Herochat

Black Panther: Slave Owner?

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« on: December 09, 2016, 09:06:43 PM »
Started thinking about it.

Wakanda seems to go from primitive tribal society to super techno-society.

Not too amazing for primitive societies to have slaves on top of that, doesn't seem to be a lot of what you call social mobility there as well.

Or is effectively everybody in Wakanda his slave being that he's a king in a monarchy?


Toilet Bunny

  • ********
  • 13822
  • +42/-47
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2016, 11:29:27 PM »
Has it been shown he has out and out slaves?

MTL76

  • ********
  • 9075
  • +1107/-10
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2016, 08:13:13 AM »
Wakanda probably sold some slaves to the white devils.


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2016, 07:52:22 PM »
Has it been shown he has out and out slaves?

Off hand; don't know.

I know from reading the odd comic here and there his society is intensely stratified.

With it going from primitive tribal, to dirt floor and bricks on up to uber-techtopia for the elite.

This of course may vary somewhat from writer to writer but still.

Black Panther may straight out have slaves or maybe simply the bottom level of his society should count as slaves anyways, do the manual labor, live in huts with no access to wealth or resources, have to do exactly what Black Panther says.

If they aren't slaves, pretty close to it. 

You know by comparison.....Dr. Doom doesn't have some kind of primitive vikings or 15th century people living in his kingdom....

Maybe not him personally, but African tribes routinely enslaved (members of) tribes they defeated in battle. Wakanda is probably as isolated as it is because it enslaved and absorbed all neighboring tribes early in its history.

 

I wouldn't be surprised, it certainly claimed a large portion of one of the largest water sources nearby.  I'm actually surprised they managed to remain isolated after all those years but then they pretty much straight up killed any body who approached them didn't they?

Not sure about that, seeing as they thrived in secret for so long. They likely avoided outside devil contact/kept the slaves for themselves.

Probably; don't see them degrading themselves by interacting with the mercantile system of other cultures.  That and honestly; what did any one else have to even other them for most of existence?

I mean, aside from the Eternals or some other secret high techno-society also hanging out somewhere?

Hulkster

  • ******
  • 3280
  • +12/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2016, 04:57:20 PM »
Quote
I mean, aside from the Eternals or some other secret high techno-society also hanging out somewhere?

That would be a really interesting avenue to explore, as a BP writer.

Hudlin already explored this in the 2008 BP annual.  Wakanda abhorred slavery during colonial times and they covertly fought against slavery in other parts of Africa. 

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2016, 05:04:46 PM »
Quote
I mean, aside from the Eternals or some other secret high techno-society also hanging out somewhere?

That would be a really interesting avenue to explore, as a BP writer.

Hudlin already explored this in the 2008 BP annual.  Wakanda abhorred slavery during colonial times and they covertly fought against slavery in other parts of Africa.

Couldn't have been fighting it that hard considering their vastly superior resources, fantastical wealth and technology......that and as I pointed out, whats the difference between the majority of the low end people in their society and slaves?

Heck; how many people are servants to T'Challa because their parents were servants to his parents and so on?


Hulkster

  • ******
  • 3280
  • +12/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2016, 05:30:10 PM »
Quote
I mean, aside from the Eternals or some other secret high techno-society also hanging out somewhere?

That would be a really interesting avenue to explore, as a BP writer.

Hudlin already explored this in the 2008 BP annual.  Wakanda abhorred slavery during colonial times and they covertly fought against slavery in other parts of Africa.

Couldn't have been fighting it that hard considering their vastly superior resources, fantastical wealth and technology......that and as I pointed out, whats the difference between the majority of the low end people in their society and slaves?

Heck; how many people are servants to T'Challa because their parents were servants to his parents and so on?

They are shown as never getting directly involved.  They sort of funded anti-slavery terrorism without involving their own military.  Plus, this story goes back to the beginnings of the slave expansion before or shortly after the 1700s.  Wakanda was not really technologically advanced then and still fought with spears and the people lived in huts.  They are simply shown to be secluded, organized and very badass with wise leadership.  I don't think that they had discovered vibranium yet. 

I don't see Wakada as being portrayed any different from any other monarchy.  The idea of slavery being practiced in any form would contradict the recent efforts to portray Wakanda as such a historically utopian society. 

Panthergod

  • *******
  • 6699
  • +35/-72
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2016, 05:59:49 PM »
Nope. nice try. Traditional African societies' notiton of slavery was debtors indentured servitude or for prisoners of war. they weren't dehumanized and their children weren't born into slavery. Tjhat being said,  Wouldnt be surprise if Tanaheisi Coates established something like the OP to justify his Western culture corrupted SJW self loathing male routine though.

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2016, 06:55:24 PM »
Nope. nice try. Traditional African societies' notiton of slavery was debtors indentured servitude or for prisoners of war. they weren't dehumanized and their children weren't born into slavery. Tjhat being said,  Wouldnt be surprise if Tanaheisi Coates established something like the OP to justify his Western culture corrupted SJW self loathing male routine though.

Actually african societies would refer to slaves as "dogs for sale" and would work them to death often as not.

And Wakanda has an intensely stratified society where people are born into primitive tribes, live in huts, perform nothing but physical labor and serve as cannon-fodder against enemies with no apparent education.

Others above that which live in brick houses with dirt floors, others above them living in a techno-utopia.

All of whom have no choice in obeying the orders of their king or any nobility.

And probably specific servants, who have served the nobility since ever.

All of that is slavery in deed if not name.


g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2016, 07:03:59 PM »
Quote
I mean, aside from the Eternals or some other secret high techno-society also hanging out somewhere?

That would be a really interesting avenue to explore, as a BP writer.

Hudlin already explored this in the 2008 BP annual.  Wakanda abhorred slavery during colonial times and they covertly fought against slavery in other parts of Africa.

Couldn't have been fighting it that hard considering their vastly superior resources, fantastical wealth and technology......that and as I pointed out, whats the difference between the majority of the low end people in their society and slaves?

Heck; how many people are servants to T'Challa because their parents were servants to his parents and so on?

They are shown as never getting directly involved.  They sort of funded anti-slavery terrorism without involving their own military.  Plus, this story goes back to the beginnings of the slave expansion before or shortly after the 1700s.  Wakanda was not really technologically advanced then and still fought with spears and the people lived in huts.  They are simply shown to be secluded, organized and very badass with wise leadership.  I don't think that they had discovered vibranium yet. 

I don't see Wakada as being portrayed any different from any other monarchy.  The idea of slavery being practiced in any form would contradict the recent efforts to portray Wakanda as such a historically utopian society.

Now that's interesting, so until relatively recently Wakanda didn't use to have such an extreme different in social layers.

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2016, 07:48:21 PM »
Nothing says slavery (and mysoginism) like half dressed women serving their master:


This site is great:
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/if-not-for-the-slave-trade-chattel-slavery-invention-of-race-is-modern-africa-wakanda.470437/
Like a buncha Jellys all talking at once.

There are some iffy-ness to his statements, one of them being that europe didn't invent slavery.....that and lots of European countries were looking for resources.

Even without slavery, the Conquistadors would still have been just fine with taking all the aztec's gold and lands etc.....

And without chattel slavery and Europe's involvement in slavery in general, I mean they were pumping massive amounts of money into Africa to buy their slaves.

Some kingdom's were benefiting crazy-sauce from that.

Essentially Europe was already setting the stage for the possibility of a "Wakanda".  Giving African-nations and city states massive sources of wealth and exposure to technology they might not have had at the time.

As pointed out; The Congo already has crazy sources of wealth and isn't a Wakanda.

Thought it was interesting that they thought regardless of disease whites would still take over the America's.

Not like whites managed to keep their territories in India, South Africa or China etc......ultimately we failed in keeping all that.

Trying to invade a US, not in a post-apocalyptic scenario with organized societies all over the place.

Without disease, beating the Aztec's would have been a MF'er.

Could we have played them against each other?  Sure, plenty of tribes wouldn't mind the chance to dominate others, take land and resources etc.....but that's far from a given that we would win or have even remotely the control over the US we have today.

Toilet Bunny

  • ********
  • 13822
  • +42/-47
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2016, 12:38:29 AM »
This site is great:
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/if-not-for-the-slave-trade-chattel-slavery-invention-of-race-is-modern-africa-wakanda.470437/
Like a buncha Jellys all talking at once.

Why is every sentence in every post punctuated by an emoji?  And why are all their emojis pictures of peoples' faces?

Liam

  • *****
  • 1265
  • +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2017, 12:39:07 PM »
The simple fact that it's ancient pretty much guarantees that Wakanda had slavery at some point in its history. But I've seen no evidence that it had slavery in the Modern or even Enlightenment eras.

Liam

  • *****
  • 1265
  • +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2017, 01:21:46 PM »
On a side-note, slavery has meant wildly different things at different times in history. For a very long time, the world had no real merchant class. The world was divided purely into the aristocracy and everyone else. When the world worked that way, slavery was an iffy proposition that faded into and out of existence. The advantages of owning slaves versus simply oppressing free peasants was dubious and situational. You have to house and guard slaves, after all, which can cost just as much as paying peasants shit wages.

 There was also very little racism in the time when the world was just aristocrats and peasants. Egypt, Persia, and Rome were all multi-ethnic. That's not to say that peasants weren't racist, but they had no power and no influence. Aristocrats eschewed racism because it got in the way of their empire building. If a white aristocrat from the northern part of the Roman empire saw an advantage in marrying an aristocrat from the black African part of Rome, then they married and fuck what the peasants think of such things, the combined family now had holdings in both the northern and southern reaches of the Roman empire. 

 Because racism had almost no part in aristocrat-era slavery, slavery itself often wasn't very oppressive by the standards of the time. Slaves occasionally even had more rights than free peasants, because their education and training made them an investment that you didn't want running away.

 Two things changed that made the African slave-trade so much more egregious than previous forms of slavery. One was the rise of the merchant class. You now had peasants with real money. Real money but not enough land to make playing the let's-marry-to-fuse-our-holdings game a big factor in their lives. That meant that the bigotry and provincialism that had been irrelevant in the aristocrat-era now had real power, and there was no financial motive to put it aside. It ran rampant, and became a reason for peasants to think themselves superior to at least someone somewhere. The aristocrats had never needed that psychological boost, it was enough that aristocrats were superior to peasants. So what if one aristocrat was white and the other black? You were both aristocrats first and foremost.

 The other factor was improvements in sailing. It became practical to relatively quickly travel and ship things long distances via water. That meant that these bigoted, provincial peasants with money could now easily travel to places with people who looked and sounded nothing like themselves.

 The combination proved incredibly ugly. Bigoted, provincial peasants trying to compensate for the inferiority complex they'd lived with their entire lives now had someone they could dehumanize utterly for profit, and the means to ship people on an industrial scale.

 Wakanda seems unlikely to have experienced that particular combination. While Wakanda almost certainly experienced the rise of rich peasant merchants at some point, their isolationism probably meant that those merchants didn't have easy access to large numbers of people who didn't look or sound like them. The result would have been closer to China in the same period than it was to what you saw in Europe.

Animalia

  • *****
  • 1908
  • +5/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2017, 12:39:10 AM »
Well in Wakanda in order to become a Black Panther you have to defeat the former one,isnt it?
Problem is...royal family members are trained from birth for that role if not wrong.
Looks like white benefits here...