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

[Dill]

(02-07-2018, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  So in your world: someone can resurrect an argument defending slavery, without defending slavery? 

Perhaps dude just shared his opinion to a cause of slavery; yet you insist on it being about race. Do I need to "reword" your words that attempted to make an argument about race that was not?

It's OUR world, since yours is the argument in question. You yourself have proved someone can resurrect an argument used to defend slavery without defending slavery, unless you are now going to say that you WERE defending slavery after all when you said "You used an example of the US righting a wrong that many African countries did to their own citizens." That was your statement, no rewording, right?

Sure you didn't mention race. I am just arguing that you cannot finally claim that "those people" who just happened to be black "enslaved themselves" without ultimately making race the basis of your categorization.  The people who first claimed "they" did it to "their own" were very clear that race was the basis of that claim. All of your attempts to change that basis by saying Africans were just from the same land, or somehow "countrymen" or "citizens" or part of the same "society" operate a double standard not applied to people of European heritage.  This double standard is what Bpat and Fred have brought out with counter examples. It is possible you did not realize this 30 posts back.  But it  should become ever clearer if the discussion continues dialectically.

More food for thought--what is the point of saying the institution of U.S. slavery really somehow began with black Africans rather than white Europeans--who (it is implicitly claimed) do not "enslave their own people"?  Why then frame the Civil War as righting an ultimately AFRICAN wrong? In present day U.S. what politically oriented groups think it important to make such claims?  Could you be unaware of that as well?