Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Africans were the last people on the planet at that point in time who could be taken advantage of. It's was tried, to make slaves out of the lndians but failed. None of them could be found complacent. They simply kept running away.
The Africans were the last people on the planet at that point in time who could be taken advantage of. It's was tried, to make slaves out of the lndians but failed. None of them could be found complacent. They simply kept running away.
At least they had a place to run to. Pretty hard for Africans to get back home.
Can't compare the Mc's experience to Black slavery. Granted they were mis-treated but it was their choice to be there. Slavery was more psychological than physical. Can't imagine waking up every day without freedom / hope. I would rather be slaughtered as they have been recently in Africa.
White people are uncomfortable discussing slavery and Jim Crow. Instead of dealing with the topic at hand, the discussion moves toward "reverse racism," Irish and poor white mistreatment etc. Poor whites, including the Irish had every opportunity to team up with blacks to fight the elites. Instead, they chose to side with the white elite, so no one is going to cry tears over their suffering.
The more whites resist having slavery thrown in their faces, the more I'm convinced that they NEED it thrown in their faces. If you are uncomfortable talking about something, it's because the problem lies with you...not Dr. Gates. Honestly a lot of 2520's are so accustomed to a whitewashed telling of history that they recoil when the bad parts are emphasized. Genocide of the Native Americans and the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade should be first and foremost in any discussion regarding U.S. history.
Can't compare the Mc's experience to Black slavery. Granted they were mis-treated but it was their choice to be there. Slavery was more psychological than physical. Can't imagine waking up every day without freedom / hope. I would rather be slaughtered as they have been recently in Africa.
I'm not sure what you mean by an 'Mc'. Maybe you should use real words. If you mean the Irish who were removed forcably from Ireland early from Cromwell on, they didn't want to be there. They wanted to be in their villages, but they were now controlled by British lords. Or the people literally kidnapped off the street and sumarily convicted so the Old Bailey could fill the ship with involuntary convict labor, often specific 'orders' of women or men or children of a certain age. The poor were by defination disposable so nobody cared if they dissapeared. Or the people who fell prey to shippers who didn't collect the money when you boarded, and deliberatily had layovers which used it up so most of the ship could not pay when they arrived in Maryland, so they were marched off and sold.
Point is lots of people either came under false pretenses, desperation since life where they were was untenable only to find it was worse on the other side, and many didn't plan to. The colonies needed labor and wanted it cheap. Life in general unless you had some status was cheap then, and the above methods were perfectly acceptable. On the convict ships the death rate was sometimes half, but the shippers were paid as they arrived on the ship, not when they left. So sometimes they were nearly doubled up. These were the same ships the slavers used, and run by the same companies. The convict trade was far more profitable as well, and used the same shipping pattern. Fewer than half survived their sentence as slaves. Life if you were poor and usable was equally disposable in the colonies.
No, you can't directly compare, but what happened when slavery became black after a gradual slide away from troublesome 'servants' happened because the servant trade happened. Conditions once they arrived were identical for newly arrived 'servants'. There were small changes in laws which made for it to be better for the owner to own slaves. There were economic considerations. For the first hundred years of settlement, everyone including Africans sold in the ports were servants. There was no direct route. When it became slavery, the laws which controlled slaves formerly controlled 'servants'. The blueprint was defined that way. Just the source was altered.
I agree it was psychological. Control has to be accepted. Some won't. This applied to servants too, as the early development of runaway laws shows. In reality at least half were not going to survive. A slave with a release date means if you can you use them up before that. But it was also one of physical controls and vicious punishment. Add them together and some will just captiualte, and some will not, even if it kills them. Those are probably the people who either ended up hiding in the hinterlands or died trying.
But what is notable about human beings is that at some point survival clicks in. No matter how awful, people strive to survive. It may be making it through one day, and then the next day, but people have this wired into the brain. The people who were shipped in, weather as servants or slaves, chose survival before they ever arrived. There were plenty of ways to die, but mostly by giving up. Those who arrived didn't want to die. That the fugitive laws were written and defined to locate and return fugitive/escaped captive servants, and then transfered pretty much unchanged to escaped slaves reflects that the will to try never went away, even if the odds were not so good and the cost high.
However they arrived, this society was built by survivors and the effects have shown up in not only here but the former convict colony of Australia. Americans and Australians are much alike in their general attitudes, different from their origions. There was much servitude, and in some instances slavery in Europe, and much hardship and misery unless you were a well off merchant or a landed aristocrat. Poor people were disposable there too, but much less winnowing of the ones who gave in. Eventually it erupted in several very violent centuries of endless war, but when the US was being populated the last gasp of the middle ages was still in effect and the major rebellions were isolated.
I think you can compare the exisitance of a person kidnapped off the street and sent in a crowded ship or a borrowed slave ship in chains, living under the same limitations and subject to additions of time for any small infraction. And that over half didn't live to the day they had to be freed. That one happened and was okay with the ones who controlled society since they were expendable people meant that the rational to go one last step was acceptable. And that the whole story needs to be told and the beginning not made 'lesser'. The fifty children who were first shipped to pick and process tabacco in I think Maryland, children taken in some cases off the street, lived and died in less than six months as slaves. They were replaced by more captured 'excess' children. If you can force an 8 year old to work themselves to death, then nothing much else is that hard to do. That was the very first shipment of 'indentured' labor. That is where it began, with children prefered since you had them until 21 if they lived that long, which was seldom. With that as a beginning is it surprising it turned into what it did?
I'd like to see someone who has ancestors who go back to then have their survival explained and that one came from the other also established, and that race only came into the equation MUCH later. But that isn't the pc world that our show's host lives in so he has usually diminishes the reality if its not his mantra. That's the problem.
I know Mick's actually had it worse than Africans. (Not too loud, we'll have another bunch wanting reparations). I was really referring to Rwanda and the lack of outrage but yet they'll foster something that happened 150 years ago. Of course Rwanda can't advance their agenda. This" White Guilt" I've heard refered to in recent threads is Lib propaganda not to be confused with the majority. ( misery enjoys company). Regarding your" War and Peace" piece, what was more common way back when, Blacks owning Irish or vise versa?
I know Mick's actually had it worse than Africans. (Not too loud, we'll have another bunch wanting reparations). I was really referring to Rwanda and the lack of outrage but yet they'll foster something that happened 150 years ago. Of course Rwanda can't advance their agenda. This" White Guilt" I've heard refered to in recent threads is Lib propaganda not to be confused with the majority. ( misery enjoys company). Regarding your" War and Peace" piece, what was more common way back when, Blacks owning Irish or vise versa?
First off, the TERM is derogatory. There is no place for it here. I'm not sure what you mean about Rwanda since this is more of a historical discussion. I am speaking in a historical context, and you can't cross centuries and compare. I personally do not believe anyone today needs to feel guilty for what happened a century or more ago. Guilt is something you have over your OWN actions, not your ancestors.
The Irish are very good at holding grudges as well. I have a LOT of Ulster ancestors. One left very hastily leaving his wife and kids, then remarried as if they weren't. I honestly wonder if the same name applies in Ulster. If nothing else, the mess there illustrates how centuries of grudges gets you nowhere and just passes on the misery. It is a lesson to be learned by a lot of people who are trying to fight battles for their dead relatives.
So far as my 'piece' I was describing the beginning of american slavery. Back then, when I'm talking about they were likely both under some kind of bond. When the scots irish were later moved out as estates wanted back the land, they came in a very different time and yes, some prospered and owned slaves. And some died building the railroad. And some went west. But the first were lucky to survive. For them it was neither was likely to own the other, but some were the exception on both sides and did. In terms of what I wrote, that's your answer.
As far as later I didn't say anything about it. But the first 'official' slave was owned by a black master who punished him for repeated escapes from his indenture by making it life. People are people, some nasty and mean, some victums, and some just in the wrong place as the wrong time.
I don't use ignore, but you're on my ignore list. Learn some real history and leave off the agendas if you want to really study things.
Remember, everyone, this is supposed to be about a TV PROGRAM
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
