0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
85 tayangan2 halaman
- Slavery in 16th century Philippines differed from European slavery. Local terms "oripun" and "alipin" referred to a servitude class who worked to settle debts or were freed from birthright servitude. Their servitude was temporary and included pay.
- In contrast, European slaves in the 16th century could not freely leave servitude and were treated as property to be owned, bought and sold without pay. Their servitude was permanent.
- While forms of modern slavery still exist through human trafficking, domestic abuse can also enslave partners through control. Commoners in the Philippines today may be considered a servitude class who work in poor conditions for survival due to loss of land
Deskripsi Asli:
Reaction on 16th-century slavery in Philippine context
- Slavery in 16th century Philippines differed from European slavery. Local terms "oripun" and "alipin" referred to a servitude class who worked to settle debts or were freed from birthright servitude. Their servitude was temporary and included pay.
- In contrast, European slaves in the 16th century could not freely leave servitude and were treated as property to be owned, bought and sold without pay. Their servitude was permanent.
- While forms of modern slavery still exist through human trafficking, domestic abuse can also enslave partners through control. Commoners in the Philippines today may be considered a servitude class who work in poor conditions for survival due to loss of land
- Slavery in 16th century Philippines differed from European slavery. Local terms "oripun" and "alipin" referred to a servitude class who worked to settle debts or were freed from birthright servitude. Their servitude was temporary and included pay.
- In contrast, European slaves in the 16th century could not freely leave servitude and were treated as property to be owned, bought and sold without pay. Their servitude was permanent.
- While forms of modern slavery still exist through human trafficking, domestic abuse can also enslave partners through control. Commoners in the Philippines today may be considered a servitude class who work in poor conditions for survival due to loss of land
Slavery in Pre-Hispanic and Hispanized Philippines
How is slavery in the 16th century Philippines different from European slavery? Do you see similar conditions still occurring in the 21st century Philippines?
My father used to tell me not to
get myself involved with any debt, which is pretty inevitable during desperate times and are usually micro-scale liabilities only requiring tete-a-tete financial settlement of obligations with friends, which is not a big deal at present. If I happened to be indebted within the sixteenth-century context, I might have become an oripun by now. 16th century Philippine societies were divided into social classes as previously discussed with oripun and alipin as the third class. Aside from the unfortunate birthright and debt bondage, known for rendering servitude, should they be considered slaves? While primary education easily associates alipin with slavery, it wasnt necessarily the case. Slavery involves declaration of labor force as property, which were owned, bought and sold, whose productivity wasnt compensated. In the Philippine context during the 16 th century, the third class were usually in the condition of servitude due to debt bondage, which means their servitude was temporary and included remuneration. Meanwhile, those who were assigned as such according to birthright may be treated as one of the masters own children and may be freed. 16th century European slaves were unable to withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement, thus, their servitude were predetermined to a sole purpose and were non-transferable, such as serfdom whose slaves were bound to the soil. Oripun and alipin were completely different, as they may be freed from their state of servitude and not bound to just one master.
Slavery in both geographical
contexts gained labor workforce through capture, purchase and birthright. In contrast to various concepts of sixteenth-century slavery, in spite of aiming for eradication, contemporary slavery is prevalent, especially in the form of human trafficking, for the purposes of personal slavery, forced labor, forced marriage, extraction of tissues and organs, surrogacy, etc. an abusive relationship can also lead the inferior partner to be enslaved by his or her other half through domestication and sexual slavery. A population increase is an asset of a socioeconomic group as manpower also increases. Sociopolitical ideologies of different time and eras were crafted with social classes with the provision of a service class with naturally subconscious role integration and performance. Oripun and alipin of the 16th century were the commoners of the societies within their respective language areas, which I personally dubbed as servitude class, whose servitude were to settle personal liabilities. Also, it should be noted that like the timawas, transfer of properties of oripun and alipin were determined by the datus. Among the contemporary Filipinos, the masses are the commoners, in which their servitude is more of a gain of short-term assets rather than settling liabilities. In addition, I also personally dubbed them as servitude class as they involve themselves in bondages of contractual employment with predetermined, or worse, graveyard time slots. Servitude of commoners is not as easy as having to wash dishes when a person is left with a
very expensive restaurant bill. Like the
datus, the ruling class has a way of taking unconsented authority over the properties of the commoners. One is when they exploit the natural environment of communities, in which the disruption of the ecosystems incurred losses of livelihood and assets. Another is when huge corporations demand groups of dwellers to move out of their houses as the land will be
cleared and developed. The depletion of
properties lead commoners to take dreaded contractual jobs and be exploited with less compensation sans benefits, not in the condition of reclaiming their properties, but for survival in their daily lives. With this condition, commoners have become enslaved by the socioeconomic state disrupted by the ruling class.