HM Slaves and Civil Liberties

The history of slavery fascinates me. From the beginnings of human history, slavery has always existed. At the same time that societies became industrialized, slavery began to be abolished. The U.S.A., my home country, was a big importer of African slaves only a few short centuries ago. It is incredible that slavery ceased, because the entire economic system back then depended on slave labor.

My point is this: shouldn't we also abolish the term "HM slave"? In a subtle way, this perpetuates the ancient idea that outsiders, undesirables, and misfits have less worth than other people. Perhaps I am over thinking this, but I think that we should use a better term, such as "HM carrier". I look at it this way: my HM carrier is holding a few moves so that my other Pokemon may have their best possible movesets. I owe a debt of gratitude to this so-called 'slave'.

What do you think?

Honestly, it's just a term. A slave is a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

We own the Pokemon and they must obey. Sure, it's not the best term and you don't have to call them by that by any means. However, I don't really think it's a set term that everyone has to use and I think it's really dumb if you honestly get offended by that.

River Ramirez said:

Honestly, it's just a term. A slave is a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

We own the Pokemon and they must obey. Sure, it's not the best term and you don't have to call them by that by any means. However, I don't really think it's a set term that everyone has to use and I think it's really dumb if you honestly get offended by that.

Click to expand...

It's not the case that I am offended. It's that Pokemon are not my property, they are my friends and trusted companions. As sentient beings, they are entitled to many of the same rights that I am. Furthermore, as a trainer, I depend on them.

In Pokemon B/W, Team Plasma was rebelling against this same concept, that pokemon are somehow lesser than humans. Though their method of ripping pokemon away from their trainers by force is wrong, I have to agree with them at some level.

YZN said:

It's not the case that I am offended. It's that Pokemon are not my property, they are my friends and trusted companions. As sentient beings, they are entitled to many of the same rights that I am. Furthermore, as a trainer, I depend on them.

In Pokemon B/W, Team Plasma was rebelling against this same concept, that pokemon are somehow lesser than humans. Though their method of ripping pokemon away from their trainers by force is wrong, I have to agree with them at some level.

Click to expand...

There's also plenty of evidence that through battle is how Pokemon acquire friendship. You can tell by the fact that you raise happiness through battle to evolve Pokemon like Golbat.

However, I do agree in the sense that HM slaves are really there for the soul purpose of the HMs and are kinda used unfairly. I personally don't like using them as I feel you can spread out the HMs, but I understand the reasoning, and as I said, it is just a term.

River Ramirez said:

However, I do agree in the sense that HM slaves are really there for the soul purpose of the HMs and are kinda used unfairly. I personally don't like using them as I feel you can spread out the HMs, but I understand the reasoning, and as I said, it is just a term.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand me I think, or perhaps you disagree. HM carriers do not have the sole purpose of carrying HM moves. They allow my other teammates to have better movesets by taking the unwanted moves.

I also disagree that HM slave is just a term. It seems to me that the term reflects a perception of 'lesser-than'; an HM slave is an unwanted burden, while an HM carrier is a team player, sacrificing its moveset for the betterment of the team.

YZN said:

HM carriers do not have the sole purpose of carrying HM moves. They allow my other teammates to have better movesets by taking the unwanted moves.

Click to expand...

While I agree it isn't these Pokemon's sole purpose to only carry HM moves, it's definitely their main one (which in turn allows your other Pokemon to have unrestricted movesets). And just like River said, it really is just a term, so while it may not be the most popular choice of name for some, it isn't really an inaccurate one. Personally, I couldn't care less if they're called "HM slaves," "HM carriers," "HM mules," etc., since they're all there to do the same thing- to use their HM moves so your other Pokemon don't have to. It justs so happens that "HM slave" was popularized first.

I use Jynx as my personal HM Slave in every single game and no PC liberal is going to take that right away from me. < I don't really do that of course.

But for real though you are being too sensitive. AI do not have feelings. You could call them stupidloserface and they wont shed a tear. It's not like the term HM Slave is used in-game either. It's something we the fans came up with at some point. If Pokemon were real (lol) and trainers were just using them to climb waterfalls and fly interstate without feeding or treating them well then you'd might have a point. But that isn't the case as it is just a game, not to be taken so seriously my friend.

I voted to phase it out because your well written post got me thinking. :)
Pokemon are obviously just virtual animals, but slavery is bad, plain and simple, so it really doesn't need to be used to refer to things that could very easily be referred to by something else. If we want to truly think of the Pokemon in the games as our friends and treat them as such, even though they are just pixels on a screen, then what moves it knows shouldn't even matter. It doesn't matter what attacks they use, just that they want to use them.

A slave is someone you own and force to do things for you. Pets/Pokemon are purchased/captured and even though they had no choice in the matter, eventually you and your pet/Pokemon care about each other so when they are protecting/attacking for you it's generally because they actually want to, and if they don't, while you'll be disappointed, there isn't a punishment, which isn't true with slaves.

Let's say Pokemon are real and you teach one on your team four HM's. It's definitely not as powerful as it could be, but is it mistreated? I could have a Pokemon that only knows HM's and treat it great and on the other hand have a level 100 Pokemon with powerful moves and treat it horribly. So if I have a Pokemon that only knows HM moves, but I always have it in my party and care for it, how is it a slave? So the term HM Slave, regardless of if it's appropriate or not, doesn't make sense.

It's really just term. Not that big a deal when you get right down to it. But if you really want to be technical, in the games when Pokemon are taken from a trainer, it's referred to as stealing (even by the good guys). That they're stolen implies that they're property.

I mean, they are creatures who we make fight each other for sport and do work for us (like introvert says, scale waterfalls and fly insane distances that we're too lazy to traverse ourselves). Not sure what else you'd call it but slavery. I mean, yea, they're friends and yea, they enjoy it, but that doesn't make it any less of an accurate term.

And as was previously mentioned, this isn't an in-game term. It's just a term occasionally used by the fanbase. Hard to phase it out when it hasn't even been phased in to begin with.

Oh boy, this sounds like a hot button topic.

Eh, honestly I'm completely fine with the term HM slave. Every civilization has had slaves at one point and without them it's arguable that America's economy never would've taken off without the cheap source of revenue and it'd still be a British colony. Undermining their influence is just as bad as throwing huge pity parties for them, imo.

Pokemon being HM slaves are just Pokemon who are used solely to carry the HMs that are of less value in battle. You could say that they're more important than others because without them it'd be nigh impossible to pass certain parts of the game without their help and a lv.100 charizard could do nothing about it. It's not like you're gonna start whipping your Pokemon just because you call them an HM slave.

tl;dr While I do see where you're coming from, changing the name just because it has negative connotations is a bit over-the-top just to make yourself feel more politically correct.

zomgitscathy said:

And as was previously mentioned, this isn't an in-game term. It's just a term occasionally used by the fanbase. Hard to phase it out when it hasn't even been phased in to begin with.

Click to expand...

The term is used extensively by the fanbase, not occasionally. I haven't seen a single challenge thread that doesn't use it. Phasing it out simply means ceasing its use and replacing it with another term.

What does seem difficult is recognizing the subtle perpetuation of ethnocentricity. When the HM carrier is perceived as a burden or undesirable, and that pokemon is then referred to as a slave, the intention is ethnocentric, and the behavior (the physical labeling) is ethnocentric.

To be clear, ethnocentric means that certain rights are not extended to all groups, but only a certain 'in-group'. In this case, the slave is not a respected member of the team in the same way that the others are. It's only there because it has to be.

Teh Blazer said:

Pokemon being HM slaves are just Pokemon who are used solely to carry the HMs that are of less value in battle. You could say that they're more important than others because without them it'd be nigh impossible to pass certain parts of the game without their help and a lv.100 charizard could do nothing about it. It's not like you're gonna start whipping your Pokemon just because you call them an HM slave.

Click to expand...

That's a good distinction, between being useful in battle, and being useful in traveling like cathy and Introvert mentioned.

Teh Blazer said:

Eh, honestly I'm completely fine with the term HM slave. Every civilization has had slaves at one point and without them it's arguable that America's economy never would've taken off without the cheap source of revenue and it'd still be a British colony. Undermining their influence is just as bad as throwing huge pity parties for them, imo.

Click to expand...

That's true! Many thanks are in order. Even if the slaves didn't volunteer for the work, it was their hands that grew the nation.

Teh Blazer said:

tl;dr While I do see where you're coming from, changing the name just because it has negative connotations is a bit over-the-top just to make yourself feel more politically correct.

Click to expand...

Ooh, looking for my hot button, maybe? Heheh. My main goal is to at least make the usage of the term slave a conscious act. I will repeat that I'm not up in arms about this, getting angry about the injustices done to digital signals and LCD screens.

What I'm interested in, and concerned about to some degree, is the intentionality of the words we use, or lack thereof. It seems clear and evident to me that there is an unconscious, subtle, meaning to what seems on the surface to be a convienient and logical term.

I'm going to take this to an unnecessary extreme just to make my point a little clearer. To call the HM carrier a slave is to think of it as a worthless piece of crap. We should call it the Jesus pokemon instead because it sacrifices itself for the good of all.

YZN said:

The term is used extensively by the fanbase, not occasionally. I haven't seen a single challenge thread that doesn't use it. Phasing it out simply means ceasing its use and replacing it with another term.

What does seem difficult is recognizing the subtle perpetuation of ethnocentricity. When the HM carrier is perceived as a burden or undesirable, and that pokemon is then referred to as a slave, the intention is ethnocentric, and the behavior (the physical labeling) is ethnocentric.

To be clear, ethnocentric means that certain rights are not extended to all groups, but only a certain 'in-group'. In this case, the slave is not a respected member of the team in the same way that the others are. It's only there because it has to be.




That's a good distinction, between being useful in battle, and being useful in traveling like cathy and Introvert mentioned.



That's true! Many thanks are in order. Even if the slaves didn't volunteer for the work, it was their hands that grew the nation.



Ooh, looking for my hot button, maybe? Heheh. My main goal is to at least make the usage of the term slave a conscious act. I will repeat that I'm not up in arms about this, getting angry about the injustices done to digital signals and LCD screens.

What I'm interested in, and concerned about to some degree, is the intentionality of the words we use, or lack thereof. It seems clear and evident to me that there is an unconscious, subtle, meaning to what seems on the surface to be a convienient and logical term.

I'm going to take this to an unnecessary extreme just to make my point a little clearer. To call the HM carrier a slave is to think of it as a worthless piece of crap. We should call it the Jesus pokemon instead because it sacrifices itself for the good of all.

Click to expand...

I hear ya, but I don't think it's necessary to be so judicious with our words when we're just talking about a video game. When it comes to our interactions with people, yea, word choice should be more conscious and deliberate. But when talking about a video game, meh, reading too deep into words just kinda takes the fun out of things.

I would like to be always judicious with my intentions. This is practice for life :]

If this was reality would it be right to call the HM carriers slaves?
No. But it matters. We shouldn't have slaves anywhere. Not even at games with fictitious objects, cause this could lead to having slaves in real life too.

P.S. We shouldn't own pokemon really. We should collaborate with and have pokemon.

YZN said:

It's not the case that I am offended. It's that Pokemon are not my property, they are my friends and trusted companions. As sentient beings, they are entitled to many of the same rights that I am. Furthermore, as a trainer, I depend on them.

Click to expand...

A slave, while thought of as inferior - whether it be because they had to sell themselves to slavery to pay off a debt, they were defeated in war, or they were of the wrong race - are still thought of as people, of sorts. Calling a Pokémon a slave seems far too positive, as for me they are mere tools to be used to achieve an end. One does not have feelings for a chair because it's convenient to sit on or a hammer because they make putting in nails easier. In the same way, a HM slave is only one of the tools in my arsenal to become a Pokémon champ - there is no emotional or moral limits to how much I can exploit them, and I am willing to sacrifice them if need be.

They are better called HM Machines. Except that would Hidden Machine Machines and that sounds stupid, so just HMs for short.

(Note: I'm not serious. :P)

Rothometapratis said:

If this was reality would it be right to call the HM carriers slaves?
No. But it matters. We shouldn't have slaves anywhere. Not even at games with fictitious objects, cause this could lead to having slaves in real life too.

Click to expand...

I would like to think that adults can understand that things done in games/fiction should not be imitated in real life, and teach their kids the same. Or has humanity really gotten to the point where they can't even do that?


"HM slave" is a term in a fictional universe. It's not a big deal, assuming humanity can make the distinction between fiction and reality.

Rothometapratis said:

If this was reality would it be right to call the HM carriers slaves?
No. But it matters. We shouldn't have slaves anywhere. Not even at games with fictitious objects, cause this could lead to having slaves in real life too.

P.S. We shouldn't own pokemon really. We should collaborate with and have pokemon.

Click to expand...

Ghetsis? Is that you? O_O

Rothometapratis said:

If this was reality would it be right to call the HM carriers slaves?
No. But it matters. We shouldn't have slaves anywhere. Not even at games with fictitious objects, cause this could lead to having slaves in real life too.

P.S. We shouldn't own pokemon really. We should collaborate with and have pokemon.

Click to expand...

I agree, of course, that we shouldn't have slaves anywhere. I don't think it's the case that calling a pokemon a slave will lead a person to try to own others as property, any more than completing missions on GTA will lead a person to become a felon. As Zekrom mentioned, most people can easily tell the difference between a make-believe world and real life.

One thing i have noticed is that people, including and especially myself, will act differently towards people and animals while playing in the make-believe world of a video game (minecraft, the sims, etc). I've caught myself being misogynyst, racist, and violent at times. Now maybe it is just a way of venting, but... It's a strange phenomenon, and a little unsettling, like taking a step backwards in my development.

Even though the term HM Slave is probably going to still be widely used for the relative future, like I said it doesn't actually make sense. We are calling it a slave simply based on the moves it knows. With that logic, every single Pokemon is a slave including the most powerful on your team. For example if you had a level 100 Pidgeot, even though it's trained and used regularly, it would be your flying slave. A Pokemon with HM moves isn't any more a slave than a Pokemon with high damage moves is.

Regardless, Pokemon have their own freewill, hasn't anyone seen the show? Some trainers have Pokemon that do not fully trust them and they do as they please. I think it's safe to say that in a real Pokemon world, some Pokemon would try and escape once let out of the Pokeball, same as letting a new, untrained dog off of a leash. There's no reason why this would have happened in the show, but every time Ash let Charizard out he could have very easily flown away and escaped being sent back in the Pokeball. Although he didn't because even though they weren't on the best of terms, he still cared for Ash, and fought for him at times. If Charizard did try and leave however, while Ash would be very upset, do you think in the real world he would have used force to try and stop him? Would there be any cruel punishment if he got him back? Of course not, because he isn't truly a slave. Did (the majority) of slaves in the U.S. care for their owners and vise versa? No, but Pokemon/trainers do. Did they do things willingly because they wanted to and not only because they were commanded? No, but Pokemon do. I know it's just a childrens show and that using the term HM slave doesn't mean we agree with slavery, I just wanted to point out that they can easily be called more appropriate and accurate terms if one chooses.

No Chance Without Zekrom said:

I would like to think that adults can understand that things done in games/fiction should not be imitated in real life, and teach their kids the same. Or has humanity really gotten to the point where they can't even do that?


"HM slave" is a term in a fictional universe. It's not a big deal, assuming humanity can make the distinction between fiction and reality.

Click to expand...

Ok. I 've reconsidered. You 're right. I take back my argument. I just feel bad for the term.