4 ms·
Yes. And there are enough places in the world where the "slaveowners" were those who, if I'd named them, I'd be immediately considered here as a "racist" for ju
by acqq 6y ago
Yes. And there are enough places in the world where the "slaveowners" were those who, if I'd named them, I'd be immediately considered here as a "racist" for just mentioning the historical fact.
So... I guess we all have to learn that there are more contexts than just one.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago> And there are enough places in the world where the "slaveowners" were those who, if I'd named them, I'd be immediately considered here as a "racist" for just mentioning the historical fact. You're clearly hinting at something specific, though I don't know what it is. Mind explaining?
- eitland 6y agoTry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
- acqq 6y agoAlso try to figure out why would the current derogatory term for slaves in South Africa have its origin in the word meaning "the unbeliever" in Arabic, i.e. one who's not an adherent of certain religion, as used in their religious texts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(racial_term)#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(racial_term)#Etymology Or that it wasn't an accident that the founder of the said religion, the eternal "role model", was a slaveowner himself.