Caribbean Vs Russian Serfs Essay
While both oppressed people with meager rights, Caribbean slaves and Russian serfs have some differences, especially on the relationship with land. Caribbean slaves, most of whom are kidnapped from African continent, suffered from harsh conditions with propinquity to their owners. Similarly, serfs in Russian Empire even experienced more brutality of the Russian nobility and tzar. Whereas they are both located in the lowest social status, they have some minor differences.
To begin with, their identities were different, despite the fact that they underwent similar cruel conditions. Serfdom in Russia is only a epitome of European feudal dependency on peasants, though it lasted much longer in Russia. Russian serfs were owned by no one but bounded …show more content…
While slaves were almost considered as a hard property of the owners (items had no rights by the owners’ standard), serfs did have little, if no, liberty. According to the Code of Law in 1649, Russian landlords had no rights to kill the serfs, though punishment was permissable. Serfs in Russia, technically, were bound to the land, instead of the landowners. They could have little property and personal items, but that fact would be they were severly exploited. The little rights does not mean that serfs’ conditions surpassed slaves’ much. Serfs still did not have the freedom of movement. In the late seventeenth centuary, serfs could be transferred, if not sold, to another landowners without land. In other words, this change defiantly ignored the concept of serfdom, the bound to land. In both Caribbean territories and Russian empire, landowners had the rights to catch the fugitives (runaways) and the serfs or slaves were often cruelly punished, such as whipping for hours, if not killed.
In conclusion, Russian serfdom and Caribbean slavery had some slightly differences, while the conditions of serfs and slavers were similarly harsh. Although Russian serfdom was abolished in 1861 and Caribbean slavery was abolished in the nineteenth century, the traumas of the serdom and slavery equally equally tarnish the history of the human beings, bringing suffering to millions of
To begin with, their identities were different, despite the fact that they underwent similar cruel conditions. Serfdom in Russia is only a epitome of European feudal dependency on peasants, though it lasted much longer in Russia. Russian serfs were owned by no one but bounded …show more content…
While slaves were almost considered as a hard property of the owners (items had no rights by the owners’ standard), serfs did have little, if no, liberty. According to the Code of Law in 1649, Russian landlords had no rights to kill the serfs, though punishment was permissable. Serfs in Russia, technically, were bound to the land, instead of the landowners. They could have little property and personal items, but that fact would be they were severly exploited. The little rights does not mean that serfs’ conditions surpassed slaves’ much. Serfs still did not have the freedom of movement. In the late seventeenth centuary, serfs could be transferred, if not sold, to another landowners without land. In other words, this change defiantly ignored the concept of serfdom, the bound to land. In both Caribbean territories and Russian empire, landowners had the rights to catch the fugitives (runaways) and the serfs or slaves were often cruelly punished, such as whipping for hours, if not killed.
In conclusion, Russian serfdom and Caribbean slavery had some slightly differences, while the conditions of serfs and slavers were similarly harsh. Although Russian serfdom was abolished in 1861 and Caribbean slavery was abolished in the nineteenth century, the traumas of the serdom and slavery equally equally tarnish the history of the human beings, bringing suffering to millions of