beige or ivory color wears for bridesmaid


CNN tried well well - but the question I do not hear anyone asking is this: Is what was reported as going down in Libya really slavery? Or are we giving something very base and mindless the name of 'Slavery" so as to feed a narrative concerning slavery that CNN and its preferred ideologues want everyone of us to embrace?

The one that keeps making us mentally, bitter slaves, ever fighting to break bonds that no longer exist in the forms in which we believe them?

True: slavery is not heir-ship to a vast and wealthy estate or the good life of the free and trust-fund heeled: but slavery is not what it is projected to be.

Historically, warts and all, slavery had both its benign and malignant forms in a fallen world. Good people had slaves. Bad people had slaves. Not to grasp that is to entirely miss the mark.

Historically, many families and individuals only survived and subsequently thrived because there was a LEGAL status that they could still be allowed to occupy instead of being deemed totally dispensable. Starters: think about those men and women captured after war - or even in battle before all those United Nations Convention on treatment of war prisoners were developed (forget enforcement).

You may hate slavery all you want, but for too many, embracing that status temporarily or for a life time has been the route through which hope - or the gene of their family, community, generation were secured.

Slavery for the poorly informed may be all about indignities - a total loss of humanity fit only for the absolute and irredeemable cowards, yet in truth, it has also been the path through which brave-hearts, noble and wise legends have been preserved for the earth.

One day, the real face and story of slavery would be told - even the one suffered by our kith and kin in Europe, North America and the West Indies: but for now, let's keep suffering the one story narrative that despises the heroics and noble acts of so many slave owners (black and white) who loved, accommodated, secured and sometimes bequeathed a future to strangers they went out of their way to purchase. Today, to just say that family once owned 'slaves' is to taint its genes past and present in our well brainwashed minds. Even if merely an intervention to prevent wicked slave owners from adding to their slavish house of horror - or to give a home to those poor humans whom no slave merchant seized by mercantile motives was prepared to buy at any price whatsoever (and so were prepared to allow to die by exposure to the elements). beige or ivory color wears for bridesmaid

But? the difference between slavish and lavish is an "s" - for self-government. It takes a heightened/well-anchored or delusional sense of self-governance to dare to take on the full and legal governance of another human being.

Back to Libya. What you have is an underground circuit of the desperate ready to suffer anything in the hope that they can win the lottery, at the expense of others to enter Europe. Period. That's not slavery. That may include the conditions approximating to those under which human beings were once captured for subsequent trading and immersion in slavehood, but that is not slavery: same way, grinding of beans does not make akara.

To have slavery, you need to have a clear legal order: legitimate and open. With an enforcement power behind it. That does not appear to be the case. Libya may be a failed state and all: but even whatever government it has surely has no legal framework legitimating those acts. So, at best, what is happening are criminal acts of Lords of the underworld leveraging the failed nation status of Libya.

Again, to have slavery, there must be a market affected by demand and supply of human commodities - one where slavery is propped up on a real economic considerations so as to satisfy certain deficient factors of production. For instance, there is a slave market for babies favoured by CNN and its supporters in the pro-abortion movement. That movement thrives in empowering mothers to evacuate their babies into the arms of terrible slave-masters who then kill and use the baby parts for Frankenstein ventures.

That baby enslaving market has a key feature of even ancient slave markets: need driven competitiveness but it uses the monopoly of its well established cartels to then oust another key component of ancient markets which helped to retain some humanity within its harsh borders: the involvement of both humane and inhumane potential slave owners. To put it in very hash lights, just imagine how many babies would be saved if every pregnancy by a mother set on abortion were allowed public auction by whosoever will? Do you know how many couples with loving homes will happily pay to ensure that many of such children get a chance to transit from foetus-dom into childhood?

If you think about it, it would not be so shocking to recall that there were surely good and bad slave owners. That doesn't exist here (in Libya). Fact: some slave owners are on record to have provided so much more comforts than over 99% of employers today or nanny/maid service users respectively would imagine themselves providing: accommodation, feeding, employment, community, pension, and in some cases, training and education to the slave (and even their families).

In the main, what we have in Libya is an underground world of the voluntary even if temporarily zombied: human beings who have been sold such a religion of hope that their very redemption lay in reaching Europe that they have like the central character in Pilgrim's Progress disowned their everything - their humanity, dignity - while taking a bloody vow of suffering and if need be, self-immolation, in order to attain their own heaven here on earth.