" that definition of slavery is so broad as to be meaningless.".

Its now a standard practice used by those with an agenda rather than a reverence for the truth. Take a word, redefine it beyond recognition and then declare that the new definition is...well, definitive.

So you redefine 'slavery' so that what happened in Australia can be called slavery and then declare that since there was slavery here and slavery in the US confederacy, they are the same.

Orwell wrote about the bastardisation of the language in the service of false ideology. But the gullible continue to fall for it.

They do it all the time. Redefine 'genocide' so that you can equate what's happening in Gaza to what happened in Auschwitz.

Redefine 'woman' so that the person standing there with a cock, balls and a surfeit of testosterone can be called a sheila.

And now redefine 'slavery'.

Slaves in the US south could have their families ripped apart, the father sold here, the mother there, the kids somewhere else. Did that happen here? No - but let's pretend it's the same.

Those slaves could be bred like cattle with women being forced to carry babies from men with good genes. Did that happen here? No - but let's pretend it's the same.

The kids born to slave women were also slaves. Did that happen here? No - but let's pretend it's the same.

In the Middle East male slaves were regularly castrated like we castrate stallions and for the same reason. Did that happen here? No - but let's pretend it's the same.

In the Middle East attractive female slaves were put into sexual slavery in harems and brothels. Did that happen here? No - but let's pretend it's the same.

Its all intellectual dishonesty on a grand scale with not the slightest concern for the truth or integrity.

But they'll preen themselves as being otherwise.

No facts have been presented. Publicity for a book that the poster knows nobody here will read, and a report of wafflings in a left wing newspaper.

The poster is apparently not aware that few, if any, modern “historians” consult original documents, merely copying what others have written, and passing it off as ‘fact’.

To be credible, references and links need to provide evidence, or point to where evidence can be found, with information on how authors arrived at their conclusion: not just ‘Auntie Flo said’ and world of mouth answers to loaded questions.

For someone ‘claiming’ to be ‘trained’ in research and correct accreditation of information and its use, Foxy is full of crap.

Oh but if you use the new definition to point out that, if its applied to pre-contact aboriginal society, all aboriginal women were slaves, these purveyors of the new truth will shout 'racist' and avert their eyes with alacrity.

Did that happen here? No -
mhaze,
LGBTYXVZ & Labor/Green are doing that right now !

We're told that although there was no slave trade in
Australia, numerous historians, legal experts,
and government officials have found that the controls
imposed on Pacific Islanders and First Nations people
essentially amounted to slavery.

Stephen Gray writes in the "Australian Indigenous Law
Review" given in the second link I cited on page 4 of this
discussion:

"It is true that Australia was not a "slave state" in the
manner of the American South, nevertheless, employers
exercised a high degree of control over their Aboriginal
workers who were in some cases bought and sold as chattels.
Employers exercised a form of legal coercion over their
workers in a manner consistent with the legal interpretation
of slavery".

Yhrre's more at the given previous link.

"We're told that..."

No Foxy...YOU'RE told. The rest of us do proper research with an open and educated mind and reach the conclusion that calling what happened in Australia 'slavery' is a mere distortion of the language.

NB... going to TellMeWhatIWantToHear.com to find purported experts who distort the facts to suit the agenda isn't actual research.