Say teachers - what's your opinion of this ?

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by flik_becky

OMG! REALLY!? I am sorry but I am NOT racist to say that only black people endured slavery and that it was harshest for them and I will NOT say that blacks are the only ones who suffered in our country at the hands of white people.

I see that you are responding to my post, but I am confused.

Given my examples, I am not claiming that only blacks suffered in our country at the hands of white people. I was pointing out that racism by whites was a larger influence on the country, historically, than other forms of racism have been.

Originally Posted by flik_becky

I say this with a strong mix of blood in myself and even stronger mix in my children. Black slavery was not the root of the beginnings of this nation.

My phrase was "codified at the very root of this country." I am referring to the constitutional census provision, the slave codes, and other such laws. By asserting that slaves did not count as a full person, they were dehumanizing them.

Originally Posted by flik_becky

First...where did slavery start? In the arab countries where goods were traded back and forth for slaves. The first slaves to be traded were muslim and christian. The christians would trade goods to obtain muslim slaves and the muslims would do likewise to obtain christian slaves. It was the arabs who began to trade with Africans to get black slaves. During the 8th and 9th centuries, slaves were mostly were slavic Eastern Europeans. When Christ was born, 3/4 of the population of Athens were slaves.

No, Becky, I did not claim and would not claim that slavery was invented by the Americans or the British. It was not originated within a 1000 years of the European discovery of this continent (assuming 1000 CE for the year of discovery).

Your (bolded) statement, above, confused me, especially in light of your comment about Athens! The first slaves predated both Muhammad and Jesus by many centuries - there were rules about how to treat slaves as early as 1400 BCE - with distinction between treatment of "debt-slaves" and other slaves.

Originally Posted by flik_becky

Up to one half of all the people who lived in the first colonies of our country were white slaves.

No, this is just not right. There were indentured servants in the states, but these are very distinct from slaves in the sense which we're discussing - still unfortunate, but just not the same thing.

Originally Posted by flik_becky

slavery was already alive and well with the natives. They captured and enslaved members from other tribes and enslaved each other.

There was not the buying and selling of slaves, nor the presumption that the children of slaves were themselves slaves into perpetuity, as far as we can tell at this stage. There were slaves from war raids, but there's no evidence that the slaves were viewed as lesser beings.

Originally Posted by flik_becky

MEANWHILE, in Africa, the African people had slavery for a very long time. They did the same thing as the Native Americans, enslaving rival tribe members. Things were tough for them and they were "blessed" to suddenly be discovered by Europeans who also thrived through slavery and they were willing to trade them for as many slaves as they could cram onto their boats, which made their thriving trade business explode.

Say what?

In what way were "things" tough for them?

Originally Posted by flik_becky

But then, the revolutions started happening in Europe where the white slaves were fighting for their rights and many escaped to come to America to free themselves of their bonds, to prosper on their own

Revolutions in Europe prompted the white slaves to escape to America?

Becky, generally I enjoy your posts, but this time around, you have me thoroughly befuddled.

Originally Posted by flik_becky

Even when that happened, some called for the end of all slavery in Europe, regardless of race, but those in power did not want to give up slavery.

I no longer have the foggiest what decade we are in, or perhaps which century.

Originally Posted by flik_becky

Slavery, dear, is not a problem just reserved for African Americans.

I didn't claim it was.

The rest is fascinating, and I enjoyed the links and thoughts.

But while it is true that there were those who merely wished to take advantage of anybody they could, anti-miscegenation laws suggest that there is a lot more to the view of blacks of that time period than just power. The first such laws pre-date the full institutionalization of slavery in the states that enacted them - and many white indentured servants.

When I point a finger at the United States in this regard, I mean it explicitly in comparison to some other countries. For example, when Louisiana was under Spanish rule, whites and blacks under the age of 25 were permitted to marry if they had parental consent, and without it after 25. Three years after the United States took control of it, anti-
miscegenation laws were in place, banning interracial marriages.

Racism was alive and well in colonial America.

[flik_becky]

Originally Posted by jps-teacher

I see that you are responding to my post, but I am confused.

Given my examples, I am not claiming that only blacks suffered in our country at the hands of white people. I was pointing out that racism by whites was a larger influence on the country, historically, than other forms of racism have been.

Then I misunderstood you. I wasn’t even fully disagreeing with you I guess either. I was debunking common myths about slavery and racism. Slavery was around LONG before race was part of the equation. Also, we talk so much about making sure we remember what we did to African people but we pretend the rest does not exsist, that it was less harsh, that we did not treat oursleves as bad as we did to other races. This in of itself is racist, that we put the troubles and strife of one race above the troubles and strife of another. If was are indeed equal across all races, wouldn't it be as equally astounding and equally as important to have a month dedicated to African Americans, the poor working Europeans, Natives we forced into Mexico, and Asains?

My phrase was "codified at the very root of this country." I am referring to the constitutional census provision, the slave codes, and other such laws. By asserting that slaves did not count as a full person, they were dehumanizing them.

When you talked about “codified by the very root of this country” I was agreeing with that statement but pointing out that it had nothing to do with Africans or racism but rather long before that with Europeans and then Native Americans shortly there after.

No, Becky, I did not claim and would not claim that slavery was invented by the Americans or the British. It was not originated within a 1000 years of the European discovery of this continent (assuming 1000 CE for the year of discovery).

Your (bolded) statement, above, confused me, especially in light of your comment about Athens! The first slaves predated both Muhammad and Jesus by many centuries - there were rules about how to treat slaves as early as 1400 BCE - with distinction between treatment of "debt-slaves" and other slaves.

Yup!

No, this is just not right. There were indentured servants in the states, but these are very distinct from slaves in the sense which we're discussing - still unfortunate, but just not the same thing.

It was all fancy talk. Regardless of the wording, it was the same. History, as pointed out in a previous link, supports the fact that there were many people from the working class, kidnapped off the streets and criminals who were forced into life long "servitude" and given the same accommodations as any African slave. There are many examples where this wording was just fancy talk but here is what one law stated:

[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]

There was not the buying and selling of slaves, nor the presumption that the children of slaves were themselves slaves into perpetuity, as far as we can tell at this stage. There were slaves from war raids, but there's no evidence that the slaves were viewed as lesser beings.

Actually, the scientific reports from this time period, even those claimed to be non-racist, stated just that. Slavery wasn't abolished in America until 1865. Many scientific reports stated that there were lesser races. One man, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German Scientist who popularized the term caucasian though he borrowed it from other scientist who he actually outwardly contradicted on other matters of the subject, wrote extensively on the subject. He lived in the years 1752-1840. He spoke of the five races and how the white race the most beautiful, most intelligent, and believed that all life came from Georgia and surrounding areas and spread out into Europe, Asia and Africa. He listed his five races from first to last, stating that the European whites were first, most intelligent and beautiful to the black Mongolians who were ugly and stupid. He went as far as to say that if women were careless and went into the sun in the summer and got darker skin, they were less beautiful. This was common thinking from the time period, that those with darker skin colors were lesser races to the whites.

http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf

Slaves being lesser beings...as in white slaves....In my pervious links somehwere there is some information about the European mindset about the poorer classes, that it was their "duty" to force them into labor, that it was humanitary to do so. I believe that most of that had to do with religion. I read somewhere that pagans held christians in slavery and later that reversed and it became christain duty to enslave those who where not christians until they converted or died.

Say what?

In what way were "things" tough for them?

I over simlified it. When we started to set up establishments in Africa, we believed that they did not have the same things we did so we felt that we were bettering the lives of African Americans with trade goods and by doing are part to better humanity by purchasing slaves, people we believed needed slavery.

Revolutions in Europe prompted the white slaves to escape to America?

The thirty years war is about where it started. It made Europe very poor so it made "indentured servitude" for the most minor of infactions very popular. Then you have kids being kidnapped off the street and raids of poor families where others yet were forced into life long "servitude." Many peasant came to America to try and find the American dream. Many failed, most were called slaves or were already under servitude and they went from what they had to just as something just as bad or even worse. Columbus arrived in America in 1495 and the peasant war didn't even start until 1524. Then the thirty years war was between 1618-1648. Many people dreamed of a better life and came to America to find it.

Becky, generally I enjoy your posts, but this time around, you have me thoroughly befuddled.



I no longer have the foggiest what decade we are in, or perhaps which century.



I didn't claim it was.

The rest is fascinating, and I enjoyed the links and thoughts.

But while it is true that there were those who merely wished to take advantage of anybody they could, anti-miscegenation laws suggest that there is a lot more to the view of blacks of that time period than just power. The first such laws pre-date the full institutionalization of slavery in the states that enacted them - and many white indentured servants.

Irish had some odd laws. Any poor were seen as slaves, as linked above. Native Americans did as well. Same with Asians.

When I point a finger at the United States in this regard, I mean it explicitly in comparison to some other countries. For example, when Louisiana was under Spanish rule, whites and blacks under the age of 25 were permitted to marry if they had parental consent, and without it after 25. Three years after the United States took control of it, anti-
miscegenation laws were in place, banning interracial marriages.

Yup! I was saying just that...that wide spread racism came AFTER slavery and that black slavery came after other races of slaves to Europeans but much of that is overlooked.

Racism was alive and well in colonial America.

I don't discount that it was alive and well. I'm was just saying that the act of Europeans owning slaves in colonial American came long before Africans as slaves and had nothing to do with racism until much later, after laws came into effect to free Europeans, Asians and Native Americans from slavery.

Here is more I came across about European slaves in Africa:

North African pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780 in a series of raids which depopulated coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall, according to new research.... Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, concluded that 1 million to 1.25 million ended up in bondage.... Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, were captured in 1631, and there were other raids in Devon and Cornwall.... While Africans laboured on sugar and cotton plantations the European slaves were put to work in quarries, building sites and galleys and endured malnutrition, disease and maltreatment. Random Observations: European Slaves in Africa

[jps-teacher]

There was not the buying and selling of slaves, nor the presumption that the children of slaves were themselves slaves into perpetuity, as far as we can tell at this stage. There were slaves from war raids, but there's no evidence that the slaves were viewed as lesser beings.

Actually, the scientific reports from this time period, even those claimed to be non-racist, stated just that.

You're discussing a different period. I'm saying that while the pre-Columbian North American indigenous peoples practiced a form of slavery, they did not view their slaves as of a lesser race. There were no scientific reports from that place and time.
******

Yup! I was saying just that...that wide spread racism came AFTER slavery

And again, my point was that in the Colonies, wide spread racism actually preceded widespread slavery - that the laws about miscegenation were established before slavery of Africans was deeply established in Maryland, for example.

I also think the difference between a debt-slave and a chattel slave is very important.

Enough for tonight!

[flik_becky]

Originally Posted by jps-teacher

There was not the buying and selling of slaves, nor the presumption that the children of slaves were themselves slaves into perpetuity, as far as we can tell at this stage. There were slaves from war raids, but there's no evidence that the slaves were viewed as lesser beings.

Actually, the scientific reports from this time period, even those claimed to be non-racist, stated just that.

You're discussing a different period. I'm saying that while the pre-Columbian North American indigenous peoples practiced a form of slavery, they did not view their slaves as of a lesser race. There were no scientific reports from that place and time.

Yup.

******

Yup! I was saying just that...that wide spread racism came AFTER slavery

And again, my point was that in the Colonies, wide spread racism actually preceded widespread slavery - that the laws about miscegenation were established before slavery of Africans was deeply established in Maryland, for example.

I wasn't saying that racism wasn't there. I was saying that slavery had nothing to do with racism until much later. Slavery was alive and well among the Europeans, keeping poor working class as slaves and even bringing them to America not so much as to work debts but as a "necessity" to work the land.

I also think the difference between a debt-slave and a chattel slave is very important.

There was a difference, that was true. However, many of the writtings such as might have been written to please the public during those time periods, did not actualize the reality. There are many reports of people from the low working class being kidnapped, houses raided and families taken from their homes to be sold as slaves and set up on the block next to Native Americans and Africans. They were called servants and you could buy and sell servants just the same as slaves. The way they lived was the same as slaves and often times even worse. There came a time when that became unacceptable and people were appalled to see those with white skin up on the block but doesn't mean that it never happened. What I have read and pointed out previously stated that there were more European slaves than there were endentured servants. The Virginia law I quoted makes that point that Europeans could be slaves by law. "All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves"

Enough for tonight!

The main point that I was making was that the roots of our country did not lie in the backs of African slaves alone and that it began in the backs of white slaves long before that. Columbus came to America in 1495, African slavery was between 1619 and 1808. During those 124 years in between Columbus and the shipping of African slaves to America, there was slavery of Native Americans and of course, the forced shipping of the filth off the streets and the disgust to society peasants to America as European slaves.



White children enslaved to a mine in 19th century England. Notice how the two on the left not being allowed clothing. Both sexes worked in this manner, most likely as to prevent them from soiling clothes.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, tens of thousands of men, women and children lived as ill-paid, ill-treated chattels, bound in servitude to their colonial masters. It is a sobering illustration of human gullibility that, in return for vague promises of a better life, men would sign away their lives for 10 years or more. Once in the New World, they were effectively items of property to be treated as their masters saw fit. Brutal corporal punishment was ubiquitous: every Virginia settlement had its own whipping post. For while thousands of servants signed up for the colonies of their own will, thousands more were shipped across by force. The forgotten history of Britain's white slaves - Telegraph

The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master's silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.
Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.
Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands.
Hoffman reveals: The Forgotten Slaves--Whites in Servitude

[jps-teacher]

Originally Posted by flik_becky

The main point that I was making was that the roots of our country did not lie in the backs of African slaves alone and that it began in the backs of white slaves long before that. Columbus came to America in 1495, African slavery was between 1619 and 1808. During those 124 years in between Columbus and the shipping of African slaves to America, there was slavery of Native Americans and of course, the forced shipping of the filth off the streets and the disgust to society peasants to America as European slaves.

Well, now, I think you're playing fast and loose with your dates and places.

If you count from the arrival of Columbus, then you have to go from the time of the arrival of African slaves in the islands!

The African slaves showed up in the New World as early as 1501/1502 - 9 or 10 years after Columbus made his first landfall. 1510 saw [SIZE=-1]the start of the systematic transportation of African slaves to the New World. [/SIZE]

Perhaps the colonization of the North American continent is your focus? Well, Ponce de Leon discovered Florida in 1513. [SIZE=-1]The first African slave to step foot on what is now the United States of America[/SIZE] was Esteban (or [SIZE=-1]Estevanico), in 1528 - a failed expedition written about by [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, whose account was published in 1542.[/SIZE] The French put a colony down in 1564, but they were supplanted by the Spanish in 1565, with the establishment of Saint Augustine - including African slaves.

A British businessman entered the slave trade in 1564 - 43 years before the establishment of Jamestown!

Merely looking at the English on the American continent, the period between the establishment of the Jamestown colony and the arrival of African slaves was TWELVE years. In 1607, Jamestown was established. In 1619, a Dutch trader arrived with 20 African slaves.

And no, in the intervening 12 years, the colony was not filled with "filth off the streets" of Europe.

It was not only African slaves upon whose backs this country was grown, but your claim that white slaves were involved in this country long before them is unsupported by the facts, whether in the Islands, in Spanish North America, or the English colonies.

[flik_becky]

Originally Posted by jps-teacher

Well, now, I think you're playing fast and loose with your dates and places.

If you count from the arrival of Columbus, then you have to go from the time of the arrival of African slaves in the islands!

The African slaves showed up in the New World as early as 1501/1502 - 9 or 10 years after Columbus made his first landfall. 1510 saw [SIZE=-1]the start of the systematic transportation of African slaves to the New World. [/SIZE]

Perhaps the colonization of the North American continent is your focus? Well, Ponce de Leon discovered Florida in 1513. [SIZE=-1]The first African slave to step foot on what is now the United States of America[/SIZE] was Esteban (or [SIZE=-1]Estevanico), in 1528 - a failed expedition written about by [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, whose account was published in 1542.[/SIZE] The French put a colony down in 1564, but they were supplanted by the Spanish in 1565, with the establishment of Saint Augustine - including African slaves.

A British businessman entered the slave trade in 1564 - 43 years before the establishment of Jamestown!

Merely looking at the English on the American continent, the period between the establishment of the Jamestown colony and the arrival of African slaves was TWELVE years. In 1607, Jamestown was established. In 1619, a Dutch trader arrived with 20 African slaves.

And no, in the intervening 12 years, the colony was not filled with "filth off the streets" of Europe.

It was not only African slaves upon whose backs this country was grown, but your claim that white slaves were involved in this country long before them is unsupported by the facts, whether in the Islands, in Spanish North America, or the English colonies.

It does not discount the fact that while there may have been a few African slaves in America in the first 100 or so years, most slaves at the time were Native Americans and Europeans. It was not until later that African slave tarde really got big.

African slave trade predates America as well since they were also traded in Europe.