There was no slavery in Russia. Think of your best Negro
Everything, as usual, began a long time ago. Namely, with the word "nigger".
Where you do not write it, very "politically correct" citizens immediately fly in with their amendments in the style ("he is not a Negro, he is an Ethiopian") "you dare not call an African American a Negro." The arguments that you are writing about a person from Africa, originally from the country of Nigeria, who has never been to America, do not help.
Here it is the power of American propaganda, when the most shabby Negro (forgive me shabby black, for your reference light image) of the African wilderness, will automatically become a US citizen.
The debate ends, as a rule, with the phrase - “Negroid race, representative Negro, read books on biology. If the Anglo-Saxons feel guilty for centuries of oppression of blacks, then it is their right to apologize, since it is easier for them. I did not oppress blacks, neither did my ancestors. There was no slavery in Russia. Good luck"
The companions of a difficult African fate are retiring. BUT! As if, with the changing of the guard, another flock of thugs arrives with insane in their savagery and ignorance snide remarks about serfdom.
If the first wants to explain their wrongness, then the second can only be ignored and banned. Together with all their VSHE (Higher School of Economics, a hotbed of contempt for Russia and idolizing Western values) and Westernizing brainwashing, that everything in Russia is always bad and wretched. It remained unclear, how did these honest and clean ones with bright faces emerge from such a litter?
Nevertheless, in order to stop the innuendo, for those who did not know, or perhaps knew, but eventually forgot, we want to give a historical reference to remind some of the main differences between serfdom and slavery.
Promotional video:
Slavery and serfdom - nothing in common
The first is for legally illiterate students and HSE students -
Slavery is a legal institution
A serf is a citizen of his country who is a subject of law on an equal basis with a landowner.
The only limitation in the rights of the serfs was the impossibility of owning the serfs themselves.
The term "sale of a serf" absolutely did not correspond to reality, although it was used in official papers of that time.
They sold not a person, but his duty to serve the owner. The analogy here can be drawn with debt securities or even with shares on the stock exchange. There you also sell and buy obligations.
In order not to pour water, here is a very superficial comparison table, but giving a primary understanding of the difference between the two concepts. In order not to drown in the abyss of antiquity, we will compare with the United States, and not the Roman Empire.
Slaves in the USA (XVII century - 1865) Serfs in Russia (1714-1861)
Let's expand the boundaries of knowledge: the serf worked for the landowner no more than 3 days a week; he could go to a quitrent and, in general, go about his business, which many did, and then redeemed; the restriction on property (sale) was only in the case of not fulfilling the obligation; the right to a family is not even worth talking about, it was sacred and the right to inherit property extended to her.
Assault, violence, God forbid, murder was severely punished. In addition to the well-known Saltychikha, there were a huge number of landowners who were sent to hard labor. Even Prince Obolensky went to jail for forcing the peasants to work on Sunday.
The serf could file a complaint against the landowner's actions. Before Catherine II, even the Tsar.
The serf had the right to own weapons. Well, how many blacks in the United States during the periods of slavery owned weapons? And how many of your current employees would you give out a revolver before being asked to “get in a position and be patient with a couple of months of wages” during delays in payments?
It seems to be seen with the naked eye that only an idiot or a provocateur can compare slavery and serfdom.
Especially for the former - Hell does not consider serfdom the greatest blessing and does not crave its restoration.
It must be understood that its introduction was not the result of a whim or a special "slavish character" of the Russian people, who just give them the opportunity to lick their boots.
It was a compulsory measure, introduced at the end of the 16th century, so that the noble army, which was the basis of the state, could be contained. Otherwise, there would be no Russia. Some, of course, would be happy about this "drinking Bavarian", but now we are talking about something else.
And it existed in Russia not "all history", but a little over 250 years.
Not all the people were serfs, but just over 50% of the peasantry.
Especially for the free peoples of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia! When their lands entered the Russian Empire, 85% were enslaved there. Who after that should own the cup of servility?
When serfdom was abolished, the peasants were not thrown out into the streets, as in England during the "fencing" and were not trampled on their rights until the middle of the twentieth century, as in the United States. They were given enough land to meet their living needs.
The further fate of the landowners' lands is interesting. We all remember Chekhov's "Cherry Orchard" and the organic inability of many of them to farm.
Thus, “slavery” in Russian history is only in the minds of those who painted it for themselves there. Or who for grants is supposed to paint a negative image of Russia and Russians.
Usually, we provide each article with links to scientific sources or works so that our statements can be quickly verified.
We won't do this on purpose here. If you are interested in the history of your own country and this issue in particular, make a request in any search engine - there is a lot of information. It will allow you to stop looking at Russia through the prism of the interests of Western "enlighteners".