Humility

would humility have been considered a virtue for the vedics

It depends on what one means by “humility”. “Humility” defined as a lack of arrogance, where arrogance means “overestimation of one’s ability”, would of course be a virtue in every society, since arrogance (so defined) is believing an untruth, one that can be quite dangerous not only to others but to the self. There are several “pride comes before the fall” stories in the Véda, including in the primordial slaughter of Vr̥trá, described as “emasculate yet claiming manly vigor” (Griffith on R̥V 1.32.7).

“Humility” in its original, etymological sense—lowness, meanness, submission, and the identification of the self with such qualities—is slave-behavior, as you said, and not Vedic. People have asked me about Ayn Rand and Vedism before and it is not a totally bizarre connection—it is true that the Vedic spirit is selfish, in line with the natural morality that emerges from our very genes. Of course one should look out for oneself (including one’s kin) rather than random strangers—of course the desires of random strangers do not matter as much as your own. Of course you deserve more than them, and of course you are morally justified in fighting for it and taking it by force.

The Vedic spirit is not only about goodness but about greatness, which is the opposite of humility. In addition to (or rather, as part of) satisfying one’s debts to the Gods and to the Fathers, one should achieve æternal glory by propagating one’s lineage and name forever at the expense of others’. There is nothing humble about this.

The most that can be said for any Vedic promotion of such “humility” is humility of men before the Gods, i.e. submission to the very mightiest beings in the world to Whom we owe everything. Hence we have names like Dívodāsa “slave of Heaven”. To count this as Sklavenmoral would certainly be a stretch.