ExactlyI don't understand this argument at all, the fact of the matter is that the Iroquois DID massacre entire villages and killed people on scale comparable to the Romans considering the smaller population sizes in North America at the time. The idea that the Romans enslaved most conquered people while the Iroquois benevolently accepted them in their ranks is complete non-sense, in no part of the Roman empire were most people enslaved, only a minority was.
The typical conquered person under the Romans would have kept living where he lived without being enslaved(while a significant portion was enslaved, although what exactly happened to them is hard to discuss in general terms, a lot of Roman slavery seem to have been debt slavery anyway not just war-related), while elites differed wildly in their fortunes by either losing power or being elevated above their peers.
Also manumission was common in Roman society, we know plenty of freedmen that later on became famous in various ways. So at least some slaves weren't that different from Iroquois captives(as shown below).
Also the Iroquois arguably had slavery too, in fact the very "adoption" system might in part could be argued to be such a thing:
Pretty much the whole article is relevant, but let's just say that even if you survived a raiding expedition and weren't tortured to death, killed during the fights or sacrificed then what awaited you was something that can be easily argued to have been slavery in various aspects, sure some "adopted" people ended up in position of power but that's not something rare within societies with slavery.Northern Iroquoian Slavery on JSTOR
This article argues that slavery was practiced by Northern Iroquoians in the context of what has been previously and exclusively described as an adoption comple...www.jstor.org
I will quote some parts:
Sexual exploitation of women is an additional feature of slaveholding societies (Patterson 1982), and it appears that the Iroquoians were no exception. Le Jeune (JR 43: 293-94; cf. 9: 255-56; 36: 177; 40: 225; 54: z) addresses this issue in his unequivocal recognition and description of three classes of captives.
The first are those who, having willingly submitted to the yoke of the conquerors and elected to remain among them, have become heads of families after the deaths of their Masters, or have married. Although they lead a tolerably easy life, they are looked upon as slaves, and have no voice, either active or passive, in the public Councils. The second class are those who have fallen into slavery after having been the richest and most esteemed in their own villages, and who receive no other reward from their Masters, in exchange for their ceaseless labor and sweat, than food and shelter. But the fate of the third class is much more deplorable; it consists chiefly of young women and girls, who, because they have not yet found a husband among the Iroquois, are constantly exposed to the danger of losing their honors or their lives through the brutal lechery or cruelty of the Masters or Mistresses. Liaisons between female captives and their male captors were sometimes formally recognized (ibid., 9: 255-56; 30: 277). For example, Dannin (I982: I04-5; cf. Trigger 1976, I: 49) identifies two kinds of marriage in Huron society: officially sanctioned, termed atenonha, and contract, asqua. The latter term (see the discussion of -naskw- above) was assigned to all non-Huron wives, including captives. This woman's status "vis-a-vis other Huron women was more or less that of a slave" (Dannin 1982: I05).The torture complex of the Iroquoians, said to function in part as an aspect of ideology or as a religious ideal (Knowles 1940; Trigger I990: 51-52; 1976; Lynch 1985), also served as a ritual of enslavement. Initially, torture, including running the gauntlet, being stripped and paraded about a village, and being taunted and defiled, was directed at dishonoring the captive. This sociopsychological facet of slavery is intimately associated with the power relationship that exists between slave and master. A slave "could have no honor because he had no power and no independent social existence, hence no public worth" (Patterson 1982: 10; cf. Lafitau I977: S5I). Torture followed by execution was used not only to eliminate unwanted individuals or those who could not be easily controlled and, accordingly, would not make good slaves-for example, strong-minded or uncooperative warriors and, less frequently, women-but also consciously to remind or impress upon slaves in each village that they were slaves (cf. Trigger 1976, z: 830). Thus, it functioned as a form of social control, recalling and in fact repeating the original and violent act of enslavement (cf. Patterson 1982: 3-4; Trigger 1976, I: 72). It is not surprising, therefore, that slaves often remained with their captorsAlthough there are no explicit statements in the historical documents on the Iroquoians, taking a new name or, more precisely, being given a new name symbolically cuts individuals off from their genealogical line or their original kin group. In Patterson's (I98z: 55) words, "The changing of a name is almost universally a symbolic act of stripping a person of his former identity.... The slave's former name died with his former self.... Among most kin-based societies the slave took the clan name of his new master." Without their original names, captives become socially dead. They are literally and figuratively without relatives other than those assigned to them. They are denied the opportunity to speak of their original kin, to communicate with them, or to identify in any way with them. They have become someone else. Nonetheless, it is apparent that to themselves the captives remain true. A Huron war chief, described by the Jesuits as "formerly a captive of the Iroquois, and now a Captain among them," addresses a group of Huron sitting in council with the Iroquois, stating: "My brothers, I have not changed my soul, despite my change of country; nor has my blood become Iroquois, although I dwell among them. My heart is all Huron, as well as my tongue" (JR 42: 57). It may well be that this person was a self-server; however, there is no doubt that captives, whether Huron, Iroquois, or otherwise, when given the opportunity to escape, did so and were welcomed back (ibid., 24: 287; 27: 43; z8: 73-75; 32: 233, z6i; 33: 95-97, 157; 35: 223; 36: I33, I65; 46: 31).
Not making grand spectacles out of the executions of thousands of people a year is morally superior to making grand spectacles of executing thousands of people a year.
Are you saying giving out alms is the same as killing people in front of huge gatherings of people after making a huge speech about how said person has sinned against God and the King? Very hot take.
No, the modern pop culture estimates of human sacrifice are based on numbers recorded by Cortez and other conquistadors that are believed to have been inflated to justify the imperialist mission of the spaniards. The numbers are estimated to have been lower by modern historical consensus. You called me obtuse but I am honestly surprised you'd somehow not be aware of that. If you were genuinely unaware of that then my apologies, I would've expected you to know that given you've seemed so passionate on the topic of human sacrifice in the Triple Alliance and wider Mesoamerican culture but I suppose that's on me for expecting too much. If you do want citations on this then I don't mind providing them.
No one has disputed that the Aztecs engaged in ritual cannibalism (of course, Europeans also engaged in cannibalism at the time). However, no one mentioned it up until now; you're changing the subject, and Qastiel's point about the numbers of sacrificed humans being wildly inflated remains unrefuted (because it's completely accurate).
I don't know how that affected people outside of Rome and the immediate vicinity of the emperor. Most of the population of the Roman Empire probably was entirely unaffected by the treason trials simply by not being close to Rome. Is Tiberius's suspicion going to cause a random village in Asia minor to accuse their members of treason. They likely wouldn't even hear much about it.
So how many people does an empire need to kill and eat before it qualifies as dystopian? Twenty thousand a year? Thirty thousand? A hundred thousand?
It depends on which bit they eat. If they do like Americans and Brits and leave the offal out, now that's dystopia.
Probably not
It doesnt depend on the numbers
How many slaves need to be sent to fight to the death for the amusement of the rich before it counts as dystopia, Fabius? How many slaves need to be sent to die in the mines? How many peasants trying to obtain better conditions need to be hung, drawn, and quartered? How many people need to be burned to death?
I think that may be faulty because there are many dystopias based on the concept of powerful corporations rather than governments or that are a direct result of a weak/non-interventionist government allowing all sorts of shit to take place
In those cases the corporation practically becomes the state, though.
But that also relies on the corporation having the ability to control a large amount of people which is just so very hard to accomplish in a preindustrial setting of any kind. How much control did the shareholders of the BEIC actually have over on the ground policy in the parts of India directly controlled when messages could take upwards of a year to reach India from Britain and vice versa?
Every single place we see in Mad Max I would call dystopian, even the still civilized parts in the first one.
Say what you want about the Aztecs, but they were great humanitarians. They really went above and beyond in their efforts to serve mankind.
Yup
Frankly, you wouldn't want to live any time before the mid 20th century at best in most areas.
