Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2018, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You go with the fact that rival tribes that occupy the same land cannot be part of the society and I will go with they can. I will also suggest that there were a number of slaves sold into slavery by there very own tribes to pay off debts, punishment for crimes ect... 

Of course you can feel free to call it promoting gross negligence if you wish. When I was in Afghanistan warring neighbors would fight each other depending on what warlord they served. In Bosnia I witnessed the atrocities that Serbs did to Bosniaks, but they were all part of the same society and same citizenship. Just because the Jets didn't like the Sharks doesn't mean they were not the same.

It is nothing like the French and Germans, but I will refrain from calling that correlation gross ignorance; simply one, which with, I disagree. 

   

This is called an anachronism. You're applying a modern concept (citizenship based on your country) to slave trade era Africa. The thing is, their society was based on the family unit or tribe. There was not "country". A neighboring tribe, just because they're close by, would not have been the same society. You wouldn't consider someone from that tribe a "citizen" of your tribe or "your own people". Even if they had a shared ethnic background, this did not play a role outside of any sort of alliance or the few kingdoms that existed at that particular time. 

This is why coastal people mostly went inland for slaves. They weren't their own. Sure, a minority of slaves were criminals and there was indentured servitude (which is different from slavery), but not enough to promote the repeated historical inaccuracy you're trying to push as a point.