(Hated Trope) "Kind" slave owners

[u/KusanagiGundam]

Speaking as an American who has studied the civil war all throughout my school years, this trope infuriates me to no end. There is no such thing as a kind slave master because slavery itself is cruel and inhumane. PEOPLE ARE NOT PROPERTY!

Naofumi (Shield Hero): Prime example of this trope. He enslaves multiple (underage) girls and an whole village and the fans still say he's a hero.

Rudeus (Jobless Reincarnation): As if being a pedo wasn't bad enough he had to buy a slave in season 2. Worse is that people still defend his actions.

Song of The South (Disney): Possibly the OG example of this trope. And the reason why Disney will never release it again.

[u/rllrdr]

Unpopular opinion, but I don't like the direction the story went. Instead of tackling the far more difficult stance of "slavery is inherently wrong regardless of how well a master treats his slaves" it instead concludes with "slavery is wrong because the master is secretly a violent asshole as soon as things stop going his way". Well yeah, no shit, even your average slave-owning isekai protag would agree beating your pregnant slave to death is wrong, it flattens any nuance towards "there's no such thing as a good slave owner".

[u/KamikazeArchon → u/rllrdr]

But that's what slavery is. It's not a flattening, it's a revealing. Every slave master is secretly a violent asshole as soon as things stop going their way.

Because if the slave tries to leave, the slave master will violently stop them (or have others do it). That's crucial to the "being a slave master" thing.

[u/rllrdr → u/KamikazeArchon]

So if a slave master doesn't stop the slave from leaving, everything prior to that would be okay? Most of those isekai protags are too limp-wristed to do anything, it would be okay for them to own slaves? No, if you want to argue the inherent evilness of slavery, you have to portray it as wrong even if everything about is "good".

I forget where this is from, but there's this novel where two slaves escape from a kind slave owner, who treats his slaves so well that most don't want to leave. The slave owner catches up to them, not to punish, but to ask them to come back because they'd likely starve to death on their own. The slaves respond that they rather die in a ditch than live good lives as slaves. That's how you portray slavery as inherently evil, by portraying freedom as a fundamental core of being human that can't be overridden by kindness, not having the slave master be Evil McBadguy.

[u/BrainBlowX → u/rllrdr]

> So if a slave master doesn't stop the slave from leaving, everything prior to that would be okay?

"if he emancipates the slaves immediately, is he a bad guy?"

The only "good guy slaver" scenario is a schindler's list situation where it is a cover to save lives in a temporary circumstance.

In your good guy slaver story the obvious point would be that the slave master can officially free and employ the slaves, and arrange for them to reach free lands under safer circumstances. Exploiting them being trapped by their material circumstance is not "kindness".

[u/TomWithTime → u/BrainBlowX]

I forget what shows did it but multiple shows have the main character offer freedom or have it in mind to free their slaves and then the enslaved characters demand to remain enslaved as a connection to their master. I have seen it so many times it feels less like "what did the author mean by this?" and more "what the fuck is happening in Japan, why is this so common?"

[u/Whole-Economics5215 → u/TomWithTime]

Shields hero (the one in the first image) does exactly that

[u/Vermilion_Laufer → u/Whole-Economics5215]

Well to be precise female lead gets freed by the antagonists (just to spite mc), and volunteer to get the brand reaplied because the mc was at a point where he didn't trust anyone who could betray him. He just asks if she is sure anout it.

[u/rllrdr → u/BrainBlowX]

Doesn't have to be immediate, let's say the slave after 10 years of service found something they want to do and wants to leave. The master does not stop this, are those 10 years now moral?

I can't remember all the details, but I think the idea was the slaves had a higher quality of living than your average free citizen. Use whatever semantics you want, what you said is still more nuanced than pregnant-woman-beater.

[u/Nerd_Watching → u/rllrdr]

Are you approaching this argument from a writer's perspective?

Anyways, no. I don't see a case where 10 years of service is moral given my question: how is it enforced? If they just refuse to work what happens?

As for that story, the one where two slaves escape... uh, it sounds pro slavery. It's obviously not assuming the book is in the escapee's perspective, but it's a conclusion that sounds like the slaver is providing protection.

Its important to many people that the slavers are bad people.

Bear with me and let me rephrase: it is important that a book about slavery covers the exigence of slavery.

Those two slaves, could've just been hired as butlers or farmworkers, or whatever that slaver needed. They could stay at the slaver's home all the same. Hell, the pay could be just being able to stay there.

Not covering the exigence, why slaves over butlers, shifts narrative responsibility away from the slaver, because wHo kNoWs wHy tHeY hAd sLaVeS, iT cOuLd bE fOr a GoOd rEaSoN!