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

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2018, 08:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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. 

As I said, you are free to consider these members of warring tribes to not be of the same society, just don't claim "gross ignorance" when someone asserts they were all part of the same society; perhaps even the Songhai Empire.

Could be that you re using modern concepts of society or citizens to dispute the words used. 

The point made was that African people enslaved themselves and sent many of them to America where less that 100 years after our creation we fought to free them from that slavery. While another poster tried to paint our fighting for the freedom to paint the US as a Nation in a negative light.

If Germans enslaved French and sold them; would it be fair to say Europeans sold their own into slavery?  

Would you consider these tribes that rely on shared resources to be part of the same society?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/thousands-massacred-as-two-tribes-go-to-war-in-south-sudan-6286342.html