4 ms·

Every single sentence in this article is offensive, and the overall article is also offensive. It also makes impossible generalizations such as this one: "Most

Every single sentence in this article is offensive, and the overall article is also offensive. It also makes impossible generalizations such as this one: "Most Romans, like Augustus, thought cruelty to slaves was shocking." For a different perspective, I'd recommend some of Elaine Pagel's work on the early Christian movement, in particular: http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Serpent-Politics-Christianity/dp/0679722327/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1427669027&sr=8-10&keywords=elaine+pagels http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Serpent-Politics-Christianity... In "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity" Pagel's makes clear that slaveowners could rape their female slaves. Some of the early Christian leaders denounced this practice, and argued that slave owners had no right to rape their female slaves. In this, the early Christians represented a dramatic break with the culture of Rome. And this is also why Nietzsche once referred to the early Christian movement as a slave revolt. Unless you don't think that rape is cruel, it is accurate to say that slaveowners believed in cruelty to slaves. From everything I've read, these kinds of horrors were closer to the norm than the exception: "Vedius Pollio, a rich Roman, once invited his friend the emperor Augustus to dinner. The entertainment was interrupted when a slave broke a valuable crystal cup. Trying to impress with his toughness, Vedius ordered the slave boy be thrown to the huge moray eels in his fish pond." And good god, let's not learn management techniques by studying dictators such as this: "But Augustus was not impressed. In fact, he was outraged at this novel form of cruelty. He ordered Vedius to free the slave boy and told the other slaves to bring all the crystal cups they could find and smash them in their master’s presence. He then told Vedius to fill in the fish pond and get rid of the moray eels." This whole bit somehow succeeds at being innocent, stupid, shocking, deplorable, wrong and offensive all at once: "Most Romans, like Augustus, thought cruelty to slaves was shocking. They understood that slaves could not simply be terrified into being good at their job." Here's a cold hard fact: if you are a slave owner, then you are cruel. It is a simple matter of definition: to be a slave owner means that if someone does what they wish with their life, you are prepared to beat them, torture them, imprison them, or even kill them, to be sure they do not have the freedom to do what they want to do with their life. Any article that suggests that it is possible to be a non-cruel slave owner is an article that does not understand what slavery is.

duaneb 12y ago
You are correct—romans did not have some blanket dislike of cruelty. Slaves were property, and they were used as property. This included rape, torture and murder without any cause, etc. If a citizen had a wife and female slaves, he would not be expected to be monogamous, sexually, with his wife, although he would be expected to refrain from embarrassing his wife socially. However, it is important to note that to a roman citizen, decorum dictated their public behavior, not laws. This is why all the bickering that surrounded the change from a republic to an empire seems more like a soap opera, with public insults about the others' masculinity on the senate floor, and sleeping with their wives in private. This is also why you have a huge variety of culture and religion in the empire—Christianity made the empire LOOK bad. Keep in mind that this is a state that, at points in its life, recorded "rape by monkeys" as a punishment. They didn't have many qualms about treating people poorly the way we might today when "justice" was involved. In fact, I would argue our current form of government is not oriented around justice, but ensuring a homogenous culture of morality. Back to the point. Slavery was fairly unrestricted in ancient rome. That doesn't mean that all slaves were actually treated poorly. As noted extensively elsewhere in texts, the romans were pragmatic about how they used their slaves: they may be property, but a slave that you don't treat well will still be cooking your food, maintaining your estate. They're not going to care if they are your property if they decide they'd rather kill you than put up with you, and slaves would often outnumber non-slaves in upper class households. So often slaves would be given wages, asked to raise these children. Saturnalia, the roman "christmas", turned the tables around and had the masters give their slaves gifts and serve them. Now, I don't know how much of the article you read. It seems like you only read the first three paragraphs, from what you quoted, because the article openly acknowledges how brutal Rome can be. You're not going to get much out of an article if you disagree with the first few paragraphs unless you already agree with them.
enraged_camel 12y ago
The world is not black and white. Cruelty is a matter of degree. A slave owner who cares about the well-being of his/her slaves is objectively and inarguably less cruel than one who tortures them for entertainment. They are both awful people, sure, but if I were a slave I know which one I would rather have as my master.
12y ago

duaneb 12y ago

You are correct—romans did not have some blanket dislike of cruelty. Slaves were property, and they were used as property. This included rape, torture and murder without any cause, etc. If a citizen had a wife and female slaves, he would not be expected to be monogamous, sexually, with his wife, although he would be expected to refrain from embarrassing his wife socially. However, it is important to note that to a roman citizen, decorum dictated their public behavior, not laws. This is why all the bickering that surrounded the change from a republic to an empire seems more like a soap opera, with public insults about the others' masculinity on the senate floor, and sleeping with their wives in private. This is also why you have a huge variety of culture and religion in the empire—Christianity made the empire LOOK bad. Keep in mind that this is a state that, at points in its life, recorded "rape by monkeys" as a punishment. They didn't have many qualms about treating people poorly the way we might today when "justice" was involved. In fact, I would argue our current form of government is not oriented around justice, but ensuring a homogenous culture of morality. Back to the point. Slavery was fairly unrestricted in ancient rome. That doesn't mean that all slaves were actually treated poorly. As noted extensively elsewhere in texts, the romans were pragmatic about how they used their slaves: they may be property, but a slave that you don't treat well will still be cooking your food, maintaining your estate. They're not going to care if they are your property if they decide they'd rather kill you than put up with you, and slaves would often outnumber non-slaves in upper class households. So often slaves would be given wages, asked to raise these children. Saturnalia, the roman "christmas", turned the tables around and had the masters give their slaves gifts and serve them. Now, I don't know how much of the article you read. It seems like you only read the first three paragraphs, from what you quoted, because the article openly acknowledges how brutal Rome can be. You're not going to get much out of an article if you disagree with the first few paragraphs unless you already agree with them.

enraged_camel 12y ago

The world is not black and white. Cruelty is a matter of degree. A slave owner who cares about the well-being of his/her slaves is objectively and inarguably less cruel than one who tortures them for entertainment. They are both awful people, sure, but if I were a slave I know which one I would rather have as my master.

12y ago