pull down to refresh
HUMAN BEING“ From Latin Humanus = “a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo = man “. A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction – that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property. The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an ... inferior "animal" man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century - to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as " humans " — therefore animals . Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man. #360735
I would be very interested to read something about why this was the case? Is it just that the populace couldn't fathom how this would be used? Or was it really implanted for one reason and then sort of recognized by the state as a very useful tool (coopted)?