Peasant revolts were actually pretty rare. The only reason it seems otherwise, is that lists like the one you linked to compress centuries of the history of all of Europe into a few lines.
Also, like Desrtopa said until the 17th century, if not later, peasants revolts were about specific grievances rather than an abstract concept of inequality.
When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.
John Ball (priest), in a sermon during the 1381 Peasant’s Revolt. Like fubarobfusco says elsewhere in the thread, there were probably similar memes behind other similar revolts, that were suppressed and didn’t survive into recorded history. (This one did because of the huge “memetic fitness” of the rhyming question at the start; I read it many years ago, and remembered it well enough to Google it and find the source now.)
Also, like Desrtopa said until the 17th century, if not later, peasants revolts were about specific grievances rather than an abstract concept of inequality.
Prior to the Enlightenment and secularism, “the abstract concept of inequality” was described as a religious concept rather than a secular one; and was a common feature of medieval “heresies”.
peasants revolts were about specific grievances rather than an abstract concept of inequality.
What exactly is the difference? I want equality, and I have a list of specific changes (grievances, if you prefer) that I think would create equality.
Giving the peasants what they wanted would have reduced inequality. I assume the peasants leaders were smart enough to notice that fact.
Peasant revolts were actually pretty rare.
For every revolt large enough to actually make it on to a list like that (about one every generation), how many smaller, historically unimportant defiant acts in favor of equality occurred. The fact that the local elite didn’t keep detailed records doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.
In parallel, major slave revolts in continental North America also happened about once every generation (it’s hard to compare to peasant revolts because the historical record is better). Surely that isn’t evidence that the slave population didn’t express (or desire to express) complaints about inequality when they weren’t engaged in armed uprisings.
In parallel, major slave revolts in continental North America also happened about once every generation (it’s hard to compare to peasant revolts because the historical record is better).
For a striking contrast with North American slavery, consider the case of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome, where they where, despite the occasional rebellion, sufficiently confident in how much control they had over their slaves to use them as cops and prison guards.
The Greeks and Romans didn’t practice chattel slavery (with serious legal and social limitations on manumission). So it’s not surprising that they were able to trust slaves to a degree unthinkable in the Antebellum South.
When I’ve heard experts talk about about the differences between ancient slavery and antebellum slavery, “chattel slavery” was used exclusively to refer to the latter—which was also described as harsher (measured by the difference between slave and typical underclass).
But I can’t find any cites to support my previous understanding of the difference between ancient and antebellum slavery. Adjusting beliefs accordingly.
I’m falsifying John’s claim that most inter-factional conflict focusing on issues of inequality is a historical universal.
Giving the peasants what they wanted would have reduced inequality. I assume the peasants leaders were smart enough to notice that fact.
That fact only seems as salient as it does because we live in a culture that places high value on equality. For another perspective look at how Confucianism is able to combine a justification for peasant revolts under some circumstances with support for a strong social hierarchy.
Surely that isn’t evidence that the slave population didn’t express (or desire to express) complaints about inequality when they weren’t engaged in armed uprisings.
The difference is that the slaves lived in a culture where “all men are created equal” was already an established meme.
He claims it is a universal now—but I don’t see the claim that it was a historical universal.
Also, your response does not explain the distinction I’m asking about—I mostly understood the general context of why you were attempting a distinction, but I’m still confused by the disconnect you seem to be drawing between object level expressions like “I’m poor, you caused it, grr” and abstract concern with inequality.
He claims it is a universal now—but I don’t see the claim that it was a historical universal.
He attempts to provide an ev-psych explanation, which makes no sense unless it’s a historical universal or near universal.
Also, your response does not explain the distinction I’m asking about—I mostly understood the general context of why you were attempting a distinction, but I’m still confused by the disconnect you seem to be drawing between object level expressions like “I’m poor, you caused it, grr” and abstract concern with inequality.
It’s not “I’m poor, you caused it, grr”, it’s “I don’t have enough food/money/free time [to live the lifestyle I’m accustomed to], you’re causing it, grr”. The peasant doesn’t have a problem with the lord having more and better food than he does any more than he has a problem with birds being able to fly and him not. The problem is that he’s not getting the amount of food he feels he’s entitled to.
Peasant revolts were actually pretty rare. The only reason it seems otherwise, is that lists like the one you linked to compress centuries of the history of all of Europe into a few lines.
Also, like Desrtopa said until the 17th century, if not later, peasants revolts were about specific grievances rather than an abstract concept of inequality.
John Ball (priest), in a sermon during the 1381 Peasant’s Revolt. Like fubarobfusco says elsewhere in the thread, there were probably similar memes behind other similar revolts, that were suppressed and didn’t survive into recorded history. (This one did because of the huge “memetic fitness” of the rhyming question at the start; I read it many years ago, and remembered it well enough to Google it and find the source now.)
Interesting, it appears I misremembered when that rebellion occurred by a couple centuries. Updating accordingly.
Prior to the Enlightenment and secularism, “the abstract concept of inequality” was described as a religious concept rather than a secular one; and was a common feature of medieval “heresies”.
What exactly is the difference? I want equality, and I have a list of specific changes (grievances, if you prefer) that I think would create equality.
Giving the peasants what they wanted would have reduced inequality. I assume the peasants leaders were smart enough to notice that fact.
For every revolt large enough to actually make it on to a list like that (about one every generation), how many smaller, historically unimportant defiant acts in favor of equality occurred. The fact that the local elite didn’t keep detailed records doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.
In parallel, major slave revolts in continental North America also happened about once every generation (it’s hard to compare to peasant revolts because the historical record is better). Surely that isn’t evidence that the slave population didn’t express (or desire to express) complaints about inequality when they weren’t engaged in armed uprisings.
For a striking contrast with North American slavery, consider the case of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome, where they where, despite the occasional rebellion, sufficiently confident in how much control they had over their slaves to use them as cops and prison guards.
The Greeks and Romans didn’t practice chattel slavery (with serious legal and social limitations on manumission). So it’s not surprising that they were able to trust slaves to a degree unthinkable in the Antebellum South.
What definition of “chattel slavery” are you using? By the standard definition (slaves can be bought and sold) the Greek and Roman practice qualifies.
Apparently, a really stupid definition.
When I’ve heard experts talk about about the differences between ancient slavery and antebellum slavery, “chattel slavery” was used exclusively to refer to the latter—which was also described as harsher (measured by the difference between slave and typical underclass).
But I can’t find any cites to support my previous understanding of the difference between ancient and antebellum slavery. Adjusting beliefs accordingly.
I’m falsifying John’s claim that most inter-factional conflict focusing on issues of inequality is a historical universal.
That fact only seems as salient as it does because we live in a culture that places high value on equality. For another perspective look at how Confucianism is able to combine a justification for peasant revolts under some circumstances with support for a strong social hierarchy.
The difference is that the slaves lived in a culture where “all men are created equal” was already an established meme.
He claims it is a universal now—but I don’t see the claim that it was a historical universal.
Also, your response does not explain the distinction I’m asking about—I mostly understood the general context of why you were attempting a distinction, but I’m still confused by the disconnect you seem to be drawing between object level expressions like “I’m poor, you caused it, grr” and abstract concern with inequality.
He attempts to provide an ev-psych explanation, which makes no sense unless it’s a historical universal or near universal.
It’s not “I’m poor, you caused it, grr”, it’s “I don’t have enough food/money/free time [to live the lifestyle I’m accustomed to], you’re causing it, grr”. The peasant doesn’t have a problem with the lord having more and better food than he does any more than he has a problem with birds being able to fly and him not. The problem is that he’s not getting the amount of food he feels he’s entitled to.
“accustomed to” and “entitled to” don’t really have the same meaning when the existence of an anti-inequality motive is at issue.
But I agree that there is a disconnect between the ev-psych invocation and the lack of any other claim of universality.
My point is that this distinction is extremely modern.
Do you have an accessible cite explaining this point?