Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (12541)	3/12/2002 9:20:50 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

polyconomics.com 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." Here Wanniski was trying to argue that slavery didn't exist in the Sudan because the central government didn't authorize it. A weak argument so he switched to rhetorically defending the presence of slavery using several of the same arguments used in defense of slavery for centuries - namely 1) tradition and 2) the claim that Africans were such savages ("cannibals") that the slavery actually was an advance in civilization. As Ambassador Erwa told you, he has never seen a slave, although he knows for sure that Sudanese tribes who war with each other abduct some of those they subdue and absorb them as possessions. This has been going on for ages, he acknowledged. Indeed, this was the source of the slave trade between Africa and the American colonies in earlier centuries. It should be pointed out that that form of "slavery" was an advance in the history of civilization, over previous practices of cannibalism. What does Sudanese slavery have to do with Clinton's bombing of the aspirin factory, though? Nothing IMO.