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.
Conservatives sure are coming apart at the seams over the NYT 1619 slavery series!
What is it about a magazine issue, dedicated to examining the lasting legacy of slavery on the 400th anniversary of the first arrival of enslaved Africans in America, that has the right so bent out of shape?
If you love your country the way a six-year-old loves Mommy, no criticism can be allowed.
Here is a paragraph from the article and part I put in bold:
Quote:
Slavery was not introduced to “America” by whites at Jamestown. The Native American tribes here had a long history of enslaving each other and once blacks arrived, they enslaved them too.Some American blacks owned slaves. In some parts of the south, a greater percentage of free blacks owned slaves than whites. Only a small percentage of whites owned slaves. Slavery was not unique to America; it has existed throughout the world since before recorded history. In 1619, although slavery had been banned in Europe, it flourished in Africa.
Native Americans have had inter-tribal and intra-tribal conflicts for centuries and this includes slavery and rape. So, why do we cherry pick the year 1619? Is it the earliest year that we have documentation for the specifics on colonial era slavery?
When we founded our nation on that pesky "all men are created equal" thing, we created an obligation to address those times when we, as a nation, have lived contrary to that principle. The history of other nations, while they may be contrary to this principle, should not impact our moral imperative to uphold it. That otherwise good people were ever a part of this practice is irrelevant. That there were nefarious people everywhere upholding this practice throughout history is irrelevant. That entire nations were built on the system of slave labor is irrelevant. That indentured servitude and feudal states existed is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that we, as a nation, woke up to the fact that slavery is/was/ever shall be wrong. Blaming history will not change the fact that slavery was a barbaric, backward, horror of a chapter in our nation. It was wrong, no matter who was involved or when. '
Yes.
But I'd point out that by at least the mid-1600s, that contradiction was already being pointed out by such men as Roger Williams.
Williams established the first Baptist congregation in the Americas, and Baptists at the time were so anti-slavery that they didn't even hire domestic servants.
Roger Williams was one of the first Abolitionists in America, as well as an evangelist, a friend to the Native Americans ("Jesus is true, but those people want to steal your land"), the founder of Rhode Island as the first colony of true religious freedom (even for the atheist and Muslim, as Williams himself wrote), and the person who brought "separation of Church and State" to America.
The evil of slavery isn't something that the United States gradually realized over time. Americans knew it from the beginning. Even Thomas Jefferson--a slaveholder--admitted that it was a sin.
So, yes, it's irrelevant what anyone else was doing. The people doing it knew it knew they were wrong by their own standards.
If you love your country the way a six-year-old loves Mommy, no criticism can be allowed.
Except Democrats are filled with nothing but criticism. Perpetual Victimization is the theme of modern Democrats. Sounds a lot like most Communist/Socialist and the constant state of revolution.
If you have enough free time and can get free grant money to study the Evils of White America and Slavery, you have it made. Like they say "Only in America"
It was Muslim Arabs who began the African Slave Trade circa 800 CE.
It was Muslim Arabs who introduced the slave trade to the Portuguese and Spanish in the 1400s.
Yeah, that's over 800 years --far longer than the US.
The Seljuk Turks --the Ottomans -- also practiced both White & Black slavery.
In Egypt, the Arabs imported Circassian Turks as slaves and forcibly trained them as warriors for their army. After a few centuries, they rebelled and took over Egypt in a coup. That's the Mameluke Period.
Slavery didn't end in the Ottoman Empire until 1876 under the Tanzimat Reforms.
The Left gives a pass on Muslims and would have you believe the US created slavery and was the only country/civilization that practiced it.
Granted, the US version was different in that there was no "out" but Native groups in the Americas and African tribes didn't have "outs" either.
As a slave in a Roman legion, after you did your 20 years, you were granted citizenship which barred you from slave status and given land.
The most notable case is a Greek slave named Minos.
When he completed his 20 years, he was granted citizenship and land in the Roman province of Trier (Germany). Later, the Roman governor of Trier granted Minos a charter to found a colony, which he did south of Trier at the confluence of three rivers. It was called Au autem Minos and later when the first Germanic tribes came to the area it was corrupted to Minosauwen, then later Germanic tribes arriving in the area changed it to Miesauen and then by about the 12th Century it became Miesau. It still exists.
Perhaps if the US had an "out" it would be viewed differently..
The desire to keep people ignorant of history is also a form of slavery.
Yes, indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
You all just keep telling yourselves it wasn't that bad and it's okay because "everyone was doing it." As we evolve as humans, we learn. EVEN THOUGH slavery was relatively common practice worldwide, EVEN THOUGH humans trafficked other humans (and still do) throughout history--slavery was and is wrong, completely & utterly. Full stop. We don't get to use the excuse "but everyone else was doing it" today. Today, we look back and say, "That was shameful and wrong." How is this a difficult concept?
How difficult is it for you to understand "anachronism?"
The amusing thing is that had you lived then, you'd be a slave owner or supported slavery, so don't try to act all high and mighty as though you're superior, because you're not.
Slavery today would be shameful, but then so is demanding that people in the distant past conform to current societal mores and values, when those people are long dead and gone.
No, that wasn't the general theme of the article. Re-read it and set your preconceived notions aside. If it still doesn't make sense, perhaps there is a reading comprehension problem.
in American slavery we had House Ni**ers and field Ni**ers...the former thought they were better and tend to support the Masters ideas more...was that the point?
Most founders believed that slavery would be gradually eliminated, in keeping with the principles of the Declaration. They stipulated that importation of slaves was to end by 1808. Since Southern states believed that their economies were dependent on slavery, it turned out that there was no gradual elimination.
I'd say it was not in the US DNA, but it was a significant garment that was not thrown off for 76 years. But it was not in our DNA. To the contrary, elimination of slavery was in our DNA.
Here is a paragraph from the article and part I put in bold:
Native Americans have had inter-tribal and intra-tribal conflicts for centuries and this includes slavery and rape. So, why do we cherry pick the year 1619? Is it the earliest year that we have documentation for the specifics on colonial era slavery?
Pretty much...I think.
The very basics are two landings in the (now) USA....first in MA which was more about Freedom (Religion) and getting out of the crowds...and the 2nd in Jamestown, VA - which was supposed to find Gold and other riches but they ended up starving because they refused to work. A second batch was sent by the Corporation and they did a little work under threat of hanging by the Gov, but they still needed to steal from the Indians in order to survive (food). Oh, the NE Pilgrims stole the Indians corn also...first thing when they arrived.
Anyway, the Jamestown colony soon found that the only "gold" was in Drug farming (Tobacco) and then cotton...and virtually no white people would do this. Indentured servants from Ireland did come but they ended up being the overseers in many cases (of African Slaves).
So, yes, 1619 was akin to what 1995 was to the Internet..the start of something really big. It's much bigger than what people imagine - the present value of Slavery in the Americas and the Islands would be in the MANY Trillions or 10's of Trillions of dollars.
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.
