On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:52:03 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>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.
>

You are right (of course ;) it went from slavery to property but still holding
on to "slavery". That is one of the marvellous things about humanity, the
ability to believe two contradictory things at the same time. 

>> 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.

Probably, I can imagine not all the laws were repealed especially when you don't
want to talk about it.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message