Okay, we are agreed that you are using hyperbole. That doesn't change the fact that what you wrote was wrong.
You couldn't possibly have deduced as much in two brief sentences.
Well, you don't seem to know basic facts about Roman Britain, so...
For all intents and purposes, Britain was under the control of Roman legions under various caeser's for a long, long time.
Again, no. Most of Britain, not all of Britain, as DA has noted, the Empire only extended to Hadrian's Wall during most of the Roman period. Certainly, not all of modern Britain, since the Romans never conquered any part of Ireland.
Again, it is hyperbole and obviously so.
There's a difference between hyperbole and just plain wrong. If you are trying to make a point, perhaps it might be an idea to use
facts instead of hyperbole. You could further refine this practise by choosing only
relevant facts. Just a thought.
This of course does not mean there were not resistance groups active, or resistance leaders like Boudicca, and it does not mean that no one was unable to escape to the countryside.
You miss the point. During the Roman presence there were many free Britons who did very well from Roman rule. It wasn't a choice between slavery or hiding out in the woods. Again, you are painting with a ludicrously broad brush, with the intention of making a point and mangling history in the process. This is pretty ironic for someone who complained about revisionist history.
I was simply agreeing with Rahvin that European misdeeds existed, to show that slavery and racism do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Rahvin never claimed that slavery is not based on racism. You introduced that theme. Rahvin said this;
Rahvin writes:
In the context of slavery in the US, is the enslavement of human beings on the basis of the color of their skin more or less justified if slavery was also practiced in Native American and African cultures?
You agreed with his Rahvin, but then diverged into a spurious point about how race and slavery are not connected. Again, this is completely irrelevant, since we are not talking whether all slavery is based on race. Besides, it's quite clear that in the US, slavery and racism absolutely did go "hand in hand".
Mutate and Survive