Midterm

I am researching slave revolts in antiquity and their public perception.  I have tried to answer a few main research questions: 1).  What were the circumstances surrounding slave revolts in antiquity?, 2). How were the leaders of slave revolts, and powerful slaves in general viewed by the public?, 3).  How do the findings from the previous questions relate to that of a) enslaved Africans in North American in the 18th and 19th centuries, and b) present day slaves in America (specifically sex slaves), c) the present day portrayal of ancient slave revolts and and slave leaders such as Spartacus.

A secondary source that has provided much insight is Theresa Urbainczyk's "Slave Revolts in Antiquity."  Urbainczyk, a professor at the University College in Ireland, focuses on addressing the social and political context in which the revolts took place.  The book is unique because the academic following of ancient slave revolts has been neglected.  In her book, Urbainczyk hypothesizes that there is a clear explanation for the lack of scholarship on the subject.  She argues that although slaves did revolt in antiquity, in some instances by the thousands, and sometimes in revolts lasting for years, but the key fact that they all eventually ended and slavery persisted.  She also claims that the slaves did not really have a chance of succeeding.

Crucial though to Urbainczyks theory is the significance of studying slave revolts in giving an understanding of the societies they took place in.  Additionally, studying earlier ancient slaves revolts give insight into later revolts.

Urbainczyk points out many similarities between more recent revolts and revolts in antiquity, but in my opinion needs to expand her theory to include other aggravating factors when examining the cause of slave revolts: a prime example of this highlights a primary source I have been using--Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War".  In Book one Thucydides' credits the earthquake of 464 BCE with the uprising of the Helots to Mt. Ithome.
 http://books.google.com/books?id=SY0HIF40LxsC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=Thucydides+helot+uprising&source=bl&ots=IeEbJS_wk5&sig=huIiKpPp3URa9SFsary-Gq8Z7o4&hl=en&ei=DLlmTeuQHIT7lwfp3_n-AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=earthquake&f=false


In addressing the modern portrayal of ancient slave revolts and leader's, Page DuBois' "SLAVERY: Antiquity and its Legacy" has really helped put the public view into perspective.  She claims that film makers in such films as 'Spartacus' (1963) and 'Gladiator' (2003) reveal the film makers' "hatred of slavery, a desire for freedom, and an identification with the heroic slaves that is universalized.  The situation in these ancient settings is allegorized to encompass what the American directors assume is a natural hunger for freedom and to escape bondage...the myth of escape from oppression, the huddled masses yearning informs profoundly these accounts of antiquity on film." (duBois 163).  Dubois makes a sound point: The portrayal of antiquities' slave leaders, who are household names even in 2011, such as Spartacus (both in the 1963 film and the 2010 Starz series, and Maximus (even though fictional), embody American ideals of freedom from oppression.  Please view the following clips:

Gladiator.  The quote from this clip, "Win the crowd, win your freedom," indicates this is Maxivus' (and presumably all slaves') underlying desire.  I question the validity of this on the grounds that many gladiators loved being gladiators for the fame and honor that went with it.  It was like being a professional athlete:

 

 Here is a clip of Spartacus, from the Starz series, giving a speech on freedom after he kills his master.  He says, "Your lives are now your own."  This is a very Americanized view to freedom--the rights of an individual. Please click the link.

http://www.twitvid.com/WRW5M



My third secondary source, American Negro Slave Revolts by Herbert Aptheker, addresses revolts of slaves such as Nat Turner and how American slavery faced constraints limiting the successes and opportunities of slavery: fear of rebellion, the machinery of control, and the exaggeration, censorship and distortion of their portrayal.  I found many parallels between both the constraints on revolts, and the mitigating opportunities for them in Aptheker's book and that of Urbainzcyk.  It seems to me that each time a major uprising took place, there were circumstances which aided in the success of the revolt.  Urbainszcyk capps this on the social and political issues, but I would expand this to include other issues, such as the earthquake of 464, of the severe maltreatment of American slaves such as Nat Turner.  Aptheker gives strong credence to the latter.

In Suetonius' "Life of Augustus", he cites Augustus' stopping Spartacus' followers as a major accomplishment.  This is significant because Suetonius generally focuses on the character of his bibliographies, not a tedious list of accomplishments and historical background.  For Suetonius to include this detail, it represents the Roman public's fear of Spartacus, as it must have been a "great" task for August to suppress him:
"After his praetorship, he became governor of Macedonia, having crushed a group of outlaw slaves who, having fought under Spartacus and Catiline, were now holding possession of the district...he governored Macedonia courageously and justly winning a big battle..."  (Suetonius 3.1)

As I presented in class and have previously cited, Theresa Urbainczky argues in "Slave Revolts in Antiquity" that many successful slave revolt took place concurrent with other social and political unrest.  In a modern context, the success of slaves' escapes is also increased by social factors.

Four years ago a 20-year-old university student signed up with a friend to study English abroad in a program that involved waitressing in Virginia Beach, but the girls would never reach Virginia. And they wouldn't be waitresses. Instead they ended up being forced to work as sex slaves at the Cheetah Club in Detroit.  They eventually escaped from the traffickers holding them against their will, and were eventually represented by a University of Michigan Law School Clinic Professor.

I argue that the girls were successful in their escape, similar to the heightened success of ancients revolts concurrent with social upheavals, because of a) An increased public awareness of human trafficking in the U.S., and b) Publicity of the incident. Here is a link of a transcript from an MSNBC interview with one of the victims:   
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22056066/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/

Finally, I would like to show the dichotomy between then present historical portrayals of leaders of slave revolts in antiquity and 19th century America.  The two are very different in their portrayal of the subject:

Spartacus: Proud and Noble.

And

Nat Turner: Portrayed as weak and ragged.

Slavery as a part of culture

Slavery is a practice that has dated all the way back to ancient Rome, and over time, the way it is perceived in culture and the way it is administered has evolved over time. I have done readings and gathered information on the cultural aspect of slavery, both in ancient Rome and in the modern world. To gain a broad perspective of slavery as a whole, I have looked into how the slaves were treated, what power they had, what their morale was, and what they symbolized.

Roman slavery was prominent by the end of the second century BCE, when the Romans controlled the states and all citizens of Italy south of the Po River. However, as Sandra R. Joshel states in Slavery in the Roman World, it is difficult to label this ancient society in Rome as a "slave society" as opposed to a society that have slaves. She notes that "Generally, historians define a slave society in quantatative terms: How many slaves? What proportion of the population were slaves?" (7) If a "slave society" is defined by a proportion of slaves greater than 20 percent of the population, only five slave societies have existed in human history, which include ancient Rome, Greece, and United States during the Civil War.

However, from my readings, I believe that ancient Rome was indeed a slave society, but not based on numbers. The reason it was a slave society is because it was culturally accepted in society, and there were explicit laws permitting slavery in ancient rome. Joshel explains that "if we rely solely on law and literature for our understanding of Roman society, we rely on a story that excludes for the most part the positions of slaves and lower-class Romans. Law maps the boundaries within which action took place and the roles determined by rights and privleges from the perspective of jurists that owned property, including slaves." (14) To me, this suggests that many of the wealthy owners often overlooked the harsh treatment of slaves, and very few literary works accurately capture the grueling conditions that the slaves work through. As Keith Bradley puts it in his 1994 book Slavery and Society at Rome, "Traditionalists will object that to try to penetrate the psychological world of the Roman slave is beyond the historian's sphere, especially if the attempt leans heavily on support from other times and places...But objections are inadmissible when founded on defective knowledge or false, and even arrogant, beliefs that the unique character of the classical world somehow renders it incapable of profitable comparison with other historical societies." (180) These slaves were used so that those who owned them could prosper, and the free people saw nothing wrong with this.

To capture the perspective of what the lives of these ancient slaves were like, I read a novel entitled The Satyricon, which was written by Petronius, an active senator and consul in the mid-first century CE.
One key part that stood out to me was the excerpt about a dinner party by Trimalchio, a wealthy free Roman. He would frequently hold such dinner parties, and the slaves were ordered to labor to his every command. Petronius wrote "Trimalchio had now stopped his game, and asked for all the same dishes, and in a loud voice invited any of us, who wished, to take a second glass of mead. Suddenly the music gave the sign, and the light dishes were swept away by a troop of singing servants. An entrée-dish happened to fall in the rush, and a boy picked it up from the ground. Trimalchio saw him, and directed that he should be punished by a box on the ear, and made to throw down the dish again. [34] This shows that having slaves is a symbol of wealth in Roman society, since these slaves would labor to a wealthy free person's ever need. Trimalchio spoke down to the slaves, instructing “Now tell me, my dear friend: you will erect a monument as I have directed? I beg you earnestly to put up round the feet of my statue my little dog, and some wreaths, and bottles of perfume, and all the fights of Petraites[p. 139] so that your kindness may bring me a life after death; and I want the monument to have a frontage of one hundred feet and to be two hundred feet in depth." By being ordered to do these tasks, it shows that the motivation for owning slaves is to have a sense of superiority, and not to help produce income, the way it was during the United States Civil War when slaves would cultivate and harvest crops and perform field labor so that their masters could sell these goods.

Plautus wrote a variety of plays during the late third and early second centuries BCE which aimed at capturing the essence of the physical and psychological toll the slaves had to go through. A moving scene was that when Saturio, a free Roman living in poverty, had to resort to selling his own daughter into slavery in order to support the family. Saturio declared "May this same matter turn out well for me, and for yourself, and for my stomach, and for everlasting victuals for it as well for all time to come...to you I have communicated all my designs. For that reason have I dressed you out after this fashiton; young woman, to-day you are to be sold." (3.1.1-5)

Today, although its place in culture has changed as well as the way it is administered, slavery is still a symbol of power for the wealthy that take ownership of the underprivleged, and the underprivleged in America today are generally illegal immigrants. Knowing that they have no rights in the United States due to lack of citizenship, wealthy restaurant owners or farmers take in illegal immigrants and their families, and pay them well below minimum wage to bus tables and clean dishes, or in the case of farmers, give them virtually inhospitable conditions while they work in the field, and provide them with little food and water. In the following video, it is revealed that Adkin's Blueberry Packing Company in South Haven, MI had employed young illegal immigrants and their family. Among these immigrants were eight and seven year olds.

As stated in the video, the family offered their children into labor because they had low income, similar to the conflict inthe play written by Plautus, when Saturio had to subject his daughter to slavery. Although slavery is illegal in society today, it has taken on new forms. This slavery is used for wealthy people, like this farm owner, to produce more income while undercutting the costs of labor by employing illegal child immigrants. But as it has been made clear, slavery still exists today.

Government and Citizenship

I have been exploring the relationship between the structure of governments and the way that it affects the beliefs and values of its citizens. In order to explore such a broad topic, I have limited the scope of my discussion to ancient Greek democracy, particularly fifth century Athens and the relatively modern US "democracy". In the interest of exploring the roots of our democratic principles and due to the founding fathers' interest in classical civilizations, I will consider their views and writings in addition to contemporary US views. I hope that this will demonstrate some of the persistent strengths and weaknesses of societies ruled by the people, recognizing these similarities between ourselves and the ancients can provide guidance in our own growth as citizens and as a culture.

Secondary Sources:

First Democracy - Paul Woodruff

Greeks and Romans Bearing Gifts: How the Ancients Inspired the Founding Fathers - Carl J. Richard

Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens - Arlene W. Saxonhouse

The review of the three secondary sources has exposed me to three completely different perspectives. First Democracy focuses on the question of what democracy actually is, stating "We are too close to our own experience of democracy...to see clearly what are the essential features." Accordingly, Woodruff spends most of the remainder of the book exploring what he considers the seven fundamental concepts that define democracy: (Note that they are NOT voting, majority rule, or electing representatives)

1) Freedom from tyranny
2) Harmony
3) The rule of law
4) Natural equality
5) Citizen wisdom
6) Reasoning without knowledge
7) General education

Woodruff also has a chapter at the end of the book where he asserts that the US is not yet ready for a true democracy, and is in fact moving away from one. One of the main reasons for this is the two party system that limits the rights of the citizen to choose candidates and results in a winner-takes-all style of government that is not conducive to the values of true democracy.

I think Woodruff has an excellent point that the Greek system, based on oral tradition, was much more flexible and direct than our own, and as such allowed for a more accurate portrayal of the will of the people. Our system, with its rigidly reverent attitude towards the Constitution, does not allow for drastic changes in form. While the Founders saw this as a safety feature, I believe that it has helped lead to voter apathy, as those living in "locked" districts know their vote does not matter. You can understand the frustration for many voters by looking at the two charts below. Over time the parties have become increasingly polarized (this is a huge problem in the harmony category) and the large number of moderate voters are left without candidates to vote for. I believe this contributes to much of the apathy felt by today's voters, especially the younger generations wihtout a lifetime of voting experience, because they feel that their voice is not being heard. They feel forced to choose between the lesser of two evils put forth by the parties and so they have no desire to vote. Perhaps by studying ancient (or other modern) forms of democracy we could get ideas to remedy this problem, but that would require us to address education (#7) and to free ourselves from the tyranny of a two party system (#1)







Richard also asserts that the Founders did not intend for the country to be a democracy, much as we may refer to it as that now. He explains that the founders, with their thorough knowledge of the classics, saw the accounts of Thucydides and Plutarch as warnings about purely democratic forms of government. The Founders were interested in a sort of mixed government from the beginning, where the common people held some of the power and a more educated/aristocratic class held some. This was intended to balance the foolishness of the mob and the often greedy interests of the wealthy. One can see Richard's assertions in the language and form of the Constitution which makes distinctions between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House (which is elected by the people) has the exclusive right to initiate Bills to raise revenue. The Senate, though now elected directly by the people, was the more aristocratic/elite group and was chosen by the legislature of the state (Article 1, Section 3)

These points about the Founders are interesting because many Americans consider the US to be a excellent example of democracy, when in fact it isn't really a democracy and was never intended as one. In fact, many Americans refer to the Founding Fathers or cling to the Constitution as the primary sources of democracy, which is ironic because the Founders, with their more extensive classical education, knew that they were no such thing.

Saxonhouse writes specifically about free speech. The first chapter of her book explores the difference between our view of free speech, aimed at protecting citizens from opression by the government, and the Greeks who viewed it more as a great equalizer. The Greeks were not concerned about repression from the government in the way that we are because they ARE the government, while we elect officials and need to control them from applying laws that might repress certain groups. For more on this topic see my previous post.

On the topic of direct democracy, below you can see a kleroterion, which was a device used in Athenian democracy to randomly select members for several of the political groups. Each citizen placed his token in a slot and a system of dice indicated which tokens would be chosen. This lottery system is an interesting feature of Greek democracy which made it considerably more direct than our own. Among other things, it eliminated the advantages of being wealthy that are present in our elction based system.

Primary Source #1: Aristotle
As I mentioned in a previous post, Aristotle devotes several chapters of politics to the idea of civic virtue. From his writings we can see a definition of a citizen that is more stringent than our own and is tied much more closely to the state than our own, as he explains that a citizen's "special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices" or more broadly, that a citizen is "He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state".

Continuing Aristotle addresses whether those who hold no share in office can be true citizens. He concludes that they are not as "he is a citizen in the highest sense who shares in the honours of the state" and "he who is excluded from the honours of the state is no better than an alien". This shows a consistent and firm belief that the rights and responsibilities of citizens were firmly linked to their participation in public life, and that it was not sufficient to be born a citizen if you did not fulfill these public duties. This is not a belief that we currently hold, as large numbers of Americans that are eligible to vote show little interest in doing so and are not reviled by the rest of society for that choice.

Primary Source #2: Thucydides
While Aristotle's writing highlights a difference between ancient Greek beliefs and our own, Pericles' funeral oration in Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War" sounds very smilar to the values America professes to have. These are called out in detail in my previous post: "The Modern Link: Excerpts on Democratic Government" so I will not explore them further here.

These two primary source examples show both similarities (Thucydides) and differences (Aristotle) between our views and those of the ancient Greeks. As I mentioned previously, exploring both the simlarities and differences allows us to identify with and learn from the Greeks, both in their successes and their failures.



Image of slavery in Rome

Methods of modern slavery and how it differs from ancient slavery

In today's world, slavery still does exist in various forms, although it goes under the radar a majority of the time. Common forms of slavery in the modern world include human trafficking, and sex slaves. The technology that is present in todays world, particularly websites like Craigslist and Facebook allow for an abundance of advertisement over the internet, which poses a problem for the United States department of defense. Many of these ads are clear ads for prostitution, with claims such as "Find hot singles tonight in your area." This leads to abuse of many women who are involved with these advertisements, and goes unnoticed most of the time.

Another form of slavery, which has become a growing problem in America, is the slavery of illegal immigrants. There are households who take in illegal aliens, and agree to keep them in their house to prevent them from being deported in exchange for labor, or sexual favors. This type of slavery very closely resembles a conflict faced in ancient slavery, since these slaves, like ancient slaves, were stuck between a rock and a hard place. They were subject to poor treatment by the household that kept them, but escape was not a viable option, since they could not live on their own without a visa. This shows that although slavery is no longer accepted nor legal in society, it still exists by means of underground forms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeMGPP_GgKo

The Modern Link: Excerpts on Democratic Government from Pericles' Funeral Oration

[Primary Source Excursus]

Thucydides was an Athenian historian who lived from 460-395 BC. His great contribution to Classical Studies was "The History of the Peloponnesian War", a large record of the war between Sparta and Athens that took place in his lifetime. The war lasted approximately 30 years, and Thucydides considered it to be of enormous historical importance. Accordingly, he gives detailed accounts from eyewitnesses or recounts events or speeches he witnessed himself. Unlike Herodotus, Thucydides does not regularly reference the will of the gods, and so many scholars consider his work to be a relatively objective account of the war.

The excerpts in the post below come from Book 2 of this work, a section known as Pericles' Funeral Oration. In this passage, Pericles, a famous Athenian politician, is giving a speech at a customary public funeral for Athenian soldiers killed during the war (as seen in the painting below). Pericles starts his speech in the customary way, by refering to the glory of the ancestors. However, he soon deviates from this and focuses instead on praising Athens and exhorting the living to continue to live up to the reputations of tose who have been killed in battle.



These public funerals and Pericles' interest in the city rather than individual glories show us a culture that is shifting away from individual glory towards a more democratic, egalitarian death ritual. It is interesting that the 5th C Athenian form of democracy, which is more interested in equal rights among different classes, applies this group death ritual, while in current United States culture death is viewed as a very private and isolated affair.

There are several passages from Pericles' Funeral Oration (Thucydides, "The History of the Peloponnesian War") that espouse what I would consider typical middle class American beliefs. In fact, I would say that it is only the rhetoric, rather than the content that allows us to detect the difference between Pericles' statements and some of our own. However, the fact that these are what we would consider national ideals does not mean that we always act on them. This can be seen from some of the controversial topics below. Based on the controversies within our own society, it seems safe to assume that the ancient Greeks also had similar conflicts within their society.

Example 1: Immigrants

" We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occaisionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens"
-Pericles

It is important to note here, that though Pericles claims that Athens is a worldly city, and is highlighting the opportunities available to foreigners, he is simultaneously distinguishing them from citizens. He is not claiming that foreigners can come to Athens and be equal to citizens, but simply that there are opportunities here for them in addition to citizens.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
-Inscription from the Statue of Liberty

This inscription from the Statue of Liberty depicts a US that professes to be a melting pot, a country where nearly everyone came from somewhere else and all are welcome. However, in reality the US, like so many other places has struggled to accept foreigners and grant them full citizen rights. Two fairly modern controversies involving immigration/foreignes can be seen in the videos below.

Rush Limbaugh on illegal immigration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPm_TEQ0PA

PBS on Manzanar internment camp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgmY2P-xT_Y

I see a strong parallel between Pericles' assertion that the Athenians have a worldy city where people can come from all over and be given all kinds of opportunities, and the US's similar assertion that it is a country where anyone who is downtrodden or persecuted can go. Regardless of both cultures' insistence on openess and opportunity, it appears that we still struggle with the same concerns and issues the Greeks did over 2000 years ago.

Example 2: Privacy

"The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes.."
-Pericles

Many Americans consider privacy a crucial right, and would like to think that Pericles' statement above applies to the current government of the United States. However, as can be seen in the pictures below, there are still groups of citizens and even government agencies that "excercise jealous surveillance" and are "angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes". So, here again we can see a parallel between the current United States and the ancient Greek culture.


Members of Westboro Baptist Church


Senate Subcommittee on Investigations - McCarthy Hearings

Example 3: Equal Rights

"If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition"
-Pericles

"The Department of Education— enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal funds and ensures equal access to education for every individual.
The Department enforces five civil rights statutes to ensure equal educational opportunity for all students, regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, disability or age. These laws extend to all ... entities that receive U.S. Department of Education funds." (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what_pg2.html#howdoes)

While the United States has consistently moved towards equal justice for all citizens, there are undeniably some areas where discrimination still exists. Sometimes this discrimination is personal and intentinal, but more often it is unintentionally integrated into a system, such as the public school system, where it cannot be easily eradicated. While the Athenians worked hard to ensure that class/economic differences did not influence their political system, they were not concerned about eliminating discrimination against women, slaves, or foreigners. So, when Pericles says that the laws afford equal justice to all, he means al citizens, not all people. It is important to note this difference between the Athenian culture and our own, because it has a strong effect on the governmental structure and its success.

Pericles' statements rendered here by Thucydides speak to fundamental ideas of democracy still deemed important today. This is augmented by the complexity of the details surrounding these statements and the controversy that is generated by said details. While most of us would agree that the points layed out here by Pericles are excellent qualities to have in a democracy, we often disagree when weighing between qualities and settling details and policies.

The Revolt of Modern Day Slaves

Theresa Urbainczky argues in "Slave Revolts in Antiquity" that many successful slave revolt took place concurrent with other social and political unrest.  I would add to this definition the inclusion of other events that stirred unrest, specifically the Helot Uprising in the 5th Century BC.  Thucydides, in "The History of The Peloponnesean War" adds an earthquake to this list of factors encouraging success.  In a modern context, the success of slaves' escapes is also increased by social factors.

Four years ago a 20-year-old university student signed up with a friend to study English abroad in a program that involved waitressing in Virginia Beach, but the girls would never reach Virginia. And they wouldn't be waitresses. Instead they ended up being forced to work as sex slaves at the Cheetah Club in Detroit.  They eventually escaped from the traffickers holding them against their will, and were eventually represented by a University of Michigan Law School Clinic Professor.

I argue that the girls were successful in their escape, similar to the heightened success of ancients revolts concurrent with social upheavals, because of a) An increased public awareness of human trafficking in the U.S., and b) Publicity of the incident. Here is a link of a transcript from an MSNBC interview with one of the victims:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22056066/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/

Citizenship: The Public vs Private Life

In a democratic government the role of a citizen must be clearly defined. What makes one a citizen? What rights and responsibilities does that include? Can citizenship or the associated rights be stripped if the person does not meet the requirements set forth by the society? These questions were perhaps even more important to the Greeks than they are to us today since their government was run directly from the citizens rather than through representatives.

Aristotle addresses The citizen, civic virtue, and the civic body in Politics, Book III, Ch 1-5. In Chapter 1, he explains that in a democracy a citizen is not a complete citizen just because they live in a certain place, or are born in a certain place, or even because they have access to the courts. Rather that "his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices" or more broadly, that "He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state".

So here we can see a definition of a citizen that is more stringent than our own and is tied much more closely to the state than our own. Our relationship with the state involves almost entirely receiving rights, with the only societal expectation of responsibility being that we obey the laws. The Greek relationship between the citizen and the state involved more responsibilities for the citizens, like active political involvment and the willingness to participate in military campaigns.

Finally, in Chapter 5, Aristotle addresses whether those who hold no share in office can be true citizens. He concludes that they are not as "he is a citizen in the highest sense who shares in the honours of the state" and "he who is excluded from the honours of the state is no better than an alien". Aristotle states that "It must be admitted that we cannot consider all those to be citizens who are necessary to the existence of the state; for example, children are not citizens equally with grown-up men, who are citizens absolutely" This shows a consistent and firm belief that the rights and responsibilities of citizens were firmly linked to their participation in public life, and that it was not sufficient to be born a citizen if you did not fulfill these public duties.

Sparta Earthquake of 464 BC and the Helot Uprising

In my last post, I noted that Urbainczyk claims that many of the more successful revolts coincided with the slaves' masters being at war.  Thucides writes that:

The Helots (a slave class) and Perioeci (free, noncitizens of Sparta) of Thouria and Aithaia took advantage of the earthquake to revolt and establish a position on Ithome.


Sources:
Thucydides, 1.101, 2.

More on the Helot Uprising to come...

Modern commentary on the political power of Sparticus

Slave Revolts in Antiquity: A lack of academic following?

Theresa Urbainczyk, a professor at the University College in Ireland, published a book "Slave Revolts in Antiquity."  The book is unique because the academic following of ancient slave revolts has been neglected.  In her book, Urbainczyk hypothesizes that there is a clear explanation for the lack of scholarship on the subject.  She argues that although slaves did revolt in antiquity, in some instances by the thousands, and sometimes in revolts lasting for years, but the key fact that they all eventually ended and slavery persisted.  She also claims that the slaves did not really have a chance of succeeding.

Crucial though to Urbainczyks theory, is the significance of studying slave revolts in giving an understanding of the societies they took place in.  Additionally, studying ancient slaves revolts give insight into later revolts.

Urbainczyk points out many similarities between more recent revolts and revolts in antiquity, but I found her comparison of the scholarship of the two to be more significant.  She cites Moses Finley's comments of Marx's "Communist Mannefesto," where Finley basically says that since Marx made the claim that all history is the history of class struggle, the study of ancient slavery has be come a "battleground for Marxists and non-Marxists.

Utilization of Circumstance:

Can we find any similarities in the circumstances of outbreaks of slave revolt in antiquity?

This is a very interesting question, and Urbainczyk tries to tackle it:

Basically slave revolts popped up at all different times, but the "successful" revolts, having significant impacts on ancient society mainly took place during times that the masters were at war or there was alternative political unrest.  Also, some slaves, learning of  other rebellions, would rebel themselves, and this domino effect was responsible for many specific revolts.

More to come...

Source:
Urbainczyk, Theresa, "Slave Revolts in Antiquity". UCLA Press. 2008.

Roman Slavery

Slaves in ancient Rome were subject to a brutal life and were expected to be perfect. There is no denying the torture and excessive labor they had to endure.

"First, there is the indignity of slavery- the kind of indignity that came from having to work as a body-slave to a wealthy owner or from being bought and sold like a commodity. For Epicterus the slace was a permanent symbol of subjection, ignorance and cowardice, connoting 'sorrows and fears and turmoils' in a positive sense a token only of the slaveowners prosperity. Second, the violence of being reduced from freedom to slavery...or the violence of being forever exposed, in the run of everyday life, to beating after beating, so that the owner could make sure the slave turned out right. Thirdly, the caprice to which the life of the slave was subject: if a slave who was asked to bring warm water brought water that was not warm enough or if he were not there to perform the service at once, it was inevitable that he should face the slaveowners wrath." (Bradley)

However, the slaveowners in ancient Rome did not have as much control over their slaves as their brutality may suggest. The morale of Roman slaves seemed to be higher than those of more modern slaves, as "collusion among three or four slaves in the household could infuriate the owner and his torment was worth the risk of flogging." (Bradley). To me, this suggests that the Roman slaves were very tough, to even dare angering their owner and risk harsh physical abuse such as a branding iron or a whip. But this suggests that these slaves did not fear their owner. As Bradley mentions, "perhaps one might pause and wonder. Wonder if the slaves of Roman Egypt or of any other place or period for which a relative insignificance of slavery is claimed would have agreed that slavery was unimportant, when it exposed them to a form of social discrimination that shaped and adversely affected every aspect of their lives, every minute of the day...It is a historical, objective reality that slavery was an evil, violent and brutalising institution that the Romans themselves, across a vast interval of time and space..whose justificiation thay never seriously questioned and for which no apology or exoneration can now be offered. For the sake of historical understanding as a whole, therefore, it is a matter of considerable importance to make the attempt to understand what it was to be a slave at Rome, to capture something of the slave mentality and the servile point of view. And the results need not always be gloomy." (Bradley)

What I can conclude about Roman slavery, is that the slave owners were brutal, but a majority of the slaves were so strong, not afraid, and most importantly, these slaves led lifes as if they were humans, and not merely property of the owner.

The Foremost Right of Citizenship? : Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceabley to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" - US Constitution, Amendment I, 1791

For full transcripts see:
Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

The First Amendment expresses what many Americans consider to be the foremost rights of citizenship. Much like we still debate about what the scope of these freedoms should encompass, the ancients were often inconsistent or unsure of what speech or actions should be protected. However, the perspective of the ancient Athenians was based on a vastly different political and social structure.

The first chapter of "Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens" (Saxonhouse, 2006) addresses these differences, pointing out that the American concept of free speech is built around the idea of a citizenry whose rights need to be protected from infringment by the government. The Athenian system however, with government positions being chosen by lot, meant that the citizens WERE the government and so they were more concerned with protecting free speech to ensure equality among citizens. These ideas are expressed by Saxonhouse as follows:

"The Athenians certainly understood and feared tyranny....but they, as citizens ruling over themselves, were not the tyrants they feared. The separation of the people and its government, so much a part of our language today....has no place in the political culture of the ancient Athenians"

"The modern individual possesses freedom of speech so that the government as his or her agent acts in the interest of the governed, so that those in authority do not misuse their power......The Athenian freedom of speech is the affirmation of the equality of participation and self-rule."

Analysis of our blog on Freedom and Slavery in the Ancient World

By Zane, Evan, and Marty

It is our intention to explore a comprehensive view of the ideals of ancient slavery and freedom in both Rome and Greece, and additionally to compare these ideals to both a contemporary view and a view of other time frames (ie US Slavery in the 18th-19th century, US Bill of Rights, etc.).  Zane will be covering slave revolts and their perceptions, both modern and ancient.  Evan will be covering the autonomy and responsibilities of ancient citizens versus modern citizens. Marty will compare slavery across different ancient cultures.

Enjoy!

The Dichotomy of the Public Perception of Two Slave Revolts: Spartacus and Nat Turner

A natural analogy can be drawn between two famous slave revolts--that of Spartacus in Rome, and the American Slave, Nat Turner in 1831.  An article from the Richmond Enquirer on Nat Turner's Rebellion in Virginia on August 30th 1831 gives an insight into the public view of Turner that was contemporary at the time.  It is clear that he is both feared and criminalized.  The newspaper author blames him for the death of over 50 men women and children.  How do we perceive the "great" Roman slave Spartacus, though?  Very differently in my opinion.  Look at two contemporary portrayals: the film Spartacus (1960), and the Starz series, Spartacus: Blood and Sand (2010). There is no doubt that Spartacus is glorified for his defiance of societies norms.  He is seen a liberator, a rogue, and a hero.  How different was his agenda to Turner's?  How differently do we perceive the two slaves?

Do the two collaborate? I think not.

Subject Matter

This blog will address freedom and slavery from several perspectives. Separate members will focus on:

1) The autonomy and responsibilities of ancient vs modern citizens
2) Slave revolts and public perception
3) A comparison of slavery in different ancient cultures