I did read the article, but the whole premise was that somehow "pets" are about bondage and owning another animal.
I focused on dogs primarily because I have done the most research on the relationship between humans and dogs. Which is extremely symbiotic and hence the underlying relationship is one of mutual affection.
So, if you meant to exclude dogs, you should have said so, but by including them, your whole premise collapses.
In your response, you threw out another false statement. Chattel slavery was never the largest slavery system in the world. It did become the dominant form of slavery in the US during the 16th through 19th centuries. Historically, the largest slavery system was based on humans taken as prisoners in wars or raids.
You might not realize that there are more slaves in the world today (most of whom reside in Asia and Africa), then at any other time in history.
Animal cruelty is a horrible thing. But not clear what that has to do with pet ownership. The interaction of humans with other creatures if anything provides pets more rights than other animals.
Humans are the only species, that I am aware of, that confer any "rights" to other animals. Hence, we use the term "humane" to refer to compassionate treatment of fellow humans and animals.
As for studies claiming Africans were biologically inferior, one of the problems with modern progressive liberalism is its focus on identity group politics. Wokeism is a form of neo-Marxism, where Marx used human "natural" instincts to form societal packs to divide the world into the oppressed and oppressors.
The concept of group identity predates Marx, but it involves dehumanizing other groups. So, when Africans raided the southern coast of Europe to take white slaves back to Africa to sell into the slave markets or Arabs raided into southern Russia to take white slaves into the south Asian slave markets, they saw whites as less than human.
Whites engaged in the same behavior, justifying taking land from Native Americans because they were not "humans" but rather "savages" and justifying the purchasing of slaves from African slavers because they were less than human.
Among every ethnicity there are those that promote racial hate and a Marx pointed out, it is easy to use that to divide people into identity groups. As someone whose family is evenly divided between black, white, and Asian ethnicity I also see that there are many of us, who reject racism of any kind and embrace MLK's vision, not just with words, but in our actions.
The whole idea that pet ownership is some form of substitute because we can't own people is dumb. Most people enter into a pet relationship with no intention of benefiting economically which was the whole premise of slavery.
As for your "wild dog" comment, hopefully you realize, you have to go back over 2 million years to find a common ancestor with domestic dogs and cannot interbreed with domestic dogs. Studies show the domestic dogs would not survive for more than 2 years in the wild and even then, would likely need to live close to humans to forage. That is why it is both unethical and unlawful to release domestic dogs into the wild intentionally.
The breeds that stand the best chance of surviving the longest are dogs that are bred to kill small animals... like the "rat catchers".
My point was simple... your whole narrative trying to link pet ownership with slavery is dumb. Why not focus on something more important like how we tear down the walls of identity politics, so we can get along better with one another. How have dogs managed to breakthrough a bond with humans, when we struggle to bond with ourselves?
