yozhik
20-03-2009, 04:31 AM
The 1926 Slavery Convention described slavery as;
"...the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..." Therefore a slave is someone who cannot leave an owner, master, overseer, controller, or employer without explicit permission, and who will be returned if they stray or escape. They may be legally owned or controlled to the same extent informally. Control may be accomplished through official and/or tacit arrangements with local police and other authorities — by masters who have some influence with the authorities, because of their status as landowners and/or wealthy persons.
Does anyone read that with the same sense of disgust as I do?
How does our current political and social environment not fit into that definition?
:mad:
"...the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..." Therefore a slave is someone who cannot leave an owner, master, overseer, controller, or employer without explicit permission, and who will be returned if they stray or escape. They may be legally owned or controlled to the same extent informally. Control may be accomplished through official and/or tacit arrangements with local police and other authorities — by masters who have some influence with the authorities, because of their status as landowners and/or wealthy persons.
Does anyone read that with the same sense of disgust as I do?
How does our current political and social environment not fit into that definition?
:mad: