Were African slaves in America "significantly deprived" or just "deprived".
Taken away from their homelands by force to a different continent, using a technology that they couldn't replicate to get back? Forced to work in specific locations, and if they ran away, they were hunted down and brought back? Sold as objects for labour?
Is this a serious question? How much more 'significant' does it need to be before it reaches your theoretical bar? What's the gray area that you see that means they might not be defined as slaves?
Oh, no, I guess I didn’t express myself properly. It is obvious that they were slaves. I was asking if the significant would actually be necessary in that case. And if it wouldn't be, what is significant implying in this definition? Does current slavery allow for more personal liberties that old fashion slavery.
Comments
Were African slaves in America "significantly deprived" or just "deprived".
Taken away from their homelands by force to a different continent, using a technology that they couldn't replicate to get back? Forced to work in specific locations, and if they ran away, they were hunted down and brought back? Sold as objects for labour?
Is this a serious question? How much more 'significant' does it need to be before it reaches your theoretical bar? What's the gray area that you see that means they might not be defined as slaves?
Oh, no, I guess I didn’t express myself properly. It is obvious that they were slaves. I was asking if the significant would actually be necessary in that case. And if it wouldn't be, what is significant implying in this definition? Does current slavery allow for more personal liberties that old fashion slavery.