US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[Barnabas]

why is it racist?

If that was the truth, then it is not racist.

[JohnT]

Oh, what the hell?

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
On Aristotle, I fail to see how his antagonism to those who are overly pale somehow voids his antagonism against those who are black. If anything, it offers further support of his xenophobic racism.

Everones a racist to you, Aristotles a xenophobic one as well, is there no end to your posts that contain nothing but nonsense?.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
As you are very well aware, Toynbee used a lot of words. I now have the abridged version of volumes 1-6. I am not going to look through it to find the context of the quotation I have referred to. If it remains in the abridged version, I will eventually come across it. Although I am currently reading Davies Europe - A History, so it will be a while.

So abridged from the longest work on history in the english langauge to 6 volumes and now you have the abridged single volume, and still cant find the quote....dont know to what it refers, dont know if and how he defines a civilisation and so on.

Stunning.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
In any case, you are the one making the unsupported argument that the context around Toynbee's quotation will cast a different meaning on the words. So it is up to you to find that context and prove that argument.

really?, i thought i was the one pointing out your using qoutes from works you have never read and therfore cannot understand the context of the qoute, since you admit you have not read the work, i think i have proved my point beyond resonable doubt very nicely, rarely done mind you since only a very few people provide their own downfall on the net.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
It is certainly possible that you are correct. But the quotation is long enough to be quite clear and unequivocal... my analysis of the words remains the same, notwithstanding another barrage of personal insults, thanks-

Well when you find the time to read someones work before concluding they are racists you may excpect me to debate with you, but not untill then sonny, Till such unlikly time all you merit is dersion when you ascribe racists motives to authors you have not read.

If you find it personal offensive that i point out you have not read that which you claim supports your conclusion, i suggest you get used to being offended.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

[q]It is incorrect to say that the black race has not made a creative contribution to the Egyption civilization.

Historians who ascribe all of Egyption civilization to non-blacks are racist

One will have to read how civilization was defined, contribution and race defined, so as to understand context.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
one could possibly misinterpret the evidence if blinded by racism

How could one NOT misintprete what one has not even read?. Blinded by stupidity perhaps?.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
or one could choose to misrepresent the evidence for racist reasons

One would have to have read the evidence first though, which you admit you have not done, so whats your motive?.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

or one could make a pronouncement in ignorance

Yes you have have you not, from your first post to todays feeble effort.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
I am certain Toynbee was not ignorant.

And you have admitted to being in ignorance of him and his works, but have reached a conclusion of them none the less, i would have to conclude you are very well aquianted with what makes one ignorant.

Twain.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years.

See you in 7, no better make than 14 years....

[Dr Strangelove]

OK, I'm going to settle this argument once and for all:
All of those who owned slaves now roast in the eighth level of hell.
All of those who sold people into slavery now permanently reside in the ninth level of hell.

[JohnT]

All those who start ignorant trolling threads are banned from both Heaven and Hell for being totally annoying.

[Pax]

On Slavery.
In the case of slavery. The U.S. and European countries like Spain, France, Netherlands, Portugal, and the U.K in particular but not necessarily countries like Sweden and Finland. Took something of great value at a steal. This loss of manpower(as has been pointed out) was devastating to the Black African peoples on the African Continent and on the Black Africans that were shipped off to Europe, Caribbean, S. America and N. America. The Africans who sold the slaves either had little idea of the effect or did not care. Just like the corner crack dealer. He's killing the neighborhood that he lives in but he can now afford more expensive clothes. But you can't argue that selling crack in a neighborhood is okay because someone from that community is the seller. The other thing is that the crack dealer and the black African selling slaves on the continent profits the least in profits and actual resource acquisition. Meanwhile there community is dying.
On the other hand the people acquiring the slaves and the people controlling the drug market make huge profits.
I really believe that slavery was like crack to the African continent.

On Racial Superiority. It can't be denied that European culture, tech, and economics pretty much controls the world right now. Some have argued that it's because of their higher intelligence, adaptiveness or determination. Something that makes them/you sound superior. Others have argued that Europeans dominate because they are the most scheming, low-down, dirty, scheming snakes on the planet. That they would steal anything. Now I only say this to point that people can interpret facts in a lot of different ways.

[Arrian]

Oh, ffs, this is still going?

-Arrian

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Nickiow


Everones a racist to you, Aristotles a xenophobic one as well, is there no end to your posts that contain nothing but nonsense?.



So abridged from the longest work on history in the english langauge to 6 volumes and now you have the abridged single volume, and still cant find the quote....dont know to what it refers, dont know if and how he defines a civilisation and so on.

Stunning.



really?, i thought i was the one pointing out your using qoutes from works you have never read and therfore cannot understand the context of the qoute, since you admit you have not read the work, i think i have proved my point beyond resonable doubt very nicely, rarely done mind you since only a very few people provide their own downfall on the net.



Well when you find the time to read someones work before concluding they are racists you may excpect me to debate with you, but not untill then sonny, Till such unlikly time all you merit is dersion when you ascribe racists motives to authors you have not read.

If you find it personal offensive that i point out you have not read that which you claim supports your conclusion, i suggest you get used to being offended.




One will have to read how civilization was defined, contribution and race defined, so as to understand context.




How could one NOT misintprete what one has not even read?. Blinded by stupidity perhaps?.




One would have to have read the evidence first though, which you admit you have not done, so whats your motive?.

Yes you have have you not, from your first post to todays feeble effort.




And you have admitted to being in ignorance of him and his works, but have reached a conclusion of them none the less, i would have to conclude you are very well aquianted with what makes one ignorant.

Twain.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years.

See you in 7, no better make than 14 years....

So Nicki, you have read the complete unabridged Toynbee?

Lets try a yes or no answer, just for once.

As far as Aristotle, to suggest he was not xenophobic is ignorant nonsence. Clearly you have not read the man.

Greek chauvinism was prevalent if not dominating. Aristotle was no exception in his beliefs of the natural superiority of the Greeks.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


So Nicki, you have read the complete unabridged Toynbee?

Yes.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Lets try a yes or no answer, just for once.

Done that, lets recap, you have not read any version and are unable to even find the qoute you used in abook that arrived after you used the qoute.

I answer your questions ever time you ask one, you otoh rarely provide answers only replys to parts your abilitys run to.

I note the complete abscence of any supporting evidence that Toynbee was racist in his works, why is that?.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
As far as Aristotle, to suggest he was not xenophobic is ignorant nonsence. Clearly you have not read the man.

Easy to post, less easy to prove that i have not. And that ignores that i comment on what you say he was, racist based on skin colour, that concept is a very recent intriduction, as anyone who has studied the subject of slavery cannot be unaware of, that racism based on skin colour simply did not exist in Aristotles time is equally an unescable conclusion if you have had any occaision to study that time period either.

You have an endless capacity for showing your ignorance.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Greek chauvinism was prevalent if not dominating. Aristotle was no exception in his beliefs of the natural superiority of the Greeks.

Yes he was, but not based on skin colour as your post claimed and i replied to.

Scholia Reviews ns 14 (2005) 10.

Benjamin Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004. Pp. xiv + 563. ISBN 0-691-11691- 1. US$45.00. Further Details.

Craige Champion
Department of History, Syracuse University, New York

In this ambitious, monumental book, Benjamin Isaac has produced a provocative, revisionist study on a topic of crucial relevance to our contemporary world. His book will be certain to provoke sharp debate and controversy. Many classical scholars have subscribed to the views of Frank M. Snowden, who argued in two well-known books that the world of Greek and Roman antiquity was remarkably free of what we should call racial prejudice.[[1]] In another well-known book, Lloyd A. Thompson argued that although we clearly find signs of group prejudice and 'somatic norm preferences' among the Romans, we cannot say that the ancient Romans were racists.[[2]] Isaac challenges such views, arguing that there are unmistakable instances throughout Greek and Roman literature of what he calls 'proto-racism.' Whether or not one agrees with Isaac's contention will largely depend on one's conception and definition of racism.[[3]] I have more to say on this below, but first I shall outline the structure and main topics of the book.

A lengthy introduction lays out the conceptual framework informing subsequent chapters.[[4]] The stated aims are 'to contribute to an understanding of the intellectual origins of racism and xenophobia' (p. 4), and 'to show that some essential elements of later racism have their roots in Greek and Roman thinking' (p. 5). A corollary aim is to provide an enhanced understanding of ancient imperialism by considering the degree to which negative attitudes towards other peoples contributed to it. The book breaks down into two parts: 'Stereotypes and Proto- Racism: Criteria for Differentiation' and 'Greek and Roman Attitudes Towards Specific Groups: Greek and Roman Imperialism'. Part One is subdivided into the following chapters: 'Superior and Inferior Peoples' (pp. 55-168), 'Conquest and Imperialism' (pp. 169-224), and 'Fears and Suppression' (pp. 225-48). Part Two is comprised of chapters on 'Greeks and the East' (pp. 257-303)[[5]]; 'Roman Imperialism and the Conquest of the East' (pp. 304-23); 'Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Syrians' (pp. 323-51)[[6]]; 'Parthia/Persia' (pp. 352-70); 'Roman Views of Greeks' (pp. 371-80)[[7]]; 'Mountaineers and Plainsmen' (pp. 406-10)[[8]]; 'Gauls' (pp. 411-26)[[9]]; 'Germans' (pp. 427-39); and 'Jews' (pp. 440-91).

Isaac defines racism as follows: 'an attitude towards individuals and groups of peoples which posits a direct and linear connection between physical and mental qualities. It therefore attributes to those individuals and groups of peoples collective traits, physical, mental, and moral, which are constant and unalterable by human will, because they are caused by hereditary factors or external influences, such as climate or geography' (p. 23).[[10]] The crucial point for Isaac is the fact that racism is unlike ethnic and other group prejudices insofar as racial prejudice does not allow for 'the possibility of change at an individual or collective level in principle. In these other forms of prejudice, the presumed group characteristics are not by definition held to be stable, unalterable, or imposed from the outside through physical factors: biology, climate, or geography' (p. 27).

First of all, it is obvious that Greek and Roman forms of group prejudice based on unalterable physical factors are not the same as racism in the modern sense of the term. That conception had to await the nineteenth century, with Mendel's peas and Darwin's voyage on H. M. S. Beagle. Isaac explicitly states at the outset that he is claiming that important conceptual antecedents for modern racism are to be found in Greek and Roman antiquity; he is not claiming that the Greeks and Romans already had ideas of 'scientific racism'.[[11]] The crucial link between modern racism and ancient 'proto-racism' in Isaac's conception is the ancient preoccupation with environmental determinism. Here two key ideas emerge: that people can only become worse as a result of relocating to different climates and geographical locations; and that once environmental factors have determined degenerate characteristics, these characteristics cannot be undone, even when an entire people permanently relocates to an optimal climate. In this connection Isaac discusses a remarkable chapter (14) in the Hippocratic treatise Airs, Waters, Places. In this passage we learn of the heredity of acquired characteristics: the 'Longheads' of Trapezus artificially elongated the heads of their children; but after sufficient time had passed, this was no longer necessary, as children were born with naturally elongated heads (pp. 74f.).[[12]]

Isaac maintains that the environmental-determinist approach was the predominant one among Greeks and Romans for explaining collective differences among peoples, and that the rigidity of this approach in Greek and Roman 'proto-racism' informed more recent and insidious forms of racism.[[13]] This is an assertion that is certainly open to challenge. A rival ancient explanation for collective characteristics stressed political and social institutions. Indeed, it can easily be argued that state organization is the single most important causal factor in ancient Greek theory on collective characteristics. At the inception of the Greek literary tradition, Homer characterized the brutish Cyclopes as beings without any formal institutional structures for law and order (Od. 9.111), and the sixth-century Milesian poet Phokylides contrasted the well-ordered polis and 'senseless Ninevah' (Sent. Frg. 4-D). Plato maintains that the politeia is 'the nurse of men' (Menex. 238c). The idea that institutional structures determine collective characteristics is at the root of Plato's Republic and Laws, and Aristotle's Politics. In a famous passage Aristotle stresses the primacy of political association, stating that human beings are 'political creatures' (Pol. 1253a1-29), and even in the environmentalist tract Airs, Waters, Places we find concession to the mitigating factor of governmental institutions (Chapter 16). In a famous passage on the educative function of flute-playing in ancient Arcadia (4.21), Polybius explicitly states that institutions overcame environment. There is ample evidence then to make the argument that, concerning the formation of collective group characteristics in ancient Greek thought, political and social institutions trump environmental factors.[[14]] The crucial point here is that these institutions are malleable and susceptible to historical change. Ancient ideas on political and social institutions as prime causal factors in the development of collective characteristics therefore pose a challenge to Isaac's rigid and unalterable Greek and Roman 'proto- racism.'

I have a few remaining criticisms, less important perhaps to the book's overall thesis than the undervaluing of political and social institutions for collective group characteristics in ancient thought. These concern the characterization of Greek and Roman thought on self and others as a unity. The decision to by-pass the Hellenistic period serves to create a deceptive seamlessness. As we have seen, Isaac posits a sharp break in Greek perceptions of Persians between the fifth and fourth centuries. We should be more wary of important distinctions between Greek and Roman thought on these questions, especially when we keep in mind the omitted Hellenistic era that intervened. At times Isaac seems to gloss over these differences in treating Greek and Roman conceptions as Greco-Roman conceptions. This tendency perhaps is most evident in the discussions of Athenian notions of autochthony and Greek and Roman xenophobia. First, let us consider Athenian ideas of autochthony. Isaac (pp. 114-24), provides a useful discussion of the idea of autochthony and 'pure lineage' at Athens, which of course found concrete expression in Pericles' citizenship law of 451/450 BCE. But he does not consider the sections of Pericles' funeral oration as represented by Thucydides, which emphasize Athens' unguarded openness to foreign goods and ideas (Thuc. 2.38f.). While Isaac admits that we cannot find similar conceptions among the Romans,[[15]] he hastens to consider Roman ideas on autochthony of other peoples. Consequently, he downplays the crucial difference between Athenian myths of autochthony and Roman myths of mixed origins.[[16]] The distinctions in foundational mythologies are far more important than any similarities we might find; and, I might add, gave diametrically- opposed mythological charters for Athens' jealously guarded political franchise and the steady extension of Roman citizenship. Then there is the related notion of xenophobia and contamination by contact with foreigners. On Roman views, Isaac mentions only Arrian (Tactica 33) and Pliny the Elder on the ideas that contact with foreigners can be salutary and that Romans borrowed much from foreign peoples. He sums up, '[A]uthors who regard contact with foreigners as having deleterious effects are far more numerous and influential than those who emphasize its salutary aspects. The latter are a few Greek writing authors of the Roman period, the former range from the sixth century B.C. till late antiquity' (p. 244). This statement is exaggerated and misleading. The idea that Roman contact with foreign peoples and customs had been beneficial to Rome is not as uncommon as Isaac suggests; Cicero, for example, states it explicitly and at length (Rep. 2.30).

Some of Isaac's conceptual underpinnings, therefore, are not above contestation. But my criticism does not provide an indication of the impressive scope and range of the book. I cannot imagine that anyone could read this work without learning a great deal from it. Particularly noteworthy is the way in which Isaac relates ancient ideas on environmental determinism and acquired characteristics to modern racist conceptions of Cuvier, Buffon, Kant, Hume, Herder, Thomas Jefferson, and many other intellectuals in the western tradition. I find the overall thesis that there are elements in Greek and Roman thought that easily lend themselves to modern racist ideologies to be persuasive, with the reservations stated above concerning the mitigating and contesting ideas among ancient thinkers on the force of political and social institutions in the formation of collective characteristics. Isaac's notion of 'proto- racism' among ancient Greeks and Romans, with the qualifications I have mentioned, is convincing and unproblematic. Debate and disagreement are likely to revolve around the transition from ancient 'proto- racism' to modern racism: are the similarities or the differences more important? And of course here objections will be raised that in etymological terms, it is anachronistic to speak of 'race' in ancient Greek and Roman discourse. We have to wait until the nineteenth century for the words 'race' and 'racism' to begin to assume the meanings that we give to them today; ancient terms such as ethnos or natio are not synonyms.[[17]]

I have rarely been as engaged in writing a review as I have been in writing this one. Isaac's study has forced me to rethink some of my basic assumptions about the ancient world, and it has provoked sharp criticism on particular arguments. These are things that good books do, and are perhaps indicative of the impact the book is likely to have. In sum, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity is meticulously-researched, impressive in scope, clearly presented, and provocatively stimulating in argumentation. No one henceforth will be able to enter the debate on collective stereotypes and group prejudices in Greek and Roman antiquity without taking it into account.

NOTES

[[1]] F. M. Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience (Cambridge, Mass. 1970); idem, Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks (Cambridge, Mass. and London 1983).

[[2]] L. A. Thompson, Romans and Blacks (Norman and London 1989). For the Roman world, see the older study by A. N. Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (Cambridge 1967).

[[3]] Isaac concedes as much: '[I]t is appropriate to observe that no single definition will ever satisfy everybody, for racism is not a scientific theory or concept, but a complex of ideas, attitudes, and forms of behavior which are themselves by definition irrational' (p. 22).

[[4]] Remaining notes in this paragraph provide commentary and/or supplementary bibliography for specific peoples treated in individual chapters.

[[5]] Isaac argues that the 'association of the East with despotism, effeminacy, moral degeneration, and lack of discipline is first encountered in the literature of the fourth century' (p. 297). While it cannot be doubted that negative Greek stereotypes of eastern barbarians, particularly Persians, quickened in the fourth century (as, for example, in Isocrates' Panegyricus), it seems to me that Isaac's statement goes too far. After all, what are we to make of the message of the 'Eurymedon oinochoe', dated ca. 465 BCE and included in Isaac's plates (figures 2A and 2B), and the arguments of E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self- Definition Through Tragedy (Oxford 1989) [cited repeatedly by Isaac], who sees the formation of the Greek-barbarian bipolarity as a product of the Persian War experience? Indeed, according to M. C. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge 1997), Athenian stereotypes of Persians had already passed through a violently hostile and negative phase by the late fifth century, by which time they had been tamed and incorporated as part of Athenian imperial culture. It is odd that we find no mention at all of E. Said's famous book, Orientalism, who cited Aeschylus's Persians as his first example of Orientalist discourse in western literature. On Aeschylus's Persians, see now Thomas Harrison, The Emptiness of Asia: Aeschylus' Persians and the History of the Fifth Century (London 2000), seeking to restore Athenian ethnocentrism and a condescending, patriotic triumphalism to the play.

[[6]] Add P. Barceló, 'The Perception of Carthage in Classical Greek Historiography', AClass 37 (1994) 1-14.

[[7]] I discuss this topic at length in Cultural Politics in Polybius's Histories (Berkeley and Los Angeles 2004), unavailable to Isaac at the time of writing.

[[8]] Add E. Dench, From Barbarians to New Men: Greek, Roman, and Modern Perceptions of Peoples of the Central Apennines (Oxford 1995).

[[9]] Add H. Bellen, Metus Gallicus, Metus Punicus: zum Furchtmotiv in der römischen Republik (Wiesbaden 1985).

[[10]] Isaac provides a comprehensive bibliography of modern works on racism at p. 15 n. 36, to which I would add I. Hannaford, Race: The History of an Idea in the West (Baltimore and London 1996). On prejudice and stereotypes, add the classic work, G. W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, Mass. 1954); and J.-Ph. Leyens, V. Yzerbyt, and G. Schadron, Stereotypes and Social Cognition (London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi 1994).

[[11]] 'I certainly do not claim that we are dealing here with the specific form of scientific racism which was the product of the nineteenth century' (p. 1); but cf. p. 165 on Athenian ideas of autochthony: 'It could even be said that the Athenians regarded themselves as a 'race' in modern terms.'

[[12]] Airs, Waters, Places is, of course, the environmental-determinist tract par excellence. Another is Arist. Pol. 1327b23-33, with imperialistic overtones (see also 1285a19-22). In Roman guise, mutatis mutandis, see Vitruv. Arch. 6.1.11.

[[13]] '[T]he dominant approach . . . is the environmental theory: an environmental determinism which made it possible for Greek and Roman texts to describe foreign peoples in terms of fixed physical and mental traits, determined by climate and geography' (p. 503).

[[14]] On the importance of politics for the ancient Greeks, see the thought-provoking article by P. A. Rahe, 'The Primacy of Politics in Ancient Greece,' AHR 89.2 (1984) 265-93. The primacy of political and social institutions in Greek thought for determining collective characteristics is one of the basic tenets of my own recent work (cited above [7]).

[[15]] '[U]nlike the Athenians, the Romans never attributed to themselves a pure lineage or any notion of being autochthonous' (p. 134); 'Rome made no claim of being autochthonous or of pure blood, but applied those ideas to other peoples' (p. 514).

[[16]] For Roman 'inclusive' ideology, see, for example, Liv. 1.2; 1.8; Sall. Cat. 6.1.

[[17]] See the convenient etymological table at Hannaford (cited above, note 10), p. 5; cf. M. Banton, Racial Theories (Cambridge 1987) passim; idem, Racial Consciousness (New York and London 1988) p. 26 on 'racism'.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
OK, I'm going to settle this argument once and for all:
All of those who owned slaves now roast in the eighth level of hell.
All of those who sold people into slavery now permanently reside in the ninth level of hell.

No you have not.

The Bible teaches that slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/word. (This is not to say that the enslavement of any one person, or group of people, is due to their sin, for many have been enslaved unjustly, like Joseph and numerous Christians throughout history.
The Mosaic law permitted some types of slavery. These include:

Voluntary servitude by the sons of Israel (indentured servants)
Those who needed assistance, could not pay their debts, or needed protection from another were allowed under Biblical law to become indentured servants (see Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18). They were dependent on their master instead of the state. This was a way to aid the poor and give them an opportunity to get back on their feet. It was not to be a permanent subsidy. Many early settlers to America came as indentured servants. These servants were well treated and when released, given generous pay.
Voluntary permanent slaves
If indentured servants so chose, they could remain a slave (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut.. 15:16-17). Their ear was pierced to indicate this permanent subjection. The law recognized that some people want the security of enslavement. Today, there are some people who would rather be dependent upon government to provide their needs (and with that provision accepting their commands) than do what is necessary to live free from its provision and direction. Some even act in a manner that puts them in jail, desiring the care and provision they get more than personal freedom.
Thief or criminal making restitution
A thief who could not, or did not, make restitution was sold as a slave: “If a man steals . . . he shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:1,3). The servitude ceased when enough work was done to pay for the amount due in restitution.
Pagans could be permanent slaves
Leviticus 25:44-46 states: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have ‹ you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen [brother], the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
In the Sabbath year all Hebrew debtors/slaves were released from their debts.. This was not so for foreigners (Deut. 15:3). Theologian R.J. Rushdoony writes, “since unbelievers are by nature slaves, they could be held as life-long slaves” 1 without piercing the ear to indicate their voluntary servitude (Lev. 25:44-46). This passage in Leviticus says that pagans could be permanent slaves and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews. However, there are Biblical laws concerning slaves that are given for their protection and eventual redemption. Slaves could become part of the covenant and part of the family, even receiving an inheritance. Under the new covenant, a way was made to set slaves free internally, which should then be following by external preparation enabling those who were slaves to live at liberty, being self-governed under God.

Involuntary Servitude is Not Biblical
Exodus 21:16 says: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” Deuteronomy 24:7 states: “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”

Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man (Ex. 21:16), as well as for the Israelites (Deut. 24:7). This was stealing a man's freedom. While aspects of slavery are Biblical (for punishment and restitution for theft, or for those who prefer the security of becoming a permanent bondservant), the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude.

Any slave that ran away from his master (thus expressing his desire for freedom) was to be welcomed by the Israelites, not mistreated, and not returned. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 states:

You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.

This implied slaves must be treated justly, plus they had a degree of liberty. Other slave laws confirm this. In addition, such action was a fulfillment of the law of love in both the Old and New Testaments. The law of God declares: “. . . you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:17-18). Leviticus 19:33-34 clearly reveals that this applies to strangers and aliens as well: “The stranger, . . . you shall not do him wrong.. . . . you shall love him as yourself.”

It was forbidden to take the life or liberty of any other man. Rushdoony writes:

Thus, the only kind of slavery permitted is voluntary slavery, as Deuteronomy 23:15,16 makes very clear. Biblical law permits voluntary slavery because it recognizes that some people are not able to maintain a position of independence. To attach themselves voluntarily to a capable man and to serve him, protected by law, is thus a legitimate way of life, although a lesser one. The master then assumes the role of the benefactor, the bestower of welfare, rather that the state, and the slave is protected by the law of the state. A runaway slave thus cannot be restored to his master: he is free to go. The exception is the thief or criminal who is working out his restitution. The Code of Hammurabi decreed death for men who harbored a runaway slave; the Biblical law provided for the freedom of the slave. 2

Rushdoony also says that the selling of slaves was forbidden. Since Israelites were voluntary slaves, and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein. A slave-market could not exist in Israel. The slave who was working out a restitution for theft had no incentive to escape, for to do so would make him an incorrigible criminal and liable to death. 3

When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).




Would you like to have a nother try?.

[Dr Strangelove]

We were not discussing slavery in ancient times now were we? Furthermore the type of slavery being discussed here was clearly the forced involuntary kind and did not involve any citizens of Israel. My statement stands.

Oh, and BTW, I'm not Jewish. Old Testament arguments do not impress me at all. I find that when Christians resort to quotes from the Old Testament as the primary support of their argument they're usually in denial. They're arguing in favor of something that they know is really against Christian teaching, they just can't admit it. Of course I'm not suggesting that you're a Christian.

[Odin]

My God, thhis thread is still going?


As Molly said, racism against blacks in the Modern Period has everything to to with justifying slavery when black slaves were used as labor for plantations, "Racism" in the ancient world would be better described as ethnocentrism IMHO.



I don't get The Mad Viking's ranting about bias in the historical record. ALL records, be they written or oral, have biases of some kind. A truely unbiased view of history is impossible. If Mad Viking thinks bias only come from "the the evil, evil white devils", he needs to get his head checked. The Chinese, for example, thought they were better than everyone else even as they were being a$$-raped by the European powers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I share Odin's shock

To put an end to all of this, I admit it. I'm responsible for slavery. Yes, me. You can all go back to your own lives.

[JohnT]

Imran.

I cannot allow you to share the burden alone.

I, too, am guilty for slavery. And it started oh so innocently...

Imran and I were chatting on whatever chat-client we were using back in 1494 or whenever... wasn't it PopeChat, Imran?

Anyway, we were shooting the **** about Chris's voyage to what, to us, was obviously an unknown land (nobody even then believed it was Asia - Chris was just trying to get paid when he claimed he found it, thereby meeting his contractural obligations to the King and Queen). And I'm like

"You know. Those...'Indians'... they're not very strong, are they."
"No, they're not."
"I have a great idea! ****, we'll make tons of jack!"
"Not likely, but I'm doing nothing. Go ahead, spill it."
"Let's reinstitutionalize slavery! We'll justify it on economic grounds, find a few Bible verses that would allow us to do such a thing, and in a few years, thousands of ships will be carrying billions of Africans every year across the Atlantic!"
"To do what?"
"Duh! To plant cotton, dumbass! And tobaccer!"
" 'Tobaccer?' "
"You'll see. Goddamn, this is the greatest idea since sliced bread!"
"Hmm... well, I do see the possibility of future eugenics programs, hypocritical clauses in documents stating how all men are created equal, a race problem of near Civil-War proportions, and some pretty fine dancing music. What the hell, let's go for it!"
"You sure?"
"Why the hell not. Tell you what, John - you go to work on the Portugese and the Spanish, I'll go north and whisper some things in a few English ears. Let's meet in about, oh, 150 years in Haiti and we'll see how things are going."
"Sweet. I smell an Industrial Revolution out of the profits we make."
"Don't talk like an idiot."

Thus began our Excellent Slaving Adventure...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I hear a story thread coming on