"For 10% of your time, you’re enslaved; for 10% of your time, you own slaves."
Huh, how is this possible? Didn't slave-owners often have multiple slaves? Shouldn't it mean the % of time enslaved should be larger than the % of time owning slaves?
Hmm, I guess it depends on the definition of "slave owner". I think the slave was usually the legal property of the head of the family only? Or maybe of a married couple? The latter can account for a factor of 2, I guess...
Agreed. Slaves almost certainly have significantly shorter lives on average than slave-owners, but even so I doubt that's enough to make the numbers come out equal given how many more of them I think there have been.
The lifespan is irrelevant since, if someone's only slave dies, they are no longer a slave-owner from that point. (Unless "slave owner" is defined to be "someone who owned a slave at any point in their life".)
"For 10% of your time, you’re enslaved; for 10% of your time, you own slaves."
Huh, how is this possible? Didn't slave-owners often have multiple slaves? Shouldn't it mean the % of time enslaved should be larger than the % of time owning slaves?
There are also multiple people who own one slave-- for example, a family of five who owns a single slave.
Hmm, I guess it depends on the definition of "slave owner". I think the slave was usually the legal property of the head of the family only? Or maybe of a married couple? The latter can account for a factor of 2, I guess...
Agreed. Slaves almost certainly have significantly shorter lives on average than slave-owners, but even so I doubt that's enough to make the numbers come out equal given how many more of them I think there have been.
The lifespan is irrelevant since, if someone's only slave dies, they are no longer a slave-owner from that point. (Unless "slave owner" is defined to be "someone who owned a slave at any point in their life".)
Good point.
Did Lay make any attempt to end slavery via non-extra means before resorting to the strategy of being extra?
Holy shit this is making me want to read the book way more than Scott's review of it.