On Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:06:04 -0700 Helen Krummenacker avona@jps.net writes:
Ellynne brings up:
In the American southwest, settlers from free states bought
children from
local Indians once it became known that the children were likely
to be
killed otherwise (selling a child was often the alternative to infanticide or letting them die of slow starvation) but they were
also
known to drive out or arrest slavers from nearby Mexico.
"A state has the ethics and morals it can afford". Sounds like the settlers were attempting chariable works there. Pay the family for the kid, giving the parents a chance to feed their other children. The settlers now have responsibility for feeding, clothing, etc the child, in a drought prone environment. Everyone has to contribute. So the Indian child works for and with the family.
Oh, yes. From what I've read, the practice started after a local settler was approached by an Indian offering to sell him two children. The settler was appalled and refused. The Indian picked up the children and dashed out their brains, saying "See what you made me do?" or words to that effect. In his point of view, if he couldn't find someone to take them, it was better to kill them at once than leave them to die (which he saw as the only other option). After that, if an Indian offerred to sell a child, people in that area bought. Brutal but true.
While treatment of the children probably varied (details are sketchy), there are definite references to some of them as sons and daughters of their adoptive families by others in their communities.
But why does the Federation keep slaves? Probably for psychological reasons moreso than labor effeciency.
[snip]
Most Federation sets we see, with the exception of the president's palace are very Spartan. Jenna was delighted by the frivolity of a huge wardrobe room on board Zen. She also was so attatched to her necklace we see her wearing that one piece of jewelry multiple times, but no other. Sarkoff was very protective of the antiques he'd collected. What does this have to do with labor?
[snip about our society]
The Federation does not appear to have excess goods. They grow by military conquest, not economic assimilation. Labor then becomes a way of keeping people busy, keeping their minds off thoughts of a more luxuriant past or modern politicing.
Many conquerors allowed for looting, both individual and by the army at large. Of course, it's always a PR nightmare. This may be one of the ways in which the Federation _would_ show restraint. It's easier to say you're motivated by a good cause if you're not carting off the silverware.
Then again, medieval tradition allowed for the sacking and raping of a city taken by force but not one that surrendered. Also, one of the pragmatic ideas behind POWs is that people are more likely to surrender (rather than fight to the death) if it gives them a chance to survive. The Federation may have made very brutal examples of some places but either not allowed soldiers to rob them or else didn't allow soldiers _as individuals_ to rob them.
OTOH, I've always suspected there was a story behind Jenna's necklace. Either her mother gave it to her or its a semi-cybernetic link (not actually wired on) that nonmilitary pilots wear (or could Tarrant be hiding his?).
Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.