请教GRE 7-3 B

以下为摘自GRE阅读 No.7-3 B 的一段话，因为对short of 的用法不很清楚，所以文意看不大懂

It is true that before the 1660’s Black people were rarely called slaves. But this should not overshadow evidence from the 1630’s on that points to racial discrimination without using the term slavery. Such discrimination sometimes stopped short of lifetime servitude or inherited status—the two attributes of true slavery—yet in other cases it included both. The Handlins’ argument excludes the real possibility that Black people in the English colonies were never treated as the equals of White people.

不知红字的部分应当如何解释？

short of 在这里可以当"缺少"解吗？

请给予一些指点，谢谢！

1. 对, short of 就是缺少的意思.

2. 红字的意思: 要停止对一个人的歧视, 就要看要么他没有受过终身奴役, 要么他祖宗也不是奴隶.这是奴隶制的两个因素. 而在其他的CASE中, 这两个因素都要包括才能去歧视一个人.

3. 没看全文, 翻得没棱没角的, 也不知道对不对. 仅供参考.

醋醋妹妹，不对的，stop short of 是在一起得

所以原句也可以写成Such discrimination sometimes stopped run because(可省略)short of lifetime servitude or inherited status—the two attributes of true slavery—yet in other cases it included both. 啰？

那么醋醋妹妹的翻译似乎也没错…

顺便把全文贴上：

The first mention of slavery in the statutes of the English colonies of North America does not occur until after 1660—some forty years after the importation of the first Black people. Lest we think that slavery existed in fact before it did in law, Oscar and Mary Handlin assure us that the status of Black people down to the 1660’s was that of servants. A critique of the Handlins’ interpretation of why legal slavery did not appear until the 1660’s suggests that assumptions about the relation between slavery and racial prejudice should be reexamined, and that explanations for the different treatment of Black slaves in North and South America should be expanded.

The Handlins explain the appearance of legal slavery by arguing that, during the 1660’s, the position of White servants was improving relative to that of Black servants. Thus, the Handlins contend, Black and White servants, heretofore treated alike, each attained a different status. There are, however, important objections to this argument. First, the Handlins cannot adequately demonstrate that the White servant’s position was improving during and after the 1660’s; several acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures indicate otherwise. Another flaw in the Handlins’ interpretation is their assumption that prior to the establishment of legal slavery there was no discrimination against Black people. It is true that before the 1660’s Black people were rarely called slaves. But this should not overshadow evidence from the 1630’s on that points to racial discrimination without using the term slavery. Such discrimination sometimes stopped short of lifetime servitude or inherited status—the two attributes of true slavery—yet in other cases it included both. The Handlins’ argument excludes the real possibility that Black people in the English colonies were never treated as the equals of White people.

This possibility has important ramifications. If from the outset Black people were discriminated against, then legal slavery should be viewed as a reflection and an extension of racial prejudice rather than, as many historians including the Handlins have argued, the cause of prejudice. In addition, the existence of discrimination before the advent of legal slavery offers a further explanation for the harsher treatment of Black slaves in North than in South America. Freyre and Tannenbaum have rightly argued that the lack of certain traditions in North America—such as a Roman conception of slavery and a Roman Catholic emphasis on equality—explains why the treatment of Black slaves was more severe there than in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies of South America. But this cannot be the whole explanation since it is merely negative, based only on a lack of something. A more compelling explanation is that the early and sometimes extreme racial discrimination in the English colonies helped determine the particular nature of the slavery that followed.