As i explained in other part of the thread, I am not defending slavery. The article stated that africans “could not imagine that any civilized human being could possibly believe he owned another human being.”

I was pointing out that they, in fact, did imagine this. They had a system set up for doing this. Europeans…

Thats just it, I dont understand the frustration. I didn’t come in here and scream that AFRICANS DID IT FIRST SO THAT MADE IT OKAY SO STOP HOLDING ONTO THE PAST BLARGLGLGLGLG!!!!

I was simply pointing out that Africans DID imagine people being owned by other people, and that the europeans took advantage of the system…

Originally just a guy trying to point out a part of the article that was at best a sugar coating of the truth and at worst a straight up purposeful re-imagining of history. Kinda like when russians will tell you all about the horrible stuff the nazi’s did to them, but straight up deny the horrible shit they did to…

Taking advantage of a system in place doesnt mean you leave that system untouched. Yes, European slavery and african slavery were different. But the europeans didn’t create a whole new system to acquire the slaves. They paid the africans to do what they already did (grab war prisoners, raid other villages, etc etc)…

What, in your honest opinion, is indentured servitude cranked to 11?

Again, you seem to have missed the “cranked it up to 11" bit. How exactly do you ramp up indentured servitude? You start by taking away rights, then increasing the debt/time served as a war trophy. Eventually the people become property, and the debt/time becomes practically unlimited. You then cease to feed them well,…

That’s not how free speech works. You can’t hate my first response for any reason and for any amount of time you want.

So, if i understand you correctly, any time any article or piece of an article triggers a response from someone, that response is cannot be about the article, but is in fact about the person?

I didn’t say/imply it was about me.

You should have cut that off a bit sooner.

Like I said, we cranked it up to 11. In this context, the “We could never have imagined one person could own another person” bit makes this a legitimate argument. It was imagined, because it was done. I’m not saying it validates slavery, just that it invalidates that particular argument.

Not entirely. A recent report over on jezebel showed most hospitals dont even have trained nurses for this kind of stuff, much less rape kits. If you come in about a rape, I believe they can offer to call the cops, but I dont believe they have an obligation to do so.

Even so, the person in the article wasnt raped, so…

Soo...yea...not true. I hate the idea of slavery on multiple levels, but this is a straight up lie. When Europeans landed in Africa, they pretty much took advantage of a system that was already in place. Yes, we cranked it to 11 with little regard for anything but profit and efficiency as we are wont to do, but we…