Kaladin is not racist

[Greywatch she/her]

Does Kaladin go and best up lighteyes just because? Nope. As I've said many, many times in this thread, the impact of what Kaladin actually does about his anger is negligible. He says words, and some people get offended and angry that he would dare. That's about it.

[NameIess]

1 minute ago, Nellac said:

Why not? It seems like you are justifying racism. I've said it a lot and I'll say it again, you are saying it is okay to hate someone simply because other people with similar physical characteristics, characteristics they can't choose or change, have done evil things in the past. Let's bring this closer to the real world. Let's say that a black kid is teased by white kids in high school. Let's say they make his life an absolute misery. Is he justified in his anger against them? Absolutely. If the teachers stand by and do nothing is anger against them justified? Absolutely. Now let's say this kid moves and ends up in a new school. Is he now justified in beating up the white kids in his new school? Absolutely not. But in your logic it would be fine. He would be totally justified in anger and hatred towards every other white person he met in his life. Even if these people tried to befriend him or help him out, even if these people are great and actually stopped bullies in their own schools, you say it is justified for him to hate them.

Kaladin distrusts Lighteyes in general, because they have all treated him badly, but he does not discriminate against lighteyes who show themselves to be good people, as shown by the fact that he likes the wall guard, trusts the Kholins, and allows Lighteyes into bridge four. He distrusts them because in general, the lighteyes in power are corrupt. But when he is given reason to trust them, he does so.

[Nellac]

3 minutes ago, Greywatch said:

Does Kaladin go and best up lighteyes just because? Nope. As I've said many, many times in this thread, the impact of what Kaladin actually does about his anger is negligible. He says words, and some people get offended and angry that he would dare. That's about it.

Alright, I'll admit I messed up with that analogy. It wasn't well worded. But here's the center of where I think our disagreement lies. @Greywatch  Is it okay to treat someone badly or distrust then simply because people with a similar attribute have wronged you in the past?

[Nuatoma]

48 minutes ago, Greywatch said:

I find it telling that the anger of the darkeyes gets more of a "this is wrong!" reaction than Dalinar and Adolin and Shallan's thoughts and actions, as people in these privileged positions who thoughtlessly are classist in the books. But they have the privilege of being calm and reasonable about this subject, whereas Kaladin's anger is seen as hysterical and unreasonable.

 

I think the reason why Dalinar, Adolin, and Shallan aren't receiving as much attention is because it seems obvious where they lie on the racism spectrum.  Hard to defend them; thus they elicit less heated reaction.  Kaladin seems to be in the middle ground and bringing out more opinions.

The issue doesn't seem to be whether Kaladin has a right to be angry or not, but rather just the interpretation of the word 'racist'.

I don't know which side it right, both have brought up good arguments.  I do think Kaladin loathing all Lighteyes is bad, but as Greywatch is pointing out, because of his status as a darkeye can't really inflict any injustice upon them does it really amount to racism. Does it amount to Kaladin being classified as a rascist? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Nellac]

4 minutes ago, Nameless said:

Kaladin distrusts Lighteyes in general, because they have all treated him badly, but he does not discriminate against lighteyes who show themselves to be good people, as shown by the fact that he likes the wall guard, trusts the Kholins, and allows Lighteyes into bridge four. He distrusts them because in general, the lighteyes in power are corrupt. But when he is given reason to trust them, he does so.

His trust doesn't come for a while though. While I agree he gets better through the books, there are many times where he has very negative thoughts towards someone simply because they are light eyes. He doesn't even know them, and yet thinks they are evil and corrupt simply because they are light eyed. He might not act on these, but he openly discussed them with Bridge 4, especially Moash. He even tell one of the other bridge men he'd get them a drink if they were there because they had killed a light eyes. That is very obvious racism right there

[Greywatch she/her]

He doesn't mistreat them. He's stiff and distant and has a generally angry energy he aims at everybody. It's his anger that people keep saying he should stop, even though he hasn't acted on it inappropriately. Even his biggest moment of hatred in WoR wasn't misaimed at some random lighteyes, but Elhokar, who had caused him and his family direct harm - and he still chose in the end to help Elhokar. The way that he's expressed his anger has been perfectly fine. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that people are upset that he's angry at all. But feeling anger is not a moral action and it shouldn't be put in the same category as being racist.

[Pathfinder]

14 minutes ago, Greywatch said:

Does Kaladin go and best up lighteyes just because? Nope. As I've said many, many times in this thread, the impact of what Kaladin actually does about his anger is negligible. He says words, and some people get offended and angry that he would dare. That's about it.

Kaladin did, or was going to, but he grew as an individual, and realized that would be wrong. 

 

Words of Radiance page 1014

"If I protect..." He coughed "if I protect.... only the people I like, it means that I don't care about doing what is right" If he did that, he only cared about what was convenient for himself. That wasn't protecting. That was selfishness.

 

Oathbringer page 79

(this is after Kaladin punched Roshone in the face)

Suddenly, the perspective of it crashed down on him. Since leaving Hearthstone, Kaladin had met true evil, and Roshone hardly compared. hadn't he sworn to protect even those he didn't like? Wasn't the whole point of what he had learned to keep him from doing things like this? He glanced at Syl, and she nodded to him. Do better

12 minutes ago, Nameless said:

Kaladin distrusts Lighteyes in general, because they have all treated him badly, but he does not discriminate against lighteyes who show themselves to be good people, as shown by the fact that he likes the wall guard, trusts the Kholins, and allows Lighteyes into bridge four. He distrusts them because in general, the lighteyes in power are corrupt. But when he is given reason to trust them, he does so.

That is character growth. Kaladin did not want to give Dalinar a shot. Syl pushed him, and eventually he learned to. Maybe part of the disconnect is by labeling some actions Kaladin took in the past as racist is that it is being said he always will be. To me Kaladin held a worldview that was enforced by individuals. His anger towards those individuals and the system was justified. Some of his other actions and comments to me were not. Those were said or done out of pain. As he got to meet and know individuals that challenged his world view, he grew as a person. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Pathfinder

[NameIess]

3 minutes ago, Nellac said:

His trust doesn't come for a while though. While I agree he gets better through the books, there are many times where he has very negative thoughts towards someone simply because they are light eyes. He doesn't even know them, and yet thinks they are evil and corrupt simply because they are light eyed. He might not act on these, but he openly discussed them with Bridge 4, especially Moash. He even tell one of the other bridge men he'd get them a drink if they were there because they had killed a light eyes. That is very obvious racism right there

Another quote, that was brought up earlier by Pathfinder, was this:

Quote

"Oh, I'm happy to punish them," Kaladin said. "But I have no desire to take their place, nor do I wish to join them." 

     "I'd join them in a heartbeat," Moash said, walking up behind. He folded his arms across his lean, well-muscled chest. "If I were in charge, things would change. The lighteye would work the mines and fields. They would run bridges and die by Parshendi arrows."

     "Won't happen," Kaladin said. "But I won't blame you for trying"

Kaladin doesn't mistrust the lighteyes specifically because they are lighteyes, but instead because they are in power. This is before Kaladin meets any good examples, and he has figured out that power has a tendency of corrupting everyone.

[Nellac]

14 minutes ago, Nuatoma said:

I do think Kaladin loathing all Lighteyes is bad, but as Greywatch is pointing out, because of his status as a darkeye can't really inflict any injustice upon them does it really amount to racism. Does it amount to Kaladin being classified as a rascist? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just because someone doesn't have power, doesn't mean their idealigies are correct. If there was someone on Twitter or Facebook that was spreading hate towards Jews and saying we should have another Holocaust to get rid of them that person is evil. Whether they have five followers or fifty thousand doesn't matter. Just because they maybe can't reach a ton of people, doesn't justify the ideology. Just like this, even though Kaladin doesn't have power to do much about it, his racist comment/thoughts/actions are still evil.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Nellac

[Nellac]

5 minutes ago, Nameless said:

 

Kaladin doesn't mistrust the lighteyes specifically because they are lighteyes, but instead because they are in power. This is before Kaladin meets any good examples, and he has figured out that power has a tendency of corrupting everyone.

I think this is where the anger starts, but it doesn't start here. Throughout tWoK we see this hatred expanded to all light eyes. In that way he is racist. He later overcomes it though and starts to see people on an individualistic level

[NameIess]

Just now, Nellac said:

I think this is where the anger starts, but it doesn't start here. Throughout tWoK we see this hatred expanded to all light eyes. In that way he is racist. He later overcomes it though and starts to see people on an individualistic level

Would you agree that whatever Kaladin has been, he is not racist as of the end of OB?

[Nellac]

Just now, Nameless said:

Would you agree that whatever Kaladin has been, he is not racist as of the end of OB?

Yes, absolutely. I can see the argument that he is just classist. I just don't understand the argument that he can't be racist simply because he's dark eyed/ of a lower social/political position.

[+Q10fanatic]

I have to say, there aren't many places on the internet where people could discuss what counts as racism for 3+ pages and keep it this civil. It's a testament to this community.

[agrabes]

2 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

The issue I keep coming back to regarding racism versus classism is the nahns and dahns. As the system as it stands, there will never be a darkeyed of any dahn (I confused the two last time lol. darkeyes normally are of nahn, and lighteyes of dahn). The only way someone can move from the darkeyes nahn, to a light eyes nahn is changing their eye color via winning a shardblade. Marriage does not work as we know via in book and WoB, that it would only affect the children. The darkeyes would remain darkeyes, and remain within the nahn. If the child ended up being born with lighteyes, they would then be of the dahn, and outrank one of their parents. If the child was born with darkeyes, they would be of the nahn and the parents would keep trying till they got a lighteyed child to inherit. So the reason I feel it is a "race" issue (I used quotes since we are speaking of eye color), is because there is a very real ceiling to how high a darkeyes can climb. A darkeyes will never be a ruler. Period. Not through monetary means nor marriage. It is literally stratified based on the color of your eyes. It divides the "haves" from the "have nots". Theoretically in medieval times a commoner could marry a noble, and attain such a rank. A individual who distinguished themselves could earn a knighthood, and even be gifted land. Not so with darkeyes. 

I think a good illustration of classism is the movie "Parasite". The lower class characters have no definable difference than the upper class other than their bank accounts. They are able to literally hide in plain sight without issue. The "smell" becomes the only physical characteristic indicating any difference between the "haves" and have nots". The income disparity is massive, and the likelihood of the lower class shown in the film ever attaining such a height is beyond unlikely, but there is still not a physical trait being used to exclude them. That is why personally I still think the issue is a "race" or eye color sourced than class. 

The one thing I would add here though is the parshendi are met. The term literally means "the parsh that can think". The Alethi have met a thinking and reasoning version of the parsh. They realize this enough that they are actually concerned about having the parsh near the battlefield. That whatever got the parshendi thinking, could spread like a cold, or that the parsh seeing their "cousins", they would rise up. Kaladin holds back from allowing Shen a spear for a long time for that reason. All the other bridgemen are convinced Shen will try to kill them in their sleep, and he should be put at the front of the bridge so he will die quickly. Kaladin refuses that. 

You are correct that a darkeyes can never reach the lighteyes ranks (aside from earning a shardblade) during their lifetime.  Like you said, the only way they can seek advancement is for their children, and only that through marriage.  However, that does not mean the system is any different than a caste system or a nobility system.  There is a real ceiling to how high a darkeyes can climb, but there was also a real ceiling to how high a commoner or person of a low caste could climb with only extremely rare exceptions.

For example: Like you said, a darkeyes could never be a ruler. However, a commoner could also never be a ruler.  A commoner could marry a noble, but the noble would be the ruler, not the commoner.  Later on, yes you could buy yourself a noble title if you were rich enough after the nobility started having money issues due to industrialization.  I think that if Alethkar ever found itself in that situation (the lighteyes going bankrupt and the high tiers of the darkeyes extremely wealthy), you would see the same thing happening - pay for the use of a shardblade to keep your eyes light colored.

The point is that for nearly every scenario, the lighteyes/darkeyes distinctions and class barriers match societal and class based barriers that were in place in real world western Europe during the Middle Ages.  Think the Three Estates of pre-revolution France.  If I knew enough about the history of real world caste systems, I suspect that we could find several examples of how those class systems were just as rigid.  The behaviors and rules we see match up much more closely to a class based system than a race based system.  I also have a hard time calling people with a difference in eye color to be a distinct race.  There are differences among people shown in SA that we would call "race" in the real world - different skin color, facial features, general build, etc.  In my view, if this was truly a racist system, there would be special places in the formalized caste system for the Shin, the Horneaters, people of darker or lighter skin, etc.  But, we don't see that.  We only see that having light eyes gives a person a higher floor for their social status because they are presumed to be descended from ruling families of long ago.  In my view, the "lighteyes" concept is a way of showing this is a fantasy world and that the nobility and their descendants have a physical marker to identify their noble blood, however diluted it is.  Sanderson also used this concept in Warbreaker with the noble families having the special hair.  

 

You do have a good point about the Parshendi/Parshmen distinction though.  The arrival of the Parshendi created a serious moral issue which the Alethi did not respond well to.  So, you're right once they see the Parshendi they realize something is up and as a society they choose to hold on to the free labor from the Parshmen rather than explore the real issue.

[Karger he/him]

56 minutes ago, agrabes said:

There is a real ceiling to how high a darkeyes can climb, but there was also a real ceiling to how high a commoner or person of a low caste could climb with only extremely rare exceptions.

Not as much as you might expect.  You could buy noble rank throughout a lot of Europe and commoners did on some occasions rise to higher stations.  Also even a could achieve high rank in the church assuming you had good education, university training allowed high social status for doctors and lawyers.  Finally wages were still the same for impoverished nobility and normal commoners.  There are a lot of misconceptions about how nobility worked.

[NameIess]

1 hour ago, Karger said:

Finally wages were still the same for impoverished nobility and normal commoners.  There are a lot of misconceptions about how nobility worked.

Wages are the same for lighteyes and darkeyes, lighteyes just get better jobs.

[Karger he/him]

1 hour ago, Nameless said:

Wages are the same for lighteyes and darkeyes, lighteyes just get better jobs.

Not true.

Quote

WoR chapter 52 "payed like a lighteyed officer of the sixth dahn"

He mentions the rank of the lighteyes not the military rank of the person holding it.  He also mentions somewhere else I think in OB that even lower Dahn lighteyes are payed better then darkeyes for the same work.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Karger

[Honorless he/him]

Guys, you've all read the books, don't project yourselves on the lighteyes on the basis of colourism.

[Karger he/him]

40 minutes ago, Dreamer said:

Guys, you've all read the books, don't project yourselves on the lighteyes on the basis of colourism.

Was that addressed to anyone in particular, meant to be inflammatory or the opposite?  I am deeply sorry but in the internet age I can no longer tell the difference.

[Honorless he/him]

6 minutes ago, Karger said:

Was that addressed to anyone in particular, meant to be inflammatory or the opposite?  I am deeply sorry but in the internet age I can no longer tell the difference.

Inflammatory? Why would it be inflammatory?

I'm asking people not to project themselves onto the Lighteyes simply because people were comparing being white irl with being Lighteyes

[Vissy]

To go back to the original question, Kaladin does hold genuinely racist attitudes towards the parshmen. The lighteyes-darkeyes split is not exactly a one-to-one comparison to our real-world racism because of a number of factors (race science that has seeped into the structures and dominant attitudes of society doesn't play into it in the same way, for instance), but with parshmen it very much does. The parshmen are suffering under a system of chattel slavery and have been for a long time, and it shows in even Kaladin's attitude towards Rlain even though we know that Kaladin is actually a very empathic personality and is able to empathize to a small degree with Rlain. He notices these racist attitudes, however, and tries to correct them - mostly unsuccessfully at first. The issue is quickly dropped after WoR though. I wasn't entirely satisfied with Sanderson's treatment of the topic, because if you're going to put chattel slavery into the books, you better have something to say about it or else you're just putting it there for no reason at all, right? I would've preferred this angle to become a more central part of the plot because I actually think helping the parshmen and centering their narrative ties in really neatly with the theme of fighting against the literal embodiment of hatred.

Either way, the topic came up and was used mainly to 1) show that Kaladin too held racist attitudes towards those in a lower position than him, and 2) that he was ashamed of those attitudes and eager to become a better person, very much in line with the arguably main theme of the book, that of second chances.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Vissy

[Honorless he/him]

Yeah but not just Rlain, bring on the road with Khen and Sah has made him by far the character most empathetic of the situation with the Singers, the only one who had him beat was Eshonai in how understanding she was of humans

[agrabes]

13 hours ago, Karger said:

Not as much as you might expect.  You could buy noble rank throughout a lot of Europe and commoners did on some occasions rise to higher stations.  Also even a could achieve high rank in the church assuming you had good education, university training allowed high social status for doctors and lawyers.  Finally wages were still the same for impoverished nobility and normal commoners.  There are a lot of misconceptions about how nobility worked.

That is true - it was common toward the end of the era of aristocracy that wealthy commoners could buy their way to titles.  I originally was going to mention that in my previous post, but felt like it got a little long winded so I deleted it.  

My understanding of that is that only in the later periods was it possible to buy your way, after industrialization had basically bankrupted many of the nobility and raised up a new super wealthy class.  The royal families and the nobility were running low on funds and begrudgingly accepted those bought titles because they had no other choice. But, my understanding is that those "new rich" were always sort of treated as less than the old blood families.  I think the reason we don't see this in Alethkar is because they have not had the same kind of economic and societal transformation where the wealth of the old aristocracy (land) becomes much less valuable and allows a new wealthy class to arise.  The lighteyes of Alethkar don't need to accommodate wealthy darkeyes because their own wealth is generally still secure, just like the aristocracy of Europe didn't accommodate commoners until they had to.

The other paths - university training allowing relatively high status is equivalent to the top ranks of the darkeyes.  Someone like Kaladin's father was highly respected and had high social status.  It was only Roshone's jealousy and the whole stealing/not stealing the gems that caused him problems.  That was a situation specific to the people and we're told that it doesn't reflect the overall situation in Alethkar.  I don't know for sure, but it seems like darkeyes could also become ardents and attain relatively high rank there.  I think in the real world of old Europe, you could attain relatively high rank as a commoner in the priesthood, but the highest ranks were still reserved for those who came from noble families.  After all, there were a lot of people with titles like Prince-Bishop, etc.

A lot of the things that the characters do and say can be understood through the lens of the Three Estates.  In a lot of western Europe, the Nobility felt it was their divine duty and role of their class to be leaders and fighters.  They refused to engage in business even when it could have benefited them because it was not an appropriate role for their position.  The Priesthood and the Commoners also had their divinely assigned roles.  You can see this attitude in Adolin's POVs - he feels that based on his religious and cultural beliefs that he and his fellow lighteyes are the only ones suited for the role of being military leaders due to the influence of his religion.  In the same way, they leave the business enterprise to the darkeyes and the control of the church to the ardents.  I'm not saying this is a good attitude to have, but it's not a racist view in my opinion.  It's a distinction based on class that is tied up in religious trappings, just like the old monarchies of Europe.

[Karger he/him]

10 minutes ago, agrabes said:

A lot of the things that the characters do and say can be understood through the lens of the Three Estates.  In a lot of western Europe, the Nobility felt it was their divine duty and role of their class to be leaders and fighters.  They refused to engage in business even when it could have benefited them because it was not an appropriate role for their position.  The Priesthood and the Commoners also had their divinely assigned roles.  You can see this attitude in Adolin's POVs - he feels that based on his religious and cultural beliefs that he and his fellow lighteyes are the only ones suited for the role of being military leaders due to the influence of his religion.  In the same way, they leave the business enterprise to the darkeyes and the control of the church to the ardents.  I'm not saying this is a good attitude to have, but it's not a racist view in my opinion.  It's a distinction based on class that is tied up in religious trappings, just like the old monarchies of Europe.

The three estates were a political idea that did not exactly or even approximately mach up to the social and economic realities of france at the time. 

11 minutes ago, agrabes said:

The other paths - university training allowing relatively high status is equivalent to the top ranks of the darkeyes.  Someone like Kaladin's father was highly respected and had high social status.  It was only Roshone's jealousy and the whole stealing/not stealing the gems that caused him problems.  That was a situation specific to the people and we're told that it doesn't reflect the overall situation in Alethkar.  I don't know for sure, but it seems like darkeyes could also become ardents and attain relatively high rank there.  I think in the real world of old Europe, you could attain relatively high rank as a commoner in the priesthood, but the highest ranks were still reserved for those who came from noble families.  After all, there were a lot of people with titles like Prince-Bishop, etc.

But you still could not gain nearly as much.  A good doctor for example could receave a possition at court.  However from the readings of Navani's RoW flashback we know that even the kitchens in the capital are staffed with lighteyes.

12 minutes ago, agrabes said:

My understanding of that is that only in the later periods was it possible to buy your way, after industrialization had basically bankrupted many of the nobility and raised up a new super wealthy class.  The royal families and the nobility were running low on funds and begrudgingly accepted those bought titles because they had no other choice. But, my understanding is that those "new rich" were always sort of treated as less than the old blood families.  I think the reason we don't see this in Alethkar is because they have not had the same kind of economic and societal transformation where the wealth of the old aristocracy (land) becomes much less valuable and allows a new wealthy class to arise.  The lighteyes of Alethkar don't need to accommodate wealthy darkeyes because their own wealth is generally still secure, just like the aristocracy of Europe didn't accommodate commoners until they had to.

It become more common then for those reasons yes but creative justifications for higher rank were not uncommon either.  Renaissance Italy for example was largely plutocratic in terms of governing.

[agrabes]

4 minutes ago, Karger said:

The three estates were a political idea that did not exactly or even approximately mach up to the social and economic realities of france at the time. 

But you still could not gain nearly as much.  A good doctor for example could receave a possition at court.  However from the readings of Navani's RoW flashback we know that even the kitchens in the capital are staffed with lighteyes.

It become more common then for those reasons yes but creative justifications for higher rank were not uncommon either.  Renaissance Italy for example was largely plutocratic in terms of governing.

I do agree the three estates were (like you said) a political idea and not a 100% exact description of life in Ancien Regime France.  I always saw them as one of those things that is both political/classist (I want to make up an external reason for why I can be in charge of you) and legitimately believed.  Really, it's like a lot of things in politics today.  There are people who hold positions seriously based on real beliefs and values and others who hold those same positions for the political expediency.

Either way, though, after I responded to your original post I saw a few of your other replies and I will admit you did put out some good evidence that the lighteyes/darkeyes distinction does have more of a racist element than I originally thought.  I still believe it's not -only- racist, but it does have racist elements.  I would also be interested to know how something like the Caste system in India worked and if lighteyes/darkeyes is closer to that.  

6 hours ago, Vissy said:

To go back to the original question, Kaladin does hold genuinely racist attitudes towards the parshmen. The lighteyes-darkeyes split is not exactly a one-to-one comparison to our real-world racism because of a number of factors (race science that has seeped into the structures and dominant attitudes of society doesn't play into it in the same way, for instance), but with parshmen it very much does. The parshmen are suffering under a system of chattel slavery and have been for a long time, and it shows in even Kaladin's attitude towards Rlain even though we know that Kaladin is actually a very empathic personality and is able to empathize to a small degree with Rlain. He notices these racist attitudes, however, and tries to correct them - mostly unsuccessfully at first. The issue is quickly dropped after WoR though. I wasn't entirely satisfied with Sanderson's treatment of the topic, because if you're going to put chattel slavery into the books, you better have something to say about it or else you're just putting it there for no reason at all, right? I would've preferred this angle to become a more central part of the plot because I actually think helping the parshmen and centering their narrative ties in really neatly with the theme of fighting against the literal embodiment of hatred.

Either way, the topic came up and was used mainly to 1) show that Kaladin too held racist attitudes towards those in a lower position than him, and 2) that he was ashamed of those attitudes and eager to become a better person, very much in line with the arguably main theme of the book, that of second chances.

I think you are right that lighteyes/darkeyes is not a 1:1 comparison to real world racism and Sanderson probably did this intentionally to avoid being too much like real world issues faced by a lot of his readers.  I think he did the same with the Parshmen and slavery, it's not a good 1:1 comparison to real world chattel slavery either.  He probably did this intentionally.  There are two main reasons why it's not a great example of racism or slavery:

1) It's not racism, because the Parshmen are not a race of humans.  Therefore, it cannot be racism.  The Parshmen are a different species.  I realize this is kind of a semantics argument, but I think it's an important distinction.

2) It's not chattel slavery as we know it in the real world, because the Parshmen were not of human level intelligence during the time of they were used as slaves.  The closest equivalent would be if we suddenly discovered a wild herd of horses that had human level intelligence.  Then, we found out that humans had intentionally kept the dumbest horses as captive beasts of burden and tried to kill all the intelligent ones.  That would create a similar moral challenge to what the Alethi faced when they discovered the Parshendi.  Was using horses all that time equivalent to chattel slavery?  Is it slavery if we keep doing it now that we know how we got them?  I'm not going to say the Alethi responded well to the discovery of the Parshendi - they didn't.  But, it's not a 1:1 for chattel slavery.  The literal chattel slavery experienced by Kaladin and all the Bridge Crews is a 1:1 comparison to real world chattel slavery.