Final answer:
The concept of benefits for enslaved people in Mesopotamian households does not uniformly compare with other historians' views, as enslaved individuals' experiences varied greatly across different cultures and time periods.
Step-by-step explanation:
Historians' perspectives on the benefits of enslaved people becoming part of Mesopotamian households vary. Some suggest that while enslaved people became part of the households, they didn't enjoy benefits comparable to the free members (Answer C). While in some ancient societies like in Africa, enslaved individuals could own property and even rise in the social hierarchy, this was not a uniform benefit across all ancient civilizations. For instance, in the Southern United States, some theorists justified slavery based on the alleged civilizing effects and inherent superiority of the slaveholders, which contrasts with the idea of enslaved people achieving benefits through integration into households.
In Hittite society, the situation for enslaved people differed significantly; they were considered chattel and property without rights, often sold at will, primarily used for agricultural labor to free up citizens for military duties. This context highlights that the perceived benefits of being enslaved in a household greatly depended upon the specific time, place, and social structure. Being part of a household could sometimes lead to integration and certain freedoms, but this was far from an absolute, and the condition of slavery in other regions, like the Southern U.S., was often justified by flawed theories of racial superiority and paternalism.