“ ...the 400th anniversary of the arrival in America of the first enslaved people from West Africa.”
There were slaves all over the world long before that.
Heavy.
No. The arrivals were indentured servants and worked off their indentures, becoming free men. Until 1642 slavery was non-existent in the colonies. It was established by a Crown court decision that year when John Casor sued to be released from his indenture as he had completed his term of indenture. Anthony Johnson (a former indentured servant who had completed his indenture and had grown wealthy) refused to release him. The court decided in Johnson's favor declaring that Casor owed his labor to Johnson for the remainder of his life.
Slaves bought from muslim slave traders.
Islam STILL practices slavery.
Ready, set, go, let the left’s rewriting of history begin. In this one the United States is bad and the communists are the heroes.
Bookmark
Slavery existed in the Western Hemisphere long before the arrival of the white man. And make no mistake about it, when the subject people of the Aztecs were used for mass human sacrifice on an ongoing basis, which is easily provably the case, those peoples were no more than slaves to the elites.
So, the proggies have failed in (re) educating people to embrace their world view. It's a bit ironic, since the left professes to favor cultural aspects. They literally bet the farm on the theory that they could change the world, and failed miserably.
IQ was, is and always be the primary human determinant. But, that's not to say science cannot rectify the imbalances. Genetic therapies directed at growing/developing/shaping improved brain mass, neurological connections, chemical miasma, etc - all the critical components of higher intelligence - are just years/decades away.
Add in cosmetic gene applications (hair, eye, skin color, etc), and who will be whom when anyone can be anybody?
I don’t believe the premise. European man was driven then as now by economics and wealth creation. With the opening up of the New World there weren’t enough human resources to develop it. The slaves and “indigenous people” provided that resource, until the natives died out There was no resistance because slavery had always been used to supplement human labor. The African slaves were cheap and resistant to the climate in the New World where most of them went (Caribbean and South America). North America was a minor player in New World slavery no matter what date you use,
Boy, this won’t go down well on Martin Luther King’s birthday, lol.
The United States has to be uniquely villainous and culpable in the leftist worldview because that’s where the money is. Actual world history is not especially useful to them and in most instances thoroughly undermines their narrative. Thus, it’s not about slavery, or even racial equality. Those are mere means to an end.
The larger or more aggressive African tribes raided and warred with the smaller tribes and took slaves, livestock, ect. to trade. The Muslims traveled the trade routes in Africa, purchased the slaves and took them to the coastal markets. Then the Brits, Dutch, Portuguese ships got them to the New world, mainly the West Indies. Most American slavers got their slaves from there. The cherished Leftist meme that the evil evil Americans simply plucked Africans off the beach is bullsheet.
..the 400th anniversary of the arrival in America of the first enslaved people from West Africa.
1. There was no America then, we were still a British colony.
2. Subtract the number of slaves that were brought to what is now the USA from the total number taken from Africa. Save you the math - something like only 9% came here. Where did the other 90+% go? Hint - Central and South America.
3. Another bothersome fact - how did a few hundred Dutch traders armed only with flint-lock rifles go to the interior of Africa and capture hundreds of thousands of slaves? Hint, they didn’t. They only traded for them on the coast, while other Africans went inland and captured them.
4. But of course white male Americans are responsible for all of this.
How does this apply to Jean-Jacques Rousseau?
The difference wasn't between "European man" and others but between Christians and non-Christians. European Christians considered lands not under the rule of a Christian ruler to be terra nullius, land belonging to nobody, which could be claimed by the first European explorer to reach it.
Before the Portuguese exploration of Africa or the European colonization of the New World, Europeans had been enslaving white non-Christians. The English word "slave" comes from the ethnic term Slav, because so many Slavs were enslaved in the Middle Ages.
Ironically, present-day Slavs are descended from the ones who did not get enslaved.
“When European Man and African Man first encountered each other...”
Does he mean when the Greeks/Romans first encountered the Egyptians? What does he mean by European Man and African Man?
How about a NYT study of slavery in Sudan and Libya?
Slavery in the United States = 1776 - 1865
89 years, not 400 years
The Republican Party was formed in 1854. It came to power in 1860 when it won Congress and the POTUS. Nearly all slaves were emancipated by the Republicans in 1863. All slaves were emancipated by the Republicans in 1865.
3 years of slavery under Republican rule, not 400 years.
Before 1776, it was British slavery.
After 1865 was the Democrat Party treating blacks as a separate society, often denying them basic rights as citizens. A little after 1865, the KKK was formed by Democrats, killing and terrorizing blacks for over a hundred years.
Just call the racist pigs at the NYT Nazis. That will end their slavery narrative real quick. If it goes to the next level, knock those Nazi pigs on their smelly asses. Debate over.