"Civil" rights are entirely unnecessary, if the governing polity enforces existing legal statutes guaranteeing enumerated privileges. In 'Murica, "civil" right, as a concept, is merely an ideologic tool to perpetuate the arbitrary divisions of the underclass by fostering a perspective of "colored" rights as being separate, or extra, to "white" rights. Only when existing, enumerated privileges are enforced inconsistently, would there be a necessity of a "civil" rights, upon which the marginalised cling for parity. While the underclass squabble over crumbs from their masters' tables, the masters continue to enjoy their exploitation to support their plantation lifestyle.

Contrary to modern religion of anti-slavery drivel, slavery in much of the pre-European colonial societies were not exclusively chattel slavery. In elite circles of the more ancient, civilised societies, the virtue of owning a slave was a status symbol, much like the modern mercantile scum flaunt their wealth by purchasing useless, overpriced mansions, yachts, automobiles, and shiny rocks. Many slaves merely existed to display their masters' influence, wealth, and power. Only with European colonialism did the institution of slavery change in dynamics to be solely chattel slavery.

Chattel slavery exists everywhere, not merely in the developing world. In fact, due to cultural vestige within these societies concerning the institution of slavery, being a slave in these societies would be a far better lot for the slave than to be enslaved in the modern developed societies in the West and the Orient. Slavery is a sociocultural problem for the developed, urbanised world, not of the developing agrarian societies.