Slavery Reparations in congress

[whottt]

By the way stupid, whites most certainly were bought and sold, without ever being indentured servants, not that being indentured servants means they weren't also bought and sold, which invalidates the entire stupid ing point birthed from yoru stupid ing mind.


Fact.

Stupid.

No qualifiers needed.

You truly are stupid, and your are arguing from a position of total ignorance of the reality and history of slavery in this country.

You are stupid.That is the problem, that is why we are arguing, because you, are stupid, and ignorant.

[Blake]

Damn, lazy as well as stupid and racist.

I know my sources are accurate, and you either too stupid, or too lazy, or both, to find that out for yourself.

I am deliberately not giving my sources.

Naw, lazy is quoting something as fact without backing it up.

Stupid is when you namedrop positions of authority without actually giving the names of the people.

Racist is thinking Whites had it just as bad as Blacks.

Because I don't care if you don't believe me, I'm right and you are stupid to think I'm wrong. I know it's a fact I'm right. Your failure to understand that and find that they are truthful statements, is due to your own stupidity and or laziness.

You don't care enough to take the time to post that you don't care.

Is it really that difficult to give me a real source/name/link/book/anything?

I don't care if you continue you living stupid....in fact I think you probably deserve it. I am not going to lift a finger to ever provide any source in any argument with you. I'm just going to state what I know is fact and call you stupid when you don't know that they are in fact, facts. Because you are stupid for not knowing it.

You would just rather lift a finger to type out the word stupid over and over.

It's apparent now that you are just a selfish prick which explains you being against reparations much more than any argument you have tried and failed to make otherwise.

I am never going to post a link in any argument with you, stupid.

"All of them!"

[Blake]

By the way stupid, whites most certainly were bought and sold, without ever being indentured servants, not that being indentured servants means they weren't also bought and sold, which invalidates the entire stupid ing point birthed from yoru stupid ing mind.


Fact.

Stupid.

No qualifiers needed.

yeah, qualifiers are needed.

You fail again, regardless of how many times you say you don't.

You truly are stupid, and your are arguing from a position of total ignorance of the reality and history of slavery in this country.

You are stupid.That is the problem, that is why we are arguing, because you, are stupid, and ignorant.

Naw, I have a pretty good grasp of history, same as the ones who are researching if there is an actual basis for rewarding Blacks with reparations, no matter how many times you call me stupid.

All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened.
- Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705

You. Are. A. Focking. Moron.

[whottt]

Just to make this clear, here is what you are ignorant of:
'
What the word reparation means.
The relevance of my point that blacks and hispanics and native Americans owned slaves of various types and colors has in relation to the intent of the reparations.
That whites were slaves in this America.
That blacks and hispanics and native Americans were slave owners in America, and why that is also relevant to the intent behind the reparations.
That whites were bought and sold like property.

These are among the many things you are either completely ignorant of now, or were at the beginning when you first decided to argue with me from a position of ignorance and lesser knowledge.


This is why you are stupid, this is why we argue, this is why I am calling you stupid...and you truly are.

So stupid, that I have absolutely no doubt that you are now at this moment, while still incomparably stupid on this subject, probably smarter on this subject now that you have ever been at any other point in your life, just because you have argued with me about it for a day or so.

Meanwhie, there is not one iota of additional knowledge I have no from arguing with you, in fact if it was possible, I'd probably be stupider from having argued with you. Luckily it isn't possible. But make no mistake about it, there is not one iota of knowledge I have gained from arguing with you. And we both know you now know more than ever before. Just from my insults.

You are truly ing stupid. Is it starting to sink in in the slightest yet?

[Blake]

Just to make this clear, here is what you are ignorant of:
'
What the word reparation means.
The relevance of my point that blacks and hispanics and native Americans owned slaves of various types and colors has in relation to the intent of the reparations.
That whites were slaves in this America.
That blacks and hispanics and native Americans were slave owners in America, and why that is also relevant to the intent behind the reparations.
That whites were bought and sold like property.

How many Blacks owned Whites in America?

This is why you are stupid, this is why we argue, this is why I am calling you stupid...and you truly are.

You don't know how many Blacks owned Whites, which makes you either too lazy, too stupid, and arguably too racist to fill the rest of us in.

So stupid, that I have absolutely no doubt that you are now at this moment, while still incomparably stupid on this subject, probably smarter on this subject now that you have ever been at any other point in your life, just because you have argued with me about it for a day or so.

I did learn this about Anthony Johnson:

In 1665, Anthony Johnson moved to Maryland and leased a 300-acre plantation, where he died five years later. But back in Virginia that same year, a jury decided the land Johnson left behind could be seized by the government because he was a "negroe and by consequence an alien." In 1705 Virginia declared that "All servants imported and brought in this County... who were not Christians in their Native Country... shall be slaves. A Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves ... shall be held to be real estate."

Of course, I learned that Virginia siezed his property doing my own research.......no thanks to you, you lazy ass.

Meanwhie, there is not one iota of additional knowledge I have no from arguing with you, in fact it was possible, I'd probably be stupider from having argued with you. Luckily it isn't possible.

Now you know Virginia seized Johnson's property because he was Black, so arguable he is owed reparations.

You're welcome.

You are truly ing stupid. Is it starting to sink in in the slightest yet?

Either way, I'm still smarter than you.

That sank in long ago.

[sook]

the middle passage

[whottt]

How many Blacks owned Whites in America?

How many whites owned blaks? Who were they?

You don't know how many Blacks owned Whites, which makes you either too lazy, too stupid, and arguably too racist to fill the rest of us in.

I'm not lazy. You are an ignorant head, stupid, and IMO unworthy of the effort of posting a link. You are worthy of sitting here and being insulted by me on the basis of just the knowledge off the top of my head.

I did learn this about Anthony Johnson:



Of course, I learned that Virginia siezed his property doing my own research.......no thanks to you, you lazy ass.



Now you know Virginia seized Johnson's property because he was Black, so arguable he is owed reparations.

The US Govt didn't seize his property you ing idiot. And neither did the current VA Govt. Idiot.

You're welcome.

And you're an idiot.

Either way, I'm still smarter than you.

That sank in long ago.

No, you're not, you're stupider than I am. Really and truly. An idiot mimicking a non-idiot is still an idiot by the way...in fact you'd have to be an idiot to do that in the first place.

You are stupider than I am. This is 100% true.

[Blake]

How many whites owned blaks? Who were they?

why are you answering a question with questions?

Lazy.

I'm not lazy. blaaaah blah blah blah

yes you are no matter how many times you say you aren't.

The US Govt didn't seize his property you ing idiot. And neither did the current VA Govt. Idiot.

I never said the US Govt seized it.

but yes, the VA govt did.

In 1665, Anthony Johnson moved to Maryland and leased a 300-acre plantation, where he died five years later. But back in Virginia that same year, a jury decided the land Johnson left behind could be seized by the government because he was a "negroe and by consequence an alien."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html

And you're an idiot.

now we're getting to the point where when you say it, everyone else know you are saying it just to say it.

when I say "you are an idiot" it is because you fail to put up your sources, and you are calling out PBS as being wrong.

it's not even funny any more......it's reaching pathetic levels.

No, you're not, you're stupider than I am. Really and truly. An idiot mimicking a non-idiot is still an idiot by the way...in fact you'd have to be an idiot to do that in the first place.

You are stupider than I am. This is 100% true.

honestly, why can't you just put half this effort of figuring out new ways to try to call me an idiot into doing some actual research?

"All of them!"

[Extra Stout]

Whites voluntarily became indentured servants, mostly because they were poor.

Whites were bought and sold after they entered into indentured servitude contracts.

When I posted, I had in mind the way millions were captured in Africa and shipped over to America and bought and sold against their will and I failed to articulate that.

I regret to inform you that whottt has the upper hand in your little discussion.

Persons of European descent were not infrequently transported from Britain to the colonies for lifelong slavery, usually from the debtor prisons, and especially if they were Irish. This happened more in the 17th century than subsequent ones, simply because the Africans were superior field laborers to the Irish.

Nevertheless, in Georgia colony for one, the practice of impressing transported prisoners -- as well as their offspring -- into slavery on the plantations continued.

Suffice it to say that the European haplotypes found in many if not most African-Americans did not come solely from lustful plantation masters.

Even into the 19th century, Confederates would sometimes kidnap incoming poor immigrants and sell them into slavery if they were Celtic, Southern European, or Slavic. These slaves weren't as valuable as the African slaves because they couldn't work as long or as hard in the field, so they would be relegated to indoor work, whether in an agricultural setting or fledgling Confederate industry, and to more dangerous work where the likelihood of being seriously injured or killed was higher, where the loss of an African slave would be simply too costly.

Now, to a Southerner, this would not be "white slavery" since by definition a slave could not be "white." It didn't matter if the slave could trace his ancestry in Europe back to Roman times; he was still "black."

[Blake]

I regret to inform you that whottt has the upper hand in your little discussion.

Persons of European descent were not infrequently transported from Britain to the colonies for lifelong slavery, usually from the debtor prisons, and especially if they were Irish. This happened more in the 17th century than subsequent ones, simply because the Africans were superior field laborers to the Irish.

I don't disagree that Europeans were brought over as indentured servants.

That's a proven fact.

The Blacks that were brought over from Africa, however, were not sitting in a debtors prison. There was no reason to bring them over other than the fact that they were either non-Christian or later Black.

Nevertheless, in Georgia colony for one, the practice of impressing transported prisoners -- as well as their offspring -- into slavery on the plantations continued.

Suffice it to say that the European haplotypes found in many if not most African-Americans did not come solely from lustful plantation masters.

Even into the 19th century, Confederates would sometimes kidnap incoming poor immigrants and sell them into slavery if they were Celtic, Southern European, or Slavic. These slaves weren't as valuable as the African slaves because they couldn't work as long or as hard in the field, so they would be relegated to indoor work, whether in an agricultural setting or fledgling Confederate industry, and to more dangerous work where the likelihood of being seriously injured or killed was higher, where the loss of an African slave would be simply too costly.

Now, to a Southerner, this would not be "white slavery" since by definition a slave could not be "white." It didn't matter if the slave could trace his ancestry in Europe back to Roman times; he was still "black."

Since you don't have a source either, I'll have to take you word for it.

Did any of these European 'slaves' you mention fall under many of the guidelines of the Negro Acts of the mid-1700s? I'm going to guess no.

As far as why owners started going more towards using Black slaves over indentured servants:

This disorder that the indentured servant system had created made racial slavery to southern slaveholders much more attractive, because what were black slaves now? Well, they were a permanent dependent labor force, who could be defined as a people set apart. They were racially set apart. They were outsiders. They were strangers and in many ways throughout the world, slavery has taken root, especially where people are considered outsiders and can be put in a permanent status of slavery.
- David Blight, historian

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html

[Winehole23]

Since you don't have a source either, I'll have to take you word for it.

Oliver Cromwell sent thousands of Irish and Scottish political nonconformists into servitude in the New World. I don't recall my source for this, but I think it might be Eric Williams.

[LnGrrrR]

I will say, without a source, that blacks also were preferred as slaves because they were easily distinguishable as such. This had many uses... for instance, if a stranger saw a white person who was a slave, it wasn't necessarily assumed they were a slave: not so with a black person.

[Extra Stout]

I don't disagree that Europeans were brought over as indentured servants.

That's a proven fact.

No, I didn't say they were brought over as indentured servants. Indentured servitude means that a person is bound to service for a certain period of time in order to pay a debt. That is not the same thing as lifelong involuntary servitude by a person as well as his descendants, no matter what the English official who signed the form for the prisoner's transportation, or the nice sanitized high school textbook version says.

Did any of these European 'slaves' you mention fall under many of the guidelines of the Negro Acts of the mid-1700s? I'm going to guess no.

Why else do you think a full-blooded Italian would suddenly legally become a "Negro?"
"The slave says his name is Giuseppe Capelli, and he's from Verona. He has olive skin, straight black hair, and speaks what appears to be fluent Italian." "No, that's wrong, his name is Jimbo. He grew up on my plantation, I swear." "OK, good enough."

Look, sweeping meta-narratives never work. Were the vast majority of slaves in America African in origin? Obviously. Were people who owned slaves so upright about their views of race that they found it unconscionable to take a powerless pauper or immigrant and exploit them within the system? Come on, you've lived on this earth a while, you know the answer.

The difference here is that African slavery was ins utionalized, while European slavery was not; rather, the enslavement of Europeans took place within the system of ins utionalized African slavery.

[Blake]

No, I didn't say they were brought over as indentured servants. Indentured servitude means that a person is bound to service for a certain period of time in order to pay a debt. That is not the same thing as lifelong involuntary servitude by a person as well as his descendants, no matter what the English official who signed the form for the prisoner's transportation, or the nice sanitized high school textbook version says.

please, give me your source that you feel is better than my sanitized high school textbook.

Until then, indentured servant ftw.

The difference here is that African slavery was ins utionalized, while European slavery was not; rather, the enslavement of Europeans took place within the system of ins utionalized African slavery.

Exactly, which is why Europeans haven't thought twice about reparations.

unless whottt is considering it.

[Blake]

I will say, without a source, that blacks also were preferred as slaves because they were easily distinguishable as such. This had many uses... for instance, if a stranger saw a white person who was a slave, it wasn't necessarily assumed they were a slave: not so with a black person.

whottt says Blacks owned Whites.

Why wouldn't anyone assume the White guy was the slave and not the other way around?

because Whottt says so.

[Oh, Gee!!]

If the remedy being discussed is some "official proclamation" that slavery was bad or an official apology to the ancestors of black slaves, I don't see why anybody should get pissed about it (unless they're bat ing crazy like Whott). I also agree with the OP that spending $8 million to research the issue is stupid given our current financial worries.

[Extra Stout]

please, give me your source that you feel is better than my sanitized high school textbook.

Until then, indentured servant ftw.



Exactly, which is why Europeans haven't thought twice about reparations.

unless whottt is considering it.

You should know me better than to think I wouldn't have sources.

White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America

Furthermore:

Estimates of Irish transported into slavery in the Americas in just the 17th century vary between 80,000 and 130,000 depending on the source (Robert West, Political Education Committee, American Irish Education Foundation, 1995).

80,000 (John Prendergast, The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland, 1865).

100,000 (Anthony Broudine, Propuguaculum, 1669).

120,000-130,000 (Thomas Emmet, Ireland Under English Rule, 1903).

As late as the 1798 Irish Rebellion, the British continued their policy of impressing Irish prisoners into slavery and selling them, even to now-independent American masters.

[Extra Stout]

Britain also ins uted a program of forced breeding between Irish female slaves and African male slaves to generate mulatto slave children who then could be sold at a premium.

Like I said, we don't have mocha-complected blacks in America simply because Thomas Jefferson failed to keep it in his pants.

[Creepn]

The mere fact that African Americans were ins utionally enslaved automatically justifies an official apology. Even if there were a few white slaves or even if the first slave owner was black (if that is true). Thats all there is to it.

If America can apologize to the asians, then American SHOULD EASILY apologize for slavery.

You know what, don't even apologize just to African Americans. American should apologize or commerate slavery as a whole.

[Blake]

You should know me better than to think I wouldn't have sources.

White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America

Furthermore:

Estimates of Irish transported into slavery in the Americas in just the 17th century vary between 80,000 and 130,000 depending on the source (Robert West, Political Education Committee, American Irish Education Foundation, 1995).

80,000 (John Prendergast, The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland, 1865).

100,000 (Anthony Broudine, Propuguaculum, 1669).

120,000-130,000 (Thomas Emmet, Ireland Under English Rule, 1903).

As late as the 1798 Irish Rebellion, the British continued their policy of impressing Irish prisoners into slavery and selling them, even to now-independent American masters.

Great read, thanks.

Those people that were duped into thinking they were coming over for a new life, and those that were kidnapped or forced to come over against their will definitely had it bad......in some cases as bad as the Negro slaves.

Be that as it may, we are talking about reparations from the American government, and the white "slave/indentured servant" trade pretty much ended when the Americans gained their freedom. The blame there can be put on the British for propogating the practice during the 170+years that this went on.

As for the Negroes, there were laws enacted that specifically targeted them to the point that free Blacks were in many cases not much better off than slaves. These laws were passed in the late 17th/early 18th centuries and many stayed that way as state law up through the end of the Civil War.

I also feel certain that my shiny high school textbook was failry accurate in portraying the segregation that occured during the 20th century.

So to say that there were some white slaves during a period of time that the British were basically in control really should have very little in discussing reparations for Blacks.

[Galileo]

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...?bill=12489961

A special commission has been created to research how best to do "slavery reparations" by the Federal government. The commission of seven is appointed by Nancy Pelosi (3), Obama (3), and Senator Robert Byrd (1). They have eight Million dollars appropriated for this commission and the power of subpoena. They are supposed to report back to the House in 90 days with their recommendations.

I continue to be amazed.

I live in Wisconsin. I have contacted my representatives to ask that they attach a rider that exempts people from Wisconsin from this bill.

Wisconsin never had slavery. Rather, we set up an underground railroad to help free many slaves, including Joshua Gover. We had many soldiers who died fighting to free the slaves. We had many courts who defied federal orders to turn over runaway slaves.

If you live in a state that never had slavery, now is the time to fight for your rights!

:wgaf:

[whottt]

I wonder if ES realize he's wasting his time.



Creepn and Idiot...I can't tell you how ing awesome it is that you want to discount white slaves on the basis of the fact that they were a minority. That is so ing classic it isn't even funny.

Funny thing about being a bigoted idiot, no matter which you side you stand on, the idotic bigotry goes with you.

What you did, minimizing the whites slaves on the basis of the fact that they were fewer of them, is exactly what slaveholders did to justify slavery.

Keep generalizing, keep brushing with broadstrokes, and keep dismissing things on the basis of it being, a minority occurence.

And wrong again btw, Blake, there were white slaves right up until the emancipation proclamation. You are frankly just too stupid to understand how it was done, and too stupid to understand why it is important.





More importantly, you overlook the fact that it was the Africans themselves that first sold their brethren into slavery, you over look the muslims that first made exporting captured slaves a commercial enterprise, you overlook the Spanish being the first, most prolific, longest tenured, and last to quit, the slave trade in this hemisphere.

You overlook that America was born out of British Colony...that the founding Fathers of this country were in fact, British citizens, and that ins utionalized slavery occurred under British rule and was already entrenched in this country for centuries before it's official birthdate.


You also overlook the fact that white women were bought and sold to the Cherokees, as slaves. Among many others.


You overlook the fact that the Azteks in addition to the disease inflicted upon them by the Spaniards, were virtually exterminated by the Spaniards because every ing Native American tribe that had ever heard of them, hated htem, because they subjugated and enslaved just about any and all tribes they encountered.


You over look that in the course reparations, it is very likely that the blacks themselves would have slaveowners blood in them, and many whites knowningly and unknowingly have the blood of slaves(African and White) flowing in their veins.


And many hispanics have the blood of enslavers Spanish and Aztek, running through their veins.



So these reparations will likely be made, entirely on the basis of the color of skin, and that is racism, that is the essence of it.

And it is the way your mind works, which is why I have absolutely no doubt what you would have been 200 years ago, since you are incapable of a non-discriminatory view, no matter which side you are on.

The whites are guilty because of the color of their skin, and the blacks are deserving of reparations because of the color of theirs. Complete and total ignorance on your part...the same ignorance that was used to justify pretty much every incidence of racial bigotry in the history of mankind.

[tim_duncan_fan]

Whott you are just sad dude. Really ing sad.

You are unashamedly trying to argue the case that whites had it as bad as blacks during times of slavery.

Calling you an idiot or any other name would be pointless because you know exactly what you are doing.


Whott.... this is just stupid dude.


What the ?


I mean are you even ing serious?



This must be a joke.

[whottt]

By the way...I am all for the apology if you guys think it will make it better...

I'm going to get a big laugh if Barrack Obama is the one that delivers it.


Since near as I can tell, Barrack Obama has a slaveowner factor of like 4, and probably not an ounce of slaves blood in him...but hey he's got the right skin color, right stupid ing bigots?


His American blood is white, it's Cheney's blood in fact. Since white = slaver owners, Barrack's got it.

His black blood is pure African, which he means likely has the blood of those that enslaved their felllow Africans for financial gain flowing through it.

The fact that it is muslim African blood, exponentially increases this likelyhood, not only the blood of the enslavers, but also that of those that exported them out of Africa.


Oh yeah, he's also President of the United States, the country that bigoted idiots everywhere think is where white people invented slavery.


He definitely should be the one making the apology...


And he's got absolutely no finger to point at anyone and call them an enslaver or a slaver owner.


You guys can't get past skin color, like every other bigot in history, so I'll doubt you'll agree with my perspective, even though it's the exact same one you are using to fill this thread with stupidity and ignorance.

[whottt]

Whott you are just sad dude. Really ing sad.

You are unashamedly trying to argue the case that whites had it as bad as blacks during times of slavery.

Calling you an idiot or any other name would be pointless because you know exactly what you are doing.


Whott.... this is just stupid dude.


What the ?


I mean are you even ing serious?



This must be a joke.

the minority...got it.


Got it the first time you opened your mouth and said, "white people did this".