Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wolfy]

Really, that is an extremely idealized view of slavery. They were still seen as property, and they still had no freedom.

Thats where your wrong, they had quite a lot of freedom, if you followed the OT, they pretty much where a work force andonly a work force for osmeone.

The master was advised by the book to take care of them, but that doesn't mean they were actually treated that way.

  we are not talking how people did things, but what the book says to do.

its quite clear even those who follow it admit they do not follow it very well.

The best degree of protection the OT gave was that a slave who was sufficiently injured by his master was set free.

there is WAY more to it

they say that because you are Not opposed to Hurt the slave to bad, just like it was okay to punish kids but not hurt them to bad back then, like how spanking at one time was okay.

You will find slavery was not bad by the world, they where property yes, but so where the owners, to what ever king ruled at the time, so it was not new

Would you say it was bad to be ruled by a king? if not then thats what it meant to have a master according to the bible

did they follow it to the letter? heck no, but the slavery the OT wanted was "nice" you hired a work force, they worked for you and you took care of them, no diffident then a king, are being the subjects of a king bad?

I mean, it's not like we sit here and say "You know indentured servitude really wasn't all that bad."

But this was diffidence, even back then look at egypt, we are finding more and more the whips and chains of slavery did not happen as bad as it seemed, and many slaves where treated as a family member, its well recorded if you study history that slavers where just a bit under employs, but treated as family or at least treated well enough


It was not whips chains and beatings at all, that came later.
It was more of the way a king treated his subjects, which yes could be bad but could be good as well

[fqllve]

Would you say it was bad to be ruled by a king? if not then thats what it meant to have a master according to the bible

I think you should check out what the quality of life was like for a Middle Ages villein. Yes, I would say that was pretty damn bad.

did they follow it to the letter? heck no, but the slavery the OT wanted was "nice" you hired a work force, they worked for you and you took care of them, no diffident then a king, are being the subjects of a king bad?

Do you understand the kind of labor that was reserved for slaves? Manual agriculture is back-breaking and construction projects were even worse. Being forced to do something like that with no profit to yourself is pretty terrible, yes.

But this was diffidence, even back then look at egypt, we are finding more and more the whips and chains of slavery did not happen as bad as it seemed, and many slaves where treated as a family member, its well recorded if you study history that slavers where just a bit under employs, but treated as family or at least treated well enough

You realize that the Israelites also had hired servants, right? They were treated differently from slaves, which is why they were different and had different rules that applied to them.

It was not whips chains and beatings at all, that came later.

The fact that they had to make an injunction that stated a significantly injured slave needed to be set free suggests that, yes, beatings weren't as rare as your post implies.

[XXSockXX]

You will find slavery was not bad by the world, they where property yes, but so where the owners, to what ever king ruled at the time, so it was not new

That is complete nonsense. If you were a roman citizen you were the property of no one, but you could kill your slaves (and your wife and children) if you wanted to.
The idea that people were property of a king is also completely inaccurate. There are much later things like thralldom in medieval feudalism, but that affects only landowners, not necessarily nobility, and thralls were arguably still more free than slaves.
Slaves in antiquity were somewhat better off than slaves in the US, but could still be sold or killed which is kind of bad if you think about it.

[Wolfy]

I think you should check out what the quality of life was like for a Middle Ages villein. Yes, I would say that was pretty damn bad.

My point was it was not "bad" just that it was the norm back then in many ways.

And middle ages do not = Egypt times in anyway.

Do you understand the kind of labor that was reserved for slaves? Manual agriculture is back-breaking and construction projects were even worse. Being forced to do something like that with no profit to yourself is pretty terrible, yes.

You do know that MOST presents could only get those type of jobs as well?

it was par for the course.

Also payment was a weird thing, they did not get paid no, but their needs got taken care of, many presents had it worse

You realize that the Israelites also had hired servants, right? They were treated differently from slaves, which is why they were different and had different rules that applied to them.

The fact that they had to make an injunction that stated a significantly injured slave needed to be set free suggests that, yes, beatings weren't as rare as your post implies.

I disagree, the bible also had rules on what not to eat, do you think that means it was needed?
God posted many rules, like sleeping with your sister, step sister and brother etc
they did happen to be sure but it dont make it frequent


Again I'm sure, like kings, there where many bad owners, but like kings there where also good ones.
the good ones are what the bibel says to be, so when you cite slavry pepole think of "evil" but this fortm was no more evil then a king owing evrey one in his kidnom


Remember the only thing required for slavery to = slavery is that you are "owned" by someone, nothing else is needed.

I'm sure many people lost their cool and beat their slaves, just like many lost their cool and beat their freinds\mothers by your logic since there are rules it means beating your friends and mothers where the norm?

the base point is study ancient slavery, dont use now days as its not the same

That is complete nonsense. If you were a roman citizen you were the property of no one, but you could kill your slaves (and your wife and children) if you wanted to.
The idea that people were property of a king is also completely inaccurate. There are much later things like thralldom in medieval feudalism, but that affects only landowners, not necessarily nobility, and thralls were arguably still more free than slaves.
Slaves in antiquity were somewhat better off than slaves in the US, but could still be sold or killed which is kind of bad if you think about it.

We are referring to what the bible says, i do not deny there where bad ones

how about you guys show me some proof that slavery was as bad as you make it out to be?
Many have had this augment with me before, because they act like slavery has not changed it has.

Study up on it, Rome was bad yes, but Rome also did this to Free Jews as well and Christina and heck the entire population any time they took over, they were conquers, its what they did.
 

[Scoops Novel]

Please read your post back to yourself. I do not like kings, i do not the idea of slaves (please, if you think it's in any way favourable, try being one), and i do not like people wildly flailing for justification for beliefs they're struggling to cling onto so they dont have to face the world.

[XXSockXX]

Remember the only thing required for slavery to = slavery is that you are "owned" by someone, nothing else is needed.

If that is not bad enough for you, I don't know what is.

[Wolfy]

If that is not bad enough for you, I don't know what is.

Whats so bad about being owend? its just a world in this case, in some cases you can say a parent "owns" a kid, pepole would not say it that way, but it very much is the same thing

kids work and dont get paid (always)
the parents care for them, provide them shelter and are to give them good life's
thats what slavry was in the bible and a lot of places back then

if the idea of "owning" some one magically makes it bad then all of government is bad

could they abuse the power? yes then its bad, same for a government, same for parents, same for anything like this

Put shortly, say someone is a maid, they live in the person house and all that
thats  the base idea of slavery back then, would you say thats bad?
owning" them dont make it bad, it just meant they where "their resonabilty"
(Kind of like how a kid can be adopted etc and often you have to pay money to adopt a kid)

the base idea of "owning" os not bad, kingdoms where built on it, would you say all kindomgs all evil and none what so ever good?

[fqllve]

My point was it was not "bad" just that it was the norm back then in many ways.

Just because it was the norm doesn't mean it wasn't bad. It was bad, and I'm not condemning the book because I realize it's a product of the period in which it was written, however, it isn't right to condone slavery, even if it wasn't that bad by slavery's standards. Slavery is bad. Period.

You do know that MOST presents could only get those type of jobs as well?

it was par for the course.

Also payment was a weird thing, they did not get paid no, but their needs got taken care of, many presents had it worse

Other peasants had the ability to do other jobs, such as raising livestock, or owning land, or even being a merchant. But it turns out being a peasant was also bad, and generally I'm not ok with someone having such poor quality of life.

Also, I'm fairly certain that in most societies during antiquity used primarily slave labor for their mines. Because that is basically the only way you can get someone to do that.

And even if you were merely a landowner, your prospects were still better than "subsistence farming and no more." That was your land to profit from, to expand, and to hire help for. A slave didn't have any of these options. A slave had no options. Was all slavery beatings? No of course not. Sometimes artisans were made into slaves and there's no way in hell someone treated an artisan poorly, free or not. But (a) Not being free sucks. It sucks hard. Doesn't matter that life sucked regardless, slavery sucked that bad and worse. Sometimes only a bit worse, but worse. (b) How well a slave was treated was probably directly proportionate to what job he did. Artisans and servants were probably treated well, just like some slaves even in the US were. Field workers, and especially miners were probably treated less so, because you're already having them do the worst possible labor, it's very dehumanizing.

I'm sure many people lost their cool and beat their slaves, just like many lost their cool and beat their freinds\mothers by your logic since there are rules it means beating your friends and mothers where the norm?

Did I say "was the norm?" I said, "not as rare as your post suggests" which means something completely different. My logic is: "there was a very specific rule which implies that the thing happened frequently enough to justify the rule." You said it wasn't at all chains and beatings, which makes it sound like it didn't happen. It did happen. It's inevitable when you see someone like property.

edit: Also, please stop suggesting I and the other posters are ignorant of history. Not really the case.

[Scoops Novel]

Before anyone calls it, doesn't look like a troll to me. Nevertheless, don't bother with him. Let him start thinking. Also, please suggest what you have just said to us to anyone who isn't on the internet. Preferably a muscly black man.

[Wolfy]

Okay for the last time to be clear, the slavrey where you beat and treat them like dirt?
\BADDDDDD

Slavrey where you give them a job tell them what to do but care for them )military any one? they give you a job they tell you what to do and they care for you.)
ok


Put it this way take away "own", is this bad?
provide shelter, for them and family, care, and what not, while they work for you (basically working for place to lice and what not)

I"VE made deals like that, where I'll be at someones house while I work the fields, US has places like that where many people acapte shleter as payment for labor (Feilds anyone?)

IMO the idea of "owning" is not as bad as we make it out to be, many slaves DID have freedoms, true not all could pick jobs but they could start family's, they could do stuff that presents could

they could not leave true, but many places don't allow people to leave even now days when they are "free"
Basscily I dont see whats wrong with it, other then having the "owned" tag on me I've lived that way a lot, its not bad, and some times better.

what happen to the blacks was bad real bad but that was not the slavery I'm talking about


The slaves I am lived up to standards and in many case surpass the pessents


if you want to prove your not "ignorant" of history then back it up

you keep actting like slavery has been the same and slaves could not do this or that but where is your proof?
prove it and then I'll admit your right on it. I've had this talk before, I've done study on slavery in ancient times

By the way ere is a qoute
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sirrobhitch.suffolk/portland%20state%20university%20greek%20civilization%20home%20page%20v2/docs/7/kirsten.html

"Slavery played a major role in ancient Greek civilization. Slaves could be found everywhere. They worked not only as domestic servants, but as factory workers, shopkeepers, mineworkers, farmworkers and as ship's crewmembers. There may have been as many, if not more, slaves than free people in ancient Greece. It is difficult for historians to determine exactly how many slaves there were during these times, because many did not appear any different from the poorer Greek citizens."
a slave could be a shopkeeper etc

"It is surprising to note that the police force in ancient Athens was made up mainly of slaves. Even the clerks at the treasury office were slaves."

Yes some jobs WHERe bad how ever
"Not all forms of slavery in ancient Greece were as tolerable as that of the domestic servant. The life of a mineworker or ship's crewmember was a life of misery and danger. These people usually did not live long because of the grueling work and dangerous conditions of their work. Often those forced into these conditions were those condemned to death for committing crimes because it was understood that they wouldn't live very long under these circumstances."

was it perfect? no, but the same could be said about those who worked and whewr free.


"Webster 1969, p43). Slaves worked mainly in domestic roles, though it was not uncommon for them to become tutors or carers for the children of the household (ibid., p46). Privately owned slaves generally received payment from their masters, whilst state-owned slaves received their clothing, as well as a daily ‘ration allowance’"

So they where even paid!

"Individual treatment was dependent on the leniency of the owner, though it may be assumed that treatment was in most cases fair, due to slaves’ partial protection under Athenian law (see later discussion). State-owned slaves also had the opportunity, depending on their education, to rise to relatively high positions within the community, such as secretaries, bankers, and law enforcement (Bowman 2007, p34). Often, these slaves worked alongside the citizens and metics (resident foreigners), under the same conditions — the only difference being a detraction in their salary (Murray 1986, p223)."
working the same as them, paid, could get high places of power...

Hell I WANT that job (that was me shouting want)

In some ways I'd have a better life

[XXSockXX]

if the idea of "owning" some one magically makes it bad then all of government is bad

Before anyone calls it, doesn't look like a troll to me. Nevertheless, don't bother with him. Let him start thinking.

If his government decides to have a sale on trolls, he might start to think. Until then he can continue believing.

[Scoops Novel]

Fuck it. Do this outside of the internet and see what happens.

[fqllve]

I'm just going to say:

And even if you were merely a landowner, your prospects were still better than "subsistence farming and no more." That was your land to profit from, to expand, and to hire help for. A slave didn't have any of these options. A slave had no options. Was all slavery beatings? No of course not. Sometimes artisans were made into slaves and there's no way in hell someone treated an artisan poorly, free or not. But (a) Not being free sucks. It sucks hard. Doesn't matter that life sucked regardless, slavery sucked that bad and worse. Sometimes only a bit worse, but worse. (b) How well a slave was treated was probably directly proportionate to what job he did. Artisans and servants were probably treated well, just like some slaves even in the US were. Field workers, and especially miners were probably treated less so, because you're already having them do the worst possible labor, it's very dehumanizing.

This part of my post is as balanced a view you are going to get on slavery from me. (b) is especially important.

You are completely misinterpreting my post. You are reading in comparisons to modern slavery that just aren't there. I'm well aware, just from the OT laws, that it wasn't as bad as modern slavery particularly because Hebrews themselves could be made slaves. Obviously the insane degrees of dehumanization couldn't have occurred for those slaves at least, not to mention that there was slavery for debt and slavery as punishment for crimes. Also, the slaves, even non-Hebrew, were still ethnically far more close than the African slaves were to the colonists. So of course I'm not saying that. I don't know why you think I am.

But being able to start a family is small compensation for the lack of other freedoms. Just because they were able to do some things doesn't make up for the loss of what else they had.

But really, it sounds like you're just ok with being a slave. However, I am not. I like all the freedoms I have, and in fact I'd like more. If you're fine with being a slave, ok. That's fine and your choice. But even without being beaten, even with being perfectly taken care of, I vastly prefer what I have and I vastly prefer any amount of freedom I can get and abhor having it restricted. Do not tell me I am ignorant of history because that's true.

edit: Ok, that link to the Slavery in Ancient Greece that says slavery was mostly for household servants? Those were Athenian slaves. Why wouldn't you expect Athens to treat their slaves well? Read about the Spartan Helots, who were ritualistically murdered.

[Hiiri]

... it is mostly replaced by atheism or non-religiousness (not the same thing).

Please explain, I don't seem to understand this bit. Pardon my ignorance.

[Helgoland]

I guess he means the drift away from organized religion towards a more individualistic, mix-and-match approach to spirituality.
Occultism, alternative medicine (not technically a religion, but it fulfills the same basic needs, I guess), sects and cults... a worrying development.

But being able to start a family is small compensation for the lack of other freedoms. Just because they were able to do some things doesn't make up for the loss of what else they had.

But really, it sounds like you're just ok with being a slave. However, I am not. I like all the freedoms I have, and in fact I'd like more. If you're fine with being a slave, ok. That's fine and your choice. But even without being beaten, even with being perfectly taken care of, I vastly prefer what I have and I vastly prefer any amount of freedom I can get and abhor having it restricted. Do not tell me I am ignorant of history because that's true.

I'm always a bit wary of this 'freedom fetishism' (notice the ''s). What additional specific freedoms do you want/lack? (Assuming you live ina western country, of course.)

A family was basically the ancient version of an old-age pension, just as it still is in some parts of Africa - having a family was worth a lot more back then, and even today I at least would be willing to sacrifice a lot for that possibility. And just stop and think for a second: Would you rather be free and starving (Starving! As in No food!), or fed, clothed and doing some job under acceptable conditions? (Obviously not talking about household servants here and not the slaves on gallleys or in the mines.)