Hideous News

They were free by the standards of the day. If you watch the video, which examines papyrus scripts, you'll find one "slave" absented himself for the day to brew beer. How many African slaves could do that?

They still didn't build the pyramids.

Your documentary is narrated by an anonymous dalek.

Everyone's heard of Monty Python.

I think you are mincing words.

Perhaps I am doing that also. I may be an expert at mincing words too.

Slaves are slaves even when paid meager wages.

My point is that all races are complicit in the crime of slavery.

No race has been immune from the scourge.

Black people perfected the art of it in Egypt and whites also partook greatly in the inhumane, ungodly (though condoned in the Bible) practice of slavery.

Retribution belongs the common people as a collective whole.

The aristocracy is to blame in both cases.

Notice I blamed pharaohs and not a race.

I only used the N word because it seems people harp on it as if it is only a disease that white people are prone to.

Obviously not...

I'm pointing out that one source is more credible than the other.

Thomas Jefferson had children by a slave... is that the same as allowing a slave to make beer?

Sharing your genes makes slavery seem a bit voided too.

There were probably also Egyptian slaves that were beaten to death.

Slaves are slaves no matter which color their skin.

The practice of slavery was well preserved even in biblical times.

The Romans has slaves too... what you are saying is actually, excuse the phrase and no personal offence meant, "rubbish"...

I voted your posts up because I like you Izzy

Free by the standard of the day? lol

Only half owned!

Romans 8:36
As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Your point was not originally about slavery, but about the pyramids. The men who built the pyramids did so in the agricultural off season. Most of the time they were tending their own fields.

They were stakeholders in a religious hierarchy.

Why is the idea of a pharaoh or monarch so repellent to you? At least a monarch had some obligation to his people, todays super rich have none.

And they act like it too.

You seem to live in an idyllic fantasy...

Apparently the monarch had less concern for slaves than than their religious counterparts...

Otherwise, so many slaves would not have given themselves so cheaply to the temple avoid the monarch's servitude.

I'm not the one living in an idyllic fantasy. You're the one having difficulty dealing with preconceptions which is why your ruling aristocracy a doing so well right now.

I'm not saying the Egyptians didn't have slaves, just that the slaves didn't build the pyramids.

Also you have problems distinguishing between slaves and subjects. And, you insist on judging an ancient civilisation by today's standards which is absurd.

Today's standards are measured by the same conscience as those of the not so distant past.

I wouldn't describe the pharaohs as not so distant.

Many religious Americans consider the pyramids to be very ancient indeed as they also consider the universe to be only 6000 years old total.

Yet scholars still refer to the pyramids as "wonders" you seem eager to write the Egyptians a blank check when it comes to morality.

A pharaoh marries his sister, well, that is okay she was his "subject"... (cynical)

Subject/slave once again "mincing words", a slave is also a subject and a subject a slave.

Any object that subjected to, relinquishing their will to a parent object is a slave.

A county without democratic rule at its core is a form of tyrannical slavery.

Civilization or Barbarism (page 86)

https://books.google.com/books?id=RDZJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=Barbarism+of+pharaohs&source=bl&ots=_XTzVLqxFV&sig=dwPEB9oMmkmdxuPqvSVXsnPjocM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GRLjVJ-aHcacgwS7moCwAg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Barbarism%20of%20pharaohs&f=false

I corrected something you said about the construction of the pyramids, you're the one who wants to go off on tangents.

I'm not mincing words, there's a huge difference between a subject and a slave. The reason you can't see it is because your aristocracy has fed you a load of bullshit about how free you are compared to other nations, and you uncritically swallow that bullshit.

In the late 1880s, during an Afican expedition, James Sligo Jameson, heir to the Irish whiskey manufacturer, bought an 11 year old girl then gave her to cannibals so he could document the way she was prepared and cooked. How is that any less barbaric than the excesses of monarchs? Don't kid yourself you're any freer than the rest of us. You've just signed up to the programme.

This "subject" enjoys Universal Health Care, so is not terrified of getting ill, and can send his kids to school safe in the knowledge they're not going to be killed by some nutter with access to automatic weapons.

Why don't you tell Trayvon Martin's parents that? I'm sure they'll find it a great comfort.

You did not correct anything Izzy,

The pharaoh's had ******* slaves, get over it...

Did I say white slavery was less barbaric?

No. Was is I more barbaric? Only God can judge that...

Slavery is barbaric no matter the color of your skin and it has been perpetuated by both white and black races. Neither race in their history has immunity from the scourge...

I am not racist but I am also not a fool.

Is there any reason why "I" should tell them that? I am not racist? I feel their pain too and I am 100% against police brutality of any race...

As I am also against slavery perpetuated by ANY race.

Again, it's not about whether or not Egyptians had slaves, but whether slaves built the pyramids.

You don't seem to understand any of the points I'm making. Instead of dealing with the huge holes in your logic, which seem based on preconditioning, you start talking about racism. I've not accused you of being racist. I'm concerned about why you've got such a downer on monarchs but not the other mega rich. Is it because that would be un-American?

Why do you condemn the pharaohs but not James Sligo Jameson?