[Crantag]

@Crantag

What are the good points in his arguments, and, by the bye, why do you think spurious sources support an argument?

I wasn't supporting his arguments.

I wasn't dissupporting them, either.

This is a debate forum. One of his arguments I support is the ability to express opinions, even unpopular ones.

And, there were aspects of his writings I found intriguing.

The 'mainstream truth becomes gospel and dissenters are shouted down' stuff.

As a self-fancied historical materialist, I fall more on the other side of the argument to him.

It is hard to discuss this without sounding condescending, but I'll try. Relatively speaking, many black people in Americans do have rough upbringings, in environments which mainstream social workers would call 'underprivileged'.

Spoiler: show

(The inherent difficulty in discussing this topic without offending someone is attributable to the PC bullshit of course, and the language, etc., which is indeed corrupted. And it is the mainstream 'liberal-progressives' who are largely to blame.)

The issues are complex of course, but much can be gleaned from looking at history from a materialist lens, and we can say that blacks, on the whole, have had it bad (obviously); but, moreover, that they are still oppressed, and that there is a direct line of linkage to the past.

As such, the 'plight' of black Americans is an extremely pressing, current issue, with deep roots in history, ranging from the very modern history to the entirety of the history of the US.

And that being said, I thought he wrote some informed posts, which were thought out, well worded, and contained some things which I could agree with.

Also, @late was out of hand. @The Resister's posts were not an upper-division college paper handed in by a student at a university where he was teaching, wherein the upper-division student had not followed the university guidelines.

And, intellectual snobbery is among the worst types of snobbery.

[Crantag]

This isn't just a matter of writing style or presentation, @Crantag. @The Resister is peddling fake history; and when he is challenged on it, he becomes abusive.

Aspects of this were further clarified in subsequent posts, after the ones I quoted.

That said, I don't like topics to be off-limits, either; and certainly don't regard a topic such as, for example, the suffering of Irish in the American Colonies to be a topic which should be off-limits. Sure, intentions matter and stuff, but I didn't actually see anything inappropriate.

However, on the matter of intentions, okay, maybe I have a fault wherein I assume good intentions in people; but to someone seeking to draw any kind of comparisons between say different categories of slaves in the American Colonies, or in the USA, I would most certainly precaution them to be aware that in the case of black slaves, the issue is most certainly one which lives on unresolved. Kinda like the Civil War still festers a little, but, in the case of black slaves, it more than festers. It is more like a gaping wound which has certainly not healed, and which certainly still bleeds.

[Pants-of-dog]

NONE of you have read my first primary source which goes in depth to quote from original sources be it statutes, ordinances, Charters, and historical books that delve deep into the subject. You cannot judge the book by the cover. IF anyone is truly interested they can read the books and see if you are blowing smoke or you have something. If you aren't going to read the book, the only things you are after is that which supports your erroneous theory.

For me it is more about human misery and suffering - something that you think is irrelevant if you get to make some minor chickenshit point about which James issued a piece of paper. OMG at the nitpicking in order to justify hatred of White people!

Is it nitpicking to point out that this 1625 proclamation does not exist?

[late]

I read in a required reading book in, perhaps it was a critical thinking class when I first started college, a line to the effect "one can master any subject through reading."

There are many self-taught historians.

And being dismissive of someone for not following the essay writing guidelines for the sophomores at a particular university where you spent time, in whatever capacity it was, is really, really poor attempt at deflection (and transparently so).

That's nice, also not relevant.

So, tell me, do you think taxes are slavery?

He's trying to sell a libertarian fantasy...

[Crantag]

That's nice, also not relevant.

So, tell me, do you think taxes are slavery?

He's trying to sell a libertarian fantasy...

I don't know about taxes.

I have on these forums explained why I, in the literal sense, consider student loans to be slavery.

Why?

When you get a house loan or a car loan, the house/car (underlying asset for purchase) is effectively the collateral. Virtually all loans involve collateral.

Student loans are no exception. With student loans, the collateral is the underlying human being. It is a relationship of ownership; that between the borrower and the bank which underwrites the loan.

Slavery is characterized by the ownership of people.

Student loans can never be eliminated through bankruptcy, or other means (except in extreme cases).

In America, it is legal for fresh high school graduates to sell themselves in to slavery in exchange for college tuition expenses.

So, this is my response, and you asked me the question, and so this is what I have to say. I consider student loans to be an arena of slavery.

I am not sure if I would to any extent extend that to taxes, or not, honestly. I can see an angle to it, sorta. I agreed with his quip, the Socialist Surveillance Number.

I sorta think of the social security number as an individualized cattle brand.

[ingliz]

my first primary source

Your *primary source* is “an exercise in racist ahistorical propaganda” that attempts to add a “veneer of credibility to what is a well-known white nationalist conspiracy theory more commonly found on Neo-Nazi and Neo-Confederate forums.”

According to historian Thomas Bartlett, while many traveled as voluntary unindentured emigrants, it is generally accepted that approximately 10,000 Irish were sent to the West Indies involuntarily and 40,000 came as voluntary indentured servants. As to the 10,000 Irish sent to the West Indies involuntarily, almost all were freemen by 1680. Also, it should be noted that after acts for the 'Good Governing of Servants and Ordaining the Rights between Masters and Servants' and the 'Better Ordering and Governing of Negroes' were passed by the colonial English legislature in 1661, all indentured whites were employed in supervisory roles.

And why no mention of the 12,000 English and Welsh who were transported to the West Indies (Vagrancy Act of 1547) in the early 1600s to clear the dense forests? Many poor labourers died as they toiled under conditions much worse than the Irish endured.

* The quotes are taken from an open letter sent to Irish Central, Irish Examiner, and Scientific American signed by 82 Irish academics and historians asking them to remove their articles on so-called Irish slavery.

*...* To Hell or Barbados a book by Sean Callaghan

[late]

I don't know about taxes.

Lame dodge.

[Crantag]

Lame dodge.

Uh, no, it wasn't, actually.

You sure have your panties in a bunch it would seem.

[late]

Uh, no, it wasn't, actually.

You need a strong government to be part of the Modern World. I can run you through the history, if you need it.

To get there, you need taxes.

A Supreme Court justice was known for whistling every year when he dropped his tax returns in the mail. Eventually a clerk asked him why. "Today is the day I buy civilization".

Lame dodge was the polite version.

[The Resister]

I wasn't supporting his arguments.

I wasn't dissupporting them, either.

This is a debate forum. One of his arguments I support is the ability to express opinions, even unpopular ones.

And, there were aspects of his writings I found intriguing.

The 'mainstream truth becomes gospel and dissenters are shouted down' stuff.

As a self-fancied historical materialist, I fall more on the other side of the argument to him.

It is hard to discuss this without sounding condescending, but I'll try. Relatively speaking, many black people in Americans do have rough upbringings, in environments which mainstream social workers would call 'underprivileged'.

Spoiler: show

(The inherent difficulty in discussing this topic without offending someone is attributable to the PC bullshit of course, and the language, etc., which is indeed corrupted. And it is the mainstream 'liberal-progressives' who are largely to blame.)

The issues are complex of course, but much can be gleaned from looking at history from a materialist lens, and we can say that blacks, on the whole, have had it bad (obviously); but, moreover, that they are still oppressed, and that there is a direct line of linkage to the past.

As such, the 'plight' of black Americans is an extremely pressing, current issue, with deep roots in history, ranging from the very modern history to the entirety of the history of the US.

And that being said, I thought he wrote some informed posts, which were thought out, well worded, and contained some things which I could agree with.

Also, @late was out of hand. @The Resister's posts were not an upper-division college paper handed in by a student at a university where he was teaching, wherein the upper-division student had not followed the university guidelines.

And, intellectual snobbery is among the worst types of snobbery.

I knew nothing of this being a debate forum. That being the case, the first time my critics made the issue personal and / or they tried to discredit primary sources with a newspaper opinion, they lost the debate. My critics wanted primary source material and it was so provided. All they did was Google the authors and the material to find negative articles about them and introduce that to keep from having to address the substantive material therein.

At that point, it was no longer a civil discourse, much less a "debate." And, no, this kind of criticism will never change anyone's mind - not that anyone is following this from an open minded viewpoint.

[The Resister]

Is it nitpicking to point out that this 1625 proclamation does not exist?

Strange. Historians disagree with you. As per one of my earlier posts, entire books have been written about the subject.

[Potemkin]

Strange. Historians disagree with you. As per one of my earlier posts, entire books have been written about the subject.

https://checkyourfact.com/2020/06/28/fact-check-viral-post-misinformation-irish-slaves/

[The Resister]

Your *primary source* is “an exercise in racist ahistorical propaganda” that attempts to add a “veneer of credibility to what is a well-known white nationalist conspiracy theory more commonly found on Neo-Nazi and Neo-Confederate forums.”

According to historian Thomas Bartlett, while many traveled as voluntary unindentured emigrants, it is generally accepted that approximately 10,000 Irish were sent to the West Indies involuntarily and 40,000 came as voluntary indentured servants. As to the 10,000 Irish sent to the West Indies involuntarily, almost all were freemen by 1680. Also, it should be noted that after acts for the 'Good Governing of Servants and Ordaining the Rights between Masters and Servants' and the 'Better Ordering and Governing of Negroes' were passed by the colonial English legislature in 1661, all indentured whites were employed in supervisory roles.

And why no mention of the 12,000 English and Welsh who were transported to the West Indies (Vagrancy Act of 1547) in the early 1600s to clear the dense forests? Many poor labourers died as they toiled under conditions much worse than the Irish endured.

* The quotes are taken from an open letter sent to Irish Central, Irish Examiner, and Scientific American signed by 82 Irish academics and historians asking them to remove their articles on so-called Irish slavery.

*...* To Hell or Barbados a book by Sean Callaghan

This is exactly the kind of spineless B.S. I've been writing about. One of my primary sources was written by two university professors. For quoting their material I have been lied to, lied about, attacked mercilessly, called names, threatened in PMs, and trolled for all the mileage the trolls can get out of it.

The second primary source contains references to the actual sources including, but not limited to laws, regulations, references to private communications, history books, etc., etc. For all I know the guy might be the head of the KKK. That doesn't mean that the factual evidence presented isn't true. Then, of course, was a reference to a book on the subject.

Have you bothered to access or read ANY of the material? No. You come off with this chicken squeeze of a deflection, attacking the authors and not any of the material contained therein. What the argument eventually boils down to is that, maybe (I'm not an expert on the subject) someone pretending to write an unbiased article or book isn't up front with you. That is why I prefer primary source material that gives times, dates, references to laws, and things like private communications - AND supported by quantitative and qualitative source material. I presented it.

I got threatened on this board in PM for making the analogy that indentured servitude in the United States was worse than slavery since it was much like have a leased automobile versus one you paid cash for. The reality is more indentured servants died before completing their contracts than lived AND slaves had a longer life expectancy than indentured servants. That is a fact from my primary source material AND one wherein the authors had to write a second volume just to list their resource material and methods of coming to their conclusions.

This chicken shit is pretty much over for me. As a debate (IF this is a debate forum) I won the moment the critics started calling me names and trying to discredit the authors of the books as opposed to the facts contained therein. Personally, I don't give a rip about who collects a fact. On many a board I've posted what magicians Penn and Teller have said about gun control - and I'm a Christian (they're atheists FWIW). So, if the nazis, KKK, or whatever happen upon something that is factual, the old adage that even a broken clock has the potential of being right twice a day is relative. Pabulum puking liberal socialists and communists have NO monopoly on the truth and quite frankly I'm independent so I don't give a rat's ass about what ism is the preferred one anywhere I go since I'm not part of any of them - right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican. Now, do you understand that?

[Pants-of-dog]

Strange. Historians disagree with you. As per one of my earlier posts, entire books have been written about the subject.

The historians are wrong.

They are not even able to name this proclamation, much like you are unable to do so.

Again, we looked at the proclamations issued in 1625. None of them say anything about Irish slavery.

[ingliz]

The key is putting perspective to history and accepting reality.

Unfortunately, you appear to have lost that key. In the eyes of the English crown, colonial authorities, the Barbadian plantocracy, and English and Barbados legal systems, no resident European was ever considered a slave.

Time on the Cross - the Economics of American Negro Slavery (and its accompanying supplemental Volume Time on the Cross subtitled Evidence and Methods)

Analysis of the non-economic portions of the book shows it to be virtually worthless as history in that it contains frequent and important errors of all kinds in its use of quantitative (not to mention literary) evidence essential to its major arguments.

I suggest you read Slavery and the Numbers Game: A Critique of Time on the Cross, a recital of the factual and interpretive errors appearing in Time on the Cross, by Herbert G. Gutman.

It was written by Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, both university [economics] professors

Econometricians have been Fogel and Engerman's harshest critics.

[The Resister]

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.

[late]

I

Somewhere in the left's warped logic, slavery is acceptable provided it is not Black people being held in bondage.

I wouldn't describe what you do as logic.



The thing you keep running away from is your libertarian fantasy world.

[The Resister]

I wouldn't describe what you do as logic.



The thing you keep running away from is your libertarian fantasy world.

Only an idiot would believe that I am a libertarian (sic). You provide NOTHING save of personal attacks and illogical points that one would have to be foolish to the point of having an IQ lower than their shoe size to believe. Honestly, you lost any "debate" eons ago and I couldn't care less what you think.

http://www.aohflorida.org/the-irish-slave-trade/

[ingliz]

My version of the truth

Truth, my arse!

You have consciously chosen to peddle a revisionist narrative that is replete with historical inaccuracies. The frequent extension of documented information on enslaved Africans to all indentured servants without explanation or justification, distorted embellishments of historical incidents, reliance on questionable sources - Confessed contrarian, Michael Hoffman is a blogger wholly reliant on a questionable source (Callaghan) for God's sake - and unsupported statements of alleged historical fact.

What we do have in this country is a program of subtle genocide against Whites

[late]

Only an idiot would believe that I am a libertarian.

There aren't many flavors that say taxation is slavery. If you're not libertarian, perhaps you're anarcho-capitalist, and my condolences if you're one of them.

It's quite odd.