Just to stay in the BS area briefly - this is an issue I've considered, if not become expert in.

It seems to me that the one of the most significant differences between systems of bonded servitude and slavery, especially chattel slavery, was that one was time limited, {or, at least, supposed to be time limited [servitude] and one was for perpetuity-not only for the person branded as a slave, but also for their descendants {slavery}.

True, of course, but it also points up that if the system was commonly abused without societal or legal sanctions, there was little difference. Bonded servents were often abused, denied any legal rights, forced to "pay off their debt" over a lifetime and thoroughly degraded.

Furthermore, as I understand it, bonded servants were considered to be human {though a lower 'class' of humans} and in chattel slavery {the form of slavery in the Western world including the USA, South America, and the Caribbean}, slaves were considered to be less than human with no possiblility of evolving {say througn intelligence testing, material accomplishments, or religious conversion} to the 'level' of human}.

To me, that's the key point. And a terrifying one. And one that has been very hard (for me) to get across to other people. Modern people seem to reject the social definition of "human." Jews, Gypsies, blacks, retardeds in Nazi Germany could not be slaughtered without even trumped-up "justifications" until they were legally redefined as sub-human. In ancient Greece, all humans had legal status but this was restricted to Greek adult males. The principle is very widespread but usually applies to the whole tribe/ethnos. That is, the name for almost all African & American tribes ultimately is defined as "people" or "human." Thus, generally, you cannot kill tribe members but you can kill others freely. Etc.

But it is my understanding that the US experience was nearly unique in its barbarity and disfunctionality. Slaves in most other societies (eg, Greek or Hebrew or first American) had most of the same rights as free. They could appeal to society at large on ill-treatment and society would sternly sanction the owner. Eventually they could usually become full citizens. In Jamaica, slaves could own property, even real property, had a day off and could (with difficulty) purchase their own freedom. I don't know about the rest of the Caribbean.

No?