Slavery and slavery
Robinson Crusoe, as we all know, took Friday as his slave.
Suppose, however, that instead of taking Friday as his slave, Robinson
Crusoe had welcomed him as a man and a brother; had read him a Declaration
of Independence, an Emancipation Proclamation and a Fifteenth Amendment,
and informed him that he was a free and independent citizen, entitled to
vote and hold office; but had at the same time also informed him that that
particular island was his (Robinson Crusoe's) private and exclusive property.
What would have been the difference?
Since Friday could not fly up into the air nor swim off through the
sea, since if he lived at all he must live on the island, he would have
been in one case as much a slave as in the other.
Crusoe's ownership of the island would be equivalent to his ownership
Chattel slavery is, in fact, merely the rude and primitive mode of property
in man. It only grows up where population is sparse; it never, save by
virtue of special circumstances, continues where the pressure of population
gives land a high value, for in that case the ownership of land gives all
the power that comes from the ownership of men, in more convenient form.
When in the course of history we see the conquerors making chattel
slaves of the conquered, it is always where population is sparse and land
of little value, or where they want to carry off their human spoil. In
other cases, the conquerors merely appropriate the lands of the conquered,
by which means they just as effectually, and much more conveniently, compel
the conquered to work for them.
It was not until the great estates of the rich patricians
began to depopulate Italy that the importation of slaves began.
European ships took African slaves to America, where
land was cheap and labor expensive – and not to Europe where land was expensive
and labor cheap.
Henry George: Social Problems