Space Bandit wrote:
Barnfish wrote:
I AM ALL I AM wrote:
.........
G'day Barnfish.
Do you have a birth certificate?
You know, with your name on it.
Did you choose the name?
Or is it a "given" name?
Not yours huh, you were 'branded' with it.
Can you have it changed at any moment of your choosing, or are you stuck with it unless you 'apply' (read beg) for permission to change it?
So, you don't even have your own name/label, you have a slaves name, a 'given' name ... but you have a 'wage'.
Now, it appears that you are stating that your points have no emphasis on their own and require "hyperbole" to provide the emphasis that they lack. Which actually shows that you recognise the lack of emphasis of your points. Thank you for admitting to that.
I am a slave because my parents chose my name
Hyperbole means I have no emphasis
It's actually more about the registering of slaves & how it bears great similarity to the registering of chattel slaves.
G'day Space Bandit.
The 'owners' need to differentiate between 'your' slave and 'my' slave, which the labeling, the 'given' name, is applied like a brand so as to make the differentiation. Once named, if you wander out of the paddock they will know which paddock to send you back to.
The correlation with the branding of animals is so obvious that it is surprising that some deny it when it is pointed out.
Agreed.
A Review of the Colonial Registration Acts
Quote:
“It will be enough for your satisfaction, that your suggestions have certainly given birth to the colonial Registries of Slaves; in other words, to the only system that can effectually and permanently exclude the Slave Trade from the British Colonies, and thereby lay a sure foundation for humane improvements in the exercise of the master's power, and in the general condition of the Slave Population.”
but wasn't slavery supposed to have been abolished??
Quote:
"The difficulties would not even end here. But without any further enumeration of them, it will be manifest that either the main pillar of the system must be plucked away, and its whole executory principle renounced, by absolving planters from the necessity of shewing to future purchasers and mortgagees a registered title to their Slaves; or else this single defect must be to them an intolerable evil, as producing a virtual incapacity to alienate their property, or raise money on their estates."
registered title, purchasers, mortgages, property, raise money … commerce and banking seem to be the primary focus on a practice – slavery – which is supposedly abolished??
Quote:
“ … if it be considered that so long as the importation of Slaves from one British colony into another shall be permitted by law, it will be necessary to allow a certified registration in one island as a sufficient title to registration
in any other, to which the Slave may be sent with a regular customhouse
clearance.
Such were the provisions of the Parliamentary Register Bill; and the Colonial Acts of course are not less indulgent to proprietors of Slaves.
It follows, therefore, that if the Registry of a single island is so corruptly or negligently managed, as to admit with facility the introduction of smuggled Negroes from Africa, or from the foreign colonies, they may be transferred
think of; passports, visas, arrival/entry cards and registration upon arrival with Internal Affairs
of the receiving country.
>
also consider that passports used to be a document only used during wartime. Since WWII this was 'forgotten' and they have now become a permanent fixture. Why?
The emergence of the United Nations, which was the emergence of the 'global plantation';
the evolution of 'lawful slavery' from independent nations to member nations of a global empire.
All the evidence is there. If people don't want to acknowledge it it's just cognitive dissonance.
