Well, yes, in general. If a slave knew how to do something that was of extra value to their owner/master, and hard to replace, then it is possible that they might be granted more leniency and flexibility than another slave that might be easier to replace. Depending on the owner though, all slaves could be working with a fear motivation and punished regularly for disobedience. In other cases, an owner would treat slaves more like family, having grown up with them... expecting deference, but also allowing for personalities and the occasional refusal. Also, in general, slaves were a large investment, and theirs lives typically wouldn't be thrown away for nothing... skilled slaves, especially with skills where they could be in the house during the day rather than in the fields, might help them to learn more and survive or even escape, depending on the circumstance.
Skilled slaves may have had some advantages over others, such as better treatment or access to certain privileges due to their abilities. However, they were still ultimately bound by the limitations and oppression of slavery, depriving them of their freedom and basic human rights.
Spartans viewed other Greeks as inferior and lacking in the rigorous training and discipline that they valued. They considered themselves to be the most courageous and skilled warriors in Greece.
Europeans believed they had the right to take slaves during the Age of Exploration due to a combination of economic motives, a sense of racial superiority, and the belief that they were bringing civilization to inferior societies. This justification allowed them to exploit and subjugate people from other continents for their own benefit.
William Blount believed that slaves should be counted as part of the population for the purpose of determining representation in Congress and for the allocation of taxes. He supported the Three-Fifths Compromise, where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for these purposes.
Slaves generally did not view slavery positively; they experienced it as a brutal and dehumanizing system that deprived them of their freedom and basic human rights. Many slaves longed for freedom and revolted against their enslavement whenever possible. Ultimately, slavery was a form of exploitation that oppressed and marginalized the enslaved individuals.
In the antebellum South, slaves were seen as crucial for the economy and maintaining the societal structure based on agriculture. Slavery was deeply ingrained in the South's culture and economy, with many viewing enslaved people as essential for their way of life and livelihood. The economic prosperity of the region relied heavily on the labor provided by slaves.
Slaves used various methods to communicate with each other, such as through verbal messages spoken quietly, using coded language, creating songs with hidden messages, and using secret meeting spaces called "hush harbors". They relied on their resourcefulness and ingenuity to establish connections and support each other in difficult circumstances.
Russia I think. They had even more slaves than America!
I think it means "professionally skilled".
Yes, African people are still slaves, there are people that control people that are not that powerful, because they think that just because they have more power then the other people, they think that they can control them, so you always have to remember that African people are not then only people that are slaves, in other countrys there are slaves too. Alway REMEMBER, that there are MANY slaves around the WORLD. :) Thxx :)
i think it was slaves (yeah it was slaves)
they passed slaves sdown from one to the other....a chain. think of it as gossip
Yes Being that slaves where people they do think. They thought about freedom.
Well I think that they didn't have slaves
The ancient Greek historian and traveller Herodotus (c.450BC) was told that 100,000 slaves toiled in the blazing sun for twenty years to build the Great Pyramid of king Khufu. Modern estimates range from about 4,000 to 30,000. Some say that they were all slaves; others a mixed workforce of skilled free workers and slave labourers; or skilled workers and peasant farmers conscripted during the inundation of the Nile when work on the land was not possible. What do you think?
i think it was 31 slaves
No, slaves did not work for money. Slaves were forced to work without pay and were considered property of their owners. Any compensation they received was determined by their owners and not based on wages or fair labor practices.
slaves thought the war was brutal and they did not want to be a part of it.