Mennonites and Slavery

[barnhart]

How would you all distinguish between 'slavery' and 'inescapible servitude'?

Slavery is a broad term that has been used to cover a variety of labor arrangements. Lincoln for example famously referred to the economic wage practices of the industrial north as "wage slavery" because it was a key component in a socio-economic system that was very hard to escape. Stretching definitions to make a point is good rhetoric and likely good politics but if you are interested in more academic inquiry there are different categories that should be distinguished.

Among neo-confederate and southern apologist thinking it is popular to downplay the horror and demonic nature of American chattel slavery by comparing it to indentured servitude, "What about the Irish slaves?" while ignoring the components of American slavery that were unique.

But to make a broader point about unjust economic systems, a comparison to slavery can amplify valid concerns, maybe it depends on how and why the comparison is made.

[ken_sylvania]

I never heard about Delano. Where can I read about this company and its business model?

https://delanolasvegas.mgmresorts.com/en.html

[Ken]

I never heard about Delano. Where can I read about this company and its business model?

It's a small Amish group in Delano Tennessee that runs a roadside market: https://www.yelp.com/biz/delano-farm-market-delano

[Soloist]

Within their districts or colonies, villages were to be created in which families received equal allotments of land in perpetuity. Each village had between 20 and 30 farmsteads (Wirtschaften). These could not be divided or sold, but only inherited by the youngest son in perpetuity.
A district also had reserve land for future villages according to population growth, or to be rented, e.g., for sheep grazing. Every village was also required to set aside 1/6 of their land as surplus for other housing (e.g., the old and retired) and trades. Because older sons did not inherit a farm, a father was responsible to prepare them for other vocations needed to create whole communities.

Wife: So I’m a little bit confused by this article, at least the part where it said the youngest son would inherit the land. I was just listening to an audio book the other day called, The Earth is Round, about a family moving with their colony to Manitoba, and obviously, that’s a fiction novel, but it seemed like the eldest son would be the one who inherited the land. One of the reasons that many people wanted to move to Canada was so the landless ones would actually be able to own land, and then of course, to keep from being drafted. I did like how they seemed to show the good and the bad side of the Russian Mennonites at that time, and not just either completely tear them down or make them seem like saints.They also talked about how non-landowners were not allowed to go to meetings or vote about different things, and some of the class inequality among the colonies, although the entire colony worked together to pay off everybody’s debts before moving, so no one who wanted to go would be left behind.

So basically, I’m just asking whether or not the article or the book were correct about who inherited the land in the Russian colonies.

[Josh]

Amazon and UPS employees are quite well paid with a lot of benefits.

In the past I took a nonchalant view towards UPS, Amazon and FedEx but as Josh stated, they are under an ungodly amount of pressure to perform. And UPS drivers make money, but they are putting their lives in danger which is unethical.

UPS actually has a good culture of safety and an excellent record.

Amazon outsources deliveries so they aren’t legally responsible for accidents.

[Josh]

I never heard about Delano. Where can I read about this company and its business model?

It's a small Amish group in Delano Tennessee that runs a roadside market: https://www.yelp.com/biz/delano-farm-market-delano

Not Amish and haven’t ever been.

[Neto]

Within their districts or colonies, villages were to be created in which families received equal allotments of land in perpetuity. Each village had between 20 and 30 farmsteads (Wirtschaften). These could not be divided or sold, but only inherited by the youngest son in perpetuity.
A district also had reserve land for future villages according to population growth, or to be rented, e.g., for sheep grazing. Every village was also required to set aside 1/6 of their land as surplus for other housing (e.g., the old and retired) and trades. Because older sons did not inherit a farm, a father was responsible to prepare them for other vocations needed to create whole communities.

Wife: So I’m a little bit confused by this article, at least the part where it said the youngest son would inherit the land. I was just listening to an audio book the other day called, The Earth is Round, about a family moving with their colony to Manitoba, and obviously, that’s a fiction novel, but it seemed like the eldest son would be the one who inherited the land. One of the reasons that many people wanted to move to Canada was so the landless ones would actually be able to own land, and then of course, to keep from being drafted. I did like how they seemed to show the good and the bad side of the Russian Mennonites at that time, and not just either completely tear them down or make them seem like saints.They also talked about how non-landowners were not allowed to go to meetings or vote about different things, and some of the class inequality among the colonies, although the entire colony worked together to pay off everybody’s debts before moving, so no one who wanted to go would be left behind.

So basically, I’m just asking whether or not the article or the book were correct about who inherited the land in the Russian colonies.

Very good question, and I wondered the same thing. However, in the case of my dad's family, it WAS in fact the youngest who got the farm. But there were other factors involved, because my dad, the eldest of the boys, and also of all of the siblings, felt a call to the ministry, so he and my mom did not stay in that area very long after marriage. (Dad first attended Rio Grande Bible Institute, then they moved to Fresno, CA, and he attended the Fresno Junior College, as well as Pacific Bible Institute, a school operated by the MB conference.) He 'candidated' at a number of MB congregations during his final year at PBI, but not having received a call from any of them, we (I was born there during that final year) moved back to Oklahoma, to my mom's community. Dad never did take a pastorate, but he DID teach SS for well over 50 years. He only stopped when Alzheimer's had taken so much from him that he could no longer keeps his thoughts together. Sorry for getting off on those details, but that may be why Dad, as the eldest son, did not get the farm.

The other factor is that Dad had a severe case of 'hay fever', so he may have really wanted to avoid farming. Also, my Grandpa was only 46 when my folks got married, the point at which Dad might have taken over the farm. After dad, the next son was born quite a bit later, after most of Dad's sisters. Then the next two sons went to college, the first of the two for education (HS level), and the last son for agriculture. Neither of these last two married young like my dad, and the youngest (about 11 years older than I, the third son in our family) moved back home and worked with Grandpa & Grandma on the farm, as well as doing other full-time work at the grain elevator in the small town nearby. My Grandpa died at 68 years of age, when my youngest uncle was only 26, then newly married. He was still working full-time at a service station, plus helping on the farm. I was 17 at that time, and I worked on the farm for the next two summers, the first year working for Grandma, then the second year working for my uncle.

So while I do not think there was any Czarist law that said that the farm MUST go to the youngest son, I suspect that it was often the case. I also do not think there were any stipulations like that on the part of the Mennonite church. I think that the age and health of the father was generally the determining factor. (As far as sons-in-law are concerned, the older three sisters married Mennonite men from other areas of the country, two in California, and one in Kansas. The other two aunts never married, one taking a career in the alumni office of a Bible institute in Nebraska, and the other a teaching career in an English school in Mexico, then later in the public school system in Oklahoma.) So a lot of it is just logistics.

[Ken]

I never heard about Delano. Where can I read about this company and its business model?

It's a small Amish group in Delano Tennessee that runs a roadside market: https://www.yelp.com/biz/delano-farm-market-delano

Not Amish and haven’t ever been.

My mistake. They are old order (horse and buggy) Mennonite.

[Neto]

Within their districts or colonies, villages were to be created in which families received equal allotments of land in perpetuity. Each village had between 20 and 30 farmsteads (Wirtschaften). These could not be divided or sold, but only inherited by the youngest son in perpetuity.
A district also had reserve land for future villages according to population growth, or to be rented, e.g., for sheep grazing. Every village was also required to set aside 1/6 of their land as surplus for other housing (e.g., the old and retired) and trades. Because older sons did not inherit a farm, a father was responsible to prepare them for other vocations needed to create whole communities.

Wife: So I’m a little bit confused by this article, at least the part where it said the youngest son would inherit the land. I was just listening to an audio book the other day called, The Earth is Round, about a family moving with their colony to Manitoba, and obviously, that’s a fiction novel, but it seemed like the eldest son would be the one who inherited the land. One of the reasons that many people wanted to move to Canada was so the landless ones would actually be able to own land, and then of course, to keep from being drafted. I did like how they seemed to show the good and the bad side of the Russian Mennonites at that time, and not just either completely tear them down or make them seem like saints.They also talked about how non-landowners were not allowed to go to meetings or vote about different things, and some of the class inequality among the colonies, although the entire colony worked together to pay off everybody’s debts before moving, so no one who wanted to go would be left behind.

So basically, I’m just asking whether or not the article or the book were correct about who inherited the land in the Russian colonies.

A better answer to your question:

Mennonites settled in colonies in Russia in principle were subject to regulations covering land ownership and land distribution outlined in a law of March 1765 which imposed a system of hereditary household tenure on all foreign colonists. All land was placed in the perpetual and incontestable possession of the colony as a corporate group, and could not be sold or mortgaged to outsiders. Each Mennonite colonist received a separate allotment of 65 desiatinas (160 acres; 70 hectares) which they and their descendants could use in perpetuity. This allotment could not be subdivided, but, while the 1764 law specified that only the youngest son could inherit the property, Mennonites, through provisions granted in their 1800 Privilegium, could follow their own inheritance customs. Usually the eldest Mennonite son inherited the land and homestead, but he had to compensate his siblings for their portion of the estate.

https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Land_ ... n_(Russia)

[Soloist]

Within their districts or colonies, villages were to be created in which families received equal allotments of land in perpetuity. Each village had between 20 and 30 farmsteads (Wirtschaften). These could not be divided or sold, but only inherited by the youngest son in perpetuity.
A district also had reserve land for future villages according to population growth, or to be rented, e.g., for sheep grazing. Every village was also required to set aside 1/6 of their land as surplus for other housing (e.g., the old and retired) and trades. Because older sons did not inherit a farm, a father was responsible to prepare them for other vocations needed to create whole communities.

Wife: So I’m a little bit confused by this article, at least the part where it said the youngest son would inherit the land. I was just listening to an audio book the other day called, The Earth is Round, about a family moving with their colony to Manitoba, and obviously, that’s a fiction novel, but it seemed like the eldest son would be the one who inherited the land. One of the reasons that many people wanted to move to Canada was so the landless ones would actually be able to own land, and then of course, to keep from being drafted. I did like how they seemed to show the good and the bad side of the Russian Mennonites at that time, and not just either completely tear them down or make them seem like saints.They also talked about how non-landowners were not allowed to go to meetings or vote about different things, and some of the class inequality among the colonies, although the entire colony worked together to pay off everybody’s debts before moving, so no one who wanted to go would be left behind.

So basically, I’m just asking whether or not the article or the book were correct about who inherited the land in the Russian colonies.

A better answer to your question:

Mennonites settled in colonies in Russia in principle were subject to regulations covering land ownership and land distribution outlined in a law of March 1765 which imposed a system of hereditary household tenure on all foreign colonists. All land was placed in the perpetual and incontestable possession of the colony as a corporate group, and could not be sold or mortgaged to outsiders. Each Mennonite colonist received a separate allotment of 65 desiatinas (160 acres; 70 hectares) which they and their descendants could use in perpetuity. This allotment could not be subdivided, but, while the 1764 law specified that only the youngest son could inherit the property, Mennonites, through provisions granted in their 1800 Privilegium, could follow their own inheritance customs. Usually the eldest Mennonite son inherited the land and homestead, but he had to compensate his siblings for their portion of the estate.

https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Land_ ... n_(Russia)

Wife: OK, so maybe they are both correct. I think this was set a little after the Civil War when czar Alexander wanted Mennonites to be eligible for future drafts, and it sounded like they were old colony Mennonites, although I have no idea and it’s probably whoever is in Manitoba right now.

I personally think it makes a little more sense for the eldest, because depending on how many children you have and how long you are having children, you don’t know when your youngest son would be born, and the others would have to potentially learn their trades ahead of time since I know several families whose oldest children are starting to have children when the youngest children are born. I mean, it makes more sense for the person who actually likes farming to do it, but with all the privileges attached to it, I am assuming people would give up vocational preferences for it. I know in that community they were writing about, sometimes the daughter would inherit it if they don’t have any sons, and it would go with her by marriage.