…I think it kinda goes without saying that , perhaps with a very few notable exceptions, satirical television shows are not necessarily renown for their historical, scientific, or anecdotal accuracy.

That being said, in my own experience at least, such pseudo-historical references in comedy in particular have spurred me on to independent investigation as to what they were on about, exactly.

I’d say that the slapdash integrity is a feature, rather than a bug, since it is implicit in the format that a certain fraction of the assertions made will be bullocks cheese. This spurs curiosity and is also an excellent comedic mechanism.

It would be interesting, however, to have a backdrop of steadfast historical “accuracy “ in an otherwise pseudo-slapstick context a-la Monty pythons flying circus. That was kinda part of the gig, but it might be even funnier if they obviously took that aspect with unflinching seriousness.

As for the Roman Empire, I’d dare say that in slavery they were contemporary with most societies of their day, and I think to imply that their use of slavery somehow diminishes their contribution to global cultural heritage is not only disingenuous, but also smacks of some kind of pointless reflexive regurgitation of a partisan talking point or conformance/virtue signaling. It kinda undermines your point.

Ultimately, there are probably very few, if any, living humans that cannot trace their cultural heritage to slavery, slave ownership, perpetrators horrific atrocities, genocide, human rights violations, war crimes, and violent crimes against women, children, and humanity in general. What matters is what -you- chose to do. Be known for the fruit of your tree, and not as the product of the hill from which you sprout.

Poe never wrote "Quoth the raven, eat my shorts", but I suspect an order of magnitude or two more people are aware of that poem thanks to The Simpsons, compare to all the poetry teachers ever.

> It would be interesting, however, to have a backdrop of steadfast historical “accuracy “ in an otherwise pseudo-slapstick context a-la Monty pythons flying circus. That was kinda part of the gig, but it might be even funnier if they obviously took that aspect with unflinching seriousness.

That can get super grim too.

I saw (maybe read?) an interview with Margaret Attwood about The Handmaids Tale. She took the atrocities committed by Gilead very seriously - and did not make a single one of them up. Every one of them was something historically accurate that really happened somewhere in the world.

> in slavery they were contemporary with most societies of their day

> Ultimately, there are probably very few, if any, living humans that cannot trace their cultural heritage to slavery

Indeed. Historically, for most of human civilization, chattel slavery was a linchpin of most societies. The Romans were unremarkable in this respect.

And if I may take a long digression to emphasize just how normal chattel slavery was for not only the ancient world, but for centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it took Christianity to mount a challenge to this practice. It gave us a robust notion of the Imago Dei and human dignity, and a recognition of the evil of unjust servitude (which must be distinguished from just title servitude). Ancient Christians, having been born into a pagan world of entrenched and ubiquitous slavery, while believing that slavery was indeed evil, recognized that its abolition was impossible and impractical at the time. Of course, membership in the Church was open to everyone equally; social status had no significance. After Christianity's legalization under Constantine, the Church worked to free slaves and eventually managed to eradicate the practice in Europe. A former slave even became pope (Callistus I).

Some will point to chattel slavery in the New World, but this confuses what the Church as an institution held with what individual Catholics or Protestants did. Eugenius IV, prompted by slavery in the Canary Islands, condemned slavery in the papal bull Sicut Dudum in 1435, threatening excommunication. In 1537, Paul III issued Sublimus Dei to condemn enslavement of the natives of the Americas. In 1591, Gregory XIV promulgated Cum Sicuti to counter the practice in the Philippines. Urban VIII promulgated Commissum Nobis in 1639 in support of Philip IV's edict prohibiting the enslavement of American natives. Benedict XIV, in his 1741 document Immensa Pastorum, reminded that the penalty for enslaving the indigenous was excommunication.

Similar condemnations were issued regarding the Atlantic slave trade by Innocent XI, Gregory XVI (In Supremo, 1839), and Leo XIII in two bulls condemning slavery in 1888 and 1890. The condemnations were often so harsh that their publication was often forbidden without royal approval.

And we credit the abolitionists of and from the Christian West for politically ending the practice in their various respective jurisdictions that fell under Western rule. Their appeals were grounded in the general heritage of the Christian tradition and its understanding of the human person, whatever theological or philosophical differences there might have been between them.

> What matters is what -you- chose to do. Be known for the fruit of your tree, and not as the product of the hill from which you sprout.

Wise words. History ought to be remembered, and unresolved historical trauma should be addressed and resolved lest it fester (reasonable justice and remembrance matter; without truth, there is no authentic reconciliation or unity), but to stew perpetually in stomach-churning grievance over what someone else's ancestors did to your ancestors (often overlapping groups, btw) only succeeds in wasting the short time we have in this life and contributes nothing to it. It's an excellent method of self-sabotage.