Joseon’s slavery system was, for much of its history, ahead of global human rights standards. Discover why it later appeared backward and why judging only by its final stage is misleading.👇
1. A Complex Understanding of Joseon's Slavery System
When evaluating Joseon’s slavery system (*nobi*), one must avoid the trap of judging a 500-year institution solely by its final stage. While it ended in the late 19th century under increasing global scrutiny, for most of its existence, it was notably humane compared to contemporary systems in other countries.
1.1. Misconceptions and Joseon’s Relative Position in Human Rights
Unlike the chattel slavery of the Americas or the feudal *serfdom* in Europe, Joseon’s *nobi* occupied a complex social position. Many could own property, inherit status, or even buy their freedom. Although abuses existed, the system was not based purely on ownership or dehumanization.
In Japan and China, personal retainers or domestic servants often had no institutional protection. A Japanese master, for instance, could legally kill a servant without repercussion. In Ming and Qing China, human trafficking markets existed openly—people, especially women, were bought and sold like commodities. Chinese films sometimes depict protagonists purchasing women from slave markets for mere coins—a reflection of grim historical realities.
Compared to this, Joseon’s *nobi* system was codified and institutionalized. It offered legal recognition, some degree of protection, and state oversight. This framework placed it above many of its contemporaries in terms of humane treatment, even if it still involved social hierarchy and restricted freedoms.
1.2. Progress Within Joseon and Sudden Western Overtaking
Joseon did attempt its own human rights advancements. During the regency of Queen Jeongsun, proposals were made to abolish *gongnobi* (public slaves) and consider nationwide emancipation efforts. These were not externally imposed reforms but internal political decisions driven by moral and social concerns.
However, these domestic movements were slow. As Joseon gradually progressed, the West underwent a rapid transformation in human rights ideology—abolishing slavery, expanding civil rights, and promoting the concept of universal human dignity.
When Westerners visited Joseon in its final years, they encountered a society that hadn’t kept pace with their dramatic philosophical shifts. To them, Joseon appeared barbaric. Punishments seemed cruel, and slavery—even in its waning form—appeared antiquated and inhumane. But this judgment was based on comparison with a suddenly accelerated Western standard, not on an objective global average over centuries.
1.3. The “Latecomer” in Human Rights
This shift led to Joseon being labeled a “latecomer” in human rights. It wasn't that Joseon had regressed, but that it was surpassed in a historical sprint it hadn't anticipated. As a result, the image of Joseon at the time of its fall was frozen as a backward, rigid society, ignoring the preceding centuries of relatively progressive practices.
What was once advanced had suddenly become outdated—not because it changed for the worse, but because others advanced faster. Thus, the perception of Joseon as “inhumane” is rooted more in the *timing* of historical progress than in intrinsic cruelty.
2. Conclusion: History Demands a Nuanced Perspective
Joseon’s *nobi* system deserves to be studied in context—not as an eternal symbol of oppression, but as a complex, evolving institution. While it did fall behind by modern standards at the end, for much of its history, it offered a surprisingly regulated and humane form of servitude compared to its global counterparts.
History is not a race, but a process. And to understand any system, we must evaluate it across its full timeline—not just its final moments. Joseon’s story offers an important reminder: even “backward” systems may once have led the way in ethical governance.
