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.
Firearms were invented in 1260 in China,[1] after the Chinese had invented gunpowder in the 9th century.[2][3][4] These inventions were later transmitted to the Middle East, Europe, and Africa.
[quote=Leisesturm;35615545]Everywhere in the world where there is presently conflict, genocide and/or civil war. White people invented fire-arms and wherever they brought their fire-arms to one set of people but not to their natural enemies they created instability.
I grew up in a house hold full of books (50's) and remember reading much of this as a child - the enslavement of many races, cultures and much far worse then what occurred in early "America" where the British, Dutch and other countries were involved. (see how greatly the Dutch were involved esp in the West Indies). Easy to search now online.
This is just ONE of many sites showing the extreme complexity of slavery.
As I mentioned in an earlier post - this activity was done to all most all races, cultures, peoples at one time in some place. There is no less then, worse then. The politics, or religious or any other aspect of the times does not change the fact that people were kidnapped, stolen, forced into doing manual, sexual or other labor or use of their life and person for another's gain - against their will. Does it matter if ONE person was involved verses more! Is a *baby stolen or sold for use as a sexual outlet better then multiple millions used to pick a crop, mine metals, or build structures! It is all wrong for what ever the reasoning and justification was at the time.
It is an aspect of lower consciousness human behavior with the base factor of GREED. MHO of course.
* Even now and even in America babies BABIES are trafficked for the porn trade (you know the sucking response for nursing) and often "snuffed" out if not brain damaged if "rescued".
Slavery in the Colonies
<Slavery had virtually disappeared in Western Europe by the 1500s and it looked to be dying where it existed. Only Spain and Portugal still practiced slavery and in a turn of irony, these were the two countries that led the colonizing effort in the Americas, almost ensuring that slavery would be transported from Europe to the New World.>
There were groups actually treated worse - and considered of such low value that killing them was considered as part of business. Chinese workers (rail roads), Irish - the "white slave trade" (some of those horror stories will make your stomach curdle) - See "The slaves that time forgot" by John Martin. (and included very young children). <If "disobeyed" hung up, feet on fire, often burned alive, heads put on spikes to warn other captives". African slaves were more expensive and "valuable". The "Irish women were inter "bred" with African slaves to create mulatto's considered more valuable".>
Yet - most Africans did not go to the British Colonies. The New World at that time was British Colonies, and most African slaves went to Central and South America. Take a look at the "outflow" map and see what countries actually took in more Africans. This was after esp with the Spanish/Portiguese enslaved and tortured the native peoples and needed new laborers.
<Between the 1500s and the 1800s, about 10 million Africans were captured and carried to the New World. It is estimated that about 1.5 million died en route. Most of these slaves were bound for Central and South America. Only 400,000 Africans were sent to the British colonies in North America.
Following Columbus and the subsequent Spanish conquest of the West Indies and South America, civilizations that had existed apart for centuries came into contact. Tragically, the Europeans created a New World based on slavery. The depopulation of American Indians encouraged the Portuguese and Spaniards to use the already familiar system of African slavery to meet their labor needs. Between 1500 and 1620, Europeans brought at least half a million slaves to the New World from Africa, an enslavement based on race. >
Chinese Slaves in early America (and many other countries are involved)
Read up on the Chinese enslaving their own people including eunuch's. (it goes on)
<<Shang dynasty (second millenium BC)
Slavery was established in China by at least the Shang dynasty, at which point it has been estimated that about 5 percent of the population was enslaved.[5] Qin dynasty (221-206 BC)
Men sentenced to castration became eunuch slaves of the Qin dynasty state to do forced labor, for projects like the Terracotta Army.[6] The Qin government confiscated the property and enslaved the families of those who received castration as a punishment for rape.[7]>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShanaBrown
In addition to what has been shared, American slavery was atrocious in that here we had people coming to this occupied land seeking freedom and opportunity, but taking away freedom and opportunity from others, and eventually becoming the oppressors. Slavery has existed in many areas of the world for a long time, but slavery here in this country, took a different turn in that here a whole "race" of people was eventually treated worse than animals would be treated, just because of their race, due to greed and ignorance, sad to say.
lol wtf,,,, let me guess, they were brought over for their own benefit to make them better ppl???? i assume you think the native americans gave their land as a gift also huh?
lol wtf,,,, let me guess, they were brought over for their own benefit to make them better ppl???? i assume you think the native americans gave their land as a gift also huh?
Your post, $19.99 hilarious...your sarcastic overtone $50.00 brilliant...you're interpretation ...Priceless!
Actually I do blame the parties you've mentioned in this post. What Blacks do you know that do not?
Well then to be quite honest, you'll be the first. Even in this thread there are blacks who still refuse to put partial blame on thier own kind by blaming "the demand for slaves by whites" is the reason slavery even existed.
Now once again. Putting the blame on those creating the demand is like blaming every single drug addict in america for every single killing going on in Mexico due to the drug trade.
Then following that, demand is the cause of slavery and not those who filled the demand?
Very convenient.
Lets see, because someone demands something is reason to cite them as the cause?
I demand that tomorrow my grass gets cut and my house gets painted. I had better run to the bank and get some cash because you never know, someone might just stop by and do those things and then demand payment.
Your analogy doesn't work because the slave trade involved commodities dealers involved in high risk ventures--not tradesmen performing a service in advance and hoping someone would pay them for it. Certianly you can't ignorant enough to postulate that the trans Atlantic slave trade would have existed as it did without demand. And no, it could not have existed as it did without African slavers either.
Your analogy doesn't work because the slave trade involved commodities dealers involved in high risk ventures--not tradesmen performing a service in advance and hoping someone would pay them for it. Certianly you can't ignorant enough to postulate that the trans Atlantic slave trade would have existed as it did without demand. And no, it could not have existed as it did without African slavers either.
The Christianity of the Europeans--especially the Americans--should have supressed the demand.
But then, there is also some space to look at the actual Christian denominations of the Americans--the Calvinist Separatists (separation of Church and State Protestants) in the north versus the Anglicans and Catholics (established government church) in the south.
Even when slavery was first established in the English-colonized Americas, the Protestant Separatists in the north were already beginning to call for its abolition on religious grounds. There might be a correlation that drives Christians who believe in a separation of church and state to also oppose slavery, while those who believe in a government established church will also accept slavery.
This may actually go all the way back to Constantine. Christianity had abolished slavery (and military service) within its ranks in the first centuries until Constantine gave the Church a stake in the fortunes of the empire...at which time the Church began giving passes to the vices the empire practiced to maintain its wealth and power. So if you have a government established Church, and the government says, "We need this war to survive" or "we need slavery to survive," the Church is more likely to bless it than condemn it.
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.
