[Russianbear]

The indentured servitude of some of the Irish and other whites is often used by American racists to downplay or even to justify the enslavement of blacks. This thread is proof of that. You are playing into the hands of these racists.

I repeat: you are correct to attack the British Empire - it was one of the most brutal and destructive empires in human history. But there are better ways of doing that.

And I repeat: Should we hide the truth for the sake of current left political correctness?

No one denies that the British Empire and their colonies were founded on the assumption of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race as well as the extermination of millions of indigenous peoples and the exploitation of enslaved millions black Africans.
The worst kind of Anglo-Saxon racism has been manifested through the genocidal colonial racism that has destroyed many human lives and civilizations.
What is the problem then?

[Potemkin]

And I repeat: Should we hide the truth for the sake of current left political correctness?

You may not be aware of it, but you are repeating the talking points of far-right racists. Why are you doing this? I am beginning to suspect that you are motivated by more than just a hatred of the British Empire.

No one denies that the British Empire and their colonies were founded on the assumption of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race as well as the extermination of millions of indigenous peoples and the exploitation of enslaved millions black Africans.
The worst kind of Anglo-Saxon racism has been manifested through the genocidal colonial racism that has destroyed many human lives and civilizations.
What is the problem then?

I have already explained to you what the problem is. Why are you being obtuse?

[Russianbear]

You may not be aware of it, but you are repeating the talking points of far-right racists. Why are you doing this? I am beginning to suspect that you are motivated by more than just a hatred of the British Empire.


I have already explained to you what the problem is. Why are you being obtuse?

You may not be aware of it, but you are repeating the talking points of Calvinist exceptionalism and corporate fascism.
Unfortunately, your patronizing arrogance cannot contribute to a civilized discussion.
A little modesty wouldn’t hurt you.

[Potemkin]

You may not be aware of it, but you are repeating the talking points of Calvinist exceptionalism and corporate fascism.
Unfortunately, your patronizing arrogance cannot contribute to a civilized discussion.
A little modesty wouldn’t hurt you.

I'm British. You expect me to be modest? Lol.

[The Resister]

Yeah, those black slaves had it easy back in the day. They probably spent all their time chewing on watermelons and dancing to fiddle music. I dunno what their descendants are whining about. Not like white people - now they had it bad. Even now, middle-class white men are the most abused and oppressed minority in the world. We get put upon and blamed for everything! And don't get me started on 'positive discrimination'.... The sufferings of the white race is the worst tragedy in all of history! What about me? Won't anyone feel sorry for me? For me??!!

Where did I say that they had it easy? The reality is you don't want to acknowledge that EVERYBODY had it hard in the early days of America through slavery and beyond.

My ancestors were held in bondage for 400 years and you don't see me wasting my ever waking moment demanding reparations from the Black people who claim they are descended from the Egyptians that held them. America needs to move forward. As long as the slavery issue is being used as a tool of demagoguery, there will be chaos, divisiveness, and a gross misunderstanding. Black people are encouraged to celebrate their history, make martyrs out of evil people who built their reputation on the race issue, and we try to lock Whites out of the discussion. America once had soldiers willing to die in defense of the Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and the Right to Freedom of Expression. Now, you can be vilified, castigated, stigmatized, and locked out of the discussion for telling the truth. The difference between me and the rest of the political propaganda prostitutes is that I would die for their Right to responsibly express their views without fear of reprisals or consequence. Do you think anybody would do that for me? Do you think that anybody, from either side, would support me? Before you answer that, you should see how many people have made death threats against me for disagreeing with the proposed solution Trump adopted relative to immigration.

Since the 1970s and affirmative action, busing, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, immigration laws that favor the non-whites, etc. we have created an imbalance. Today, people like Donald Trump have been able to seize on this opportunity and exploit it for all it's worth. BOTH sides have their race whores because it is profitable. When you don't like what the other guy has to say, accuse them of racism. Shut them down. Avoid the truth. This dishonest, despicable, cowardly way of approaching the subject hides the fact that those who participate in it only live for the opportunity to shove their version of racism down someone else's throat while accusing others of what they themselves are doing.

I support the Right of every human being to have a Freedom of Association and a Freedom of Disassociation. Do you? If I were removed from the face of the earth today for talking about subject matter that was unpopular, would you miss my posts? Would it make you mad that a tyrannical action was used to silence me? My forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to secure certain Rights. Today, all we have to do is make some idiotic charge of racism and that negates the Right of unpopular views to be heard - and unpopular as they might be, they might be true. Censorship is the cure to the truth. Ridiculous and cowardly allegations of racism are tools of tyrants used to silence honest and civil discourse. The result is to have megalomaniacs like Donald Trump leading the Whites because mainstream doesn't want to acknowledge that they are replacing what they see as an evil with an evil that is an imminent danger and threat to Liberty.

[The Resister]

And I repeat: Should we hide the truth for the sake of current left political correctness?

No one denies that the British Empire and their colonies were founded on the assumption of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race as well as the extermination of millions of indigenous peoples and the exploitation of enslaved millions black Africans.
The worst kind of Anglo-Saxon racism has been manifested through the genocidal colonial racism that has destroyed many human lives and civilizations.
What is the problem then?

My argument to you is why should any version of the truth not be put on the table? You talk about the lives and civilizations that the Whites allegedly destroyed. Yet I think you would deny what other races have done as if they are pure and without blemish in their history. We don't condemn non-White countries for practicing racism - you won't even boycott those countries. Yet you would not acknowledge that in America we are practicing a subtle form of genocide against the Whites for slavery. There is a reason that the issue is self perpetuating.

Hitler had his justification for going after the Jews. The mixed multitude have their excuses for pursuing a genocidal war against the Whites. Tyrants and despots from every corner of the world have had some kind of pretext for destroying others. The one thing we cannot afford to do and won't do is to seek out perspective and acceptance of the truth. In between all the extremes, there is both the truth and the ultimate solution. Unfortunately, the solution won't be a One World, One Religion, One Race utopia that is the goal of globalists and elitists. Equal justice under the law and The God given unalienable Rights of man will remain the enemy of the masses.

[late]

The real devil in the details is that indentured servants were treated like crap because they were the equivalent of leasing a piece of equipment. You don't take care of leased equipment as good as your own. Indentured servants were treated worse and the majority were treated badly enough that they didn't live long enough to pay off their contract. They began as poor people living a shitty life and died in debt without ever having tasted Freedom.



In the United States, fewer than 25 percent of black slaves ever picked cotton.

On average, they were fed better, lived in better housing, had better clothes, and lived longer than their blue collar, white skin contemporaries.

The argument was about whether they were slaves, and they were not. Many contracts included land, and much of what was needed to start a farm on it. I don't know about mortality rates, do you have a source for that?

That's meaningless, by itself. You seem to be ignoring sugar and tobacco. My understanding is most worked in the fields. The rich estates kept a large staff to support their lavish lifestyle, but again, what's the point here?

"Slaves suffered extremely high mortality. Half of all slave infants died during their first year of life, twice the rate of white babies. And while the death rate declined for those who survived their first year, it remained twice the white rate through age 14. As a result of this high infant and childhood death rate, the average life expectancy of a slave at birth was just 21 or 22 years, compared to 40 to 43 years for antebellum whites."
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3040

[QatzelOk]

You may not be aware of it, but you are repeating the talking points of far-right racists. Why are you doing this? I am beginning to suspect that you are motivated by more than just a hatred of the British Empire.

So if "racists" sometimes say some of the things that Russianbear is saying, then he must be one of them?

What if many racists also drink tea and have a cat? Should tea-drinking cat-owners worry about their lifestyle choices?

Yeah, those black slaves had it easy back in the day. ... I dunno what their descendants are whining about. Not like white people - now they had it bad.

Here, you've set up a strawman "lawn ornament black person" to mock Russianbear, and then you have thrown "all white people" into one class, to prove how little "any of them" have suffered historically. You are implying that white people are suffering the indignities that Melania Trump sometimes suffers: the bath isn't the right temperature, the limo isn't ready when the learjet arrives, the champagne isn't the vintage we asked for, etc.

I'm pretty sure those dead endentured-servants were at a different Human Development Index than the Rockefellers, Trumps, or Bill Gates.

To put them into one social category ("white") is like gerrymandering your argument. Cheating.

My ancestors were held in bondage for 400 years and you don't see me wasting my ever waking moment demanding reparations from the Black people who claim they are descended from the Egyptians that held them. America needs to move forward.

Whatever your story is, the fact is that peoples who have been victimized by income inequality and various forms of slavery (there are many) often NEED some kind of sustained program in order to get their families and their souls back to some semblance of humanity. It doesn't matter what color their skin is, these victims will suffer for many generations.

[Heisenberg]

So if "racists" sometimes say some of the things that Russianbear is saying, then he must be one of them?

It's actually more like this: the argument Russianbear is advancing was originally started by neo-Confederates with the specific intention of diminishing the legacy of chattel slavery ("if we got over it, why can't you?" is the message, despite the fact that "it" was not the same for the two groups, by a long shot).

If, after having this pointed out, Russianbear doubles down on the talking point, then it brings his motives into question.

You are implying that white people are suffering the indignities that Melania Trump sometimes suffers: the bath isn't the right temperature, the limo isn't ready when the learjet arrives, the champagne isn't the vintage we asked for, etc.

Again, the actual point is that white people did not suffer the specific indignity of chattel slavery. Indentured servitude and penal transportation were not the same thing, and repeated attempts to insist that they were do nothing to improve our understanding of any of the three practices.

[QatzelOk]

Again, the actual point is that white people did not suffer the specific indignity of chattel slavery. Indentured servitude and penal transportation were not the same thing, and repeated attempts to insist that they were do nothing to improve our understanding of any of the three practices.

This attempt to define "different types" of slavery, in order to establish a hierarchy of life experiences that may-or-may-not justify reparations or suffering... is silly and pointless.

There are new forms of slavery being invented as we speak.

The point that is most important is that all slaves, all poor people, all "throwaway" peoples have been made to suffer in ways that has harmed their families and their children. And because this suffering has not been cared for, it continues to cause major social problems.

My point is... that as long as we live under capitalism, we will destroy one another in ways that are cruel and callous. The "white trash" category of people with light skin, for example (deplorables, trailer park crowd, rightwingers), is a way of brushing aside the suffering and family-destroying effects of lower class lives by calling them a bad word.

In reality, empires of all flavors find their best mercs in this class. So the existence of ignorance and suffering among the poor... has a function for the rich. And they KNOW IT.

[Heisenberg]

This attempt to define "different types" of slavery, in order to establish a hierarchy of life experiences that may-or-may-not justify reparations or suffering... is silly and pointless.

Not really. There is a very loud and prominent class of people in the US who are determined to pretend that black Americans are to blame for their current position in society, and the "indentured servitude was the same as slavery" argument is a common way of doing just that.

A few important differences: indentured servants were not considered fundamentally less than human. When they were freed - which always happened when their indenture finished! - they were typically given land or capital. And, more pertinent to today: after they were freed, the state did not make a series of laws akin to Jim Crow, designed to disenfranchise former indentured servants to the greatest extent possible.

So yes, it actually is important to distinguish between indentured servitude and slavery. Because America is still deeply affected by the legacy of one of those practices, but not the other one.

[ckaihatsu]

Hollywood Shuffle (1987)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093200/

[QatzelOk]

Not really. There is a very loud and prominent class of people in the US who are determined to pretend that black Americans are to blame for their current position in society, and the "indentured servitude was the same as slavery" argument is a common way of doing just that.

Whatever "a certain class of people" is doing or saying is of no concern to me in this thread. Trying to smear someone's arguments with "someone nasty has this opinion, so we must have a different one" is a dumb propaganda strategy.

A few important differences: indentured servants were not considered fundamentally less than human.

And yet they were often killed ("died") before they got to inherit their little piece of land? Doesn't sound like they got treated like humans to me. [url=Also read this]Also read this[/url]

When they were freed - which always happened when their indenture finished! - they were typically given land or capital.

I don't think you watched this video:

[Heisenberg]

Whatever "a certain class of people" is doing or saying is of no concern to me in this thread. Trying to smear someone's arguments with "someone nasty has this opinion, so we must have a different one" is a dumb propaganda strategy.

The actual point is "This isn't true, and is a myth that originates with nasty people with transparently evil motives. Please reconsider your argument," not "someone nasty has this opinion, so we must have a different one".

And yet they were often killed ("died") before they got to inherit their little piece of land? Doesn't sound like they got treated like humans to me.

Thank you for once again missing the point.

Indentured servants were not legally considered sub-human property. Black slaves were. This is further illustrated by the fact that the practice of indentured servitude decreased rapidly once the brutality of plantation owners became common knowledge in the UK - and indentured servants were thereafter replaced by African slave labour. Because subjecting white people to the brutality of the plantations wasn't socially acceptable - but subjecting black Africans to the same conditions was.

I don't think you watched this video:

Bacon's Rebellion proves my point, not yours. The response of the authorities was to strengthen and codify the racial character of slavery in Virginia, culminating in the Slave Codes of 1705.

But the more pertinent point is this: African slavery continued for another 160 years after the Slave Codes - followed by 100 years of Jim Crow after the Civil War. Neither of these facts applied to white indentured servants.

[Potemkin]

Indentured servants were not legally considered sub-human property. Black slaves were. This is further illustrated by the fact that the practice of indentured servitude decreased rapidly once the brutality of plantation owners became common knowledge in the UK - and indentured servants were thereafter replaced by African slave labour. Because subjecting white people to the brutality of the plantations wasn't socially acceptable - but subjecting black Africans to the same conditions was.

Precisely. And we even know the exact moment at which this difference became instituted in law in the new colonies: July 1640. This was the case of the black runaway indentured servant John Punch. What is noteworthy is that he was treated differently from his two fellow indentured servant runaways, who happened to be white. He was made an indentured servant for life. He was therefore the first official slave in the English colonies in the New World. This is the moment when slavery became institutionalised in the American colonies, became racially based, and was made distinct from indentured servitude.

[Red_Army]

There is no point in making the argument that other people's lives also sucked concurrently with slavery. For the vast majority of Europeans, colonialism was a brutal morass of disease and death that only a tiny amount of people profited from - that does not make the actions of colonists OK and does not reverse the fundamental fact that the colonists were oppressors and the colonized victims. Both of these examples show that slavery and colonialism had negative effects on the societies that were supposed to benefit from them and can be used to explain why both those systems were bad per se, but not to show that the experiences of the two groups were the same.

[ThirdTerm]

It was actually the American dream for most of indentured servants from Britain and Ireland. The vast majority of white migrants came to America as indentured servants prior to America's independence because they could not afford to travel to America on their own. Instead, their prospective employers paid for their passage and they worked for their masters for around five years in exchange. In addition, during their time as servants, they were fed and housed. Afterwards, they would be given what were known as "freedom dues," which usually included a piece of land and other supplies. After receiving their freedom package, they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely.

[The Resister]

The argument was about whether they were slaves, and they were not. Many contracts included land, and much of what was needed to start a farm on it. I don't know about mortality rates, do you have a source for that?

That's meaningless, by itself. You seem to be ignoring sugar and tobacco. My understanding is most worked in the fields. The rich estates kept a large staff to support their lavish lifestyle, but again, what's the point here?

"Slaves suffered extremely high mortality. Half of all slave infants died during their first year of life, twice the rate of white babies. And while the death rate declined for those who survived their first year, it remained twice the white rate through age 14. As a result of this high infant and childhood death rate, the average life expectancy of a slave at birth was just 21 or 22 years, compared to 40 to 43 years for antebellum whites."
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3040

I will start you off with two primary sources. The first is a book entitled Time on the Cross - the Economics of American Negro Slavery (and its accompanying supplemental Volume Time on the Cross subtitled Evidence and Methods). It was written by Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, both university professors. Another book I can refer you to is They Were White and They Were Slaves - The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America by Michael A. Hoffman.

If you become serious, start there and I will be more than glad to keep adding to the mountains of evidence that debunks most of the multicultural cow manure being spread by advocates of the NEW WORLD ORDER. The key is putting perspective to history and accepting reality.

Good, bad, or indifferent society chooses slavery. Consider that most Americans accept the income tax knowing full well that it is illegal, immoral, indefensible, reprehensible, unconstitutional, AND it was a plank out of the Communist Manifesto illegally put into our own Constitution. It enslaves the people, but the masses choose to honor it as if it were the word of God. Show an American a Bible and they will laugh at you. Show them an IRS agent, and they will tremble in their boots.

Americans get too hung up on brooding over American slavery and if you challenge the institution of slavery, you will be accused of "racism." It is acceptable in every country on the globe except the United States. Yet the fact is, the United States never legalized slavery; they were not the biggest importer of slaves; slaves in the United States were treated better than any other country that enslaved Black people. Yet, the United States is the ONLY country being pursued over a policy that has been illegal in the United States for 156 years. The states were the first in modern history with half of the states outlawing slavery BEFORE the Constitution was ratified.

As a purely legal issue, it would be unconstitutional for Black people to seek reparations from white people on the basis of their skin. It would equally be unconstitutional to hold the federal government accountable for a practice that they did not legalize, but rather phased out at the ratification of the Constitution. It would be ridiculous to bring suit against the individual states since over half of them made the practice illegal before the ratification of the Constitution. Never do the liberals who harp on the subject talk about going after the line of families and corporations that owned the slave ships and benefit off the slaves. Blacks don't want to hold their own brethren accountable for selling them. The leadership of Black leaders only seeks to punish the Whites on a false presupposition. And we want to sweep the enslavement of the Irish under the rug as if it never happened.

In the 1650s the Irish were being enslaved by the thousands (over a hundred thousand) by the same people engaged in enslaving and importing Blacks to America, yet nobody is mad at the fallen super-power that made that a legal enterprise. The facts are, Irish were enslaved in the colonies; they were shipped to the West Indies, Jamaica and Barbados by the same slavers that brought Blacks to the colonies. In early America, Blacks and Cherokee Indians owned Irish slaves. Modernists don't want to admit that Blacks weren't the first nor were they treated the worse. You should check out the aforementioned books, learn the rest of the story and look up the cited laws, statistics, etc. Then, maybe, you will agree that it is time to look forward, not backward.

[Russianbear]

I'm British. You expect me to be modest? Lol.

I guess that explains everything.

[The Resister]

So if "racists" sometimes say some of the things that Russianbear is saying, then he must be one of them?

What if many racists also drink tea and have a cat? Should tea-drinking cat-owners worry about their lifestyle choices?


Here, you've set up a strawman "lawn ornament black person" to mock Russianbear, and then you have thrown "all white people" into one class, to prove how little "any of them" have suffered historically. You are implying that white people are suffering the indignities that Melania Trump sometimes suffers: the bath isn't the right temperature, the limo isn't ready when the learjet arrives, the champagne isn't the vintage we asked for, etc.

I'm pretty sure those dead endentured-servants were at a different Human Development Index than the Rockefellers, Trumps, or Bill Gates.

To put them into one social category ("white") is like gerrymandering your argument. Cheating.


Whatever your story is, the fact is that peoples who have been victimized by income inequality and various forms of slavery (there are many) often NEED some kind of sustained program in order to get their families and their souls back to some semblance of humanity. It doesn't matter what color their skin is, these victims will suffer for many generations.

And I would repeat to you: My ancestors were held in bondage for over 400 years. How many generations do you need? If people cannot assimilate into American culture, how come you suppose that they don't return to the country of their forefathers and DEMAND justice? If things are so bad here, some people would be better off to start with the people who chased them down like animals and sold them in the first place. Start taking their revenge out there. With the wealth they've accumulated from the U.S. they should be able to build their version of a utopia in relatively short order. The BILLIONS of dollars that activists like Oprah Winfrey has would go a long way into building the utopia that many Black people want, but a substantial amount of the rest of America will not settle for. IMO, it would be faster and easier to take back places like Sierra Leone than tackle half the population of the United States that disagree with the perpetual narrative of victimhood.