Indeed, I see your point, but I feel that my point still remains valid. While the black slaves in the 1700s had no "legal" rights, they also had no obligation to obey the law.
True. Nor does anyone, ever. Point being, though, is what those laws are.
Many men chose to watch as their wives and daughters were dragged off to the master's house for his sick pleasures, if the master bothered to take them from their sight at all. Mothers sat helplessly idle while their husbands and sons were brutally lashed for minor indiscretions.
See, THAT is "slavery", to me. The fact that whatever the "master" chose to do to them, that was okay
. If the law says your master can do what he wants to you, and you may not leave, that's slavery. Its what makes the difference between being a slave, and having a job. With one, when it gets too much you can quite and walk away, and the law supports your right to do so. With the other, you cannot.
I personally would never choose inaction in the face of such atrocities.
Now imagine that - because you struck your master - he is going to beat and kill your children, and another random ten slaves, while the police and judges look on and approve? Still so keen to stand up and revolt?
People asked why the Jews in Germany didn't fight back. The answer was similar - that for every German they attacked, 100 Jews were killed. Kinda puts a lot of people off fighting back - and, indeed, leads to others in the oppressed groups stopping them from doing so, because of the reprisals. Reprisals which (if not strictly legal) would not be punished.
Nutshell? We all - ALWAYS - have a choice as to what we will put up with. But slavery is when there is no legal or public support if you choose to say "no".
Please note that I am not arguing the morality or ethics of slavery as I find it detestable. I am simply indicating that, regardless of the outcome, options remain. If you are enslaved, it is by your own doing or lack thereof.
Be glad that Timo isn't here.