Stephen wrote:
> Treatment yes but never, I think, the justification that Africans were sub human
> so it didn't count.

I really think it was the other way around, tho. The only way you could 
justify continued slavery was to say "It's not slavery, it's property 
ownership."  I don't think most people really thought they weren't human any 
more than most religious people really believe in the promises of their 
religion.

> Although the situation in Australia might have been
> different. Australian aboriginal weren't enslaved but they were persecuted
> relentlessly with organised Abo hunts.

I have read recently where they're still considered in some laws to not be 
human. Probably for the same reasons - if they're human, you can't just take 
land away without any justification under the law, and nobody is willing to 
actually pass a law bigoted enough to just take it anyway.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message