The United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery also prohibits serfdom as a form of slavery.
Serfs could be bought, sold, or traded, abused with no rights over their own bodies, and could not leave the land they were bound to. Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the lord of the manor who owned that land. In return they were entitled to protection and the right to cultivate certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence. Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but also in his mines and forests and to labor to maintain roads.
Yes I do
No I dont
Triggered!!! The only slaves in history were Africans brought to America you racist white devil.
A serf, by definition is; an agricultural laborer bound by the feudal system who was tied to working on his lord's estate. A slave, by definition is; a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. A major difference between the two would be; A slave is not paid, and belongs to someone, and a serf is paid, and does not belong, as such, to their master, but is bound to them. The lines CAN become blurred easily, because serfs always have to obey their master and do whatever his whim.
Being bound to an estate means the serf has no freedom and could not leave. Serfs could be bought and sold. A serf is only paid in enough farm land to grow food for the year of which most was taken by the Lord. A Lord could kill or rape a serf and expect no punishment. The serf was forced to work for the Lord.
Absolutely - The only reason it is not noticed is that it was not as widespread in modern world say the era of Black African slavery - Even before modern labour laws some of the work conditions were damn close to slavery.
That is what I meant the era of serfdom was further back than the African slavery - It is amazing how fixed we get by last big thing say for example World War 2, everyone has a good idea about it but quiz about World War 1 and the fog will come down "Yeah it happened some time before World War 2" which is true but the two events are very connected.
The African slaves had it worse - their internal organs were ripped apart - sometimes if they didn't work hard enough - sometimes - despite perfect obedience - simply because the slave owners wanted to scare the other slaves into submission.
From what I know of my own history, medieval Latvian serfs actually had the right to leave their lord if they didn't like him and look for another. And they were entitled to pay and relative fair treatment. I guess they were the equivalent of contract employees of that era. That's not something a slave could ever do.
It is not exactly the same just as being a thrall was not the same as being a slave There are certain nuances that differ but they are variations on the same theme Serfs had more freedom than slaves and more benefits and were generally treated better But they were not free they did not benefit as much as they should have and they were not treated well
While both were "involuntary labor", serfs typically had it a little better from what I recall (from school, not my slavery). ;- ) Slaves were tied to the slaveowner, an individual. The serfs were more or less tied to their geographical area.
Only the exchange of land for services is legit. Being bought, sold, traded or abused is unethical and a form of slavery unless your a professional sports player.
Serfs were more owned by their debt, or attatched at the hip to a plot of land they worked. Slaves are slaves forever from birth, they were denied rhudimentary education and could be sent to work for other masters, sold at will away from their families, could be raped for the purposes of breeding more slaves, etc.
American slavery in particular was most emboldened by the boom of the cotton industry and southern interests for competing with India on the cotton market. Free labor is more competitve than cheap labor.
The life of a serf or indentured servant is horrible and as deserving of condemnation wherever they manifest themselves in the modern day. I would venture to guess we have more indentured servants than actual slaves on the planet currently, but I know which one I would rather be.
Serfs are serfs forever. They had no freedom to leave They had no rights and were forced to work. In age of serfdom most including lords could not read.
Okay but serfdom was more of a way of maintaining the feudal forms of governments and lords, the society was structured in that way and freedom was a rare privilege among those territories.
Slavery was used to fulfill the domestic purpose of maxing out tobacco and cotton profits within the United States and there was an unevenness of liberty between the whites who lived in New England where slavery didn't exist and some black woman in Georgia.
There's also different forms of serfdoms, between how it was done in western vs eastern Europe. There were serfs who could file cases in court, their marriages were legally recognized, but a slave in America could be murdered and nothing would be done about it if the only other person who saw was black.
Most Helpful Opinions