Another lie debunked-Africans did nothing before the white man

[Yarddog]

I dont think anyone really knows the timeline of population shift in Egypt, but at some point they all must have been mostly black... they would have followed the Nile from the interior all the way to the ocean. chances are the population could have been mixed in certain regions and in others not... who knows for sure. It's too bad the great Library of Alexandria was burned to the ground, it must have held some very ancient manuscripts that could have answered a lot of these questions

The ancient Egyptians came from Turkey and the Levant. The Nubians came north from the interior of Africa.

Right, no doubt people returned to Africa at different time periods, and if history shows that people came from Turkey and settled Ancient Egypt then it is so, but....... why would not black Africans following the Nile river follow it all the way to the ocean? These people could have lived side by side even, had mixed marriages... who knows, but seeing as how black people migrated out of Africa.... surely some of them would have settled along the way in that very fertile farm land... it only seems logical to me.

"it only seems logical to me."

...in other words, you're just pulling it out of your ass. Good to know.

You know what explorers do when they come to a river? they follow it. Please don't be ignorant. You don't have to be an expert on Africa to understand human nature. You really believe that Africans remained in the interior of the continent without traveling North? Show some proof or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

Why is your theory more credible than the idea that ancient Egypt was settled by people from the Mesopotamia region towards the east, where the most ancient evidence of civilization has been found?

For one, because the migration route out of Africa was right through Egypt and across North Africa. I never said that Egypt was not settled by other peoples. That is a fact, and its also true that the Nubian empire also ruled upper and lower Egypt for a while.

 

[Godboy]

Says the most racist moron on the Board.

To be racist you have to believe a certain race is inferior and discriminate against them. Not do you just hate another race. That is the brand new stupid Republican propaganda definition. The race is on here are trying to prove that African society culture are inferior. It's pretty obvious any chance they had was wrecked by white slave traders and colonists.... And they did have plenty of culture and civilization oh, you people are just brainwashed ignoramuses. Mario Cuomo said Ronald Reagan made blaming the poor acceptable. So you can blame the blacks even more. Pathetic. And now we have the white supremacist in Chief super dupe in the White House. Only propaganda total garbage makes this mess possible....

I agree, and im2 regularly claims the white devil is inferior to blacks, as do asslpis, and paul essien. Essien even went so far as to claim that whites can be killed because they are inferior.

I hate no race, and KNOW that no race is superior to any other.

They don't.

I have not seen any of that. They seem to be talkin equality all the way.

Paul Essen admitted that he is racist.

I think he meant...like me..he didnt care if someone called him a racist. From what I recall he doesnt believe its possible for a Black person to be racist in a society dominated by whites.

Youre a racist too. Youre the most racist.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Sir Richard Branson apologises for diversity gaffe in South Africa launch photo

Of course the Colonial mindset is now a part of history.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Says the most racist moron on the Board.

To be racist you have to believe a certain race is inferior and discriminate against them. Not do you just hate another race. That is the brand new stupid Republican propaganda definition. The race is on here are trying to prove that African society culture are inferior. It's pretty obvious any chance they had was wrecked by white slave traders and colonists.... And they did have plenty of culture and civilization oh, you people are just brainwashed ignoramuses. Mario Cuomo said Ronald Reagan made blaming the poor acceptable. So you can blame the blacks even more. Pathetic. And now we have the white supremacist in Chief super dupe in the White House. Only propaganda total garbage makes this mess possible....

I agree, and im2 regularly claims the white devil is inferior to blacks, as do asslpis, and paul essien. Essien even went so far as to claim that whites can be killed because they are inferior.

I hate no race, and KNOW that no race is superior to any other.

They don't.

I have not seen any of that. They seem to be talkin equality all the way.

Paul Essen admitted that he is racist.

I think he meant...like me..he didnt care if someone called him a racist. From what I recall he doesnt believe its possible for a Black person to be racist in a society dominated by whites.

I disagree with the above statement--just putting it out there. I'm aware of the logic behind it and I don't buy into it. "Justified" racism is still racism. Seeing the very real need for change..does not excuse becoming just like those you hate. As well....one would have to say the exact same thing about Whites living in a society dominated by Blacks. I don't buy it...one can either rise above their hatred and distrust..or one can be consumed by it. I believe this truth to be applicable to all humans..regardless of race. To believe that the Racism of the past justifies the racism of the future is wrong-headed, IMO. However, the racism of the past does explain the racism of the future...and tit for tat is very attractive--it's just wrong..in the greater scheme. Not that it might not become our future...just that sowing the seeds for more enmity--seems just a bit short-sighted.
My Granny said it best...always forgive..and never forget.

Many see the demographic turning upside down....and Whites..who are unmixed...descending to the bottom of the social hierarchy. They see this as 'payback' and ironic justice.
Given the proportion of wealth and power White folk still hold..I'd not hold my breath for this to happen.

***edit*** After reading an earlier post i see that you are separating what you call racism and prejudice..I've been using the two terms interchangeably. After some thought..I agree....Blacks can be prejudiced--with or without cause--but they do not..in the long term benefit from our culture of racism..thus they cannot be 'racist' by your definition. Let it be known though..that most here mean prejudice when they say racist--so their posts need to taken in that context.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

 

[Pogo]

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

 

[Godboy]

To be racist you have to believe a certain race is inferior and discriminate against them. Not do you just hate another race. That is the brand new stupid Republican propaganda definition. The race is on here are trying to prove that African society culture are inferior. It's pretty obvious any chance they had was wrecked by white slave traders and colonists.... And they did have plenty of culture and civilization oh, you people are just brainwashed ignoramuses. Mario Cuomo said Ronald Reagan made blaming the poor acceptable. So you can blame the blacks even more. Pathetic. And now we have the white supremacist in Chief super dupe in the White House. Only propaganda total garbage makes this mess possible....

I agree, and im2 regularly claims the white devil is inferior to blacks, as do asslpis, and paul essien. Essien even went so far as to claim that whites can be killed because they are inferior.

I hate no race, and KNOW that no race is superior to any other.

They don't.

I have not seen any of that. They seem to be talkin equality all the way.

Paul Essen admitted that he is racist.

I think he meant...like me..he didnt care if someone called him a racist. From what I recall he doesnt believe its possible for a Black person to be racist in a society dominated by whites.

I disagree with the above statement--just putting it out there. I'm aware of the logic behind it and I don't buy into it. "Justified" racism is still racism. Seeing the very real need for change..does not excuse becoming just like those you hate. As well....one would have to say the exact same thing about Whites living in a society dominated by Blacks. I don't buy it...one can either rise above their hatred and distrust..or one can be consumed by it. I believe this truth to be applicable to all humans..regardless of race. To believe that the Racism of the past justifies the racism of the future is wrong-headed, IMO. However, the racism of the past does explain the racism of the future...and tit for tat is very attractive--it's just wrong..in the greater scheme. Not that it might not become our future...just that sowing the seeds for more enmity--seems just a bit short-sighted.
My Granny said it best...always forgive..and never forget.

Many see the demographic turning upside down....and Whites..who are unmixed...descending to the bottom of the social hierarchy. They see this as 'payback' and ironic justice.
Given the proportion of wealth and power White folk still hold..I'd not hold my breath for this to happen.

***edit*** After reading an earlier post i see that you are separating what you call racism and prejudice..I've been using the two terms interchangeably. After some thought..I agree....Blacks can be prejudiced--with or without cause--but they do not..in the long term benefit from our culture of racism..thus they cannot be 'racist' by your definition. Let it be known though..that most here mean prejudice when they say racist--so their posts need to taken in that context.

Racism is a word in the dictionary, which means it has a specific definition. Nowhere in its definition does it say any of the moronic nonsense you guys are babbling on about. Maybe you dummies should actually learn the words you keep using.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I agree, and im2 regularly claims the white devil is inferior to blacks, as do asslpis, and paul essien. Essien even went so far as to claim that whites can be killed because they are inferior.

I hate no race, and KNOW that no race is superior to any other.

They don't.

I have not seen any of that. They seem to be talkin equality all the way.

Paul Essen admitted that he is racist.

I think he meant...like me..he didnt care if someone called him a racist. From what I recall he doesnt believe its possible for a Black person to be racist in a society dominated by whites.

I disagree with the above statement--just putting it out there. I'm aware of the logic behind it and I don't buy into it. "Justified" racism is still racism. Seeing the very real need for change..does not excuse becoming just like those you hate. As well....one would have to say the exact same thing about Whites living in a society dominated by Blacks. I don't buy it...one can either rise above their hatred and distrust..or one can be consumed by it. I believe this truth to be applicable to all humans..regardless of race. To believe that the Racism of the past justifies the racism of the future is wrong-headed, IMO. However, the racism of the past does explain the racism of the future...and tit for tat is very attractive--it's just wrong..in the greater scheme. Not that it might not become our future...just that sowing the seeds for more enmity--seems just a bit short-sighted.
My Granny said it best...always forgive..and never forget.

Many see the demographic turning upside down....and Whites..who are unmixed...descending to the bottom of the social hierarchy. They see this as 'payback' and ironic justice.
Given the proportion of wealth and power White folk still hold..I'd not hold my breath for this to happen.

***edit*** After reading an earlier post i see that you are separating what you call racism and prejudice..I've been using the two terms interchangeably. After some thought..I agree....Blacks can be prejudiced--with or without cause--but they do not..in the long term benefit from our culture of racism..thus they cannot be 'racist' by your definition. Let it be known though..that most here mean prejudice when they say racist--so their posts need to taken in that context.

Racism is a word in the dictionary, which means it has a specific definition. Nowhere in its definition does it say any of the moronic nonsense you guys are babbling on about. Maybe you dummies should actually learn the words you keep using.

Or...maybe you should accept that words are both mutable and malleable. They change over time..derive new meanings...lose old ones. Context defines...and refines. Communication is dynamic, not static.

You needn't feel sad that the conversation is over your head--there is no stigma attached.

 

[Pogo]

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

 

[Meathead]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

Oh Gawd! Now the Irish will be asking for reparations!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

Nope..I'm suggesting you're an ignorant fool..for, among other things, inferring that I called you..anything at all!

As for the offending movie ref.--if you weren't such an obvious historical naif--you'd be able to easily look up the NYC draft riots of the civil war--and learn for yourself. But instead you choose to focus on my ref.'ing movie..and not on the content.

As for your knowledge of your land's 'history'-- not impressed--as you would have known that many people who were not Irish were indentured..that it was a common response to debtor's prison..only a fool would equate Slavery..with the children being enslaved in perpetuity..with indentured servitude..which was for a set length of time. Just because there were abuses..or that the indentured servants CONTRACTS were bought and sold--does not make them slaves..and it, for sure, does not in any way mitigate the perpetual enslavement of Africans.

The poor Irish..gimme a break!

 

[impuretrash]

I have not seen any of that. They seem to be talkin equality all the way.

Paul Essen admitted that he is racist.

I think he meant...like me..he didnt care if someone called him a racist. From what I recall he doesnt believe its possible for a Black person to be racist in a society dominated by whites.

I disagree with the above statement--just putting it out there. I'm aware of the logic behind it and I don't buy into it. "Justified" racism is still racism. Seeing the very real need for change..does not excuse becoming just like those you hate. As well....one would have to say the exact same thing about Whites living in a society dominated by Blacks. I don't buy it...one can either rise above their hatred and distrust..or one can be consumed by it. I believe this truth to be applicable to all humans..regardless of race. To believe that the Racism of the past justifies the racism of the future is wrong-headed, IMO. However, the racism of the past does explain the racism of the future...and tit for tat is very attractive--it's just wrong..in the greater scheme. Not that it might not become our future...just that sowing the seeds for more enmity--seems just a bit short-sighted.
My Granny said it best...always forgive..and never forget.

Many see the demographic turning upside down....and Whites..who are unmixed...descending to the bottom of the social hierarchy. They see this as 'payback' and ironic justice.
Given the proportion of wealth and power White folk still hold..I'd not hold my breath for this to happen.

***edit*** After reading an earlier post i see that you are separating what you call racism and prejudice..I've been using the two terms interchangeably. After some thought..I agree....Blacks can be prejudiced--with or without cause--but they do not..in the long term benefit from our culture of racism..thus they cannot be 'racist' by your definition. Let it be known though..that most here mean prejudice when they say racist--so their posts need to taken in that context.

Racism is a word in the dictionary, which means it has a specific definition. Nowhere in its definition does it say any of the moronic nonsense you guys are babbling on about. Maybe you dummies should actually learn the words you keep using.

Or...maybe you should accept that words are both mutable and malleable. They change over time..derive new meanings...lose old ones. Context defines...and refines. Communication is dynamic, not static.

You needn't feel sad that the conversation is over your head--there is no stigma attached.

This notion that only white people can be racist is fucking racist

 

[westwall]

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

 

[Pogo]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

Nope..I'm suggesting you're an ignorant fool..for, among other things, inferring that I called you..anything at all!

As for the offending movie ref.--if you weren't such an obvious historical naif--you'd be able to easily look up the NYC draft riots of the civil war--and learn for yourself. But instead you choose to focus on my ref.'ing movie..and not on the content.

Then come up with an actual legitimate source. I'd be soundly embarrassed if I tried to make a historical point by pointing to a frickin' movie. Yet that's what you did. Isn't it.

As for your knowledge of your land's 'history'-- not impressed--as you would have known that many people who were not Irish were indentured..that it was a common response to debtor's prison..only a fool would equate Slavery..with the children being enslaved in perpetuity..with indentured servitude..which was for a set length of time. Just because there were abuses..or that the indentured servants CONTRACTS were bought and sold--does not make them slaves..and it, for sure, does not in any way mitigate the perpetual enslavement of Africans.

The poor Irish..gimme a break!

I made that distinction at the top above, which apparently you skipped right past, and the fact REMAINS it's people taken by force ("although we must use force takeinge them up") in an actual historical event that before that post you insisted did not happen and was the fantasy of "racists". NOR did I say or imply that it "mitigated" anything about Africans --- you pulled that out of your ass. I posted SOLELY on your ass-sertion that Irish were by nature "racists'. THAT'S IT. I even bolded the relevant part referenced, and I RE-quote:

Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long

That's YOU. And now proven wrong, you can't admit you were WRONG the whole time.

Even after, you can't admit it, putting "history" in quotes as if it's not real after it's been documented. Then you want to pretend I'm a "historical naif" because I don't quote fucking MOVIES??

Go fuck yourself, dishonest hack.

 

[IM2]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

You might want to talk with Liam Hogan about this. He is a historian. He lives in Ireland. Irish were not slaves and while Irish did not have it easy, they had the advantage of being white.

All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)
Liam Hogan
Mar 12, 2017

All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Indentured servitude had a time limit...commonly 7 years..you could buy your way out...early...but 7 years..and you were free to go.

 

[Pogo]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

You might want to talk with Liam Hogan about this. He is a historian. He lives in Ireland. Irish were not slaves and while Irish did not have it easy, they had the advantage of being white.

All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)
Liam Hogan
Mar 12, 2017

All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Indentured servitude had a time limit...commonly 7 years..you could buy your way out...early...but 7 years..and you were free to go.

Yes and I posted all that in 1190 above, didn't I.

But let's sit on our hands and go

 

[westwall]

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Indentured servitude had a time limit...commonly 7 years..you could buy your way out...early...but 7 years..and you were free to go.

No always. In fact, I think that was the most advantageous arrangement. Most weren't that nice. Most of the contracts I have seen were for 15 years. A few were for 20.

 

[IM2]

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Incorrect. Indentured servitude was not slavery and many people did work out of it.

Indentured Servants In The U.S.
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives | PBS