On page 606, Maureen has a moral and ethical dilemma about slavery. She says, “If all we can afford is slavery, then keep them as slaves. And put them to work so we can afford something more. Only we don’t call them slaves, either, because that makes it too easy to think like a slavemaster. We can put them to work, but we call them prisoners of war and we treat them as prisoners of war”.
When we touched on this in class, I had just left another class discussion on the reclassification of labor during Reconstruction after the Emancipation Proclamation in our own country. In the south, after the abolition of slavery, many African Americans were arrested for minor offenses and purposely sentenced for long periods of excruciating labor. In this way, the individual, the person was valued at nothing. I’m not advocating slavery, but during that period the individual was extremely important. If a slave master lost a slave, he lost an actual monetary amount. There was some sort of incentive to at least keep their slaves within boundaries of an “acceptable” workload. When the shift occurred from slave labor to convict labor, there were absolutely no boundaries. With this quick shift of semantics it was possible to arrest a child, as young as six in some cases, and literally work them to death. There was no one to concern themselves with the welfare of these prisoners, and many died of diseases not even work related. It was pretty abysmal to say the very least.
Since the New Brotherhood Cannibal Angels of God Army became the Stronghold’s “prisoners of war”, I see their fate being the same as what has happened in American history. These prisoners are only extra labor to the Stronghold. Before they had acquired them they were doing all the work, and successfully so, themselves. Did Maureen really make the right decision by deciding to call them prisoners only? Weren’t they still treated like slaves? I feel like there is no justification in utilizing this euphemism when they ignore it entirely. Does it even make it a euphemism in this case, or is it creating a new definition of what a prisoner is in this new world after Hammerfall? Or maybe this new world releases the moral implications of completely controlling another life as we witnessed with the cannibals? Maybe I’m the only one worried that the children that control the lightning also control slaves…I mean, prisoners of war.
–Oh my, this required three edits to further clarity, though hopefully you may have read over all of them seamlessly. In case you didn’t, though, here is a corrected draft. [WordPress won’t let me delete the original comment.]
Reading your post, it’s hard for me to understand why you don’t see a difference between prisoners of war and slaves…That is, how you can call the Stronghold’s terminology “prisoners of war” a mere euphemism for “slavery,” after seemingly partially setting up a divide.
The first half of your argument, if I may be so bold as to attempt an abridgment, promulgates the idea that African-American slaves during the Pre-Emancipation Era are treated as property (and in that sense you “care for it,” or rather keep it in “good condition,” [say, perhaps, like a truck: it hauls your things, but you also regularly maintain it so as to ensure its aid in the future]), while Post-Emancipation the very same (freed) African-Americans were regarded as disposable labor (much like a paper towel; it is useful for its immediate purpose, but as it has no future capabilities, it has no value or worth). I would whole-heartedly agreed with your assessment of the metamorphosis of value of African-Americans before and after Emancipation because of institutions like convict labor (to be synonymous with “prisoner labor,” as the occupation of POWs); but as such, can you really see this ‘change’ as purely a semantic difference? I understand that arresting children six-years of age on minor offenses is undoubtedly an excuse to re-enslave African-Americans despite their proclaimed freedom, but I think there is something key about your idea of, “the individual [being] valued at nothing,” that causes slave labor and convict labor to actually exist as different entities (in it that convict labor is, perhaps, even more impersonal and heinous than even slavery was, since during the Enslavement Era slaves were at least ‘valued’).
Where then, does the New Brotherhood Army really fall? If we understand the Stronghold to be a fully self-sufficient community, capable of surviving the winter without the aid of the (captured, imprisoned) NBA [Whoa…look at that coincidence], then the latter would appear to be, essentially, “valueless,” and (through inductive reasoning) more prone to be categorized as convict/prisoner laborers. However, if one infers from Maureen’s statement of, “afford[ing] something more,” then the captured NBA could actually serve a purpose, be of value (even if that purpose is merely to help build their own prison), then it seems they more accurately fall under the heading of slaves, or ‘property’.
In this way, Maureen’s statement possesses no euphemism at all, and perhaps is entirely logical in that she desires the members of the Stronghold to USE the NBA as slaves (because of the innate value of their bodies to labor; rebuild civilization), but THINK of them as prisoners (valueless, even evil, enemies). I don’t read her assertion from page 606 as a dilemma at all; she is not confused as to the ‘correct’ course of action when it comes to the NBA. When she discusses not referring to the NBA as “slaves” to keep members of the Stronghold from thinking like “slavemasters,” I get the feeling that the implication is not so much that she is attempting to ‘preserve the good name’ of those righteous citizens of the Stronghold, so much as she is attempting to prevent any semblance of value attached to the NBA. In other words, I see Maureen as suggesting that “we can put them to work,” but still ascribe no value to them (and therefore have no sympathy/care/concern/interest/responsibility) since they are not property, but merely prisoners of war.
I am also inclined to believe that there lies a difference between slave and convict labor in the origination of said laborers. But that’s another discussion….
This is a productive discussion that is (sadly) not just a bunch of semantics. What we call those people excluded from the normal social order has indelible, practical consequences. Ask any “illegal enemy combatant” held in Guantanamo or Bagram (that is, ask them if they were allowed to speak to the media, their family, their lawyers). I think similar issues will arise with other novels we discuss, and I’ll be looking forward to coming back to Lucifer’s Hammer as a kind of watered-down thought experiment regarding rights, property, labor, and liberty.