Another Ruby Ridge/Waco event brewing - Page 49 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Txjake · #**721** 04-29-2014, 11:47 AM

They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America: Michael Hoffman: 9780929903057: Amazon.com: Books

cmac2012 · #**722** 04-29-2014, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

And, what of the guilt of the British for enslaving the Irish?

The Irish Slave Trade

"The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers."

who mourns for them? where are the cries for repirations?

That was some appalling stuff as well. The main difference between them and black slaves was that white Irish had arguably a much easier time assimilating into normal society upon their liberation. One aspect of the history of black enslavement in the US that is the most troubling to me is the difficulty blacks had after emancipation. I sorta doubt Irish slaves were hung and burned in public, picnic style events 30, 40, or 50 years after their emancipation.

And FWIW, I'm not arguing for major reparations. I think education and various sorts of affirmative action are sufficient on that score.

Txjake · #**723** 04-29-2014, 11:55 AM

"Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.

Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands"

Hoffman reveals: The Forgotten Slaves--Whites in Servitude

Botnst · #**724** 04-29-2014, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I hear what you're saying but doesn't eye-witness testimony have some validity?

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. They see Jesus, Bigfoot, space aliens and goodness knows what else. Unless there is some independent means of verification, I'll pass.

t walgamuth · #**725** 04-29-2014, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

"Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.

Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands"

Hoffman reveals: The Forgotten Slaves--Whites in Servitude

This quote taken out of context suggests that half of all our slaves were white. In reading the article I find that very misleading.

And so you posted it to prove what? Were there black folks enslaving them?

aklim · #**726** 04-29-2014, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It is true that tribal rivalries in Africa made it a lot easier for slavers to obtain slaves in Africa. I've made that argument myself in the past, that blacks were partly responsible. But I'm sorry, the bulk of the guilt rests with white Americans and Europeans. It was white slavers who enticed African collaborators with European high tech, and it was white slave owners that made the institution into a multi-generational abomination.

At any rate, Black African participation does not absolve whites involved of their guilt.

That is still history. I cannot absolve your heaping of guilt for your ancestors' sins. Absolution can only be granted by the victim to the perpetrator. I cannot forgive you for slapping my wife. Only she can. This is not the RC church where the priest can forgive you.

I don't see forgiveness for my father's sins and since I became an adult, it works both ways

aklim · #**727** 04-29-2014, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

That was some appalling stuff as well. The main difference between them and black slaves was that white Irish had arguably a much easier time assimilating into normal society upon their liberation. One aspect of the history of black enslavement in the US that is the most troubling to me is the difficulty blacks had after emancipation. I sorta doubt Irish slaves were hung and burned in public, picnic style events 30, 40, or 50 years after their emancipation.

And FWIW, I'm not arguing for major reparations. I think education and various sorts of affirmative action are sufficient on that score.

As is still practicing discrimination. It just has a supposed nice sound to it. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still going to be a pig.

cmac2012 · #**728** 04-29-2014, 02:35 PM

It's a tough one for me because I too get burnt out on the likes of Sharpton and his ilk who make a career out of pouting and spewing righteous indignation. In my own experience I've had lousy and great interactions with blacks.

The Sterling guy is a moron but I find parts of the black outrage at him ironic, especially the part about him not wanting his girlfriend to hang out with blacks. Back when I was a sort of good looking young rake, I had a couple of dalliances with attractive black woman and a couple of times I was seriously worried that some black men were going to jump me, so obvious was their distaste at seeing me with her.

And I'm well aware of Sharpton's thing with Twanna Brawley. And his non-addressing of his lunacy on that.

But like I said, the most shocking thing about the whole drama for me was the treatment of blacks post emancipation. The blacks alive in that day had no part in their being here, nor their ancestors. The specter of the KKK and their cross burnings and terrorizing of black families is shocking stuff, particularly since it was their ancestors who were responsible for blacks being here.

And I get that acting out of guilt and the giving of support, such as welfare has a serious downside. I'm not sure what the best course of action is, opportunity for work/training is probably the best way to go.

aklim · #**729** 04-29-2014, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It's a tough one for me because I too get burnt out on the likes of Sharpton and his ilk who make a career out of pouting and spewing righteous indignation. In my own experience I've had lousy and great interactions with blacks.

But like I said, the most shocking thing about the whole drama for me was the treatment of blacks post emancipation. The blacks alive in that day had no part in their being here, nor their ancestors. The specter of the KKK and their cross burnings and terrorizing of black families is shocking stuff, particularly since it was their ancestors who were responsible for blacks being here.

And I get that acting out of guilt and the giving of support, such as welfare has a serious downside. I'm not sure what the best course of action is, opportunity for work/training is probably the best way to go.

Sharpton, like Rush or anyone else is out there for themselves. They found a niche where people would like to listen to them so they pander to them. It doesn't have to be more complex than that.

Yes, while I agree that it was a raw deal for black people and other minority groups, dwelling on the past does nothing but keeping the pot of bad feelings stirred. I'm constantly reminded of what your so and so did to my so and so. So if you keep rubbing salt in that wound, how will it heal?

Maybe just making sure EVERYONE gets the same deal and eventually it will even out. What you are trying to do is rush the process along by tilting the scales. Now the disfavored have a reason to hate the favored and the game goes on and on

MS Fowler · #**730** 04-29-2014, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It is true that tribal rivalries in Africa made it a lot easier for slavers to obtain slaves in Africa. I've made that argument myself in the past, that blacks were partly responsible. But I'm sorry, the bulk of the guilt rests with white Americans and Europeans. It was white slavers who enticed African collaborators with European high tech, and it was white slave owners that made the institution into a multi-generational abomination.

At any rate, Black African participation does not absolve whites involved of their guilt.

I do not believe I said it absolved anything.

cmac2012 · #**731** 04-29-2014, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I do not believe I said it absolved anything.

You implied that there was parity, that the guilt is equally shared. It is shared, I'll grant you. I'd say the white slavers had much more of the power in the equation. They had the exotic goods to trade and they had the boats to carry the slaves far away. Probably looked like a good deal to the Africans who sold the captives. They likely as not wanted to kill them in the first place and in selling them to the slavers, they were rid of them and got cool stuff to boot.

In a bizarre sort of logic, one could almost argue that the slavers did them a favor, as they might have been killed by their foes otherwise, that by coming to the Americas their descendants had more opportunity than their cousins who remained in Africa. I read a column by Dinesh D'Souza on that topic once. The logic is bizarre as none of the many generations of slaves had reason to see any advantage in the situation.

Botnst · #**732** 04-29-2014, 05:11 PM

In my opinion, the major sin was not slavery, which was a normal estate of man from earliest history. True, it was incongruent with the strongly asserted fundamental reason for forming the country. The Founders clearly recognized that fact and came to a gentleman's agreement (broken by southerners) to do-away with slavery after the demise of the southern founders. I think Washington was the only southern slaveowner who followed that agreement, but I could be wrong.

To me, the greater sin was post Civil War. The war settled the issue, the Constitution codified it, but the nation generally rejected it. Some de jure (mostly southern states) and some de facto (nearly everywhere else). The period when equal rights were the standard but not enforced by law, nearly 90 years, is the greater shame on this country. Politically and philosophically we knew better, as a people but did wrong. It took the courage of civil rights workers, especially the NAACP-affiliated groups and various Christian denominations (notably, Quakers) to move the people to where they should have been in 1865.

Diesel911 · #**733** 04-29-2014, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Sorry, no. What, 150 to 200 years of slavery, decades of Jim Crow? And several years of war, awful as it was, balances the scales? And the war was a quarrel between whites for the most part. If the war is construed to be primarily about slavery, and plenty argue otherwise, it was white people fighting about an institution that white people created.
It was a step in the right direction but it was only a step.

With the exception of Countries in the Mediterranean in Ancient times where there were White Slave Holders (and White Slaves as well a Black Slaves) Slavery was everywhere there was any sort of Civilization in Africa, the Middle East and the Civilized lower portions of
Europe.

The Anglo Saxon types were still living in Tribal Communities and living in Huts.

Slavery existed with in Indian Population when the Spanish arrived in the New World and the Spanish also brought Slaves with them.

There used to be Video that I have seen called Video Slavery In The World Today originally filmed in in about 1968 showing that Slavery still existed in Africa.

Also the Civil War did have to do with Slavery because the Southern States succeeded because they were not getting their way concerning allowing Slavery in the newly formed States.

The Secession of the Southern/Confederate States caused the Federal Government to go to War to preserve the Union.

So while the Federal Government did not go to War to Free the Slaves the cause of the War was still Slavery.

Then the mean Old White Folks most often traded with the Black Kings/Chiefs that live along the Cost who did the Raiding of other Black Tribes and sold the Blacks the Captured to the
Whites.
Before that the Blacks had been Slave Trading with the northren and east Middle Eastren Countries.
So no ones Hands are really clean concerning Slavery.

Diesel911 · #**734** 04-29-2014, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Sorry, no. What, 150 to 200 years of slavery, decades of Jim Crow? And several years of war, awful as it was, balances the scales? And the war was a quarrel between whites for the most part. If the war is construed to be primarily about slavery, and plenty argue otherwise, it was white people fighting about an institution that white people created.

It was a step in the right direction but it was only a step.

Keep in mind that the "Jim Crow States" were politically Democrat States.

Diesel911 · #**735** 04-29-2014, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Ok, Ok. I'm not suggesting that even white southerners hang their heads in shame for the next 200 years. And as a Chinese person, yes, it's a tad different. But the economy of the south was built on the backs of slaves and the war didn't destroy all of it.

And the lucrative triangle of trade from the late 16th to early 19th centuries had a good bit to do with getting the American economy off the ground: slaves from Africa to the West Indies; sugar, molasses, and rum to the American colonies, the same to Europe along with tobacco and hemp from Virginia; copper, cloth, beads, guns and ammo to Africa to trade for slaves and repeat.

So on some level, at the end of the civil war it really wasn't enough to say 'we're sorry, here's your freedom, now get the hell off'n a my land.'

I think you should do more reading on this; read some Books about the Reconstruction Period.

Very few White People in the United States during the Civil War or in particular right after the Civil War wanted to give any Non-white Male equality.

After the Civil War ended Most of the Freedmen just wanted to have someplace to live and grow and hunt enough to eat and work occasionally when then needed Money.

After the North stopped punishing the Southern States and People the North in general wanted to get the South back into production and allowed the Southerners to gradually gain back control. In order to get their cheap Labor Force back.
The Southerners were allowed to Pass Laws that the Blacks had to either Contract with someone or leave.

That eventually lead to all kinds of Laws for Blacks regulating nearly every aspect of public life.