Again, Rome did practiced it in large scale, not seen before in Mediterranean basin. While slavery was practiced, it differed often from what existed at Rome. Egyptian civilisation didn't knew productive slavery (while knowing domestic and penal one), Celts and Germans knew a form of domestic slavery that looked more the servile clients of Middle Ages (Islamic or Christian) than the slavery Rome had.
In mediterranean basin, I can think only of Greeks and Carthaginians (hard to say for them, as few sources were kept) that used to have enslaved "armies". And really, Rome put this at a new brand scale : regions that didn't had such (and more considered as "producing" slaves before) were "gifted" with slavery economy (Iberia being particularly interesting on this regard)
It's not only a matter of quantity, tough. Roman treatment of slaves was harsh, incredbibly harsh : Caton's opinion concerning how slaves should be treated is a good exemple.
Now, slaves were usually better treated relativly to rural ones (at the point it was a common threat to send them farming), but "magister" slaves, teacher or "familial" slaves well treated, were the minority. "Ministeri" were the majority, and less considered (prostitutes, lows works, etc.)
It went at the point that slaves revolts, that are always rare and limited in slavery societies, happened regularly and in huge numbers at the end of Republic.
So yeah, Romans created new standarts on this regard.
It doesn't mean we have to reject roman legacy (is such thing is possible) but for avoiding this to be used for more contenporary goals (colonialism and fascism are good exemples of that), whitewashing Roman history isn't going to be a wise move.