I don’t think you understand what abolitionism is. Abolitionism isn’t “Individuals don’t want to be slaves”, abolitionism is the idea that slavery, as a facet of society, should be abolished.
Notably, Sparatacus’s rebellion, which is often cited by such views, enslaved numerous people in their rampage across the Italian peninsula.
This is not a revisionist view. Ironically, the view being presented, of the timelessness of abolitionism, is itself revisionist and, for that matter, extremely fringe.
I wonder if modern china teaches spartacus and french revolution
The French Revolution would be a hard one for them to miss. Even accounting for Eurocentric biases, the French Revolution is a pretty major event.
Spartacus, probably not. Even from a Western standpoint the impact is mostly in cultural references rather than the way it affected the course of history.
Huge problem I’ve been seeing among European classical archaeologists. They keep labeling the slave quarter in Roman Villas as “servants quarters” or “residential space”
Like no dog that’s where they kept the fucking slaves
You know that lewis black FOSSIL bit ? I just wanna do that with SPARTACUS.
And then i throw him just over their head
(Not to mention that like most slaver cultures before the US got their hands on it the Romans had multiple and indeed expected ways a slave could become a free citizen)
Not to take the side of American chattel slavery but it did too. What was unique about the Atlantic trade model of slavery, and pretending it was only USians engaging in it is its own revisionism btw, was the racial ideology that grew out of the need for monsters to self justify it.
Tribalist justification was nothing new to slavery but the growth of “race science” was unique.
Well, you see, the slaves weren’t part of society
/s
