Crowe

First of all, this is from wiki. While wiki may be good for giving you an idea of ... well anything really... it is hardly a source for substantial facts. Secondly, just like it says IN the wiki article. This topic is one of those ongoing debates that noone seems to know an answer to because of the lack of information. That article quoted is one of the many, many claims on the issue. Any archaeologist with a degree and a hand he can write with can make an academic claim. But even this claim is weak in merit, just look at the logical counterpoint that could be made about the slaves in ancient Egypt. They could be sold... inhereited, etc, etc and could sometimes could be upwardly mobile... achieve social rank (?).

I believe that the "sometimes" is misleading. Sometimes tends to hint at often. But, the more correct way to put it is, "It could have been possible for a slave to... etc etc". The word "could" is also something that should strike you as important. Sure, a slave COULD achieve all of this uberslavery goodness - yeah, sure it was POSSIBLE. But was it probable? I think not.

Also the no-segregation between slaves and society is highly suspect. Do you think that the head of the juris coven would be walking next to slaves on the street? Buying bread at the same prices at the same vendors? That statement and its vagueries are exactly why wiki is unreliable when it comes to circles of academia.

Richard made some good points about slavery as functionality as opposed to the ideaology. Whereas slavery and the attached versions of racism et al really become another part of the philosophical argument of Hume ( to be specific ) "Whatever begins to exist must have a cause of existence". The cause of slavery was need for copious amounts cheap/free labor, and then the existence of these people as slaves - thusly, being lower than members of society - gave cause to the racism... - you can see how this can go on forever.

__________________