White Slaves in the English New World (ethic, Alabama, politicians)

Originally Posted by Enigma777

So if there were all those white slaves, shouldn't there be descendants of white slaves in the US? Never heard anyone tracing their white ancestor slaves, nor have I met anyone who talked about it.

"...Irish slaves--Is it true?: If we’re talking about slavery as it was practiced on Africans in the United States—that is, hereditary chattel slavery—then the answer is a clear no. As historian and public librarian Liam Hogan writes in a paper titled “The Myth of ‘Irish Slaves’ in the Colonies,” “Persons from Ireland have been held in various forms of human bondage throughout history, but they have never been chattel slaves in the West Indies.” Nor is there any evidence of Irish chattel slavery in the North American colonies..."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-debunked.html

Don't change the goal posts or straw-man me Sir! I did no such thing as compare any of this to African slavery or hereditary chattel slavery. I simply provided evidence of white slaves. Jeez! And don't go and cite morons from these correcting-the-myth-blogs as if it refutes anything I have written. That is straw-manning.

[ecko_complex24]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Where was I making the equivalency to the displacement and shipment of millions? I put sources to the quotes. If you have anything that refutes what I wrote or cited then by all means educate me.

What narrative are you thinking I am pushing? I was very clear and specific in my OP and subsequent remarks. I don't know who this Jim guy is and I'm no racist for pointing out facts of history. I have done none of what these guys do or have done.

I'm not calling you a racist. I'm just saying that some people have used taken this narrative and used it to justify their racist beliefs and have used it as a crutch to say that black people should stop complaining about injustice and what not. I will go through your earlier posts to look at the sources. As Enigma77 posted, there is this myth floating around about this phenomenon. I will say that there is horrible treatment, but I just read the post as they were equivalent in terms of treatment and servitude up until about 1675? I think that is what you stated.

Originally Posted by ecko_complex24

I'm not calling you a racist. I'm just saying that some people have used taken this narrative and used it to justify their racist beliefs and have used it as a crutch to say that black people should stop complaining about injustice and what not. I will go through your earlier posts to look at the sources. As Enigma77 posted, there is this myth floating around about this phenomenon.

I aware of it but I have done none of that here.

[ReineDeCoeur]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

You are splitting hairs! What matters is the actual experiences - which were so varied despite laws, ordinances, and any other facades of what it 'should have been' according to mandate or government wishes. In practice it was slavery for many - PERIOD! And when did I ever make this about numbers? As such I don't need to admit anything. I gave you specific examples proving my point regarding the first slaves here in VA not being the so-called "20 odd negros" - you seemed to have an allergic reaction to such facts.

You are just defining slavery to suite your own desired conclusion which is to ignore the treatment of these individuals and not have to classify them as SLAVES. Whether a person looses their ethnic identity is not a mark of slavery. Nor is the time spent in slavery. Nor is a piece of paper, often forced upon the person a mark of not being a slave. As I noted there are different TYPES of slavery. Nowhere did I try to confuse CHATTEL SLAVERY with INDENTURED SLAVERY. Although, there are examples of them being treating as property but I have not even gone there. Stop trying to define these people out of slavery to suite your own internal angst over putting white people under the label of 'slave' - it is sad and revealing of your own prejudices and inability to recognize slavery just because it is a white person. If all of these examples I gave were of black people no one would be arguing like you in denying them that status.

No. I simply know the differences between indentured labor and slavery. You’re the one who is prejudice because indentured labor was not limited to whites. Yet you want to make it all about them to suit your agenda. My ancestors were both indentured laborers and slaves. I come from a culture that openly recognizes both. We learned about both and the general differences from our youth. So you can spare me your nonsense. It will go nowhere with me.

Originally Posted by ReineDeCoeur

No. I simply know the differences between indentured labor and slavery.

So do I! And I have provided examples of slaves which you refuse to see as such simply because they are white.

You’re the one who is prejudice because indentured labor was not limited to whites. Yet you want to make it all about them to suit your agenda.

How can that be when I also pointed out that Africans were indentured as well and even cited a case for you.

My ancestors were both indentured laborers and slaves. I come from a culture that openly recognizes both. We learned about both and the general differences from our youth. So you can spare me your nonsense. It will go nowhere with me.

Yeah, whatever! You can't even answer the questions I posed because you know it makes your arguments foolish.

[Frostnip]

I think people tend to think of indentured servitude as a colonial phenomenon, not a US phenomenon, and therefore something the British did to "us" rather than something we did to others. I don't think the average American is aware of how long the practice continued.

Being an indentured servant was obviously an abusive gig. The fundamental difference between it and slavery as practiced in the Americas is that it wasn't automatically generational, and that the typical indentured servant could look forward to completing their contact eventually, while the typical slave could not. Or, to put it another way, indentured servants' masters owned their labor; slaves' masters owned their persons. While the life of an indentured servant and of a slave might be similar on a given day, the psychological and societal difference caused by this distinction really should not be understated, IMO.

[Frostnip]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Really! Because all indentured servants were rapist , murders, and such deserving of such treatment.

Certainly not all people in prison are rapists and murderers.

The modern prison labor system is very similar to indentured servitude, except without the semblance of it being voluntary. Do you consider it slavery?

Originally Posted by Frostnip

Certainly not all people in prison are rapists and murderers.

The modern prison labor system is very similar to indentured servitude, except without the semblance of it being voluntary. Do you consider it slavery?

It does not compare to what I have mentioned in this thread. It is not the same. It may compare to SOME cases of indentured servitude. You seem to think that anything labeled 'indentured servant' had some absolute consistency through time. It did not!

Originally Posted by Frostnip

I think people tend to think of indentured servitude as a colonial phenomenon, not a US phenomenon, and therefore something the British did to "us" rather than something we did to others. I don't think the average American is aware of how long the practice continued.

Being an indentured servant was obviously an abusive gig. The fundamental difference between it and slavery as practiced in the Americas is that it wasn't automatically generational, and that the typical indentured servant could look forward to completing their contact eventually, while the typical slave could not. Or, to put it another way, indentured servants' masters owned their labor; slaves' masters owned their persons. While the life of an indentured servant and of a slave might be similar on a given day, the psychological and societal difference caused by this distinction really should not be understated, IMO.

Again, slavery does not necessitate lifetime service.

There are numerous examples of indentured servants having children who were themselves indentured for 20 years. It was law.

I'm not necessarily talking what was typical even though it could be argued, given the complaints I cited, that it was, particularly in the early 17th century.

Many indentures were passed on in wills and treated as chattel/property.

Many slaves got freedom - did that negate them being slaves? No! Again, being a slave does not necessitate lifetime service.

[turkey-head]

Best I can tell, the Wokie position on the matter is this:

White people who were killed by the millions via war, famine, and pogroms... or who were enslaved by the millions via serfdom and indentured servitude... they're really not worth considering. Because the perpetrators looked similar to the victims.

Injustice is notable *only* if the people involved look different... according to our SJW moral leaders.