Ok, I'll probably get my nut rearranged for this, but what the hell...

I just looked this passage up.

There is also a footnote showing an alternative phrase to the specific text this author is referring to, which may make a difference in the interpretation of the passage. (You see, we can't even be sure what the exact translation was).

So, if you read it with the alternative passage, could it possibly be interpreted a little differently? I don’t find this stuff worthy of condemnation until someone these days decides that they want to start beating people's skulls in to make them believe their own interpretation (or start taking sex slaves in 2009).

With older written texts that have been translated over and over again (and meanings of words have changed over centuries) I don't tend to read too many of these passages literally - or all in black and white. It looks more or less like history to me.

Way back in the day, if someone were poor and had a daughter or all daughters for that matter how would they have the ability to marry them all? If they couldn't, could they possibly all have starved? What other choice would they have?

During those times things were probably more or less a matter of survival – being taken in as a servant and provided for –or being married and provided for (which it does say in the passage - being given marital rights if chosen or rights as a daughter if chosen for the son) was probably to everyone's mutual benefit (*at that time*). And it also says, that if her "master" denied her anything such as the marital rights (didn't wish to take her as a wife), food, or clothing, she was free to go and no money would be owed back to the father.

Really, I don't know what the hell they mean, I can't possibly know 2000+ years later but what is removed from this author's interpretation is totality of the circumstances and what was going on during that time.

I just think using bible passages to evidence arguments for or against religion isn’t the best way to go about it.

What Feeb said.

Context... Context, context, context.

Text, Con... Context!

Those verses from Exodus are not about sex slaves. Atheists ranting about the Bible is about as interesting as Evangelists ranting about the sinful secular society.

What we call western societies are at the most basic level a fusion of biblical morality and Greek notions of aesthetics. Slamming the Bible because it doesn't discuss Newtonian physics or whatever is just silly.

I just think using bible passages to evidence arguments for or against religion isn’t the best way to go about it.

Better tell that to the faithful then, they are the ones that started the debate

The Torah was progressive in its day, and laid out a direction for Rabbinic legislation to complete the job - within the real time-frames of human life and society.

Despite the misquotes and distortions, the Torah quite clearly:

- sets women equal to men in all civil affairs, allowing them to own and inherit goods and real estate (the main source of wealth in agrarian societies). By contrast, Roman law (adopted in part by Christianity) treated women as chattel.

- established the first system of binding matrimony, with division of property, alimony and child support in the case of divorce. This replaced a system of concubinage and abandonment.

- severely limited slavery, and restricted what could be done to indentured servants. The sages quickly extended these laws to virtually eliminate slavery over the next centuries.

- established tort and personal-liberty rights of non-Jews in Jewish society, and required peace overtures before war.

Now come modern idiots with little understanding of this unfolding process, with their infantile attacks on texts they know only by talking points and misquotes.

Sure the Torah describes concubinage and polygamy - because they existed at the time. But every description is negative, and the legal parts of the Torah clearly point away from these behaviors.

And the sages continued this development through the oral law.

But don't let the facts disturb your straw-man-bashing...

Thank you, Ben-David, for pointing that out. Imho, people forget that or they just don't know about it.

We recognize today that slavery was an unmitigated evil, but we tend to forget in our rush to condemn ancient civilizations, that it was also necessary to BUILD civilization. You didn't just go "get a job" or go to school and go to college, and in the totalitarian "God king" governments of the most significant ancient cultures, you were no less a slave if you were a high general than if you were making bricks.

Alternatives, such as a free market economic system, universal education & job training, savings & investment, and private corporate employment, these are things that were invented over time. How does one build an advanced society then? Slavery too, was an institution invented for a reason, at a time & place for a specific purpose. Its easy for us to look back in disgust, but in those first tentative steps towards civilization, the idea of human rights & human liberty, those too were inventions barely thought of at all, let alone thought of as universal.

We can dislike that aspect of the ancient world, but if we're to study the ancient world, we should at least make the effort to try to see things as they did (insomuch as possible) before we condemn the long dead for building civilizations with the only tools they had at hand.

As a kid, in the days before there were G, PG, R, and X rated movies I watched one of those Cecil B. DeMille epics. I was a little shaken during scene when some lady got stoned (not that kind of stoned). It was one of the most horrific things I’ve ever seen. Biblical violence ranks right up there with Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, etc.

> We recognize today that slavery was
> an unmitigated evil, but we tend to
> forget in our rush to condemn
> ancient civilizations, that it was
> also necessary to BUILD civilization.

If I live to be ten thousand years old, I will never, ever believe this to be true... Not for a motherfucking second. I think it's a profoundly stupid thing to say.

Seriously, what the fuck was that? Wednesday hangover? Has anything done more to retard the expression of American genius than slavery?

I have no religion yet I find the bible fascinating. The "magic god" that religions preach just DOES NOT exist, if you actually read the bible and do some research (and take into consideration the times). Most everything is based on logic, scientific fact (in the "torah" books of the old testament, at least) and the culture of the times.

The passages quoted here do not really talk about "sex slaves". Historically speaking, marriage was never about love. This passage looks like rules for purchasing a wife/maid servant, a common practice. I can see not allowing her to roam the way a man servant would. Think of the times...it was probably more for protection than restriction. No cops on every corner back then! Rape was probably everywhere. The rules clearly state how the woman must be treated and how the "master" must treat the woman (which is reasonable and decent - even though the word "master" makes me sick).

It's religion that perverts the passages and tries to make it so slaves and women are lowly creatures. Slaves, according to the Bible, are resources that ensure the better being of their "owner" and therefore should be treated as an investment. A slave should be well fed and cared for and treated decently.

Food fight between Robert and Crid. Robert says slavery was necessary to build civilization. Crid says he does not believe that assertion.

I say Robert has the better argument.

My take: (1)slavery is an abomination,(2)If you count just from the Egyptians to 1865, slavery had been in existence for over 5,000 years. It was just the way things were and the way things got done. This probably explains the ambivalence towards slavery by our Founding Fathers; slavery was probably ingrained into their DNA. Even advanced countries like France, Spain, and the UK did not outlaw slavery until 1800-1850.(3) We should not judge slave owning societies through our 21st century eyes. Yes, slavery was awful, but it is and will always be a part of the world's history. 200 years from now, I do not want to be judged through the eyes of some 23rd century philosopher. (4) We have no record, but I would bet that the pyramids of Giza and most of Rome were built by slaves with slave masters doing the engineering. So slaves were actually necessary to build civilization; it would not have been built without them. I wish that it was not true, but that is just the way things were.

So slaves were actually necessary to build civilization

there is no doubt slaves were used to build much of western civilization. But why was slavery necessary? Does anyone doubt that slavery constrains a whole bunch o people's creativity and talents, while inspiring then to do the very least they must to avoid the lash? Come the fuck on.

Now come modern idiots with little understanding of this unfolding process, with their infantile attacks on texts they know only by talking points and misquotes.
Posted by: Ben-David

Thank you, Ben-David, for pointing that out. Imho, people forget that or they just don't know about it.
Posted by: T

Most christians have no idea how heavily edited the bile has ben troght history or what a massive hatchet job of everything leading up to it that the 'prophet' know as Paul did

We recognize today that slavery was an unmitigated evil, but we tend to forget in our rush to condemn ancient civilizations, that it was also necessary to BUILD civilization.
Posted by: Robert

NO it wasnt, it may have seemed eaiser bt slavery retards progress, a large uneduacted workforce dependant uon 'masters' for their daily bread are not as effective or motivated as payed workers looking to benifit their lot. Slavery my have benifted the ariristocray and clerics, but it was no boon to civilization.

Look at medevil Eurpoe, the dark ages ended the moment there were no longer enough serfs to maintian a feudal society, the workers had to be paid more and educated beter so one moan was able to do the work of the 5 dead guys he had to replace, as a result invention spiked dramatically and aside from a few lulls(most often accompanied by a resurgence in faith) hasnt stopped since.

if you actually read the bible and do some research (and take into consideration the times). Most everything is based on logic, scientific fact (in the "torah" books of the old testament, at least) and the culture of the times.
Posted by: Karen

Expalin 'scientificaly'
the parting of the red sea,
the flood,
the pillar of smoke and fire,
mana from heaven, especially why it was only good for 24hr 5 days a wee, good for 48hr 1 day a week, and didnt apear on the 7th day
being cured of snake venom by looking at a stick
and the tower of babel

I say Robert has the better argument.
Posted by: Nick

Nick read my rebutal and re read whatevers rebutal

>>Its easy for us to look back in disgust, but in those first tentative steps towards civilization, the idea of human rights & human liberty, those too were inventions barely thought of at all, let alone thought of as universal.

Oh fuck off Robert:)

Aristotle, 'ts true, defended slavery BUT not without acknowledging there were profound & plausible and WELL KNOWN arguments against the practice AND he was especially bothered by the inhumane treatment of those born inferior, according to the natural order.

It is part of the wonder of mankind - she thundered cheerily - that whenever there has been a popular consensus about "the way things are" - there has ALWAYS been a bunch of contemporaneous thinkers who deeply questioned the status quo.

It begs the question - are we better now? Is it better to own and care for slaves or to have people with no job security earning minimum wage jobs with no medical benefits at Wal-mart? What about the illegals who harvest the food we eat for questionable pay?

As long as we take advantage of others, we don't have a lot of superiority over slave-bearing cultures.

I am glad we don't have slaves - but we still have a long ways to go.

Historically, slavery has been practiced (and justified) for any number of reasons.
- to avoid having to slaughter enemies captured in battle
- to procure more women for a society and add new DNA to the gene pool
- to procure laborers for farms or to build monuments, fortifications, and other civil projects
- to gain knowledge or skills held by the slaves (slaves from a more advanced civilization)
- to procures soldiers (Janissaries, Mameluks, etc.) or government officials (viziers)

In the early Ottoman empire, positions in the sultan's personal guard and several prominent government offices were held by slaves because slaves could be trusted more than locals who would put tribal and family loyalty above loyalty to the sultan.

Over time, though, as trade routes opened up and goods and skills moved more freely and as Western Civilization began to view the individual as a direct reflection of God, the justifications for slavery began to be seen as hollow.

Eventually, at least in the West, slavery was no longer about skills, gene pools, or prisoners. It was about brute physical labor. And that became its justification.

The French Revolution eliminated slavery, but turned a blind eye to the Carribean colonies who needed slave labor on the sugar plantations. Same with the British when they eliminated slavery.

American Southerners developed elaborate religious justifications for slavery (South Africans did the same for apartheid).

Ironically, religious justifications motivated the anti-slavery abolitionists as much as they did the pro-slavery crowds.

This probably explains the ambivalence towards slavery by our Founding Fathers....

The Founding Fathers were anything but ambivalent toward slavery. As a group, they failed to find a solution, but they were not ambivalent.

They argued about it and even came to physical blows about it. Many of them were wracked with uncertainty and guilt about not abolishing slavery or about owning slaves or both.

Jefferson wanted anti-slavery wording in the Declaration of Independence, but was over-ruled. And, yes, Jefferson owned slaves.

Washington spent years trying to figure out if he had the right to free the Custis slaves in his will. Eventually, he decided he didn't have that right.

In the end, the Founding Fathers decided that putting the nation together was the greater good and that the issue slavery would have to be decided at another time.

When that time finally came, even Civil War leaders had mixed views. Robert E. Lee (son of George Washington's Revolutionary War cavalry commander) wrote that slavery was a greater evil to the white man than to the black man. And he is considered the South's finest general.

"We have no record, but I would bet that the Pyramids of Giza...were built by slaves with slave masters doing the engineering"

There are some records that indicate the pyramids were built by skilled laborers who were well paid & well cared for. Fascinating article here:

http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids.html

There was plenty of slavery in ancient Egypt, of course, just as in every other civilization in history. But try to imagine an alternate universe in which slavery still existed in the western world in the 1960s. Do you think that slaves could have played a meaningful role in, say, the Apollo space program? The Pyramids were the ancient world's equivalent of going to the moon - the highest achievement of which people were capable at the time. Slaves squirming under the lash had their uses, but for building the boldest & most advanced structures the mind of man could imagine at the time, maybe not so much.

Slavery is entirely natural. It existed in the animal kingdom millions of years before hominids came along. So for people in the ancient world, it must have just seemed to be a natural fact of life. But instead of comparing Biblical times to the 21st century West, how about comparing them to 21st century Islam? Slavery is still very much alive in Sudan & other Muslim countries. If you compare the treatment of slaves in the Sudan or women under the Taliban in the 21st century to the ethics set forth in the Bible in 2000 BC, you'll see that Ben-David is right when he says the Torah was progressive in it's day.

To Whatever and Lujlp:

I think we agree more than we disagree.

Let me rephrase. Slavery was not necessary to build civilization, but slavery was , in fact,
used to build civilization. The Egyptians and Romans could have paid wages to their workers, but they did not. Slavery does constrain creativity, but that does not stop us from marveling at the stunning architecture of the pyramids or the Colosseum.

It is true that the Black Death brought changes to the work patterns of Medieval Europe and wages and education changed the life of former serfs forever and for the better. Yet while that was going on, it is estimated by the historian Robert Davis that
1,250,000 Europeans were kidnapped and enslaved by Muslim autocracies on the northwest coast of Africa. (Davis,"Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: white slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800)". This led ultimately to Thomas Jefferson fighting the Barbary Coast Pirates in his first administration. This is not to excuse the existence of slavery. I'm pointing out that slavery went on and it was a fact of life for a long time.

Conan - Excellent post.

And a large part of what gave us our wealth so quickly as a new nation was off the backs of slaves (brute physical labor) as well as not having to pay for most of the land (not honoring land treatises with the Amerindians as promised by our Four Father's). Acknowledging this goes along way.

Slavery in was unique in this country. I was glad to see you included/distingished the difference in your post.

"As long as we take advantage of others, we don't have a lot of superiority over slave-bearing cultures."

Time to play vote a liberal out of office! And reappeal affirmative action and their other racial policies.

>>Historically, slavery has been practiced (and justified) for any number of reasons.

Conan,
Forgive me if you simply assume that the #1 justification for slavery is so obvious you haven't specifically highlighted it.

But that justification is that slaves are INFERIOR human beings.

Before there was "racism" - there was its close cousin, the assumed inferiority of the slave class.

I meant to say Founding Fathers. Le oops.

"But that justification is that slaves are INFERIOR human beings."

That's one of the justifications they used to make themselves feel better about what they were doing - to make people go along with it. Like religion, as Conan mentioned above.

Their true motive was labor, and Africans faired the weather here better for hard labor than AmerIndians and poor whites. Brutal, ugly, truth.

I know I've pimped this site here before, but now that he's Lego'd Revelation, this has to be the best Bible site on the interwebs.

And if you don't like Revelation, at least you can laugh at the Lego representation of thousands of foreskins.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

And the subjugation of women was necessary for civilization. And clitoridectomy. And human sacrifices. And the almost incessant drumbeat of famines that we've pounded through our various cultures: Modern politics wouldn't have developed without them.

Had to happen— Sorry.

(Oh Puh-leeeeeeeeeze)

PS- Did someone mention the bloodletting? Quintessential!

Nick noone is arguing that slavery was used, only that some think it was required.

You say marvel at the wonders created? What of those lost? With very few exceptions a slaves lot in life does not improve.

If no matter your acomplishments you could never advance to amore comfortable existance would you suggest more work for you to do while others reap the benifits of your labor?

>>Their true motive was labor, and Africans faired the weather here better for hard labor than AmerIndians and poor whites. Brutal, ugly, truth.

Feebie,
Oh I agree.

I realize that a sincere belief (that certain humans are not full members of mankind) that is entirely to your own advantage (endless pool of exploitable labor)is a suspiciously easy belief to maintain!

Word. Remember Dubai's construction guys?

Sorry about those passports, fellers! That's one on us! Better luck next time!

Lujlp, I stipulate that slavery was a bad thing, that slavery stifled a lot of human creativity, and I will answer your question in paragraph 3,"No."

If I could wave a magic wand and could go back to the beginning of human history, I would insure that slavery was never a part of that history.

But I can't do that. All of us citizens of the world have to live with the history we have. And slavery, for all the bad it has brought the world, is a part of that history.

As long as we take advantage of others, we don't have a lot of superiority over slave-bearing cultures.

I was thinking about something very much like this earlier today, and I disagree. An essential component of commerce in a free market is that each participant gets more value out of a transaction than they contribute. When I buy lunch, I value the food I receive more than the $20 or whatever that I spend; on the flip side, the restaurant values $20 more than it does that portion of food. We each think we've received the better deal ("taken advantage of the other") and we're both happy.

As Martin noted, the use of the past tense while referring to slavery is inappropriate. Slavery, including, and perhaps especially, of children, is still very common in many non-Western areas of the world.

Locally, the LA Times reported today that several women were sentenced to prison for enslaving other women who were brought to this country and then forced to work as prostitutes -- sex slaves.

Slave Masters, and Slave Mistresses, are still around, unfortunately.

I agree with the posters who have pointed out that those who look to the past to condemn our ancestors in one way or another, without examining and appreciating the context of the events examined, are morons and/or people with an agenda. (example: feminists who are determined to re-write "herstory" as the tale of women's constant oppression by men -- notwithstanding the context of those past societies.)

To a feminist, then, a biblical man who took a woman into his household, to be supported in exchange for her labor, was an "oppressor," not a benefactor. I guess it would be less oppressive for her to starve or die of exposure?

Idiots.

Why was slavery necessary?

Because there was no VIABLE ALTERNATIVE to produce and maintain public works on the scale of Rome, Persia, Egypt, etc. Yes there were also elements of wage labor from the skilled craftsmen here and there, but the economic system required to support that on a large scale simply did not exist until the dawn of the middle ages for most of the world. The rise of industry provides the employment opportunities that are alternative to selling one's self into bondage, the educated populace able to produce surplus goods and invent devices that reduce the need for just another strong back, did not exist until education itself became more wide spread, even the very idea that an economic system could function without the trade in human misery, and still build great works and sustain large scale civilizations, would have been alien to Xerxes, Caesar, Nebucadrezzar, Hammurabi, and every other ruler of an ancient kingdom or empire.

Yes it constrains people's creativity & talents, but letting those loose was less a goal for ancient peoples than growing enough food so that the next crop failure didn't cause widespread famine. The fact is that the institution of slavery in the ancient world was the only comprehensible management tool to get the jobs done that needed doing for large population centers.

But there is another element missing here. The fact is that in those same civilizations, there is another common element, the idea of the God-king. Everyone that served a king, was that king's slave. Whether it was a farmer in the field a hundred miles away, or his personal body-guard, or a general in command of 10,000 warriors. Whatever your wealth or possession, it all belonged to the king (or Queen as the case occasionally was).

-----------------------------

Side note, I wish certain people would stop refering to the American institution as if it were the only one in the history of the world. We're talking about an institution that predates many written languages and existed in every area that held cities...yet the only example of the institution people want to talk about is the one that lasted less than almost any of them. As an independent nation the federal & state institutions of the U.S. only practiced slavery from 1783-1865. As an English speaking region, its record of human bondage as an established social institution goes back only slightly more than a 100 years further, to the point where tobacco (a labor intensive crop) became the main product of the American south.

I'm not saying its not an era worth discussion, but come now, we're talking about ANCIENT civilizations, not modern ones. The subject of colonial era bondage is a helluva lot different than a discussion of the trade in human misery from 3000 years or more before that.

------------------------------------------

Crid, you don't have to like it, but the fact is that it is so. You won't find the rise of ANY ancient civilization that is absent slavery, and not only because they didn't have the concept of universal human rights (A far better invention I might add), but because it was the only way to accomplish and maintain those ancient civilizations.

-------------------------------

For the record, the dark ages weren't so dark as we like to imagine. A great number of inventions came about during the span of years between 800 & 1200, though they weren't always widely applied, learning did not cease and desist for 400 years. Invention began to spike dramatically because education began to spike dramatically, and education was already on the rise at the time of the last black plague. And I might point out, that the black plague struck in the 1340s, and Serfdom had already ended in most of France over 20 years earlier, and was not gone from most of europe until the 1500s. (It lasted in russia until the 1860s) Large scale invention and broader education had already been under way by then. The popular image we have of the dark ages, is not so accurate.

Let me be clear, I'm NOT arguing that it was a GOOD institution. I am not saying slavery was this great and wonderful innovation, far from it.

I'm not even saying that it stacks well against our current economic system. Hell we live in perhaps the best time in all of human history, and most of us, some of the best places in human history, we have innovation, invention, education, leisure time, and all manner of labor saving devices that allow us to hold more independent freedom, longer lives, and a higher quality thereof, than ever dreamt of before.

However, none of the institutions, none of the inventions, none of the social ideas or inspirations, none of the things that make our lives possible, existed in the Bronze age of Babylonia or Achaea or the Stone age of MesoAmerica or the Egypt under Ramses II or Sargon's Acadia.

Would they perhaps had been better off if they had invented free market economics, private enterprise, liberal government, universal education, modern farming techniques, and human rights? I think we can all agree that yes, that would have been better.

But that is a DAMN TALL ORDER. Sure its easy to condemn the way they did things, we KNOW better ways, we HAVE better ways, so we can look back and say, "Ha! Our way is better you backwards savages!" But how can anyone imitate what they've never seen? Remember each of the institutions that allows us to live as we do, was invented seperately at different times and places, or grew up gradually over the course of centuries. No one woke up one day and decided slavery was a mortal evil and that everyone would be better off without it, it was a slow and gradual evolution of thought that aligned rather fortunately with a decreasing economic need and a rising industrial base that did not need the former institutions.

Ancient civilizations either aquired the labor they needed, or their cities starved, their education faded from memory, and their works became mere wonderous mysteries to modern eyes, if any survived at all.

The arrogance of our modern era never ceases to amaze me, that we should condemn the dead of thousands of years for not debating a subject that didn't exist in their era.

I forget who said it, but there was an author who said, "Its one thing for a man to build a clock, once he has seen one, but it is quite another thing entirely, a rare genius, who invents one all on his own."

We can debate this subject, but to the great empires and kingdoms of the ancient world, it wouldn't have made the least bit of sense, because we have supporting our methods and our frame of mind, countless ages of learning compiled and taught from childhood, and we would do well to remember that no small bit of that learning that was imparted to us, exists because of those same peoples you condemn.

And Jody, I wish that I could agree with you, but the fact is that questioning the status quo, was not overly common, and those who did so did not live overly long in most cases. It is one of the byproducts of the invention of liberty, that we are able to do so in such numbers.

Let me close with one more question:

Can you name ONE large or lasting civilization of the ancient world, that did not make use of the institution?

Forgive me if you simply assume that the #1 justification for slavery is so obvious you haven't specifically highlighted it.

No. That was used to rationalize it later - after the other justifications were no longer usable.

Many civilizations that had slaves did not do it out of a sense of racial or religious or moral superiority, but out of military superiority. Many Greek slaves were from other Greek cities and were captured in one of the many wars. Many African slaves were captured by another tribe in warfare or in raids for women. Only when the Europeans made the capturing slaves profitable did the tribes begin raiding for the sole purpose of capturing male slaves.

One does not take a slave because one thinks oneself superior to another.

Slaves must be fed and housed and watched over lest they revolt. That's a high price for superiority.

One takes a slave because one needs the labor the slave will provide or the money to be gained from selling him/her and the benefit is greater than the cost. One ratinoalizes what one has done by asserting one's superiority.

Slavery in was unique in this country.

Not really. French and British and Spanish and Dutch and Portugese colonies in the Carribean and South America also used slaves for brute labor on plantations (despite the official position that slavery was illegal). Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas all had slavery long before they were American territories.

P.S. The justification that slaves are inferior human beings, or were other than human entirely, is also relatively recent.

In the ancient world it would have been as easy to become a slave as to take a slave. Remember one of the more common elements by which slaves were taken in ancient times was when men were captured in battle and then made to labor for the victors. A farmer near the Greek coast knew that it was entirely possible that a Thracian pirate might raid and capture him and or his family, and the citizens of every city knew all to well what would happen to them if they were overthrown in a siege.

The assumption of inherent inferiority would have made no sense, to the mind of the victor it was simple, "I have both the need for their labor and the power to force it, and so I will."

End of story, the long drawn out justifications and counter arguments over the issue of human bondage don't occur with any significance until alternatives begin to appear and opposition begins to mount. Some did, as Jody kindly pointed out, worry over the issue or argue it, but you never find an emancipation movement because there just wasn't another alternative.

Even if you freed a slave what was he to do? He still needed to eat, and there wasn't exactly a want ads section in the local paper, or a large scale wage based economic system to move into, if he wasn't given land of his own and the means to work it, he'd end up selling himself back into bondage just to eat.

Ahhh Crid, naive naive crid, we're not talking about female subjegation or human sacrifice or anything else. You can't take one social evil and say it is the same as every other, any more than you can say your hand is the same as your foot or your back to your front, and claim to be making a point.

You show only your lack of comprehension over both subjects, which I suppose, is a fair enough point.

Conan:

was refering to your comment:

"Eventually, at least in the West, slavery was no longer about skills, gene pools, or prisoners. It was about brute physical labor. And that became its justification."

Not disagreeing with whatcha said.

> Because there was no VIABLE
> ALTERNATIVE to produce and maintain
> public works on the scale of Rome

You speak of that as if those things were the human mission, as opposed to the fulfillment of intensely personal aspirations. But God never stepped out of the desert to say "Howzabout you put a pyramid over here?" You're making a Brian-sized logical error, confusing outcomes with inevitabilities. (A few chapters of SJ Gould would do you a world of good.)

> You can't take one social evil
> and say it is the same as every
> other

I don't have to, and didn't. I just have to point out that you haven't really come to grips with how these things work.

Progress in this regard continues in America even today: Contrast the explosive growth in Dubai versus the snail's-pace construction in southern Manhattan... It's not just that slave labor is nowadays unavailable in New York. The WTC could not be swiftly replaced because the entire community must be consulted about the impacts of the project — The "environment", in every sense of the world. Nelson Rockefeller, whose vast ego and matching power base made the original project happen, is no longer at work in our society.

PS— I don't think you're a very bright guy, either.

Feebie,

It's just that to say "slavery was unique in this country" is to assign some sort of special guilt to America. Sadly, this is not so.

African slaves worked plantations throughout the Carribean and South America. Plantations that were just as brutal as any in the US.

And the "free" North [US] doesn't get a pass either. The workers in Northern factories were not called slaves, but they were just as in thrall to the factory bosses. The work, brutal and often fatal, was performed by underpaid workers who were forced into debt at the company store and by being forced to live in overpriced company housing. They could leave, but only if they paid off their debts (impossible at the wages there were being paid).

Even back in Africa, the plantation/slavery mentality was at work. King Leopold II of Belgium was the sole shareholder and owner of the Congo (the entire country), which he treated as his personal rubber plantation. Workers that failed to produce had their right hand cut off. Baskets of hands were delivered by villages seeking to avoid retribution for unmet quotas. This brutality was finally ended in 1908, forty-three years after slavery was ended in the US.

Excellent phrasing Crid.

"...a human mission, as opposed to the fulfillment of intensely personal aspirations."

(incidentally do you mean Brian from Family Guy, or am I missing something?)

But as far as it goes, in terms of mere monuments...one could argue that building great works is an expansion upon our inborn biological and psychological traits, every civilization and culture, as it grows to the size where it can build great works, builds to the very limit of its ability. It is that very drive by civilizations to do great things, that holds a good deal of the responsibility for our current advances. What point was there in going to the moon? Nothing but the gratification of doing it "FIRST" and displaying the greatness of our way of life for the world. Do you think that ancient civilizations were so dramatically different in that drive to be great, be memorable, be significant?

But lets forget monuments. How many social services do you engage every day? Someone built the road you drive on, someone had to gather the materials for it to be made, someone had to drill the well or build the dam that provides your water, someone had to gather the materials to build your house, and dig the sewage lines that carry away your waste. All these things are provided for in our society without any human suffering because we developed high tech solutions and developed complex social institutions and economic methods that make it unnecessary.

A city in the ancient world has none of that, they have three things. Powerful rulers that are usually considered either living gods or men who would become gods after death or of some godly lineage or something to that effect...they have a small core of educated elites (for the period) and alot of ignorant strong backs.

So how do you get that to build Babylon, or Hattus, or Assyria, or Sumer & Akkad, or Thebes, or whathaveyou, that they'd have been able to build and maintain the massive public works that make city life (and no, you can't have civilization without cities, that is what the word civilization means, "The ways of CITIES") in the ancient world possible, without any of our modern advantages built up over centuries? How the devil do you figure that?

I'm not arguing that those institutions used in the distant past were wonderful, I'm not crazy after all, nobody here will argue that a god king is a better form of government than a town meeting, or that slavery is better than a vote.

But what I am saying is that none of OUR institutions could have existed, unless cities arose in the first place, and you do not get cities in the ancient world, or education or a heritage of learning, or the evolution of thought that brought us to our present place in the world, unless you allow that those distant ancestors of ours had to build with the tools that they had at hand. They were brutal tools, cruel tools, things that fortune willing neither we nor our children generations down the line ever take up again, but they were also the first social tools, and like every early model of human effort, it is only natural that it will be more crude, more inefficient, and generally worse, than those that come after it.

How do you want your descendents looking back at you? Will they look back at us with the same contempt we heap on our own distant ancestors? Will they say, "Bah, how could they even defend that crude freemarket system? Look at the sufferings it caused, they were despicable to leave people poor in such numbers, and how COULD they bear to imprison their fellow man instead of helping them to overcome their criminal tendencies?"

Do you follow my meaning? In the centuries to come there may be better solutions than our competitive free market, there may be better systems in place to prevent or punish crime, there will surely be better ways of doing things than we have right now, do we deserve contempt for not having invented them already? I don't think so, we do our best with the tools we have, we teach our children, and they hopefully do better than we do, and their children better than they, and so on and so forth as new ideas, new economics, new philosophies, and new inventions all become possible.

And if someone in the ancient world had been able to invent liberty and freed all the slaves of the ancient world, where would they go and how would they live? With nothing but a strong back, and no alternative economic system or modern farming methods or support institutions such as we have to provide aid of any kind, the only alternative would have been to sell ones self back into bondage just to eat.

For the record, its not that I think you're stupid Crid, don't get me wrong, you're able to form a cogent sentence, which is an increasingly rare ability these days, and one I appreciate when I see it, it is a sign of at least some intelligence, how much I wouldn't presume to guess.

What I believe, is that you're simply naive when it comes to history. You seem to have this notion that all our complex ideas have always been around, that it was easy to get to where we are today socially and politically, and that ancient kingdoms could have had the same thing just as easily. If that isn't naive, I don't know what is.

I like the part about having sex slaves. Count me in!
Also, the Bible speaks very, very darkly about "usury." Evidently, money-lending for profit is way, way bad. I wonder how that weenie Brian feels about the Bible crapping all over money-lenders?

>>How do you want your descendents looking back at you?

Robert,
Too much of that sort of hubris can lead to The Third Reich. (Let's NOT forget monuments designed to dazzle the future.)

> Excellent phrasing

Yes.

> one could argue that building
> great works is an expansion
> upon our inborn biological
> and psychological traits

Yes, but one would be foolish to do so. There's more to humanity than natural impulses. An 8-track tape cartridge of 1965's "Frank Sinatra: A Man and His Music" could be described as "an expansion upon our inborn biological and psychological traits", but no light would be shed.

> It is that very drive by
> civilizations to do great
> things, that holds a good
> deal of the responsibility
> for our current advances.

First of all, is sounds like you swallowed a Joseph Campbell paperback. Second, the comma adds nothing.

> Do you follow my meaning?

No.

> You seem to have this notion
> that all our complex ideas have
> always been around

It would be more fun if you'd cited a particular passage that suggested this, but I think you just wanted to blow hard for awhile. Decency is no less the goal the human project than grandeur. Generations are passing as we seek it, and speed counts: I wish our predecessors had been quicker in pursuit.

See also Tressider, above.

Shockingly, modern day slavery still exists in parts of middle east and asia. The more well-to- do asians/eastern people keep on repeating the mantra that thay have no choice but to employ maids which they treated like slaves or cheap labours, ie, oncall(even if not really working) twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. It does not bode well for a socalled modern asian society having to depend on maids which they treated like slaves, in order to prosper. It is even worst when they put their children under the care of maids(foreign slaves with foreign culture/religion) without considering the irreversible, adverse, negative effect on their children as well as on the world.

Conan - I see your point, again a good post. Very interesting.

Robert,
I think this is Crid's "most excellent" point:

>>You're making a Brian-sized logical error, confusing outcomes with inevitabilities.

You appear to view the Progress of Civilization as somehow identical to mankind's development from slouching common ancestor to striding, upright fellow. As though every little step society takes is evolutionary magic, to misquote Sting.

Is that a fair summary?

Well Crid, you suggested that an alternative to the practices used in the ancient world existed when you said that if you lived 10,000 years you'd never believe in the necessity of those practices to achieve what those civilizations did.

If you did not have in mind our present easy and far more enlightened age, do say what you DO believe they could have used?

You don't like how they did things, fine, but you're "blowing hard" here and haven't addressed the central questions, so I'll ask them here, answer or dodge, as you see fit:

What viable alternative existed thousands of years ago?

Forget arguments of morality for a moment if you can, when arguing facts, "SHOULD" has no place. And the FACT is, the institution existed across the ancient world with remarkable uniformity in both purpose, means, and result, across cultures and across geographic locations.

So, can you answer the question Crid? Do you HAVE an answer? Or do you just want to dodge the subject and critique style as opposed to substance again?

------------------------------

(Just ONCE it would be nice if a debate could take place without a Nazi reference, nuff said on that)

-----------------

I don't get the "brian-sized" reference.

But I'll address your assessment over the progress of civilization because it is the best one yet.

I suppose you could say that its a fairly close representation of my viewpoint, not precise, but very close. I see it this way: (love the sting reference by the way!)

When cultures have the same tools at their disposal, the same general notions of proper behavior, the same problems that have to be addressed, what do we find?

We find that they all come to the same conclusion, and adopt more or less the same answer.

I argue that the outcome in question, was universal because it was the only one that fit with their understanding of the order of the world, in which life was still nasty, brutish, and short for almost everyone, and uncertain at the best of times.

That being the case, those outcomes, were indeed inevitabilities. What alternative was there? What counterpoint could be made in those ancient council chambers when the first king of the first city addressed the problem of vital labor going undone some 7,000 years ago? (Or longer depending on which archeological timeline you believe)

The very notions both yourself and Crid would put forth in both moral and practical application terms, wouldn't even begin to exist for several thousands of years to come, and wouldn't have the social or economic tools to sustain and popularize those ideas for many centuries after that. And those ideas wouldn't have come into play, without cities or the rise of a leisure class.

Its not magic, its the end result of thinking individuals thinking within the realm of their own understanding, to address the problems of the day with the tools that they had. Universal invention suggests inevitability. We can argue all day about probabilities of other outcomes, but the fact is that there simply weren't any other outcomes that you can point to as an example of an alternative.

>>(Just ONCE it would be nice if a debate could take place without a Nazi reference, nuff said on that)

Robert,
I agree - and actually, I very rarely Godwin. (Tho' that's a lousy splutter for a defense!).

Thing is, aren't you raising - oh dread phrase - a straw man by saying it is with unforgiving "contempt" that, say, a modern liberal views some of the social institutions of our ancestors?

Surely, it is more with a certain sniffy clarity about the assumptions of those societies? (Plus, in my case, a bottomless reverence for the outlier thinkers of every age who were able to peek over the parapet of the ruling ideology & imagine an alternative?).

I won't disagree with you Jody, a sniffy clarity IS the perfect description.

But every form of thought has its blind spot, and that "sniffyness" is the weak point here. We assume there was an alternative for these peoples, that they had another option and simply ignored it or brushed it aside.

We can look back and talk about the superiority of our way of doing things compared to theirs.

But theirs were the first tools, the first ideas, and were the only means available or comprehensible to those civilizations that rose to dominance, that they came to the same conclusions and used the same methods ought to say quite a bit.

Oh, and regarding Godwin, I never address any Nazi related comment unless we're debating actual nazis. The ancient world could not be further removed.

> you said that if you lived 10,000
> years you'd never believe in the
> necessity of those practices to
> achieve what those civilizations did.

I said nothing of the kind. Rather, you said of slavery --

> it was also necessary to BUILD
> civilization.

And I replied that there was no reason to think so, only that slavery had in fact occurred.

> What viable alternative existed
> thousands of years ago?

Men and women might have been permitted each other to move through the world as they saw fit.

> Forget arguments of morality for
> a moment if you can, when
> arguing facts, "SHOULD" has no
> place.

First of all, you absolutely must take command of your commas and caps. They're running naked through the streets, and we're embarrassed for you. Second, we can argue about morality all we want. I think you've got a sort of View-Master perspective on how history works. Tressider was not being Godwinian, but right on point: Not that you're a Nazi, but that twisted perspective on these outcomes can be used to sustain bad ideologies.

> the institution existed across
> the ancient world with
> remarkable uniformity in both
> purpose, means, and result,
> across cultures and across
> geographic locations.

As did abject rape & murder, infanticide, the torment of the retarded, and drinking from puddles.

> do you just want to dodge the
> subject and critique style as
> opposed to substance
> again?

Well, you make it so easy. You'd make better sense if you thought about what you were saying... I'm just sure of it.

> I'll address your assessment
> over the progress

Did you go to college?

>>>We can look back and talk about the superiority of our way of doing things compared to theirs.

Not so fast, Robert.

Liberals wring their hands over what is being wrought today - and tomorrow - too!

And as aside to a comment from Nick way above.

One may well dissolve into raptures over the enduring marvels of, say, the pyramids.

However, the "View-Master" (brilliant Crid) pyramids we all know are just the tip of the iceberg (hoho!). There also remains a number of really, really shitty, wonky pyramids from the same era - but miles from the usual tourist sites. Practice pyramids, if you like. Abandoned before they were fully complete because the monumental math was obviously incompetent!

They inspire markedly different reflections about past civilizations and their glorious symbols.

Feminists have long criticized the Bible, saying that it is "sexist" against women. The letters of Paul mention that women are to keep their heads covered in church, and that they are to remain silent in church. Also, Paul does mention that wives should submit to their husbands (and the fact that husbands are also told to submit to their wives is conveniently left out by feminists).

However, a closer look at the Bible shows that there are several passages where men and boys were treated unfairly. The examples I found concern male-only circumcision, false accusation of rape, and two examples of male-only infanticide.

Note: This is not intended to discredit the Bible or Judaism/Christianity, but merely to show that there are passages where men and boys were mistreated - and in many cases to a much greater degree than women and girls.

In Genesis, Abraham is ordered to circumcise all males (but not females) once they are eight days old.

In Genesis, Joseph is falsely accused of rape by Potiphar's wife (Potiphar was his master).

Prior to the birth of Moses, Pharaoh decreed that newborn Hebrew boys were to be killed, but girls were to be spared.

And don't forget after the birth of Jesus, Herod decreed that all boys under two years of age were to be killed, as he was trying to kill Jesus.

Now, granted there is the issue of context i.e. the background behind many of these situations involves those who were oppressing the Israelites, such as the Egyptians/Pharaoh, and Herod. Nevertheless, these are examples of men and boys being treated much worse than women and girls. Furthermore, many of the examples of women and girls being mistreated were situations where the Israelites were being mistreated as a whole e.g. the invasion and captivity of the Israelites by the Assyrians and Bablylonians.

>>Prior to the birth of Moses, Pharaoh decreed that newborn Hebrew boys were to be killed, but girls were to be spared.

I thought it was only all first born Hebrew boys, MIOnline?

(So it would be no prob if you were the second born baby son? Maybe I've always remembered that incorrectly...)

MIOnline,

Are you implying that feminists misinterpret, misrepresent, and cherry-pick in their quest to characterize the Bible, and indeed all of "herstory" itself, as the tale of women's constant oppression by violent, selfish men?

Gee. Who knew?

But why would they ever DO such a thing?! What? "To justify their current and future oppression of men", you say?

You could be on to something here ... .

Thanks for the post!

Robert: "Slavery was necessary to build civilization." Crid: "Slavery was not necessary, but it did occur." You guys are arguing over semantics. The word "necessary" has a different meaning depending on who is using it. Is it necessary to put our murderers in prison? Well, no; we could just give them a good lecture and send them home. Is it necessary to have police and fire protection? Well,no; we could require each citizen to look after himself.
Was there an alternative to slavery? Crid: "Men and women might have been(sic) permitted each other to move through the world as they saw fit."

Was it necessary to have slavery to build civilization? Well,no. But slavery was used to build civilization and to do all the grunt work and to do all those jobs the Romans (and others) would not do.And, yes, all the people of the ancient world should have been able to move about as each saw fit, but that did not happen. Crid, you fervently believe that slavery should not have existed, and I so stipulate, but the fact is the people of the ancient world did not think like you. They lived in their time and you in yours. Quit using today's standards to judge them.

Robert: " Slavery existed across the ancient world..." Crid: "As did abject rape & murder, infanticide, the torment of the retarded, and drinking from puddles." Well, I'm glad slavery was abolished because we no longer have rape and murder....no wait, my mistake; we do have rape and murder. Oh, well, at least we solved that drinking from puddles thing.

Jody: Having "practice pyramids" only proves that the engineers made a mistake on the first try. I would say mistakes also occur among engineers of the 20th century.

So, slaves did the work that Romans would not do. Engineers make an occasional mistake. Sounds like the more things change the more they stay the same.

>>I thought it was only all first born Hebrew boys, MIOnline?

Self-correction: it looks like the lord himself was doing all the first born son smoting and the Pharoh was after all the little boys. But there seems to be a translation quibble over newborn boy and firstborn baby boy anyway. Whatever.

>>Jody: Having "practice pyramids" only proves that the engineers made a mistake on the first try. I would say mistakes also occur among engineers of the 20th century.

Fair enough, Nick.
It's just when one's reaction is "coo - what a fuck up!" rather than..."my how the ancients delivered monumental perfection", you stand less in awe of the glorious past. A tiny point:)

"Might have been permitted each other to move through the world as they saw fit."

They did that generations before, they were called hunter gatherers, and life was nasty, brutish, violent, and short then too. Then you get farming and then the rise of cities, which create new problems and new needs that HAD to be addressed. Men and women moving as they saw fit helps none of that, and it is worth pointing out in that incredibly naive statement that many people sold themselves into slavery so that they could eat. Your suggestion lacks ANY relevance to how those civilizations could solve the problems they faced from the lowest to the highest levels. How does that help them build anything, defend themselves, harvest crops, or accomplish anything else?

"As did abject rape & murder, infanticide, the torment of the retarded, and drinking from puddles."

Yes they did, and had laws against rape and murder in most forms. Infanticide is remarkably variable, but a commonly accepted practice across much of the ancient world. But we're not talking about those practices, we're talking about one social institution and only one, and its impact on the world.

"Did you go to college?"
Yes I did. Still do. And will probably keep at it till I retire. Did you ever learn how to debate? Stick to topic. Side topics on grammar and nazis are disengenuous subjects meant only to distract from the lack of substance to your own argument.

But on that note:
"Might have been permitted each other to move through the world as they saw fit."
No more grammatical complaints out of you. *L*

So far you've presented alot of objections without solutions.

"If I live to be ten thousand years old, I will never, ever believe this to be true... Not for a motherfucking second. I think it's a profoundly stupid thing to say." Forgotten your own words have you?

Yes, you can debate morality. I'm just saying that it is a waste of time, we have no dispute over the moral aspect, I'm in complete agreement with you, we can sit around and nod heads all day on that aspect of it, its not the area in which we have a dispute.

Its true that history is not a lock-step linear process, its a long stretch of peaks and valleys of periods of prosperity and poverty, of times of learning and times of ignorance, however what I AM arguing and what you fail to recognize is that it is also not random.

With certain needs and certain tools, there are a limited array of potential solutions. In the case of the ancient world, their particular "tool kit" of ideas & institutions could only yield a given set of results in answer to the problems they faced. You don't find instances of other solutions to the labor requirements of civilization in the ancient world because the means to make more humane methods work, simply didn't exist yet.

Actually there is no evidence to suggest that Herod ever ordered any such slaughter. The only reference to this exists in biblical accounts. Herod's contemporaries & chroniclers make no mention of it, and the retelling looks suspiciously like the story of Pharaoh in egypt, and was probably told to lend some credibility to Jesus. The story of Moses incidentally, is strikingly similar to the story of Sargon, and was probably told about him to provide similar credibility. Taking incidents that happened to early figures, and ascribing something similar to someone else, was a common method of primitive PR.

------------------------------------------

I'm using the word "Necessary" in the sense that something is needed in order to perform a particular task. Nothing complicated, nothing complex to it. I'm saying that those ancient implimentations were the only viable means by which early civilizations could rise in the first place. Crid disputes this assertion, quite passionately, if not quite rationally.

Everyone is in agreement as to the moral aspects.

By the way Crid, I realize you're not calling me a Nazi, but pretty much any mention of Nazis in a debate is pretty well useless, even in a relatively harmless way such as how they may or may not have seen history. (Why no one ever uses the Bolsheviks under Stalin is beyond me)

> Forgotten your own words have you?

Nope... Said what I meant, meant what I said.

> I'm using the word "Necessary" in the sense
> that something is needed in order to
> perform a particular task.

Right. Human enslavement was not "necessary". Heck, I don't even think it was worthwhile.

If you disagree, I have a few neighborhood bars in which I'd like to hear you make your case.

You keep saying it wasn't necessary, but you've avoided answering any question as to an alternative system available to the peoples in question, or how they might have solved the problems they faced. Your argument more or less boils down to *sniffle...its not right!*

Well duh.

That is why the phrase "Necessary evil" exists in the first place.

The course of human events is seldom a matter of random chance, but deliberate thought and action meant to address a given problem, social, moral, practical, or abstract. The ancient world turned universally to human bondage because there wasn't a viable alternative even concieved of, nor even possible to sustain in their underdeveloped, tribalistic, agrarian and largely ignorant societies.

You can boo hoo all you like, but you've presented no alternatives, no solutions, and no ideas...unless you want to count comma placement.

The end result leads us inevitably to the same conclusion:

Civilization must begin somewhere, and it begins in brutal times with brutal problems that had only brutal solutions, which were the only ones possible or comprehensible for them at that time.

Your assertion, repeatedly, that it wasn't necessary, is but so much hot air backed up with neither real world example from the periods in question nor even a mythic hypothetical. Your notion is based entirely upon feelings and opinion. Feelings though, are not facts, they aren't evidence, they aren't alternatives or solutions of any kind. Not wanting something to be so, simply isn't enough.

And as for opinions, well as Scott Adams said, "When did ignorance become a point of view?"

Actually, it was all Hebrew newborn boys:

Excerpts:

The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives ... "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live."

Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."

>>Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."

Yes, I realized I seemed to be getting my biblical baby-killers confused there, MIOnline.
(See my 12.26 pm comment.)

Don't have time to read all the above, but....

People have said that if Christ didn't say anything about homosexuality, maybe it was because he had nothing to add to what's in Leviticus.

Well, then, why did churches eventually decide that slavery was incompatible with Christian values, since Christ didn't "add" to that specific subject either? (Peter and Paul BOTH seemed to think it was quite compatible if masters and slaves respected each other.)

Makes one wonder about the Old Testament verse: "There is nothing new under the sun." Really?