did Europeans ruin chess...

Yes they did. The Romans started a long tradition for slavery in Europe, USA just took it up, same as they took up lots of other Roman stuff such as the latin alphabet and having an institution called a Senate.

what?

and football

You're stretching a point, for what reason I have no idea. Anyway, slavery was around long before Romulus and Remus were suckled by a she-wolf. Egyptians enslaved Isrealites for instance.

Both the Spanish and the Portuguese took slaves to the new world long before the British, in large numbers and for a long time. They also, like you mention, enslaved the local populations.

Difference is, Egyptian slaves were state owned but Roman were privately owned. USA doesnt have any Egyptian cultural DNA to my knowledge, but quite a bit Roman.

The "new world" BTW had invented slavery itself, it existed there before any European ever set foot there. It wasnt "introduced" by the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_slavery

It's a different system from the European one though.

@Raspberry_Yoghurt Yeah good point, I forgot about those guys.

Have you seen Apocolypto? Great movie, I think basically about that subject.

Havent watched it, but thanks of reminding me.

And modern West is indeed a funny civilization, it wants so much to be special. Before the WWs we thouught we had invented everything good and introduced it everywhere, o behold the messengers of civilization.

Then people got all gloomy and depressed and selfhating after the WWs, and then people flipped over and now believe we invented everything bad and "introduced" everthing bad everywhere :)

Certainly pre-Columbian civilizations had slaves, as did almost every culture probably since the invention of warfare.  The Greeks had slaves - personal, not govenment- before Rome existed (even the Iliad mentions personal slaves), though probably not to the extent of nor as systematic  as Rome.   Ancient Egyptian did have personal slaves but usually, though not exclusively, in the form of indentured servants (similar to the early colonies in the future US). The Old Testament talks about Hebrews selling themselves into slavery and in the buying and selling of slaves from other Hebrews and from foreigners.

But germaine to my original response is the system of slavery in the areas that would later comprise the U.S. (I'm not concerned with Mexico, Central or South America or in the Caribbean where really most slaves ended up.) Spanish and Portuguese did bring in slaves, but to the Carribean, and while this was part of the New World, it wasn't part of the future US. I'm not aware of any Portuguese or Spanish importation of slaves into areas comprising the future US.    There seems to be a little disconnect in terms being used, probably also in perspective and a disregard to the original intent, so I'll be more specific as I should have been from the get-go.

Unlike Rome, the slavery in this area that would later comprise the U.S. was almost entirely race-based (In Rome, slaves could be almost any non-Roman citizen).  With this, as far as I can see, any comparison between the two systems breaks down.  The early colonial settlements first used indentured servants. In the middle of the 17th century slavery, as a practice, became legalized and Afican slave trade began in ernest, as did importation of existing slaves from the Carribean.  Slavery in the areas that would later comprise the U.S. was introduced, and perpetuated, by the British. There were early attempts of curb this practice in certain area, but they were shot down by the Crown.  Perversely, Great Britain  abolished the practice long before the U.S. where part of the nation was economically dependant upon, and culturally invested in slavery as an institution.  This isn't to place blame of the British, but just to point out that "Yankees" (from the original post to which I was responding) didn't institute slavery in the U.S., they just dragged their feet ridding themselves of that hateful and perfidious practice.

Reading between @Batgirl's lines, I thought that's what I said earlier?  

All the rest was "urban legend," and well attested to, in this thread.

Slavery, (in some form), has probably been around since the Neolithic Revolution.

End of Story ??

is shatranj of indian or arabic origin?

Origami was never the same after the Tibetans got their hands on it.

Evolution:
India = Chaturanga -
Persian = Chatrang -
Arabian = Shatranj -
European = Medieval Chess -
Modern Chess

Why would the Spanish and Portugues have wanted to bring slaves to the English areas? They put them in their own places, which is why there are so many black Brazilians and Colombians today.

It's simply not true either that the English were the only ones doing slavery in what was to become USA. The french were at it in Louisiana and the other bits that Napoleon sold to USA in 1803. The Spanish also kept slavery in Lousiana when it was Spanish 1763–1800.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Louisiana

Can't help quoting the first line from that article which surely is true:

"The history of slavery in the territory currently known as Louisiana did not begin after its settlement by Europeans, as Native Americans also reduced captured enemies to the status of slaves."

So yeah, it was invented in the paleolithic age by everyone everywhere and in different forms. The US system to me resembles mostly the Roman one with slave markets, total loss of personal rights, but with the racial twist which the Romans didn't have, I dont even think they had a concept of race at all? Think they had black emperors sometimes, they also had an Arab one.

This pops op when you google "tibetan origami"

You can actually buy it for the sum of 75 $ lol. Seems pricey to me!

http://www.salazarigami.com/product/origami-tibetan-antelope/

I mean, it's nice, but what do you DO with it?

Maybe Roman citizenship was analogous to race? I don't know. The British citizebs in American settlements could have indentured British citizens.  I'm not sure the Romans allowed for indentured Roman citizens.  But the underlying concept is that to subjugate a particular race or races, the "masters" must reduced them in their own minds to sub-human standard.  I'm not sure the Romans needed or employed such a mindset.

"Why would the Spanish and Portugues have wanted to bring slaves to the English areas?"
They wouldn't. I never brought them up because they had nothing to do with anything I was discussing.

Louisiana Territorsy came later. Many slaves came into Louisiana from French holdings in the Caribbea.  There's no doubt others besides the British (including Americans) brought in slaves. But there's equally no doubt that the British initiated it in areas later comprising the U.S. - which was the entire point.