The term "slavery," after all, is inappropriate unless a central government recognizes the right of a human being to own another and to defend that "property right."
Nothing exists in fact unless a central government has a law on the books explicitly recognizing it. I see.
If you are desperate (which you are), you could quibble with this statement. He probably should have said that it is wrong to apply the term "slavery" to the country of the Sudan, since the country doesn't condone it. Nevertheless, your intentional mistranslation gets exposed just 3 sentences later:
This has been going on for ages, he acknowledged.
Which you decided to sneer at:
Appealing to age-old tradition - why didn't antebellum American slave apologists think of this - oh wait, they did.
Obviously, "he acknowledged" doesn't mean he was justifying, as you imply. He was conceding this bad thing that does happen.
Did you know the myth of widespread African cannibalism was used to justify the commencement of Christian trafficking in slaves centuries ago. Amazing to see it's still being used to spin a favorable view of "traditional" slavery.
And here, your Judeofascist roots come out again. Clearly, Wanniski isn't justifying slavery, he is merely bothered by the fact that the media is trying to distract the public from the real problems of the Sudan - extreme poverty and starvation, to the extent that the media will fabricate stories of slavery. "It's okay to bomb the Sudan's primary pharmaceutical plant, because they're a bunch of slavers!" And here you are, once again, stoutly defending the party line.
Tom |
