The truth on slavery.....

My point is you can't just condemn one group and not the other. Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

We do it all the time. Think Al Qaeda and bin Laden. They ended countless lives on the basis of their ideology. We monitor their emails, phone calls, bank accounts, hunt them down and blow them up. Our soldiers are heroes, right? Can you imagine if Muslim-Americans held rallies calling for the deaths of non-Muslims?

No shit, and Africans were enslaving Africans. Originally Posted by bambino

What is your fucking point? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

the point, you racist fat asshole is that Blacks as a race will not admit they have as much blood on their hands as anyone else. you will never get racists like Sharpton and Jackson to admit the known historical truth that warring Black tribes willingly sold captured Blacks from other tribes to them nasty euro whiteys.

go watch the first half hour of the Roots reboot. it accurately shows the true nature of Black Africa then, and in many ways, today. violent to their own race. willingly sold off prisoners to get rid of them. not enough goats and cows to feed them. so hey!!! here's an idea!! let's sell 'em to those euro whiteys! problem solved!

the resurgence of racism issues in this country is the fault of Blacks who will not admit their own role in slavery. and of course Barack Obama who intentionally incited race riots via his racist DOJ. Holder .. Holder ... Lynch ... Buelller??? bahahhaaa

Thank you. It does make sense that convicts would experience far more brutality then (we can't legally do that to our prisoners now, though it still happens). But I'm really highlighting the difference between indentured servants and chattel. African slaves didn't come here on contract for food and housing. They didn't have to be convicts to be forced into slavery. And Americans went to war to keep them just as you described. No, it's not the same thing. It's just not. Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

Again, you do not know history. You are superimposing "your" 21st century notion of "convict" onto an 18th century situation. One of those authors I listed related how one of the prisoners destined to be "transported" (i.e., shipped to the colonies in lieu of serving a sentence in a London gaol) was a twelve year old named, Elizabeth Howard, who, in 1728, had stole a small quantity of ribbon and lace. Caught and imprisoned, Elizabeth stood trial and was convicted of felony theft: a hanging offense. While awaiting execution in London's Newgate prison, Elizabeth petitioned that her sentence be commuted to "transportation" to the American colonies rather than meekly submitting to being hanged. Her petition worked, and she was to be released and "transported" on account of her young age. Unfortunately, Elizabeth died at Newgate before she was released to be "transported".

Below is another book you should read. Charles Mann covers the topic of slavery in this masterly book. He writes that it's a too common misconception that most African slaves were captured and enslaved solely for the Atlantic Slave Trade. Most Africans, Mann writes, who ended up in the Atlantic Slave Trade were already slaves in Africa before being sold and carried away from Africa. Many of those enslaved were actually African warriors captured by their enemies in battle, who then sold them to others, who sold them to others, etc., until they found themselves on the Middle Passage bound to the Americas. Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland Oliver Cromwell did exactly the same thing to Irishmen he captured in battle. Their shipboard passage was only marginally better than their African counterparts.

Africans also enslaved themselves to pay off a debt to a village chieftain or king, or found themselves enslaved because they could not pay off a debt. Englishmen, such as author Charles Dickenson's father, often found themselves imprisoned -- criminalized -- for debt. Just like their African counterparts, many Englishmen found themselves "transported" to the colonies as slaves because they couldn't pay a debt ... not a serious crime like rape of murder as you probably imagine meets the 21st century definition of what passes for a real "criminal" today.

Furthermore, and as a reminder, it wasn't until 1829 that the British Army put a limit -- 500 lashes -- on how many times an accused man could be flogged; before that time, there was no limit. Those were white men beating white men for minor infractions of discipline, such as falling a sleep on watch or being drunk on duty. Branding in the British Army didn't end until 1871. Flogging finally ended in 1881: 15 years after the 13th Amendment was ratified in the U.S. Hence, your notion that "it isn't the same" and that at all times blacks universally suffered worse treatment than their white contemporaries fails in the light of known facts. Only the uneducated, or the self-deceiving rube, would claim that the color of someone's skin makes being lashed better or worse.

We do it all the time. Think Al Qaeda and bin Laden. They ended countless lives on the basis of their ideology. We monitor their emails, phone calls, bank accounts, hunt them down and blow them up. Our soldiers are heroes, right? Can you imagine if Muslim-Americans held rallies calling for the deaths of non-Muslims? Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

That is to much thinking to ask our right leaning friends.

"You are superimposing "your" 21st century notion of "convict" onto an 18th century situation."


This is a VERY important point. In our modern context no one can imagine slavery having ever been legal at one time. But in the context of that time it had been standard practice all over the world for hundreds of years.

It is a sad fact of world history, and still goes on today in parts of Africa and the Middle east.

IMO, it was a setup to cause chaos. The city revoked the permit before the start time, told the police to stand down, then marched the permitted protesters right through the alt left/Antifa so that fights would break out.

The Antifa is well known for their violence and tactics to start shit with conservatives, as has been well documented through the election. Then the media painted one side as all Nazi's and the Antifa as gentle flower children protesting for peace. The video's and first hand accounts paint a much different picture.

"Leftist "Antifa" protesters stormed a county government building in Minnesota, seized and burned the county flag - then replaced it with an Antifa flag - on Monday." http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-ba...sedAtCountyBld Originally Posted by goodolboy

Very possible it was specifically set up to be chaotic. If that is truly the case it will come out in the wash. I am willing to bet Trump suspects that and that's why he condemns both sides.


Jim

Vivenne Ray: You'll learn most about slavery with some critical reading. That is hhow most of us learned what we did. They don't exactly have classes on slavery. One thing I've noticed is that just because of race you think that white slavery is less than black slavery. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Not at all.

So we had three kinds of slavery in the new world; chattel, voluntary indenturement, and criminal indenturement.

I said:

Indentured servants often came voluntarily, and those who were sentenced to servitude for crimes had a lot more autonomy than African chattel.

And:

But I'm really highlighting the difference between indentured servants and chattel. African slaves didn't come here on contract for food and housing. They didn't have to be convicts to be forced into slavery.

You seem to acknowledge those differences:

Here is the difference, an indentured servant was a human being and had some basic rights. An owner who killed a servant would have to answer to some justice. A slave owner could hang every single slave he (or she) owned and no one cared.

An indentured servant had certain rights that were self evident. They could not be killed or maimed by an owner. They were recognized as humans and people. Their condition was not permanent.

I think it's important to highlight these distinctions in discussions that, ultimately, serve to diminish the black experience.

Very possible it was specifically set up to be chaotic. If that is truly the case it will come out in the wash. I am willing to bet Trump suspects that and that's why he condemns both sides.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You giving Trump a lot of God Damn credit!

If he was that smart , he wouldn't have all those bankruptcy's to his name...



.

Hence, your notion that "it isn't the same" and that at all times blacks universally suffered worse treatment than their white contemporaries fails in the light of known facts. Only the uneducated, or the self-deceiving rube, would claim that the color of someone's skin makes being lashed better or worse. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I've done neither. But thanks for playin'.

You giving Trump a lot of God Damn credit!

If he was that smart , he wouldn't have all those bankruptcy's to his name...



. Originally Posted by WTF

Yeah, Trumps not as stupid as you are. He's POTUS and worth a few billion dollars!

And, he gets it up for women!

[/B]I've done neither. But thanks for playin'. [/COLOR][/SIZE] Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

A proper education can be rewarding. Try it!

You giving Trump a lot of God Damn credit!

If he was that smart , he wouldn't have all those bankruptcy's to his name...



. Originally Posted by WTF

So is your point, Trump can't possibly have any insight into anything because he's been bankrupt? His bankruptcy didn't exactly put him on Skid Rowe either. Trump really doesn't strike me as a person who gives a dam about what people think about him or his bankruptcies or any of his other shortcomings. Because if he did he probably would be on Skid Rowe instead of the White House.

Jim

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
You giving Trump a lot of God Damn credit!

If he was that smart , he wouldn't have all those bankruptcy's to his name...


he doesn't have any bankruptcies to his name. they were all corporate entities. Trump himself has never declared personal bankruptcy. why do you fuckheads keep acting like he himself has had to declare bankruptcy? idiot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
You giving Trump a lot of God Damn credit!

If he was that smart , he wouldn't have all those bankruptcy's to his name...


he doesn't have any bankruptcies to his name. they were all corporate entities. Trump himself has never declared personal bankruptcy. why do you fuckheads keep acting like he himself has had to declare bankruptcy? idiot. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Because SnitchFuck has the "least" IQ here. He has no clue what's up. Just like Pho Pockets.

"he doesn't have any bankruptcies to his name. they were all corporate entities. Trump himself has never declared personal bankruptcy. why do you fuckheads keep acting like he himself has had to declare bankruptcy? idiot.[/QUOTE]


The same reason they claim he is a racist Nazi in cahoots with the Russians. They have no legitimate, logical complaint, they just know that they are still real butt hurt over losing the election.