Austin,

Thanks for the hearty engagement. No doubt, there are differences between slavery in ancient Palestine and in 1800s America. But I am hesitant to paint slavery in Palestine at this time in this more positive light, particularly because of the slave owner's response in the parable itself (and others in the NT) that indicate that harsh physical abuse was acceptable. Slaves in this time were still property and were still, by and large, exploited. A few favored servants in this time would be more equivalent to the so-called house slaves in the 1800s in which many slave owners assumed, like in Leviticus, that their house slaves loved them so much that they would want to continue to serve rather than be free or submit themselves willing to be a life-long slave. 

That kind of thinking is dangerous and comes often from the position of the powerful. Indeed, American history is littered with the narrative that slaves loved their masters and were better off with them. 

Plus, I'm not interested in a race to the bottom over which slavery exploited humans more, just like I'm not interested in the (academic) debate over which was worse American slavery or the holocaust. It's an invidious comparison. It's bad, and that's enough for me.

I think the Parable of the Bridesmaids, too, demands to a new look, as I've written about here: http://religionatthemargins.com/2011/11/breaking-of-the-bridesmaids-a-parable-for-patience-justice-and-occupy-protests/. 

Peace