#romamslaves

So, my last seminar for the week (and because I do a History degree that means my second) was all about the economics of Roman and American Slavery (hense "Romam: Roman and American. Follow this on Twitter). This module is right up my street as these are two of my favourite time periods in History. What made this seminar for once even remotely engaging, was that we all had to read two texts, and then talk about them during the two hours we spent together. I think it was more meant to be like a debate, but I prefer it this way; teaching your fellow peers the opinions of the book or article, as well as incorporating your own. 

Now, as I read through the six pages of notes I took, what is clear is that many of the sources, particularly the American ones, rely heavily on facts and figures. They seem to be part of the Cliometric group (New Economic History). This in particular refers to Robert Fogel, who's book Without Consent or Contract enlightens the reader on exactly how the American slave trade rose and declined through the Revolution and the Civil War. It's fascinating to note that after slavery was abolished, the demand for slaves increased. Perhaps this would seem obvious to most people, but I find it intriguing. In my head I compare it to prohibition; alcohol stopped circulating, so more people wanted it and thus the black market flourished. I guess to the South in particular it was a way of life to them, just as alcohol is part of every day life, so without them they did not feel like they could survive. Regardless of this, Fogel makes excellent points through the use of numbers to showcase that even though on the outside it seemed like a huge amount of money was made through the slave trade, it does become clear that it was significantly less efficient than the manufacturing way of life in the North. No wonder then, did the slave trade die out. 

The Roman sources were equally interesting, with some giving idealised ways in which a slave household should be run (Columella). Now, I truly believe that Roman society would not have been as successful, or thrived as much if slaves were not a part of it. They did so much for the people of Rome, and were valuable tribute after a conquest abroad. Even people that were not captured followed the parade of Roman soldiers back home to Italy to seek a better life. Unlike American slavery, this trade was a great asset to Rome.                

It can be confusing thinking of the different kinds of unpaid workers that were around during both periods; the free men who were not actually free; the slaves who were not trusted to do specialised jobs properly; the helots who were defined as "between free men and slaves"; gladiators who were used for entertainment only and; the use of some women as sex slaves. But the fact is they all worked for their owner and in return got food and a life. Of course some jobs were better than others, some in fact were very high status, but that does not take anything away from the fact that they were still slaves, and had no rights as a human being. Which is odd, considering they could be recognised for punishment by law as they would have to sign that they had committed an offence, yet it was the slave-owner that had to take the punishment. After all, it was the master's fault that their slave did wrong, because they are possessions not people.

Aside from that, had a pretty interesting week since the last blog I wrote. I fell down the stairs and twisted my ankle, I finally succumbed to Fresher's Flu, and I was taken on my first ever date. Clearly you can see the highlight. I mean, not like you care anyway.

Oh, and I'm writing this from my housemates bed, where everyone is asleep as they went out last night. I came home early with chips and watched Homeland.

Bye for now,
@IAmNicolaJayne