Indentured Servants were slaves, just ones that were given the false hope of freedom after 7 years which 99.9 times never happened. Call it what you will, but when you are hunted, stolen from your family and land, and forced into servitude because of your religion and legally owned by a company, you are a fucking slave.
If the same person owned slaves and indentured servants, they'd take the bigger risks more deadly jobs and have indentured servants do them, particularly shortly before their freedom date. This is different from chattel slavery where they own your wife and kids forever.
Is this what you're talking about, or something else?
There were also crazy stipulations, children born under servitude were company property. Marriages extended servitude. Etc. So they would force the women to breed to produce more slaves. Same shit as "slavery" just a different name.
Indentured Servants were slaves, just ones that were given the false hope of freedom after 7 years which 99.9 times never happened. Call it what you will, but when you are hunted, stolen from your family and land, and forced into servitude because of your religion and legally owned by a company, you are a fucking slave.
Why was freedom a false hope?
If the same person owned slaves and indentured servants, they'd take the bigger risks more deadly jobs and have indentured servants do them, particularly shortly before their freedom date. This is different from chattel slavery where they own your wife and kids forever.
Is this what you're talking about, or something else?
agreed. I'm just trying to learn how to argue this. there logic is confusing to me.
There were also crazy stipulations, children born under servitude were company property. Marriages extended servitude. Etc. So they would force the women to breed to produce more slaves. Same shit as "slavery" just a different name.