Some historians believe that there were great benefits for enslaved people becoming a part of Mesopotamian households. How does this theory compare with other historians’ thoughts?(1 point) Responses Other historians believe that great benefits came from owning businesses or selling their own goods. Other historians believe that great benefits came from owning businesses or selling their own goods. Other historians believe that being accepted into a poor household could help foreign captives move up in society. Other historians believe that being accepted into a poor household could help foreign captives move up in society. Other historians believe that the benefits were not similar to the benefits free members of a household had. Other historians believe that the benefits were not similar to the benefits free members of a household had. Other historians believe that enslaved people were treated more like servants.

The theory that there were great benefits for enslaved people becoming a part of Mesopotamian households contrasts with other historians’ opinions in several ways. While some historians suggest that integration into households could offer enslaved individuals certain advantages—such as stability, access to resources, or potential social mobility—others argue that these benefits were not comparable to those enjoyed by free members of the household.

Furthermore, there is a perspective that focuses on the idea that enslaved individuals might have been treated more like servants rather than enjoying significant rights or benefits. Others also assert that economic opportunities, such as owning businesses or selling goods, provided a different pathway for enhancement of social status that might not have been available through household integration.

Overall, the debate reflects a range of interpretations regarding the lived experiences of enslaved individuals in Mesopotamian society, with varying views on the extent and nature of the benefits they could potentially derive from their situations.