I came onto this thread to support the view that Blacks weren't the first slaves. Pardon my language, but this thread has become something of a shitshow with a couple of posters believing they hold a monopoly on all human understanding and until I bow down, kiss their ass and pledge fealty to their superiority they intend to pursue me to the ends of the earth. Good luck with that.
It is believed that slavery goes back to 3500 B.C. and even the Code of Hammurabi (1860 BC) refers to it as an established institution. This thread dealt with a very narrow issue, that being that Irish slaves were the first slaves. Among the banter and B.S. a few things were lost. The fact that Irish were slaves is being ignored by left wing critics on this thread. Oh, how the left eschews slavery, but gets defensive if you challenge the notion that all slavery was not Black slavery.
Somewhere in the left's warped logic, slavery is acceptable provided it is not Black people being held in bondage. But, wait a minute... didn't Blacks hold non-Whites in slavery? That is not important since we can silence any inquiry into history. We can deny a lot of things if we like - even believe that since some people want to demagogue the issue, those who hold the balance of power on this board believe that might makes right. Isn't that what Democrats believed when they supported slavery a little over a century and half ago? So, historically which side was right? Were the Blacks who held Whites in slavery right or did Blacks EVER
hold Whites in slavery? Since slavery was upheld by the Democrats, weren't they right because it was majority rule? I mean, that is what my critics are pushing here - that the majority should rule regardless of any facts presented. Yet, while they are trying their best to ream me a new one, lamestream sometimes acknowledges the basic message I've tried to convey here:https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/librar ... aves-10927
The one thing my critics on this thread fear is exposure to the truth. My version of the truth is that Blacks are not the only people to have faced hardships in this country NOR do they hold a monopoly on having been slaves. Sugarcoat it or whatever you want to call it. Black slaves had a longer life expectancy over their white skin, blue collar contemporaries (many of whom just happened to be indentured servants). Marginalizing and denying the plight of other people is no different than those who deny the holocaust - and holocaust deniers have their own indisputable facts. Does that mean they have cornered the market on the truth? OR do we pick and choose the truth based upon who is in power at any given moment?
Now, I've done some cursory reading of the subject and cannot tell you if it were James I, II, or VI that may have authored some legal instrument that historians once called a Proclamation, but may have been a declaration, edict, executive order, or some other legal instrument. The problem is historians aren't lawyers and lawyers aren't historians. Personally, my training is in law. So I follow facts and evidence. The only thing I understand is that Irish (among other races) were slaves, indentured servants, or just plain less than human in this discussion of the institution of slavery. Just to illustrate a point and make a final analogy, when I was a kid an old man gave me a book accompanied with a newspaper article. The newspaper article said that U.S. Representative Tom Abernethy read into the Congressional record a quotation from a book entitled "A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century
" and the quote was:
"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause
Well now, today if you believe that, you are an idiot, racist, white supremacist, neo nazi, uneducated moron. Why? Well it is has all been refuted by modernists. It's a myth. None of this existed. What should be relevant is that it all came true. But, not the point. An old man gave me a book. I was very young (still a teen). But, it wasn't any book. It was THE BOOK
. It was the book that Abernathy used to quote from - THAT BOOK, that very book. There was no Israel Cohen as it was a pseudonym just as there is no George Orwell. The book was privately published which was fairly common for anti-communist organizations. Yet, the accepted "truth
" is that the book never existed. So, these guys can be as critical as they want to be. The evidence suggests that a lot of Irish people were held as slaves and that the treatment was beyond comprehension. That is what is relevant to me. I know about the cover ups of history and denials of documentation that is alluded to by many sources while the original documents are long gone. To the victor goes the spoils.
If we are to learn anything about man's inhumanity to man, we must be willing to acknowledge it. My critics aren't willing to do that much. Consequently, there is nothing else left here to talk about. Semantics, denials of proven history, etc. don't impress me. What we do have in this country is a program of subtle genocide against Whites and the only people the lamestream have appointed to bitch about the injustices against the Whites are neo-nazi and White supremacist organizations. So, on the surface there is the illusion that you are provided the facts about slavery. But, then it is the powerful left controlling both
narratives. I'm not on either side of the argument so that is my contribution. Thank you for your time.