Zimbabwe's latest crisis

Thats all very well but im not sure why you want to continue a discussion about slavery when it was your tribe [Whites] that exported it to every continent and conceived its most heinous form, RBCS, that was the foundation of america, created by the queendom OF england. the english colonies in america were based around RBCS which were codified. It was written then and remains via the 13th amendment

 

Well, not sure if white people were the 'first' to export it - truth be told white people
INVENTED global travel, and that would be the only reason they were the first to
send slaves around the world.
If Bantus invented a blue water navy they would have gone off to Mexico, no doubt,
and began bringing Aztec slaves back - the very people who enslaved most of Mexico.

But there was the Arab slave trade, roaming along the European coastlines, snatching
most young people (particularly women) and selling them in the Arab slave markets.
A few million white people wound up in these markets.

Slavery has nothing to do with the color someone's skin. It's more down to circumstances
and opportunities.

 

Thats all very well but your tribe [whites] exported this most wicked enterprise around the globe. You made slaves in all of your global colonies, something nobody has ever or will ever achieve due to genetics. Are you proud of this because you seem to be ignoring its impact around the globe?

 

Captured Romans were sold to the Chinese by Parthia as slaves.
Scandinavian children were sold into Arab slave markets.
Slaves and colonies and empires and human sacrifices are all a part
of humanity's past - now there's two African and one Caribbean nation
that still practice slavery, plus the poor Muslims in China having do to
forced labor and re-education. I think if you were GENUINE in your
concerns you wouldn't go around bashing people for things they never
did and focus upon those have slaves RIGHT NOW.

 

Thas all very well, slaves were everywhere so were slavemasters but youre over looking the obvious dilemma here, which is that your tribe, whites, conceived a new heinuous form of slavery that legally condemned a person to hereditary slavery on the premise of their skin colour. This is a most perverse diversion from any previous form. That you brush this under the rug leads one to imagine its a most proud scheme ever conceived. Is that so?

 

In Rome it didn't matter what skin color you had to be a slave. Many
slaves come from Carthage or Spain or France.
I doubt Africans or Arabs would allow the children of slaves to go free,
so that we 'hereditary' slavery too.
Let's face it - it's a human thing, not a British or French thing. We are
all guilty of being human.

 

Thas all very well, slaves were everywhere so were slavemasters but youre over looking the obvious dilemma here, which is that your tribe, whites, conceived a new heinuous form of slavery that legally condemned a person to hereditary slavery on the premise of their skin colour. This is a most perverse diversion from any previous form.

 

This is fun ilike it...

 

Descent-based slavery - Anti-Slavery International

(Heritary) based slavery describes a situation where people are born into slavery because their ancestors
were captured into slavery and their families have ‘belonged’ to the slave-owning families ever since. Slave
status is passed down the maternal line.
This form of slavery can still be found across the Sahel belt of Africa, including Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Chad
and Sudan. Many other African societies also have a traditional hierarchy where people are known to be the
descendants of slaves or slave-owners.

Did Africans teach whites the art of slavery?

 

Thas all very well, slaves were everywhere so were slavemasters but youre over looking the obvious dilemma here, which is that your tribe, whites, conceived a new heinuous form of slavery that legally condemned a person to hereditary slavery on the premise of their skin colour.

 

Zzzzzz

 

Is that why Arabs enslaved Europeans, because of their skin color?
Were Romans okay with slavery because most of them were white?

 

Roman slaves were a vast mix of colours plus no decree on skin colour. Arabs enslaved whites and blacks with no decree on skin BUT YOUR TRIBE made it explicit IN THEIR LAW that anybody with black skin will be enslaved. Only YOUR PRIDE allows you to overlook this. That is the hallmark of a white supremecist. You should be grateful igive you the time of day given your refusal to accept this historic fact

 

There were many kinds of 'black' people in America, including Indians from
sub continent of India - such 'black' people continue to do very well in the USA.
Arabs could not keep fellow Arabs as slaves if they were Muslim, I understand.
The rules would vary with every ethnic group which wanted to own slaves.
And why do you not have a problem with slavery in Africa today?

 

So now you are pretending that slaves were NOT property?

Sad!

 

The arrogance of ignorance is patently obvious in the above content.

Did the aboriginees have to hang around in Africa WAITING until AFTER the "white people invented global travel" in order to get to Australia?

Sad!

 

You are right, but wrong. It's all in the definitions.
The English explorer Mallory died on Mt Everest - did he make the summit,
and beat Hillary? He can't have - to successfully 'climb' a mountain you have
to return alive.
And the North American Indians didn't technically 'discover' America - they
migrated there. To 'discover' means to discover for mankind - not just go there
yourself.
Australian aborigines, and those who likely were before them, did not open
the continent to the world. They technically just migrated there.

 

Slaves by definition, I suppose, are always property. And they still are in a few African countries.

 

SEMANTIC quibbling now? ;eek:

The term discover means to find something previously unknown or unseen. There is ZERO requirement to inform others of your discovery.

It is the height of ARROGANCE to CLAIM to have "discovered" a place that is already POPULATED by other people.

Do YOU brag to your friends that you DISCOVERED this forum on July 4, 2018?

 

Thank you for conceding that your position was 100% incorrect.

 

I am just working from the technical definitions. Many people will make their own definitions,
ie the headlines, "Did Mallory Beat Hillary to Mount Everest?" is a common one. But we all
know what they mean - did Mallory reach the summit? It's the same with who was the first to
fly, many nations quibble over the issue but generally avoid the technical definition, that is,
'sustained and controlled flight.'

Your point would be interesting in the hypothetical. Some scientist 'discovers' intelligent life
on another planet - but how could he if said aliens were already on this planet? Maybe it can
never be possible to 'discover' life of any sort, because even the humble bacteria on Mars
'knows' it is there already.

 

Not only that but it is now believed they may have been the first people in the America's

Australian Aborigines: first people in the Americas? - The Science Show - ABC Radio National
First Americans were Black according to BBC documentary - Originalpeople.org

Boats which would have allowed this have been found in Australia!

 

Nope!

You are INVENTING definitions to cover up your flailing.

 

Yeah sure, just like Hillary did when he told reporters he 'wasn't concerned' that
Mallory beat him to the summit, "because the definition of scaling a mountain
successfully is getting back safely."
And maybe Lawrence Hargrave REALLY was the first to 'fly' with his box kites
in about 1895.
No wonder everyone argues. Sigh...

 

Global travel doesn't mean trekking to some distant point and never returning.
It means the whole world, cognizant of distant shores, can freely move around
the globe.