11/22/2002: The Petersburg Orchid

juju · 11-25-2002, 02:38 PM

The fact that people enjoy having pets has nothing to do with the morality of it. Again, whites enjoyed having black slaves. Many times there would be a black woman that cooked dinner, cleaned, and generally took care of the house. Though they were servants, they were considered part of the family. Love doesn't negate the dominant/submission pattern.

I'm trying to define slavery as being confined in one place and being restricted in your actions (aka house arrest), although the addition of a physical labor requirement does seem like it would make the definition more sane. So I could see pets as not being slaves as long as they aren't doing labor, but then horses and mules would definitely be considered slaves.

Still, just because "they like it", that doesn't make it not slavery. That has been used an excuse for slavery nearly every time it has occurred.

11-25-2002, 02:38 PM	#11
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	The fact that people enjoy having pets has nothing to do with the morality of it. Again, whites enjoyed having black slaves. Many times there would be a black woman that cooked dinner, cleaned, and generally took care of the house. Though they were servants, they were considered part of the family. Love doesn't negate the dominant/submission pattern. I'm trying to define slavery as being confined in one place and being restricted in your actions (aka house arrest), although the addition of a physical labor requirement does seem like it would make the definition more sane. So I could see pets as not being slaves as long as they aren't doing labor, but then horses and mules would definitely be considered slaves. Still, just because "they like it", that doesn't make it not slavery. That has been used an excuse for slavery nearly every time it has occurred.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)