Let's discuss whether Category:Slavery Should be Top Level

Question

Hello WikiTree!

I lead three projects that will heavily be using the Slavery category hierarchy worldwide (US Black Heritage, Africa, African Diaspora). This hierarchy is currently not set up in the most usable way. I'm not proposing changes just yet, instead I would like to discuss these categories and how you would see yourself using them around the world. My initial desire is to make it a top level category and then expand it in many directions as we come down the hierarchy. It is currently under World History, which I do not think is the right place for this category.

That said, my brain does not think in a data tree kind of way, so I need help from those of you who can see and create data systems.

Where would you start the Slavery category hierarchy and how would you use it, expand on it across the world? We need to think globally and across all times in history, including current day (slavery does still exist).

Edit: one thing to keep in mind is several projects are going to be using these categories to create a large database of slave profiles and help people connect with their ancestors. People will not automatically think to look under World History for the slavery categories.

You can find the start of the slavery categories here:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Slavery

Thank you for helping me discuss this important topic.

Comments

It may get some naysayers from those who refuse to see what was as what it was - but Australia needs to be included on that list.  

What was done to the South Sea Islanders (aka Kanakas), and the First Nations Australians, was indentured servitude at best, slavery at worst.  When you kidnap free people, ship them across the ocean, then force them to work for next-to-nothing (I don't think they were paid, or not paid much), that's slavery.  When you take a free people from their environment, stick them somewhere foreign, then strip their wages from them for decade after decade, that's so near to slavery it may as well be. (Last I knew there were First Nations Australians still trying to get those wages paid to them.)

I also don't think "data tree", but would use these categories if I knew where, and how, they fit.  

I guess this is my suggestion for the bit that says :

how would you use it, expand on it across the world? We need to think globally and across all times in history, including current day (slavery does still exist)

---

We're planning to use these categories worldwide, yes.

Answer 1

To be clearer, one of the things Emma is asking is whether or not the [[Category:Slavery]] should be included in [[Category:Categories]] and not under [[Category:World History]] or under [[Category:Society]] or another of the 24 top level categories, which are meant to be broad categories.

Then, how does that spread out from the top down?

Comments

This is certainly not an area where I have much expertise, but from a Category purpose perspective, I would say it belongs in either World History or Society.  If the Projects I lead and/or work on had slavery categories, I would instinctively look for them under a History category.

---

This is still a current problem, it should not be relegated to History

---

I'd vote for Society. World History seems targeted more towards things of the past. If the category was clearly focused on past historical occurrences of slavery then leaving it where it is makes sense. But since the intent is to focus on past, present and presumably future occurrences of slavery, then I'd move it to Society.

---

I will say the only other place I might think to look for it would be under Occupations. I suspect there would be objections to this, but it makes some logical sense. A position as a "slave" was a job that was forcibly filled and may be worth linking some of the occupation-related ones into this category, possibly under "servants" or "laborers", depending on the role they filled. Since the whole category is larger than that, it could be problematic to just transport the whole thing there, but I would say there's an argument that parts of it could or should be at the very least cross-linked there.

---

You would not track someone’s occupation as a prisoner, would you? Slavery is not an occupation, servants and laborers chose their roles, slaves chose nothing. It is a social institution imposed on someone against their will, akin to prisons, orphanages, poorhouses, etc.

---

Well, the Census does list occupations as Convict often when someone is incarcerated, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this as a logical way of thinking. And it's an interesting discussion point that "Indentured Servants" are currently listed in the Occupations area, so there's been that line of thought already. The definition in the Occupation category is just vague enough - "types of work in which people are employed".

I suppose some level of interpretation should be applied. Slaves weren't brought on for the purpose of slavery. They were brought on for many different purposes: common laborers, farm hands, butlers, maids, etc. Convicts were often put to work as cooks, janitors, etc. I suppose if we're classifying by what they were employed to do as opposed to the institution they were in, then some of the current categories would need to change.

---

Enslaved people were and are used for purposes other than their own. True, their occupation might be labourer or cook. But being enslaved, or a "slave", is not their occupation. It is an oppression imposed on them.

---

I'd vote for Society. I thought it should be alongside nobles or aristocrats who were within that category but then discovered they were in both. 

I certainly think discussion is needed about the definition of indentured servants. An indenture was a form of contract.( originally written on a paper with a wavy, indentured cut; each side had a copy as here.  Apprentices were indentured servants, trainee solicitors were indentured servants . My husbands ggg grandfather was an indentured servant who paid in that way for  the passage of  his family to the new British Settlement in  South Africa in 1820.  Even live in  farm servants employed on yearly contracts were indentured; a highly sought after job. There were penalties including whipping and imprisonment with hard labour for  farm servants found guilty of.'leaving service' but these penalities were consistent with those imposed for other crimes . None of these people were enslaved.

---

I think the overall category of "slavery" needs to be somewhere near the top of the hierarchy so that it is relatively easy to find. If we're making a push to empower black history research, genealogy, etc. the slavery category needs to stand out.

Answer 2

My first reaction is that each profile represents an individual.  From that person's point of view, "enslaved person" would probably be the category, with dates of enslavement if known.  

Is there a category for indentured servants?  Imprisoned individuals?  I am fairly sure there is one for prisoners of war.  Can we model on anything like that?  -NGP

Comments

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Indentured_Servants

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:British_Indentured_Servitude

---

We plan to expand it to include indentured servants, etc, yes.

---

I'm wondering about that being moved from laborers to slavery, Nat, because they were more often treated like slaves rather than laborers.

---

Yeah, it's true. But the British one is a project, so collaboration would be needed in order to accomplish that smoothly. Just to be aware.

---

I hope I'm not off base, Emma, but it just hits me that indentured servants and enslaved people are very different ways in which human beings have been abused, so including indentured servants under a top level category named Slavery somehow doesn't seem like the right way to organize things ... now that I've opened a can of worms, I must admit that I have no suggestion for any way that might be better.

---

An indenture could be passed  from one person to another.  Isn't that similar to how enslaved persons were passed from one to another?

Indentured persons could also, through no doing of their own, have the term of indenture extended.

---

Slavery would be the top level for all types of slavery. However, that can be somewhat subjective. Some slavery is obvious, but others not so much. It would need lots of discussion. Indentured servants were often treated as slaves, but not always.

---

If a supposed indenture was NOT agreed to by the one being indentured, it is not indenture, but enslavement.

During the late 17th and early 18th centuries, children from England and France were kidnapped and sold into indentured labor in the Caribbean.

.

A document of indenture required that the person giving themselves into the term of unpaid labour be in agreement with and signatory to the indenture. Otherwise it is enslavement.

---

Children could not legally consent to an indenture; an indenture entered into by their legal guardian is not the same thing as slavery and is more akin to apprenticeship, as the usual goal of such indenture was that they would learn a useful trade and would be free upon attaining majority.

---

KIDNAPPING a child is not exactly parental assent.

---

Right now, we're trying to figure out where to start the slavery category, we can figure out the details of each category later. There will need to be a lot of coordination between projects too.

Answer 3

I think "Atlantic slave trade" would fit for historic use cases of (the majority of) Black Americans. I think for a genealogy site it does make sense to categorize it under world history, for a general Wiki I would make a different argument. There is absolutely slavery still going on today, but for a profile to be part of a category I think there should be primary sources supporting that fact. For many reasons, documentation of slavery today isn't part of an official or historical record.

Comments

Besides, today's enslaved people are not of genealogical interest to us, since they're living.

---

We are trying to get away from a U.S-Centric view of this slavery category. This is going to cover the entire world and be used by multiple projects. And for the U.S., it will cover all slaves, regardless of where they originated from (although, yes, the majority were from Africa). Something to think about. We want to far expand the location categories.

---

We should plan for the future though, that is one of the main reasons for the research.

---

We don't create categories for future use...yes, they can be planned and kept as a reference for future use (it can be part of the category map, but we create the structure for what we are working with now, which is records of people who lived in the past.

Answer 4

Quick Answer: Yes.  It should be top level.  Slavery itself is not a sub-category of anything else!  All of the types, origins, and geographies are lower level categorizations that can be worked out.

Answer 5

Yes. List 'Slavery' as a top level category. If I go to Find > Categories, it should be in the list of 'Subcategories'.

Answer 6

My personal feeling is that the current top level structure (the categories listed as Category:Categories) is long overdue for a revamp/restructure. While that discussion will happen separate to this one, they are connected and influences my comment here:

Should Category:Slavery be a top level category?

My response would be No. By placing this at the head of the hierarchy in this manner, this opens the doors for other categories to become top level when they can easily be listed as equals (given the same level of importance) as other similar categories.

For instance, Art and Sports are simple topics that currently listed under Category:Categories, which gives them precedence (higher ranking) over similar topics such as Aristocracy and Nobility, Notables, and  - all of which are much more thoroughly documented, nested, and used than Arts and Sports combined.

With that said, I agree with other comments that Society seems to be the current best fit for Slavery. While "Society" may not be the best word to use here (and is due for a rename), it already contains similar topical categories, such as Exiles, Conflict, Government, First Peoples, and Notables.

Comments

I agree with Steve. Not to diminish the gravity of the subject of slavery by making it a subcategory. But this feels like it fits very well under "Society". From the category description: "Each society has economic and social systems..."

Although I think I'd amend the rest of the full sentence "...which serve the needs of its people".

---

If we could come up with a better name than Society, I agree it would make more sense than World History because slavery is more about society than history when you work with it from the project's viewpoint.

Answer 7

Definitely it should be a top level category, not under society or similar categories, it happens in too many places, whether now or in the past.  For instance

[[Angélique-5|Marie Josephe  (Angélique) dite Angélique (abt.1705-1734)]]

She was a slave in Montréal in New France days.  Never went near the English colonies, although she tried.  There were others who were from Africa or other locations.  And there were also what are called ''Panis'', who were of native origin, not in fact Pawnee for the majority, they got the generic term panis applied to them.  They were slaves also.

Answer 8

Slavery should be a Top-Level category. It doesn't really fit within either the History or the Society hierarchy. History infers that it is something in the past and Society infers that it is a societal construct. Slavery itself is caused by a myriad of differing factors and therefore does not fit into either category easily. Often chattel slavery is what comes to mind, but there are many different forms of slavery, such as prisoners of war, indentured servitude, and debtor's enslavement. The idea of what slavery is has changed throughout history and the category should stand alone.

Also, one of the goals of categorizing in the first place is to group together like people to aid in research and so their descendants can find them and know them. Would you really look under "Society" for a possibly enslaved ancestor?

Comments

Actually I'd look in the location categories for it, for the lowest levels to add to a profile. I'd also use the category picker tool. Other than that, I'd personally look under history.

Answer 9

From my point of view with several decades of work as a librarian using subject headings even before computers and going forward into computer databases, I think of slavery as a social and economic institution and would naturally look for it with the topics grouped under Category: Society.  That said, I have to admit that to a younger generation of people who grew up only with computers and not taught to think in terms of hierarchical categories of the type we used with old fashioned card catalogs before computers, I don't think they will search for them that way.  They will just search for Category: Slavery.  But the hierarchy, and where something fits in it, is for the hierarchical minded searchers.  Those who search databases will use a find or search function and find it wherever it is put.

Answer 10

Slavery should be a top level category, under which would be slavery by dates and country according to the histories of various countries.

Answer 11

Couldn't we construct the categories for Slavery as a top level category, [[Category: Categories]] for now. When and if this category gets revamped and a better replacement is found for [[Category: Society]] another look can be taken.

Many Americans tend to look at the issue of slavery from the perspective of chattel slavery wherein plantation owners wanted cheap labor, so yea, let's enslave people so they can work for free. This view does not even scratch the surface or the scope of the category and is an oversimplification. Besides chattel slavery there is also the sex trade, slavery used as punishment, and used for political purposes. This is a genealogy site and we are concerned with people first and foremost. Part of the reason for categories is to make it easier to find people. Only a seasoned WikiTreer would look under "Society" to find anything.

Comments

I disagree and there are search options. This still needs to be discussed and hashed out before adding it to the top level of the category tree. The top level contains 24 categories, some of which could be recategorized elsewhere, in my opinion, but that is yet another discussion.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Category_Tree_Level_1#Top-Level_Explained

The likely candidates are World History (where it is now and seems appropriate) and Society as the parent categories.

---

Lucy, you ae extending the definition of slavery here, the main definition of which is chattel slavery.  Certainly, people were sent to prison or concentration camps etc and were forced labour, and women have been made into whores also, but that is a whole other kettle of fish, not to be confused with chattel slavery, where a person was literally ''owned'' by another, legally.