Well, its interesting! There has been something said about owning people here and it may have escaped your notice? What makes this idea particularly interesting to me is that I heard it from an ‘Ajahn’ very early in my journey in Theravada Buddhism and somehow, I had not really given that much attention to it. I had a cheerful disposition and was very happy about what I was learning so when this idea landed in my mind I just kind-of took it on board without thinking much about it.
Its this notion of the ‘kindly slave owners’ during the Buddha’s life and times! It was told to me then and, it has been repeated in this thread - at least implied - that, it would seem, the people-owners at that time and place, are portrayed and ‘believed’ to have been fairly decent-folk - relatively speaking - who did not brutalise the people they owned. At least, excessive violence was ‘frowned upon’ therefore, the implication was/is, they were more benevolent slave-owners in comparison to the more horrific examples we read about in history. On hearing this nice little story about the kind slave-owners it did not occur to me - for some strange reason - to think about the wider implications of this attitude about the slavery practiced at the time of the Buddha.
Firstly, do we have a clear idea as to how these owned-people came to find themselves as one of the possessions - the personal property of - someone else? If we are not at all shore, as to whether these people were inherited, exchanged, bought and sold, selected for sale according to their attributes and abilities, age, sex etc. should we be quick to judge - from the information available to us - that there was nothing deeply unfair, improper and, indecent about this practice - at the time?
Lets say a member of the mercantile class or a farmer found that they were successful at what they did and, they were in need of more people to help them in their profession. Did they have access to owned-people that they could buy or exchange goods for or, acquire by some other means? Could they select the people who were best suited to the tasks they had in mind? Perhaps, strong young men to work as agricultural-slaves or, petite young ladies with ‘nimble fingers’ to help in tasks that required delicate handy work? What about the warrior/ruling class - after a successful campaign and the mass killing of rivals, could prisoners be taken and then turned into slaves? It seems to have been common practice at the time in neighbouring cultures that war-lords and their soldiers could behave in this way. Is it possible that it happened in that region, at that time, as well?
We might like to know at what age one could be acquired and used as an owned-person? We might want to ask questions about the full range of services that these slaves were required to perform in that culture? We may also want some clarification on the full disciplinary treatment of these people? What could ‘actually’ be done to them for lack of compliance, including those practices that were ‘frowned upon’ by the society, were simply met with disapproval but, not explicitly punishable i.e. resulting in a gaol-term or, a prohibition against owning slaves etc.? If anyone has some of - or all - the answers to these questions then, I would be grateful if you could share what you know?
If we don’t have sufficient background information about the lives and overall treatment of these human-commodities, then, how could we conclude that life may have been fairly nice and ‘not to bad’ for these people - relatively speaking? It seems to me, that coming to that understanding of slavery in this society on the basis of information like: ‘there is a story about a slave - in the EBT’S - about how they were allowed to go on a picnic and wear their owners jewellery’ - and other joyful events in the lives of slaves we find on record - seems a bit sketchy (inconclusive)? I don’t believe the evidence from these fragments give us sufficient reason to conclude: these slaves seemed to have had a pretty good life! Some of them, may have been loved by their owners, maybe that’s a good enough reason to think they had a good life - nothing much to be concerned about?
I don’t think we can reasonably conclude that the life of these owned-people was kind of OK from the slaves-picnic story and other happy-events in the lives of slaves - do you?
To even think that way about owned-people and their masters/mistresses in the first place is something I find difficult to stomach.
Maybe we should have one of those surveys that pop-up on this site from time to time? The question could be something like this: Do you believe kind-slavery may be an acceptable form of human/human interaction - as practiced in the past or in the present? Answer: tick the YES box or, the NO box!
This survey may seem strange at first glance, but when you think about it, something like this - a positive view of kind-slavery has actually been implied in this thread.