Slave is defined as someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay. In early Southeast Asia slaves were a prominent factor in the economic system. Slavery in Southeast Asia is unique to most forms of slavery across the globe. Slaves in Southeast Asia were extended exclusive rights and privileges and most frequently, these slaves were duty-bound for punishment of crime or for having withstanding debt. For their ability to choose their labor, access to rare privileges and rights, and their likely possibility of freedom, slaves is early Southeast Asia cannot be considered slaves by the common definition.
During the transatlantic slave trade, Africans were taken or sold to Europeans and place in …show more content…
When early Westerners such as the Dutch and the Portuguese began to arrive in Southeast Asia, they noted that “slaves were treated as well as, if not better that, servants in Europe” (Ooi 1223). This suggests that the quality of life from unpaid, indentured slaves in Southeast Asia was much higher than paid workers in Europe who were not owned by masters. European observes detailed their surprise to discover the existence of wealthy Malay slaves located in Malacca and Aceh who “disdained to perform any kind of manual labor, even when offered payment, leaving such work to recent captives or impoverished aliens” (Ooi 1223). Europeans voyagers also commented on the “prevalence of debt bondage, the high cost of credit, the crisis-ridden character of economic life, and what appeared to be a general scarcity of savings” (Henley 6). Many European writers “portrayed Indonesians societies as being caught up in self-reproducing vicious circles of debt” (Henley 6). What the Europeans did not understand was that many Indonesian slaves chose to be in debt so that they would be taken care of by a well-to-do master. These comments reflect that Southeast Asian slaves have a lot of choice on the work they were offered. A Dutch explorer commented that “there was generally less social distance between slaves and slave-owners” than there was in Europe (Ooi 1223). When …show more content…
People in this region had sole control over their enslavement because of their ability to choose to borrow money, gamble, or break the law. The probability to be freed by one’s master in Southeast Asia was very high. This distinguishes Southeast Asian slaves from all other slaves. Slaves were also awarded rare privileges and rights and had many abilities that a typical slave would never have had. Southeast Asian slaves in the premodern era cannot be considered traditionally slaves because of their level of control, the possibility of release, and their many rights and
During the transatlantic slave trade, Africans were taken or sold to Europeans and place in …show more content…
When early Westerners such as the Dutch and the Portuguese began to arrive in Southeast Asia, they noted that “slaves were treated as well as, if not better that, servants in Europe” (Ooi 1223). This suggests that the quality of life from unpaid, indentured slaves in Southeast Asia was much higher than paid workers in Europe who were not owned by masters. European observes detailed their surprise to discover the existence of wealthy Malay slaves located in Malacca and Aceh who “disdained to perform any kind of manual labor, even when offered payment, leaving such work to recent captives or impoverished aliens” (Ooi 1223). Europeans voyagers also commented on the “prevalence of debt bondage, the high cost of credit, the crisis-ridden character of economic life, and what appeared to be a general scarcity of savings” (Henley 6). Many European writers “portrayed Indonesians societies as being caught up in self-reproducing vicious circles of debt” (Henley 6). What the Europeans did not understand was that many Indonesian slaves chose to be in debt so that they would be taken care of by a well-to-do master. These comments reflect that Southeast Asian slaves have a lot of choice on the work they were offered. A Dutch explorer commented that “there was generally less social distance between slaves and slave-owners” than there was in Europe (Ooi 1223). When …show more content…
People in this region had sole control over their enslavement because of their ability to choose to borrow money, gamble, or break the law. The probability to be freed by one’s master in Southeast Asia was very high. This distinguishes Southeast Asian slaves from all other slaves. Slaves were also awarded rare privileges and rights and had many abilities that a typical slave would never have had. Southeast Asian slaves in the premodern era cannot be considered traditionally slaves because of their level of control, the possibility of release, and their many rights and