be able to argue your case.

If they refuse to work, they're free to leave. Picture your average isekai mc who's obviously too soft to do anything if his slave leaves and the whole thing is contingent on the girl willingly staying his slave that's criticized numerous times in this thread.

I don't see how the two slaves choosing freedom over comfort even at the cost of death and are portrayed to be in the right could possible be pro slavery.

[u/Nerd_Watching → u/rllrdr]

I know. I was worried that based on the description the lesson could be, "society prioritizes freedom before safety too much", because between safety or death I believe most people would agree with picking safety.

As for Mr. isekai man. It gets to a point yk. Won't the audience think, "this show is trying to comment on slavery, but that's just not slavery." Your hypothetical 10 yrs of service (which I thought was 10 yrs of agreed slavery, mb) is moral?, but I do find an other point.

That newly freed person is financially fucked, no? By standard of slavery = unpaid, that person is broke. Honestly they shouldn't even accept 10 yrs of unpaid service unless they're working at a mansion or if the rest of the world is fallout new vegas apparently with the two escaped slaves.

[u/KamikazeArchon → u/rllrdr]

Yeah, that's not how slavery works, and that's not how the evil of slavery works.

The evilness of slavery is precisely the day to day cruelty. It's not a Philosophical Evil that deserves consideration under some hypothetical "kind master". There are no kind masters. There are only degrees of cruelty.

The plot you've described is providing a slave owner that's Evil McBadguy. "Come back and be my slaves or starve" is incredibly cruel. It is not any form of kindness.

A kind person would have caught up to them and said "here, take this food and medicine for the road, and here are some guns to protect yourself from slave-catchers".

That would indeed be the act of a good person. And at that point they're simply not a slave master.

[u/rllrdr → u/KamikazeArchon]

The ability to portray offering a higher standard of living than free citizens still as cruelty is the alternative I'm talking about. They we're free to leave if they refused the offer. I can't remember what happens after that, but hypothetically if the master did give them food and medicine for the road, so what? I can totally picture your generic isekai mc doing that. Does that make them a good person? If his other slaves see this and still choose to stay with him, is it consensual now?

[u/KamikazeArchon → u/rllrdr]

but hypothetically if the master did give them food and medicine for the road, so what?

Then they've freed their slaves, which is clearly better than continuing to be a slaveowner.

 I can totally picture your generic isekai mc doing that.

The stories where they actually do that are few, but such protagonists are certainly portrayed better. (They unfortunately often then have the "slaves love being slaves" trope, as with the Shield Hero instance.)

If his other slaves see this and still choose to stay with him, is it consensual now?

What do you think the label "slave" means?

If a person is free to leave at any time and will face no negative consequences - either directly from you or from society/enforcers/the environment- for doing so, why would you call them "a slave"?

If a person lives in a slaveowning society and offers freedom to all slaves they purchase, with financial support for establishing themselves, we generally don't call that person a "slavemaster", we call them an "abolitionist". That is indeed about the best you can do in such a circumstance, assuming you don't have magic or military powers capable of overthrowing the whole society. As was mentioned elsewhere, at that point it's basically a Schindler's List situation.

[u/rllrdr → u/KamikazeArchon]

So most isekai mc slavery isn't actually slavery then? In most cases, the only negative consequence is the same negative consequence as leaving your job. They'll be fine if they can land another job. What would be wrong with them then? Only that the "slaves love being slaves" trope is contrived?

> offers freedom to all slaves they purchase

No, unless the slaves were inherited, it has been widely argued that purchasing is the problem, it fuels slavers to capture more slaves. Only people who dismantles the system at its core are regarded as abolitionist.

[u/KamikazeArchon → u/rllrdr]

"Isekai mc slavery" is quite varied, and I'm unaware of any statistics allowing me to make confident statements about "most".

The specific first example shown here absolutely does face negative consequences. There's a whole magically enforced pain seal, which is actively used.

[u/rllrdr → u/KamikazeArchon]

Never touched the first example so let's use the second. I forget if there was any explicit enforcement, but the pertinent negative consequence of leaving is that an unskilled slave would starve to death on the streets. The mc and his friend buy their slave for craftsmanship. They give her an education, train her in crafting, start paying her a wage once she's skilled enough, when they suspect she's dissatisfied with her living standards and is trying to buy her freedom, they agree she should be allowed to, which she could easily do with the skills she acquired and have enough money left over to go anywhere to make her own living. Of course it ends with the stereotypical "that's a misunderstanding, master treats me well, I love being a slave!". So again, is the only thing wrong with this that the "slaves love being slaves" trope is contrived?

[u/NeonNKnightrider → u/rllrdr]

If the slave owner lets the slaves go, then he isn’t a slave owner.

[u/MeanLifeguard7576 → u/NeonNKnightrider]

Right? I have a story set in the 1400s where slavery exists. The isekaid main character runs a Merchantry and he actually buys up slaves. However, immediately after, he rips up the contracts and instead offer them fair job contracts that pay well. They are allowed to refuse and they will be given a small allowance and can leave, though they are not taken care of further, because in the end, the MC is running a Merchantry, not a charity.

Would you consider him evil or a slaver?

In this instance, slavery itself is legal and widespread, just like in the irl counterpart of that age, so stopping or halting slave trade would result in heavy retaliations and maybe even death by execution. This is the only peaceful method he has to free slaves.

As a counterpart, there's exists another isekaid character that runs around freeing slaves via force and revolution, but since he doesn't have an institution behind him, a good portion of the slaves he frees end up dying or going back even worse than before because he has no method or directing them all to a better place.

He is meant to be a direct counterpart to the main character in this sense, a reckless revolutionist to the colder merchant. They both ultimately mean well but do it in complete opposite ways.

[u/person1880 → u/MeanLifeguard7576]

Wha so my issue here is that usually when you have an anti-slave revolutionary they tend to build up a slave rebellion, and not just free them to be caught and enslaved or killed. Those revolutions may not usually be successful, but slaves tend to join those rebellions because to them it’s usually better to die free or fighting for it. Nat Turner, Spartacus, the Hatian Revolution, the German Coast among others. Slavery doesn’t usually end through peaceful means, either, it usually ends as a result of war or purges after conquest.

[u/MeanLifeguard7576 → u/person1880]

Didn't slavery mainly end after the Haitian revolution when the British decided that wage labour was more productive and economical? Sure the revolution kick-started the reasoning but the end result was not from war, was it?

Also the revolutionist is stupid and reckless, he's just a kid that was isekaid who has a stubborn sense of justice that's why his methods suck

[u/person1880 → u/MeanLifeguard7576]

It’s a bit more complicated than that. The British slowly phased it out in their crown controlled colonial system over a six year period but that wasn’t really the main abolition of slavery. As the main abolition took place through a series of treaties where different powers agreed to use force if necessary to end the slave trade everywhere.

Slavery in India for example was abolished in part because the East India company had just had another local rebellion against their rule, and wanted to placate the population. The Hatian Revolution was obviously a slave Revolt that succeeded and subsequently abolished slavery. The American Civil was also in part a slave revolt and again succeeded. The abolition of the Arab slave trade in the Ottoman Empire came on the back of a primarily British war in which they forced it as part of the treaty terms.

Same thing that happened to the Ottomans happened to Lagos. Multiple South American countries intervened against William Walker take over other countries and trying to implement slavery, Cuba also had a Slave Revolt turn revolution.

My point is that he doesn’t even have to himself be smart for it to happen, these movements tend to built regardless based on resentment from the slaves, and it usually just takes a spark to kick them off. Someone who gives the movement a sense that they can win by fighting.

[u/MeanLifeguard7576 → u/person1880]

Whoa interesting. This is actually really useful info for me lmao, I think I'll dig into this deeper and see how I can refine that character...

[u/-kinapuffar- → u/MeanLifeguard7576]

They are allowed to refuse and they will be given a small allowance and can leave, though they are not taken care of further, because in the end, the MC is running a Merchantry, not a charity.

If they are given free money in addition to buying their freedom then it is in fact a charity.

[u/MeanLifeguard7576 → u/-kinapuffar-]

Ah well "not a charity" is what the MC says I think he's just a tsundere 😂

[u/Moka4u → u/rllrdr]

Slavery is INHERENTLY EVIL there's nothing to portray that wouldn't already be an immediate thought of its evilness. If you NEED someone to show you why it's that's not a reflection on the inherit evil of it that's a reflection of your naivete, or willful ignorance.

Slavery is bsd because owning someone is evil, violating their autonomy is wrong.

[u/rllrdr → u/Moka4u]

A story doesn't need to go in any direction other than what the author chooses, I'm just saying it chose to go in a less complex direction.

And by that logic, half of the story doesn't need to exist because everyone knows murder and pillaging are bad.

[u/user-the-name → u/rllrdr]

The topic doesn't call for complexity. Your hypothetical complex case just doesn't ever happen. It's not interesting because that is not what slavery is ever like.

In reality, it's very basic, simple and stupid cruelty. If anything, trying to depict it as a morally more complex undermines the simple truth that it is just simple, brute cruelty.

[u/rllrdr → u/user-the-name]

I severely doubt anyone like Askeladd existed either. Why not just have him be a pillaging psychopath doing it only for greed? That's what raiders were like, very basic, simple and stupid cruelty. No need for a whole backstory or other motivations.

[u/user-the-name → u/rllrdr]

Not really the same thing at all, is it.

[u/-kinapuffar- → u/Moka4u]

Good and evil are human inventions. It's not real, it's opinion. Delusion, even. The only reason you feel this way is because of the culture and society you've been indoctrinated in since birth. Had it been a different one, say you'd been born in China 1000 years ago, you would have a different opinion.

There's nothing inherent about it. Morals are just social propaganda. They exist as a product of a time and place.

[u/Moka4u → u/-kinapuffar-]

Chinese slaves 1000 years ago did think slavery was evil. Your point does not stand.

[u/-kinapuffar- → u/Moka4u]

After the American slaves were freed, some of their descendants went back to Africa and founded the country Liberia, where they promptly started doing slavery themselves. My point stands.

Their problem with slavery wasn't that they thought it was morally wrong, they were just upset that they were the ones enslaved.

[u/Moka4u → u/-kinapuffar-]

Some people doing it themselves does not change the fact that it's inhumane to own another sentient being like property. Slave revolts wouldn't be so common if it was inheritly neutral to own slaves.

[u/-kinapuffar- → u/Moka4u]

Are you arguing that because violence exists, objective good and evil exists? People kill one another for countless reasons, it doesn't say anything other than that humans are violent apes. So there are revolts. So what? There are revolts against taxes, against people with the wrong religion, against immigration, does that prove these things inherently evil too?

[u/Crimson_Marksman → u/rllrdr]

Only good slave masters a dead one

[u/Quixotic_Seal → u/rllrdr]

I mean....a slave wanting to leave would be "things stop going his way." That's kind of the core concept of a slave owner.

[u/Tokyo_Ink → u/rllrdr]

That... is the message? What? Did you want someone to specifically turn to camera and say "see kids, slavery is bad even though Ketil was kind at first."?

What are you even talking about?

The only positive thing about anyone being enslaved is that Thorfinn himself found humility and compassion through his life on the farm. He didn't need to be a slave for that, but in the society he lived in, and as someone who drew a blade against the king, that was a realistic outcome for him. Vinland Saga is showing how someone who lived in a violent society with war and slaves might realistically find a path to pacifism. The author only chose vikings as the setting because he felt it would fit the story he wanted to tell.

At what point during Einar or Arheid's stories did you think the show was trying to say anything other than that them being slaves despite the fake "kindness" of Ketil was wrong? Ketil hadn't done anything violent to Arnheid when her husband came back. That entire arc was showing you what Ketil was doing - sleeping with someone else's wife because she was just his property despite how nice he was. He didn't become a bad slave owner when he came back angry about other things and snapped. Revealing that Arnheid was already married was supposed to be a major tipping point in tearing down the idea that there could be any kind of good slavery. Einar getting bullied by the retainers was evidence that the system was wrong no matter how nice Ketil was while buying a slave. Leif grasping Einar's arm in a fatherly way was supposed to show you the difference between a kind man and a polite slave owner.

[u/rllrdr → u/Tokyo_Ink]

What does it matter that Arnheid was married? Having sex with your slave is still rape even if they both desire it and enjoy it. Otherwise there would be nothing wrong with most isekai sex slavery. That's exactly what I'm talking about, Einar or Arheid's story portrays slavery as wrong due to specific details and not inherent.

[u/Tokyo_Ink → u/rllrdr]

No it doesn't? I never implied it did? Are you blind?

[u/rllrdr → u/Tokyo_Ink]

What exactly is wrong with isekai slavery when none of the bad factors you listed apply?

[u/LilacGrueve → u/rllrdr]

Don't worry, a lot of people are too dumb to understand farmland saga, so you aren't alone buddy.

[u/Mannekin-Skywalker → u/rllrdr]

No, the message is slavery is inherently wrong because no matter how well the master treats you, you’re still their property. He would not even be a slave owner if he was just comfortable with his slaves leaving.

[u/TheKingsPride → u/rllrdr]

Any man who would keep another as property is rotten to the bone and deserves nothing more than death. So yeah, I’d expect any “nice” slaveholder to simply be hiding their rot under the surface.

[u/artheo4w → u/rllrdr]

okay, so i take it you would have liked something like ketil setting slaves free after their work is done, but still, at the end of the day, a slave owner? i guess you can say that certainly is more complex, but still, i feel like the show still managed to show the wrongness of slavery even before ketil's whole crashout. well it's not in your face, but if you think about it, why do indeed slaves need to earn their freedom, them being slaves wasn't even their choice? why does ketil believe that slaves have to earn their freedom?

and yeah, slavery is wrong because we saw how much thorfinn and einar have to work so hard just to become a "free man". and even then, after all that work, because these slaves are basically homeless, where else would these people actually go? can they afford to buy their basic needs? and so the option to keep working on the farm becomes the only way to keep living. and that favors ketil greatly, especially in terms of business. basically free labour with some loyalty as the slaves has been under the "kind master"