Corvus Belli
Member
- Nov 25, 2017
- 204
- 437
- 219
Yes, exactly my point. When "poverty level" is synonymous with "can't even afford a slave", it kind of suggests they're pretty commonplace.Ashley's family were dirt poor, meaning poverty level.
Cars are not cheap, and require maintenance and operating costs, but they're still owned by a vast number of people, and not reserved purely for the wealthy. The wealthy can afford more of them, certainly, but they're still ubiquitous among the common family. How many people do you know who own a car, or more than one?Thousands of syls has been mentioned for slaves.
Slaves are not cheap, and you have to feed them and pay for any medical care that they may ever need.
Syl'anar is not the Confederacy. Both have slavery, and both treat(ed) slaves terribly, and that's where the similarities end; something being true in the Confederacy, does not make it true in Syl'anar.Many people who talk about their ancestors in the confederacy scream that their ancestors never owned a slave, and did not fight to protect slavery.
Two points. First, Syl'anar is not the Confederacy; slaves being too expensive for the common family in the south has no bearing on Syl'anar, no matter how often you repeat it. Asserting "it was true for the Confederacy, and therefore must be true in Syl'anar" is not a compelling argument. We know that some slaves are definitley owned by corporations and businesses, but we also know they're commonplace enough that random citizens can purchase them off the internet.Even in the south, slaves were far too expensive for the common family to own, but then, the vast majority of the slaves were owned by the rich plantation owners, and not the common people.
The case would be similar in the game.
One of the earliest events in the game is Two Tie Guy approaching a random person on the street (the MC) and asking if he'd like to come to a slave auction on the beach; if slave owners can confidently presume that random people on the street can afford a slave, then they're probably fairly commonplace. And how much is he selling those slaves for? 200-400 syls. They're cheap as chips.
Second, you're wrong about slave ownership in the Confederacy.
Almost one-third of all southern families owned slaves; in Mississippi and South Carolina, it was barely less than half, while in Arkansas and Tennessee it was about 25% . The idea that they were "far too expensive for the common family" is wrong. There were just over 395,000 slave owners in the southern states, which sounds like a small quantity for a population of 9,000,000, until you remember that families owned and had power over slaves, not just one individual adult. The slaves may technically have been owned by only one person, but an entire household benefited from that slave. So, yes, technically a specific Confederate soldier might not have owned a slave, but his family very likely did.
As for number of slaves owned by each master, 88% of slave owners owned fewer than 20 slaves, and nearly 50% owned fewer than 5 slaves. To put it another way, a vastly larger percentage of Confederate families owned slaves, than the percentage of modern families who own stocks.
You might find this interesting:
You must be registered to see the links
Last edited: