12 ms·

I often wondered how slave holders justified their actions. And along those lines, I recall a lecture on Roman slavery. It made the point that it was standard-p

by jbuzbee 10y ago

I often wondered how slave holders justified their actions. And along those lines, I recall a lecture on Roman slavery. It made the point that it was standard-practice in Roman and other ancient cultures to raid other groups, kill everyone and take their possessions: livestock, food, valuables, etc. That was the way of the world that everyone knew. In the Roman mind, when the raiding party decided to let some people live and sell them into slavery, they were doing the captives a favor. They were saved from death. And from then on the slaves were more-or-less the walking dead with no rights and owing their "masters" everything. They were only alive because of the grace of the invaders. The lecture also noted that there was no writing from Roman times that questioned the morality of slavery. No one thought it was wrong. There are extensive writings from literate slaves themselves, and even these writings fail to question the morality of slavery. And speaking of writing, the Bible was written in a time when slavery was common practice. I don't recall Jesus preaching against slavery or the 10 Commandments coming out against it either.

Brendinooo 10y ago
The typical broad outlines you'll see from Christians goes something like this: 1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was different than the chattel slavery we tend to think of when we think of the word today. It'd have been a little close to the debt slavery you see in this article, but in its ideal form there were provisions for release after a period of time. 2. The New Testament didn't outright condemn slavery, but the Epistle to Philemon is a short book that shines a lot of light on the attitude that Paul had and that Christians used as a basis for their positions on slavery down the line. Onesimus needed to return to Philemon, but Philemon needed to treat him as a brother in Christ. Peter expressed similar views as well.
- candiodari 10y ago
  I think it'd be far more accurate to describe the New Testament's attitude toward slavery (and debts in general, but that fact is de-emphasized) would be to say that 1) they must end. It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way. 2) it is, however, not for Christians to violently take other's property away. Not even slaves. A Christian should campaign for slave owners and creditors to release their charges, maybe even convince them to convert, but violently or legally freeing slaves away is forbidden. 3) Using money to achieve slaves' or debtors freedom is a specifically named virtue. So it's a "let it die" attitude. End slavery with minimal disruption. During the middle ages, traders from Southern Europe would often trade with muslims, and as a "good works" effort for their bosses/companies, they'd go to the slave markets of whatever city they were in and buy some slaves. They would be offered a free ride to Europe (and be paid for cleaning the deck or cooking on the way, to get some starter cash) and allowed to settle in Europe. If they didn't speak the language they'd take them to a monastery where they could often stay to learn. This worked, while islam requires slavery and slave trade (halal/wajib), it recognizes that freeing slaves is a good deed. Therefore they'd often sell slaves to be freed at a discount. The freed slaves could, but generally didn't, stay where they were, because muslims would simply capture them again (there's many such things in trade ports in Northern Africa. For instance, these muslim cities would often organize a yearly slave sports event. If the slaves won, they'd often get their freedom for that. However, more often than not, the owners of losing slaves would kill any slave that actually took his freedom).
  - gragas 10y ago
    The whole "Islam says freeing slaves is a good deed" is untrue and extremely misleading. Everyone always quotes the first part of the sentence from the Quran, but the last half is left out: > This is a command from Allah to slave-owners: if their servants ask them for a contract of emancipation, they should write it for them, provided that the servant has some skill and means of earning so that he can pay his master the money that is stipulated in the contract. Yeah, let the slaves go, but make sure they sign a contract such that they have to give all their earnings to their masters for the rest of their lives. 1. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2426&Itemid=79 http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie...
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Islam seems to be much more specific in regards to economic issues. The Jizya is another example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
  - GedByrne 10y ago
    Could you give some scriptural references please?
    - vivekd 10y ago
      Leviticus 25:37-55 says that bibilical slavery is to be temporary (lasting only till the year of Jubilee which came every 50 years) but they may buy themselves or have a family member buy themselves out sooner. The fact that they could buy themselves out of slavery also strongly suggests that slaves got paid. . . these provisions make ancient slavery very different from the racialized and cruel slavery we see in modern forms of slavery.
  - cygx 10y ago
    It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way. That's not what the Catholic church taught as late as 1866: https://suchanek.name/texts/atheism/slavery.html https://suchanek.name/texts/atheism/slavery.html
- cygx 10y ago
  1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was different than the chattel slavery we tend to think of Which ignores the difference in rules applying to Hebrew slaves compared to foreign slaves. As far as foreigners are concerned, you could beat them severely as long as you don't outright beat them to death. You could give wives to your male slaves, and the children would be born enslaved. After your death, these slaves became part of your inheritance. How is that substantially different from our modern understanding of the word?
  - vivekd 10y ago
    That's not true, children born to slaves were treated as the master's children > If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. (Exodus 21:4) further beating slaves had consequences of letting the slave go free if he is injured (Exodus 21:26-27) >“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
    - cygx 10y ago
      children born to slaves were treated as the master's children That applies to Hebrew slaves. What happens to the children of foreign slaves is not clearly stated, but it's the logical consequence of the rules applicable to Hebrews and foreigners. further beating slaves had consequences of letting the slave go free if he is injured If they are permanently injured. Cf Exodus 21:20-21: Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. There are no repercussions for whipping them as severely as you like as long as they recover.
  - sorokod 10y ago
    It is a common misunderstanding to assume that the laws of the old testament are applicable to all humanity. A contemporary Jewish reader would have been amazed at an idea that "though shall not kill" for example, applies to gentiles.
rustynails 10y ago
Your understanding of slavery in Ancient Rome is quite different to mine. I'd really appreciate knowing your sources as you seem to have a wealth of knowledge. Slaves could lead very productive and meaningful lives. It was not uncommon for slaves to be freed and made a citizen. Some slaves also held high positions (eg. Dentists, accountants, etc). I also understand that the word slave was interchangeably used with the word family. Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome And Mary Beard's Meet the Romans (an exceptionally good documentary from BBC. Mary is one of my favourites). Mary talked about a wealthy Roman woman (a business owner) who freed her slave and married him. Depending on who you ask, her slave would have been considered a sex slave before they married. The truth is always a matter of perspective! Having said that, the Spanish and Italians used boys as young as 6 as slaves for mining silver and malachite. The boys that survived were significantly physically deformed by the time they reached adulthood. There is also significant discussion about little girls who were forced to play with dolls to be good slave housewives (the girls were described as having terrible lives). Source: Mary Beard's other Roman documentaries and the history of Sicilian mines (can't remember the link, but easily found on Google). Trivia: the silver was mined for coins!
- nyolfen 10y ago
  > And Mary Beard's Meet the Romans (an exceptionally good documentary from BBC. Mary is one of my favourites). i finished watching this an hour ago, what a coincidence. i strongly recommend it as well, she discusses the role of slavery in roman society at length -- though it's spread throughout the whole series
- jbuzbee 10y ago
  I believe my info on Roman slavery was from this lecture series, chapter 38: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-ancient-rome.html http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-ancient-ro...
- adolph 10y ago
  SPQR by the same is a good book for gaining an understanding of what Rome was. One of my takeaways from it is that mapping a contemporary term to something similar from the past is a tricky thing and can lead to poor interpretations. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0108U7IHO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0108U7IHO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
gragas 10y ago
While we're discussing aspects of widespread religions and how they relate to slavery, it might be useful to understand how slavery relates to Islam. > In the early 20th century (post World War I), slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France. For example, Saudi Arabia and Yemen only abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman followed suit in 1970, and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007. However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the predominantly Islamic countries of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery
bambax 10y ago
How do we justify killing animals, including their young, in giant torture factories where rivers of blood flow amidst the cries and horror of the victims, while the killers laugh and laugh, as spy videos show repeatedly? We don't think about it. How do we justify letting refugees die on sinking ships in the Mediterranean sea, or on the shores of Europe, including young children? We don't think about it. How do we justify bombing civilians, hospitals, wedding parties in remote countries we're not even at war with? We don't think about it. It's easy, really. The only thing easier than this, is thinking we're morally superior to the Romans, or to modern slave owners, because we don't "own slaves". We're not (I'm not vegan btw, and do nothing to stop wars or help refugees). We're worse in many respects.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  I know many people who do think about it, don't justify it, and are quite vocal about all those things being terrible. Not everyone is as indifferent as you describe.
  - greenhatman 10y ago
    Of course not everyone is. The main reason we most people know about these issues is because there are many people that are not indifferent. I wonder what other things we're not seeing.
  - bambax 10y ago
    "Many people", maybe ("some people" would probably be more accurate). But does that make any difference, at the level of society? My point is, the article in reference, seems to be amazed that people could own slaves and live with themselves; but we do much worse than own slaves, and live with ourselves pretty well, so maybe we should start wondering about ourselves first.
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      I agree with you, but there's also another level that I saw mentioned here, namely that, back then, nobody seemed to mind it. Today, at least some people do.
ciconia 10y ago
From TFA: > Instead of evil villains, we find husbands, fathers, mothers and neighbours working with the cultural materials available to them, surviving as best they can. I think it's an illuminating way of looking at Bad Stuff Normal People Do. We're truly very adaptable animals and can rationalise our actions, which often derive from cultural baggage. I actually think it's quite hard to break free of that baggage, our values, our education, things we received as given when young and did not bother ever questioning.
elastic_church 10y ago
> The lecture also noted that there was no writing from Roman times that questioned the morality of slavery. Not much writing out there questioning Soviet leadership or Singapore's for that matter, and yet nobody would consider that unanimous tacit acceptance. Except of course the historians in the year 3017.

by jbuzbee 10y ago

Brendinooo 10y ago

The typical broad outlines you'll see from Christians goes something like this: 1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was different than the chattel slavery we tend to think of when we think of the word today. It'd have been a little close to the debt slavery you see in this article, but in its ideal form there were provisions for release after a period of time. 2. The New Testament didn't outright condemn slavery, but the Epistle to Philemon is a short book that shines a lot of light on the attitude that Paul had and that Christians used as a basis for their positions on slavery down the line. Onesimus needed to return to Philemon, but Philemon needed to treat him as a brother in Christ. Peter expressed similar views as well.

candiodari 10y ago
I think it'd be far more accurate to describe the New Testament's attitude toward slavery (and debts in general, but that fact is de-emphasized) would be to say that 1) they must end. It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way. 2) it is, however, not for Christians to violently take other's property away. Not even slaves. A Christian should campaign for slave owners and creditors to release their charges, maybe even convince them to convert, but violently or legally freeing slaves away is forbidden. 3) Using money to achieve slaves' or debtors freedom is a specifically named virtue. So it's a "let it die" attitude. End slavery with minimal disruption. During the middle ages, traders from Southern Europe would often trade with muslims, and as a "good works" effort for their bosses/companies, they'd go to the slave markets of whatever city they were in and buy some slaves. They would be offered a free ride to Europe (and be paid for cleaning the deck or cooking on the way, to get some starter cash) and allowed to settle in Europe. If they didn't speak the language they'd take them to a monastery where they could often stay to learn. This worked, while islam requires slavery and slave trade (halal/wajib), it recognizes that freeing slaves is a good deed. Therefore they'd often sell slaves to be freed at a discount. The freed slaves could, but generally didn't, stay where they were, because muslims would simply capture them again (there's many such things in trade ports in Northern Africa. For instance, these muslim cities would often organize a yearly slave sports event. If the slaves won, they'd often get their freedom for that. However, more often than not, the owners of losing slaves would kill any slave that actually took his freedom).
- gragas 10y ago
  The whole "Islam says freeing slaves is a good deed" is untrue and extremely misleading. Everyone always quotes the first part of the sentence from the Quran, but the last half is left out: > This is a command from Allah to slave-owners: if their servants ask them for a contract of emancipation, they should write it for them, provided that the servant has some skill and means of earning so that he can pay his master the money that is stipulated in the contract. Yeah, let the slaves go, but make sure they sign a contract such that they have to give all their earnings to their masters for the rest of their lives. 1. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2426&Itemid=79 http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie...
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Islam seems to be much more specific in regards to economic issues. The Jizya is another example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
- GedByrne 10y ago
  Could you give some scriptural references please?
  - vivekd 10y ago
    Leviticus 25:37-55 says that bibilical slavery is to be temporary (lasting only till the year of Jubilee which came every 50 years) but they may buy themselves or have a family member buy themselves out sooner. The fact that they could buy themselves out of slavery also strongly suggests that slaves got paid. . . these provisions make ancient slavery very different from the racialized and cruel slavery we see in modern forms of slavery.
- cygx 10y ago
  It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way. That's not what the Catholic church taught as late as 1866: https://suchanek.name/texts/atheism/slavery.html https://suchanek.name/texts/atheism/slavery.html
cygx 10y ago
1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was different than the chattel slavery we tend to think of Which ignores the difference in rules applying to Hebrew slaves compared to foreign slaves. As far as foreigners are concerned, you could beat them severely as long as you don't outright beat them to death. You could give wives to your male slaves, and the children would be born enslaved. After your death, these slaves became part of your inheritance. How is that substantially different from our modern understanding of the word?
- vivekd 10y ago
  That's not true, children born to slaves were treated as the master's children > If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. (Exodus 21:4) further beating slaves had consequences of letting the slave go free if he is injured (Exodus 21:26-27) >“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
  - cygx 10y ago
    children born to slaves were treated as the master's children That applies to Hebrew slaves. What happens to the children of foreign slaves is not clearly stated, but it's the logical consequence of the rules applicable to Hebrews and foreigners. further beating slaves had consequences of letting the slave go free if he is injured If they are permanently injured. Cf Exodus 21:20-21: Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. There are no repercussions for whipping them as severely as you like as long as they recover.
- sorokod 10y ago
  It is a common misunderstanding to assume that the laws of the old testament are applicable to all humanity. A contemporary Jewish reader would have been amazed at an idea that "though shall not kill" for example, applies to gentiles.

rustynails 10y ago

Your understanding of slavery in Ancient Rome is quite different to mine. I'd really appreciate knowing your sources as you seem to have a wealth of knowledge. Slaves could lead very productive and meaningful lives. It was not uncommon for slaves to be freed and made a citizen. Some slaves also held high positions (eg. Dentists, accountants, etc). I also understand that the word slave was interchangeably used with the word family. Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome And Mary Beard's Meet the Romans (an exceptionally good documentary from BBC. Mary is one of my favourites). Mary talked about a wealthy Roman woman (a business owner) who freed her slave and married him. Depending on who you ask, her slave would have been considered a sex slave before they married. The truth is always a matter of perspective! Having said that, the Spanish and Italians used boys as young as 6 as slaves for mining silver and malachite. The boys that survived were significantly physically deformed by the time they reached adulthood. There is also significant discussion about little girls who were forced to play with dolls to be good slave housewives (the girls were described as having terrible lives). Source: Mary Beard's other Roman documentaries and the history of Sicilian mines (can't remember the link, but easily found on Google). Trivia: the silver was mined for coins!

nyolfen 10y ago
> And Mary Beard's Meet the Romans (an exceptionally good documentary from BBC. Mary is one of my favourites). i finished watching this an hour ago, what a coincidence. i strongly recommend it as well, she discusses the role of slavery in roman society at length -- though it's spread throughout the whole series
jbuzbee 10y ago
I believe my info on Roman slavery was from this lecture series, chapter 38: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-ancient-rome.html http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-ancient-ro...
adolph 10y ago
SPQR by the same is a good book for gaining an understanding of what Rome was. One of my takeaways from it is that mapping a contemporary term to something similar from the past is a tricky thing and can lead to poor interpretations. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0108U7IHO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0108U7IHO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

gragas 10y ago

While we're discussing aspects of widespread religions and how they relate to slavery, it might be useful to understand how slavery relates to Islam. > In the early 20th century (post World War I), slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France. For example, Saudi Arabia and Yemen only abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman followed suit in 1970, and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007. However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the predominantly Islamic countries of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery

bambax 10y ago

How do we justify killing animals, including their young, in giant torture factories where rivers of blood flow amidst the cries and horror of the victims, while the killers laugh and laugh, as spy videos show repeatedly? We don't think about it. How do we justify letting refugees die on sinking ships in the Mediterranean sea, or on the shores of Europe, including young children? We don't think about it. How do we justify bombing civilians, hospitals, wedding parties in remote countries we're not even at war with? We don't think about it. It's easy, really. The only thing easier than this, is thinking we're morally superior to the Romans, or to modern slave owners, because we don't "own slaves". We're not (I'm not vegan btw, and do nothing to stop wars or help refugees). We're worse in many respects.

StavrosK 10y ago
I know many people who do think about it, don't justify it, and are quite vocal about all those things being terrible. Not everyone is as indifferent as you describe.
- greenhatman 10y ago
  Of course not everyone is. The main reason we most people know about these issues is because there are many people that are not indifferent. I wonder what other things we're not seeing.
- bambax 10y ago
  "Many people", maybe ("some people" would probably be more accurate). But does that make any difference, at the level of society? My point is, the article in reference, seems to be amazed that people could own slaves and live with themselves; but we do much worse than own slaves, and live with ourselves pretty well, so maybe we should start wondering about ourselves first.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    I agree with you, but there's also another level that I saw mentioned here, namely that, back then, nobody seemed to mind it. Today, at least some people do.

ciconia 10y ago

From TFA: > Instead of evil villains, we find husbands, fathers, mothers and neighbours working with the cultural materials available to them, surviving as best they can. I think it's an illuminating way of looking at Bad Stuff Normal People Do. We're truly very adaptable animals and can rationalise our actions, which often derive from cultural baggage. I actually think it's quite hard to break free of that baggage, our values, our education, things we received as given when young and did not bother ever questioning.

elastic_church 10y ago

> The lecture also noted that there was no writing from Roman times that questioned the morality of slavery. Not much writing out there questioning Soviet leadership or Singapore's for that matter, and yet nobody would consider that unanimous tacit acceptance. Except of course the historians in the year 3017.