Posted on 02/10/2019 6:37:02 PM PST by NoLibZone
“The Blacks who arrived in 1619 really were indentured servants, not slaves.”
If the “indenturing” was established by force via kidnapping, how is that any different from enslavement? You appear to be arguing a technicality.
“In other words, black perpetual slavery was started by, Anthony Johnson, a black man.”
If you believe that, you’ll believe anything .
English, Scottish, and Irish indentured servants were often treated worse than African slaves, in whom the masters had more substantial investments. Not only political prisoners like the Scottish Jacobites but indebted individuals from all over the British Isles were consigned to slavery in the colonies. A good information source on the enslavement of white British subjects is the book, They Were White and They Were Slaves by Michael Hoffman.
Indentured servitude had a limited term.
Slavery does not.
It is likely that there were slaves involved in settlements in the 1500's. This is not universally accepted, clearly, and 1619 is commonly used as a starting point.
I am of course still using the term "slave" to indicate "people taken against their will, and bound to work without choice, for a period of time".
Misguided focus on 1619 (smithsonian institute)
I do understand what Northam was trying to say; from a historical perspective, the early settlers do not appear to have focused on race, and while they did not simply fight the dutch to release the slaves they had captured, they did "treat" the slaves as if they were indentured, and did free them after their period ended -- although again, since the angolans had no choice in the matter, this wasn't a normal use of the concept of "indentured servant".
It is OK I think to distinguish what happened in 1619 with the general slave trade that started later; it just makes no sense to me to argue that they weren't slaves, especially when you are trying to defend yourself from charges of being insensitive to racial matters.
We didn’t have slavery laws, so you couldn’t have “official slavery”. They used their process for indentured servants.
But as the participants were not willing, nor had they consented, or entered contracts, nor were they criminals, their servanthood was in fact slavery.
Slavery does not have to be a permanent thing to be slavery; that someone freed their slaves after a period of time does not make them less slaves.
I heard a report, possibly read it here, that there were in fact some blacks indentured as servants in Virginia in 1619. they were not slaves.
I never heard of black indentured servants in Virginia. There were tons and tons of white English that were indentured to pay for their passage.
I personally doubt there were any indentured negros in Virginia under the 1619 Virginia Indenture act
Kinchlow's article resides in my own archives, and I inserted the link to it here. His description is included in several other links provided by other posters on this thread, so the observations made are not unique to Kinchlow.
Shall I take your inclusion of this statement to mean that you believe Kinchlow's article is flawed, and, if so, in what ways, historically?
FReegards!
The original question was: Is Northam right to call theost first arrivals “indentured servants. Yes, he was. None of the but-he-should-have-saids matter.That does not at all detract from his demonstrated disdain for Negroes and his support for infanticide. But the claim that he lied because he said something that was true but inappropriate should not be in our arguments and claims. We could say that he was technically correct but substantially misleading but claiming he lied is bogus.
“It is likely that there were slaves involved in settlements in the 1500’s.”
Those fools at Smithsonian are writing about Spanish settlements, as if they were the beginning of what became the United States. I guess that’s why our colonial ancestors all spoke Spanish and rebelled against the King of Spain in 1776. Idiots.
Other than the Lost Colony of Roanoke, Jamestown was the first Colony of British North America. Of what became the United States. And the first colonists landed at Jamestown in 1607.
Moreover the Roanoke Colony itself may well have failed due to England’s war with Spain, the same war featuring the Spanish Armada. Fighting that attempted Spanish invasion kept England from resupplying Roanoke, and by the time they were able to return there was no trace of the colony other than the mysterious ‘croatoan’ inscription.
“I’m beginning to understand what you’re really trying to defend here. It’s your complete lack of a moral compass supplanted by your reliance on pseudo intellectualism.”
No, it just means that like the MSM you try wrapping yourself in fake moral superiority when you have no ability to make your case.
You’re only fooling yourself. Evidently that’s a low bar to hurdle.
We had private property rules which included property in humans. Indentured servants were not “property” though holders of the indentures had rights in the indenture. It is a fine distinction but it is a distinction. Northam was not lying.
Northam needs to resign.
I guess it’s a distinction that i don’t see as important. Florida is part of the United States, and there were slaves in Florida in the 1500s, that they were Spanish slaves, and not British slaves, doesn’t seem that important to me; I don’t blame our country for those slaves, but I don’t think it is important to discount them either. I don’t blame our country for british slaves either, I blame our country for the slaves we allowed as a country.
Which we did not allow for long; although it is hard to give people too much “credit” for ending something that was wrong from the start.
I don’t remember anybody saying he lied.
I remember people saying that it was a stupid thing to say when you are trying to crawl out of a hole you just dug with blackface and stupid responses.
I also believe he was “wrong”, but I don’t fault him for being wrong, because he was addressing the issue from the point of view of the people who bought the slaves, rather than the point of view of the people who were the slaves.
If I were kidnapped and sold without my consent, sure I’d be “happier” to know that I was only required to work for 10 years, instead of my entire life, and that I would be treated somewhat more civilly than a piece of property might be. But I’ll still be a slave.
Which was my point — Northam is trying to explain that he isn’t a racist, and that he understands how he hurt people (the first I don’t know if he is or not, the second I don’t think people should let themselves be hurt by something someone did 30 years ago). While doing that, he probably shouldn’t use owner-centric language when discussing slaves.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/
LOL
You still think staw man arguments need some rebuttal. That’s cute.
'Twasn't good enough for Rome. Just had to turn it into blood; even though the early church leaders specifically said:
Acts 15:29
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
No; you shant.
Here are some more slaves - http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3726756/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.