A Discussion of the Rationalization of Slavery

*Ahem* Pathetically, painfully wrong. This would only be about half as amusing if you hadn't complained about "revisionist historians".Mutate and Survive

Hyro, Obviously. It's clearly one that you don't know much about though, so perhaps not the best example you could have chosen. Yes. You massively overstated it. Slaves were taken yes, but you make it sound like the entire population were enslaved. Yes I am. I am unaware of any Roman occupation of "all of what is the UK today", mostly because no such campaign ever occurred.The main problem here is that you keep bringing up examples of other cultures who behaved horribly, as though they were relevant. This, despite Rahvin very eloquently pointing out that no group's misdeeds can be expiated by the misdeeds of others. No-one was talking about Roman slavery. Roman slavery isn't the issue. American slavery is the issue, along with apologists for the same. Whatever spurious point you want to make about slavery not being based upon race, you can't make it by reference to ancient Rome.Mutate and Survive

Okay, we are agreed that you are using hyperbole. That doesn't change the fact that what you wrote was wrong. Well, you don't seem to know basic facts about Roman Britain, so... 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. 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. 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. Rahvin never claimed that slavery is not based on racism. You introduced that theme. Rahvin said this; 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