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.
I am 100% in your corner. This entire argument is total absurdity. There are no parallels whatsoever that can be drawn between Africans forcibly removed from their homes and white people serving contractual obligations or, if prisoners, banished to the colonies as labor. Only someone with a concsiousness of guilt about Black slavery and how it happened would make such an argument.
you all sit here and tell blacks to let go of our slavery lineage and it's impact, then turn around asking for attention for white indentured servants. Insanity.
If you really want to have fun we can talk about Native Americans that owned black slaves.
12-08-2019, 09:35 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8won6
LOL.
you all sit here and tell blacks to let go of our slavery lineage and it's impact, then turn around asking for attention for white indentured servants. Insanity.
If you really want to have fun we can talk about Native Americans that owned black slaves.
HA! No one is asking for attention. Funny all the triggered people on here are upset by just mentioning some historic facts.
Why are the early white slaves ignored in the discussion of America's first slaves?
Is it because of modern politics, ignorance, the nuanced categorization of 'slave' and 'indentured servant', the plight of Africans being more recent and more lasting, or a combination of all these factors?
It is not normal politics or ignorance, its racial politics and it definitely does not fit the necessary narrative
12-08-2019, 09:36 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostnip
Do you consider prison labor in modern prisons to be slavery as well?
Really! Because all indentured servants were rapist , murders, and such deserving of such treatment.
Here we go again. As a descendant of both slaves and indentured laborers, there is a difference. Guess common sense isn’t common though.
12-08-2019, 10:00 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineDeCoeur
Here we go again. As a descendant of both slaves and indentured laborers, there is a difference. Guess common sense isn’t common though.
Not in the cases I cited. The only difference is your guy's cherry picking definitions of what constitutes a slave. I'm appealing to actual experiences of people who were slaves in practice despite whatever name you label them. If you want to call them contracted/indentured slaves go ahead. But your ignorance and refusal to do so because you fear diminishing African slavery is what is painfully stupid.
How about some Irish youths brought over by the order of England against their will as seen in the Quarterly Courts of Essex County Massachusetts Vol. II (1912) pp.294-297. This is just one of many examples, in 1661, of ship masters kidnapping and then selling them to planters in the colonies. Do you think just because some paper was written up by these fools that this does not mean they were slaves? Yeah, keep kidding yourself!
Last edited by 2K5Gx2km; 12-08-2019 at 11:14 PM..
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.
Look in the mirror!
