> [!quote] [Considering the chronic labor/population shortages for much of its history, Why did (mainland) Southeast Asia *not* become a massive hub for slavery?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/upqykr/considering_the_chronic_laborpopulation_shortages/) by [[thestoryteller69]] via [[rAskHistorians]] on 2022-05-27 > Slavery was massive in Southeast Asia (SEA) as far back as we can tell. There were slaves in practically every sector of the economy. Slavery was so widespread in SEA that even the slaves had slaves. To give just one example of the scale we are talking about, an inscription of Jayavarman VII of Angkor from about 1200AD records the king’s donation of 306,372 slaves to religious foundations. > > SEA had a very low population density, so manpower was a valuable resource. Raids for the express purpose of taking people hostage were common. Raid victims were usually held for ransom, and it was common for villages to have a 'ransom fund' as a kind of insurance that was used to redeem hostages. Hostages that were not redeemed for whatever reason ended up either being sold as slaves, or working as a slave for the raiders. In general, it was societies of wet rice cultivators (those that had fixed plots of farmland) that raided societies of swidden farmers (societies that sustained themselves through shifting cultivation). > > By the 18th century, it is estimated that 35% of workers employed by the Burmese king were from captured foreign populations. By the early 19th century, an estimated 20% of the entire population of upper Burma was composed of captured foreigners and their descendants. > When the Europeans arrived in SEA, several of them remarked that slaves were generally treated very well - then again, their point of reference was the plantation system in the New World. The level of treatment was similar to the way a servant might be treated in Europe. They also remarked that there was no segregation of slaves by industry. Slaves could be found working alongside free people in all manner of occupation - rice farmers, fishermen, miners, craftsmen, interpreters, surgeons, soldiers and even ministers. > > It has been postulated that this relatively benign treatment of slaves stemmed from 4 factors: > > First was SEA’s very low population density, which meant that there just weren’t that many slaves to go round. Slaves were expensive and casually working slaves to death was not a sustainable option. For example, someone in need of labour might rent a slave from his master. In the 17th century, the going rate for a day’s slave labour was enough to buy ten days’ worth of food in Banten, Sumatra, and a whopping thirty days’ worth of food in Ayutthaya. > > Secondly, because of the low population density and an abundance of natural resources, labour in SEA was very mobile. It was easy enough for a slave to initiate a change in masters because manpower was always in high demand. As a scarce resource, labour therefore held a certain amount of power in being able to choose who they wanted to work for. > > Even kings had to compete for labour. Free people who were about to be called up for particularly onerous labour duties (see the ‘vassalage and obligation’ paragraph above) would sometimes choose to sell themselves into permanent debt slavery to escape this. In effect, the king was competing with private slave owners for slaves. > > Thirdly, it seems that the SEA kingdoms had relatively weak policing capabilities. Not that there was no law and order at all, but if a slave opted to run away from his life of slavery entirely, if the slave had not committed some heinous crime like murder, the kingdom was not going to spare the manpower to hunt him down. > > Lastly, slaves could occupy many different positions in society. As far as we know there were very few laws that laid out crimes and punishments for slaves, because there was such a wide variety of slaves. To give an example, in the Dutch colony of Batavia, the Dutch did pass laws that treated all slaves equally. Thus, any slave who stayed more than 2 nights away from his master’s house, or the living quarters his master had approved, was deemed to have run away and was punished accordingly. Everywhere else in SEA this would not have made sense. A slave could be a skilled bronzesmith who had to make a journey to inspect a shipment. Or he could be a surgeon who was called to a patient’s house. Or maybe the slave was favoured by his or her master and had the freedom to roam as he pleased, for as long as he pleased. Thus, being a slave in itself did not determine one’s rights or social status. > > > That’s not to say slavery in SEA was a walk in the park or that there was no abuse. Nor should we forget that we are talking, in many cases, of the effective kidnapping and relocation of millions of people over hundreds of years. Especially when it came to being removed from one’s home and being sent to a foreign land, there was strong protest and great unhappiness. > > However, the consensus is that slaves were reasonably well treated. Perhaps two of the most important defining characteristics of SEA slavery were that, as mentioned, being a slave did not in itself determine one’s social status, and slaves had the opportunity for advancement. > > Social status was determined by factors such as one’s occupation, family situation and the status of one’s master. A particularly skilled artisan who was a slave of the king would certainly be of higher status than the average free person. A slave concubine might well run her master’s household of technically free servants. A slave might even be given slaves of his or her own. > > Many forms of advancement were also possible. Slaves were given time off and were allowed to work on their own enterprises when they were not fulfilling their masters’ needs. They were also allowed to keep property - any money they earned during their time off belonged to them, not their masters. Many European sources mention successful slaves who were able to make enough money to buy their own slaves to help them make even more money. > > When a slave reached a certain age or had rendered a certain amount of labour, it was expected that the slave would be allowed to marry. This could be a love marriage or a marriage arranged by the master. Importantly, slave marriages were legally and culturally recognised. For example, during the Early Bangkok Period in Thailand, for someone to interfere with a married slave was flat out illegal, even if that someone was the slave’s master. > > Once a slave was married, his/her social standing increased and obligation to his master decreased. It was expected that the couple would raise a family, with all the obligations this entailed. While the master still had the right to call on his slave for labour, it was also expected that this would become less and less frequent. > > There was no firm commitment as to when a slave might have done ‘enough’. Doing ‘enough’ to be able to reduce one’s obligations was akin to a servant ’gaining his master’s trust’. However, it seems that the mobility and relative scarcity of SEA labour was enough to keep most masters honest. > > It was really, really hard to pay off a debt. In fact, in some cases the slaves labour didn't even count towards interest. The amount owed kept going up, subject to a cap. It is thus surprising that SEAsians seemed so willing to sell themselves into slavery, and is one of the reasons we believe slaves were treated reasonably well. One might wonder whether daily life was so horrible that having basic necessities met as a slave was preferable to life as a free person. That was probably the case during times of hardship like crop failures, but does not seem to be the case during most periods. > > The ability to marry freely was integral to SEA slavery, for it meant that slaves could, within a generation, be assimilated into the dominant culture. Coupled with the prospects of social advancement, this meant that a slave could aspire to see his children achieve more than he had, whether as free people or as slaves. >