Well, yeah. Obviously, they were alluding to Avalon, but the way they decided to portray Merlin putting the sword in Avalon was just... very anti-climactic. Honestly, Merlin didn't even try a spell to opent the gates to Avalon? He just threw the sword in the lake and hoped that it would somehow be transported to Avalon? I mean, REALLY?
Then again, you could have a point. Maybe they wanted to make it so that the sword wasn't really in a safe place, so Merlin will be forced to seal it into a stone later on. But it's still a bit... misleading, how simply Merlin tried to hide the sword. One would expect that he would at least try a bit harder to open the place that "no mortal can find".

Slavery has existed since the beginning of time from the very first tribe conquering the neighboring one. It will always exist because people will always define themselves in terms of what groups they belong to and thus will always be prejudiced against other groups.

Its seems that was a part of the point. After all this, Merlin is left with this shinny sward that might as well have a pulsating light and a big, neon sign spelling "I'M MAGIC" on it, and the last thing he can do is leave it under his bed and hope for the best.
So what does he do? He goes to the lake; the same lake where he saw the opening to Avalon--a very magical place indeed. This is the only place close to "where no mortal can find," considering that humans can only see it for a second before they die. Merlin was probably hoping the gates of Avalon would open up and swallow it.
Plus it looks to be an obvious foreshadowing of the Sward in the Stone, as it was "made only for Arthur." It will most likely be brought up again, and Merlin will be forced to stick it in a big rock and enchant it so that only Arthur can get his hands on it. If this is the case, then I look forward to that story arc.

1st off: President Obama is not black, imo. He is more a dark tanned whiteman...B: Blacks were not the only slaves, and were not slaves for England in the middle ages. The white man was the slave.
(Taken from Answers.com)
"A Freeman was anyone who was not a Serf. A freeman was a citizen of a town or city and usually a fully qualified craftsman who had successfully completed his apprenticeship in the city or town concerned. The crafts concerned ranged from goldsmiths at the upper end to tailors and bakers, who were often at the lower end. A handful of women were granted the status of freeman provided they were duly qualified. For example, there are a few cases of women who were made freemen because they were qualified brewers. (Just to avoid misunderstanding, this referred to the ability to run a brewery, not to home brewing!). A Serf was bound to the land, and could not leave the manor he lived on. In many places, if he ran off and remained gone for a year, then he would be free. In this way he could become a freeman. He could also become free by mutual consent with his lord, which might or might not include some sort of payment.
In running off, the serf gained freedom, but he lost security. When he was a serf, he was bound not to the lord, but to the land. It was a bondage that applied to the lord as well as the serf. The lord was not allowed to evict him without cause. As long as the serf remained on the land, he had a right to live and farm the land, and he had a right to protection from his lord. Once he gave that up, he could not return to the manor."This is what Africans/Indonesians were suppose to be. Europeans went overboard because the rush for land in Americas and gold.