In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:
Of course, there was all the even stranger legislation in the ealry half
of the c19th, when people were banning the trade, but not slavery, or
vice versa.

Or abolishing it in the home country but not in colonies abroad. Most of
that odd-sounding legislation came from abolitionists who lacked the
political clout to meet the problem head-on, but did have enough to nibble
away at its edges, in hopes of curtailing the worst practices, limiting
slavery's growth, and eroding its general political support.

(Nasty though slavery was in general, the trans-Atlantic slave trade was
easily its ugliest part. The home country typically had few slaves and
much anti-slavery activism, while the colonies had extensive slave-based
agriculture and fewer abolitionists. And so forth.)

You're going to have to explain why 1945 was so magic. If you're
including servitude to governments as "slavery", bear in mind that most of
the Allied troops who liberated Europe were conscripts...

I believe he would be referring to the significant amounts of slave
labour used in Germany...

Oh, that was pretty obvious, but it strikes me as a fallacious argument,
since slave labor for the government was common in all nations in that
war, and since. That's not usually deemed to be "slavery", since it lacks
some of the customary features of slavery and is usually dressed up in
patriotic rhetoric. ("Those Japanese-Americans just can't be trusted.")
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |