Ie ga Moete Jinsei Dou Demo Yoku Natta kara, Nokotta Nakenashi no Kin de Dark Elf no Dorei o Katta.
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 109
oh! thanks for take this title
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 4,584
No need to hate just cause it has slavery some slave owners treated their slaves quite nice
Considering there is now harem and ecchi tag pretty sure he’ll treat his slaves nice and not lewd them even though after 10+ chapter comment section will say MC is a cuck for not lewding the slave.
Considering there is now harem and ecchi tag pretty sure he’ll treat his slaves nice and not lewd them even though after 10+ chapter comment section will say MC is a cuck for not lewding the slave.
@AlphaFlow I'm not sure you wanna go down the making fun of people against slavery road lol.
xyzzy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 2,064
@greatninja3
@AlphaFlow
And others gave slaves their food scraps, whipped them if they even did the slightest thing wrong, broke up families of slaves by trading them to others as if they were Pokémon cards, and established a racial divide that lasts to this day simply because they wanted to reap the benefits of a farm without doing the work themselves or hiring someone else to do it for them. I don’t see how going “not all slave owners are bad” fixes things.
While you could generalize things by saying the only complaints here are “HURR SLAVERY BAD”, there’s another reason why people on this site are opposed to slavery in narou stories: it’s an incredibly lazy way to give the main character an eternally faithful love interest who will do anything they say. Not from any qualities that the main character may have personality-wise, but only because he has money and was able to buy her. Because the audience who reads this only has experience with buying things, and that’s the only way they think they could ever land a woman in their life.
@AlphaFlow
And others gave slaves their food scraps, whipped them if they even did the slightest thing wrong, broke up families of slaves by trading them to others as if they were Pokémon cards, and established a racial divide that lasts to this day simply because they wanted to reap the benefits of a farm without doing the work themselves or hiring someone else to do it for them. I don’t see how going “not all slave owners are bad” fixes things.
While you could generalize things by saying the only complaints here are “HURR SLAVERY BAD”, there’s another reason why people on this site are opposed to slavery in narou stories: it’s an incredibly lazy way to give the main character an eternally faithful love interest who will do anything they say. Not from any qualities that the main character may have personality-wise, but only because he has money and was able to buy her. Because the audience who reads this only has experience with buying things, and that’s the only way they think they could ever land a woman in their life.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
- Messages
- 236
@xyzzy I think you're over-analyzing things tbh... Sure, the slavery in this is used as a narrative crutch, but that's it. That's all it is. A crutch. The author isn't making a statement about slavery here, so I don't see why they should be blasted for that. Slavery existed. That's sad, but it's fact. And while a fictional story about someone treating a slave well isn't gonna negate centuries of slave abuse, it doesn't contradict it either.
That's not a problem with the manga, that's a problem with SOME people reading it. If there really are people who'd believe that after reading this, that's got nothing to do with this manga. It sounds careless, but that's free speech.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2020
- Messages
- 320
She got pink hair? I would buy her on SIGHT.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 4,584
@xizzy
>implying property rights didn't exist back then
>if you have a slave and its not a citizen but property it would still face a form of protection from the government
Case in point, indentitured slavery in places like London meant that you were not able to simply kill your own property as it stands because BANKS use their labor as a form of liquidity from the municipality to make work.
That is only one example of protective laws for slaves back in the sixteenth century, how about the fact that if physical abuse and murder of slaves was so rampant, how is it that well, there are ANY form of racial/ethnicities, religious and cultural settlements in a given country today and not the constant parroting of GENOCIDE against them? China, India, Vietnam, Korea and the countries that surrounded Burma besides itself at the time would castrate their slaves, do you think the east african or european people as we know traditionally where in said countries where you MIGHT be ignoring your defference of YOUR perspective of the slavery trade? Because again, it was a trade, not a crime back then, it had a value in culture and commerce that anyone who reads about the process of labor and trade in history would know why it happened, reasons that are apparent and aside from how demonized it seems to be, know this, no one in the US wanted to fight in the civil war to free slaves, it was because social security numbers BEGAN to exist back in those days as a promise for having engaged in their side of the war to earn a house, living expenses for food and accomodation later on, people were moved by money and progress of life conditions, not all that much focus on moral value.
>implying property rights didn't exist back then
>if you have a slave and its not a citizen but property it would still face a form of protection from the government
Case in point, indentitured slavery in places like London meant that you were not able to simply kill your own property as it stands because BANKS use their labor as a form of liquidity from the municipality to make work.
That is only one example of protective laws for slaves back in the sixteenth century, how about the fact that if physical abuse and murder of slaves was so rampant, how is it that well, there are ANY form of racial/ethnicities, religious and cultural settlements in a given country today and not the constant parroting of GENOCIDE against them? China, India, Vietnam, Korea and the countries that surrounded Burma besides itself at the time would castrate their slaves, do you think the east african or european people as we know traditionally where in said countries where you MIGHT be ignoring your defference of YOUR perspective of the slavery trade? Because again, it was a trade, not a crime back then, it had a value in culture and commerce that anyone who reads about the process of labor and trade in history would know why it happened, reasons that are apparent and aside from how demonized it seems to be, know this, no one in the US wanted to fight in the civil war to free slaves, it was because social security numbers BEGAN to exist back in those days as a promise for having engaged in their side of the war to earn a house, living expenses for food and accomodation later on, people were moved by money and progress of life conditions, not all that much focus on moral value.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 125
wholesome 100 slavery everyone liked that
Similar threads
