There are two errors in the statement by Dr Figueirado. One concerns an impermissible logical leap and the other a crucial ignored fact.
The first, I believe, referring to the Dharmashastras, concerns to the concept of ‘apadharma’. This refers to an extreme situation, rightly specified as famine, when it was permitted to transgress regular norms within which one was located, one’s varnadharma, since survival was at stake. A Rishi was permitted to even eat dog meat in this extreme exceptional situation. But it was only in such an exceptional situation. To extrapolate this permission to a ‘normal’ situation is hence impermissible. Such transgression of norms/rules is also permitted in Islam and Judaism. I’m not sure about Christianity. In Islam the kindred concept is taqiyya. Hence to see the ‘sale of oneself as permitted during famines’ as a permission to sell oneself during normal time, and thereby own slaves is, I hold, an impermissible logical leap. The second ignores the crucial distinction between ‘owning’ slaves, which was reprehensible, and ‘trading’ in slaves which produced an abominable system of commence. The Portuguese were slave traders. The enormous wealth of Europe was built on the slave trade. The book by Stephanie Smallwood ‘Saltwater Slavery’ recounts the horror of the trade. To ignore the dimension of capital accumulation from the slave trade, and see it only as a behaviour lapse or perhaps an angularity is, I believe, a fault in the argument. Europe and America, and the Christianity that endorsed it, have much to pay. Cambridge, Yale, Princeton and even Lloyd’s of London are convulsed with the issue of reparation for their involvement in the slave trade and working out the appropriate righting response. Yale initially resisted it but then had to even rename one of its colleges, Calhoun college. Peter.r. On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 5:54 AM, John de Figueiredo <[email protected]> wrote: > The medieval Dharmashastras allowed the sale of oneself or one’s > dependents, especially during famines. A case could be made that the Hindu > caste system reduced some people to things. In the 16th century in Goa and > elsewhere it was believed that in some cases, slavery was justified, the > so-called “just slavery”. Until 1569 every religious order in Goa had > slaves. My question is this: if the Goans, Christians and Hindus, had > slaves, what grounds have the Goans to criticize the Portuguese for having > slaves? The Portuguese did not introduce slavery in Goa and they were doing > what everybody else was doing. Even Pombal could not abolish slavery in > Brazil. > What is regrettable is that centuries went by before slavery was viewed as > it had been all along, an abomination, and the evil of human trafficking > continues to this date in various parts of the world. > John M. de Figueiredo > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 6, 2024, at 2:50 PM, 'Pedro Mascarenhas' via Goa-Research-Net < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > John( ..........In fact, the Island of Chorão, where many of them lived, > was known as “Ilha dos Fidalgos” (Island of Nobility........). > > On the island of Chorão, the Portuguese colonizers had Goan and African > slaves. They were self-proclaimed aristocrats who left Portugal where > poverty was rampant. True aristocrats would never leave their land to go to > Goa and lose their lives and possessions knowing that the Mughals and > Marathas would attack whenever they could. > > > > Nuno(............The Portuguese difference was the willingness of mixing > with other ethnic groups, from the casual sexual intercourse to marriage > and to the ability to "go native"...........) > > > The English did not mix in India because they were from the upper middle > and upper class. Most of the Portuguese were from the lower class and > illiterate. They raped many women and abandoned them and their mixed race > children. > > Here is a report that clearly explains what happened in a certain colony, > where even many Goans were settled: > > > https://acervo.publico.pt/mundo/noticia/quantos-milhoes-morreram-na-saga-do-colonialismo-1724884 > > > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Goa-Research-Net" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/1173903945.13467151.1728137663385%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/1173903945.13467151.1728137663385%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Goa-Research-Net" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/40C7DB77-6F78-4AC5-BFD2-31FB8FEC2F84%40sbcglobal.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/40C7DB77-6F78-4AC5-BFD2-31FB8FEC2F84%40sbcglobal.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CAOWg_2akzbX38BNTG7fpve%2BLJEZj1Jo5kNSf8DwWRGG6m%3DzzHw%40mail.gmail.com.
