<At least Tom and other slave owners didn't eat their slaves>
Sugar plantations, in the Caribbean and U.S. South, always had a death rate higher than their birth rate, due to the extremely harsh working/living conditions. So they required a constant infusion of fresh slaves. If you work slaves to death, to grow food for export, how is that different than eating the slaves directly?
Today, the rich world spends $300B/Y on agricultural subsidies, which beggars farmers in the world's poorest nations. $100B$/Y each, for the U.S., EU, and Japan. The result is chronic malnutrition and intermittent famine for a billion Others. How is that different, from directly butchering them, and serving them for dinner in our homes?
"Kids, for supper today, we're having Kentucky-fried Niger cotton farmer, and a side dish of mashed Cuban sugar farmer. Brazilian desert (fresh kids from the streets of Sao Paulo). I got the recipe from a Maori cook-book."
You shall know the tree by its fruit. |