Georgetown to give preferential status in admissions to descendants of slaves

[JimBowie1958]

Not true. No private institution can discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex religion or nation origin. They are allows to take it into account but can openly discriminate.

But if the victims are white, there is no discrimination, is there?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The slaves were forced to work and watch the fruit of their labor be taken from them unfairly, but whites also suffered.

LOL!! White peoples suffering is like saying the Wolf suffered when he ate the chicken because he got heartburn. Is it suffering? Sure.

Is it even remotely comparable? Not at all

 

[JimBowie1958]

this is not my America!

Georgetown is a private institution thus they can do whatever the hell they want, even if yo dont like it, moron.

Not a baker who owned his own private bakery.

You are benighted with this idea that civil rights lawas are meant to protect white people.


They are not as Holder once said, they did not fight for Civil Rights laws so that they could be used for white people.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Read it Timmy, then you won't look like the clueless fucktard you are.

Interesting

Were they slaves or indentured servants?
Did they agree to their servitude?
Was it for a set period or their whole lives and their children's lives?
Were they bought and sold?
Did they have a right to vote?
Could they legally marry?

Well, the black muslims from africa already enslaved them and did that nearly 700 years before the Europeans got involved.

I don't give two shits some black's ancestors were slaves 150 years ago.

Of course YOU don't . If you were around 150 years ago, you wouldn't care then either .

My ancestors fought to free them...once again Timmy gets his bell rang. You'll never learn.....child. Now run along

 

[JimBowie1958]

The slaves were forced to work and watch the fruit of their labor be taken from them unfairly, but whites also suffered.

LOL!! White peoples suffering is like saying the Wolf suffered when he ate the chicken because he got heartburn. Is it suffering? Sure.

Is it even remotely comparable? Not at all

Thus demonstrating your racism. I said that whites did not suffer as much as the black slaves, though many whites were slaves too, ass hole.

There were other negative impacts from slavery other than the things obvious enough for an idiot like you to observe them.

White farmers that lost their farms to plantations that had free labor is something that you do not have the ability to understand because you are a racist and the victims were not black.

But there were whites that were slaves too and you cant even acknowledge them either.

You are a shit4brains racist piece of shyte.

But now I have proof.

 

[rightwinger]

The slaves were forced to work and watch the fruit of their labor be taken from them unfairly, but whites also suffered.

LOL!! White peoples suffering is like saying the Wolf suffered when he ate the chicken because he got heartburn. Is it suffering? Sure.

Is it even remotely comparable? Not at all

Thus demonstrating your racism. I said that whites did not suffer as much as the black slaves, though many whites were slaves too, ass hole.

There were other negative impacts from slavery other than the things obvious enough for an idiot like you to observe them.

White farmers that lost their farms to plantations that had free labor is something that you do not have the ability to understand because you are a racist and the victims were not black.

But there were whites that were slaves too and you cant even acknowledge them either.

You are a shit4brains racist piece of shyte.

But now I have proof.

Of the 4 million slaves in 1861, can you tell us how many were white?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Read it Timmy, then you won't look like the clueless fucktard you are.

Interesting

Were they slaves or indentured servants?
Did they agree to their servitude?
Was it for a set period or their whole lives and their children's lives?
Were they bought and sold?
Did they have a right to vote?
Could they legally marry?

Well, the black muslims from africa already enslaved them and did that nearly 700 years before the Europeans got involved.

I don't give two shits some black's ancestors were slaves 150 years ago.

Of course YOU don't . If you were around 150 years ago, you wouldn't care then either .

My ancestors fought to free them...once again Timmy gets his bell rang. You'll never learn.....child. Now run along

A description of white slavery from the DailyKos, a known leftwing website, lol.

The slaves that time forgot

Most people have heard of the Great Famine, which reduced the population of Ireland by around 25%.
That pales in comparison to the disaster that England inflicted upon Ireland between1641 and 1652, when the population of Ireland fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000.

Then things got worse....

The English had been practicing a slow genocide against the Irish since Queen Elizabeth, but the Irish bred too fast and were tough to kill. On the other side of the Atlantic, there was a chronic labor shortage (because the local natives tended to die out too quickly in slavery conditions).
Putting two and two together, King James I started sending Irish slaves to the new world.
The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement in the Amazon in 1612, seven years before the first African slaves arrived in Jamestown.

The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies....

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters.

But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas. The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots.

So many Irish slaves were sent to Barbados, between 12,000 and 60,000, that the term "barbadosed" began to be used.

By the 1630's, Ireland was the primary source of the English slave trade.

And then disaster struck....

The famine (caused by the English intentionally destroying foodstocks) and plague that followed Cromwell's massacres reduced the population of Ireland to around 40%.

And then Cromwell got really nasty.
Anyone implicated in the rebellion had their land confiscated and was sold into slavery in the West Indies. Even catholic landowners who hadn't taken part of the rebellion had their land confiscated.
Catholicism was outlawed and catholic priests were executed when found.
To top it off, he ordered the ethnic cleansing of Ireland east of Shannon in 1652. Soldiers were encouraged to kill any Irish who refused to relocate...

As for the Irish slaves, Cromwell specifically targeted Irish children.

“During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, [Oliver] Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.” For some reason, history likes to call these Irish slaves as 'indentured servants'. As if they were somehow considered better than African slaves. This can be considered an attempt at whitewashing the history of the Irish slave trade.
There does exist indentured servitude where two parties sign a contract for a limited amount of time. This is not what happened to the Irish from 1625 onward. They were sold as slaves, pure and simple.
In reality, they were considered by some to be even lower than the blacks....

African slaves were still relatively new, and were expensive to transport such a long distance (50 sterling in the late 1600's). Irish slaves on the other hand, were relatively cheap in comparison (5 sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Because Irish slaves were so much cheaper, the loss of investment from torturing and killing them was not considered an effective deterrent. In an ironic twist, this caused some to recommend importing African slaves instead for humanitarian reasons.

From (http)://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef2_1336262149

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

The first slave owner in American history was black.

Anthony Johnson came to the American colonies in August, 1619 as an indentured servant. In 1623 Johnson had completed his indenture and was recognized as a free negro. In 1651 he acquired 250 acres of land in Virginia, later adding another 250 acres; a sizable holding at the time.

John Casor, a black indentured servant employed by Johnson, became America's first slave after a legal dispute with Robert Parker. Parker was a white colonist who employed Casor while Casor was still indentured to Johnson. Johnson sued Parker in Northampton Court in 1654. The court upheld Johnson's right to hold Casor as a slave on March 8, 1655. The court found:

The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master ... It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.

Five years later, in 1670, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting blacks and Indians the right to own slaves of their own race, but prohibiting them from owning White slaves.

 

[OldLady]

Read it Timmy, then you won't look like the clueless fucktard you are.

Interesting

Were they slaves or indentured servants?
Did they agree to their servitude?
Was it for a set period or their whole lives and their children's lives?
Were they bought and sold?
Did they have a right to vote?
Could they legally marry?

I am so heartily sick of this book and the people who are using it to somehow advance and justify racism. I wonder if that was the intention of the authors.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Read it Timmy, then you won't look like the clueless fucktard you are.

Interesting

Were they slaves or indentured servants?
Did they agree to their servitude?
Was it for a set period or their whole lives and their children's lives?
Were they bought and sold?
Did they have a right to vote?
Could they legally marry?

I am so heartily sick of this book and the people who are using it to somehow advance and justify racism. I wonder if that was the intention of the authors.

Then don't read it, the truth of the matter is it's an inconvenient truth to you leftist twits. You moan, whine and bellyache about the poor black slaves and then oops there where white slaves also. Doesn't fit the narrative you're so trying desperately to pass does it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I am so heartily sick of this book and the people who are using it to somehow advance and justify racism. I wonder if that was the intention of the authors.

Yeah, accurate history is just such a pain in the ass to you liberals.

Thats why you have to change it every generation or so to keep up with your bullshit.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I am so heartily sick of this book and the people who are using it to somehow advance and justify racism. I wonder if that was the intention of the authors.

Yeah, accurate history is just such a pain in the ass to you liberals.

Thats why you have to change it every generation or so to keep up with your bullshit.

THAT^^^ and why public education (and liberalism) is a fucking joke

 

[JimBowie1958]

Then don't read it, the truth of the matter is it's an inconvenient truth to you leftist twits. You moan, whine and bellyache about the poor black slaves and then oops there where white slaves also. Doesn't fit the narrative you're so trying desperately to pass does it?

IT intereferes with their ideological claims of victimhood and assigning the evil responsibility for it to everyone that is white whether they personally had anything to do with it or not.

Now THAT is just evil, to slander an entire race that actually ENDED SLAVERY as being the ones who began slavery.

But that is what ideology does; it makes liars out of those who hold it most dear.

 

[Yarddog]

I think its a good thing. Its a private university and there seems to be some history there with slaves. If a private university wants to give prefferential treatment to Irish Orphans, thats ok too, they're allowed to come up with their own criteria in admissions

 

[rightwinger]

Interesting

Were they slaves or indentured servants?
Did they agree to their servitude?
Was it for a set period or their whole lives and their children's lives?
Were they bought and sold?
Did they have a right to vote?
Could they legally marry?

Well, the black muslims from africa already enslaved them and did that nearly 700 years before the Europeans got involved.

I don't give two shits some black's ancestors were slaves 150 years ago.

Of course YOU don't . If you were around 150 years ago, you wouldn't care then either .

My ancestors fought to free them...once again Timmy gets his bell rang. You'll never learn.....child. Now run along

A description of white slavery from the DailyKos, a known leftwing website, lol.

The slaves that time forgot

Most people have heard of the Great Famine, which reduced the population of Ireland by around 25%.
That pales in comparison to the disaster that England inflicted upon Ireland between1641 and 1652, when the population of Ireland fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000.

Then things got worse....

The English had been practicing a slow genocide against the Irish since Queen Elizabeth, but the Irish bred too fast and were tough to kill. On the other side of the Atlantic, there was a chronic labor shortage (because the local natives tended to die out too quickly in slavery conditions).
Putting two and two together, King James I started sending Irish slaves to the new world.
The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement in the Amazon in 1612, seven years before the first African slaves arrived in Jamestown.

The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies....

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters.

But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas. The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots.

So many Irish slaves were sent to Barbados, between 12,000 and 60,000, that the term "barbadosed" began to be used.

By the 1630's, Ireland was the primary source of the English slave trade.

And then disaster struck....

The famine (caused by the English intentionally destroying foodstocks) and plague that followed Cromwell's massacres reduced the population of Ireland to around 40%.

And then Cromwell got really nasty.
Anyone implicated in the rebellion had their land confiscated and was sold into slavery in the West Indies. Even catholic landowners who hadn't taken part of the rebellion had their land confiscated.
Catholicism was outlawed and catholic priests were executed when found.
To top it off, he ordered the ethnic cleansing of Ireland east of Shannon in 1652. Soldiers were encouraged to kill any Irish who refused to relocate...

As for the Irish slaves, Cromwell specifically targeted Irish children.

“During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, [Oliver] Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.” For some reason, history likes to call these Irish slaves as 'indentured servants'. As if they were somehow considered better than African slaves. This can be considered an attempt at whitewashing the history of the Irish slave trade.
There does exist indentured servitude where two parties sign a contract for a limited amount of time. This is not what happened to the Irish from 1625 onward. They were sold as slaves, pure and simple.
In reality, they were considered by some to be even lower than the blacks....

African slaves were still relatively new, and were expensive to transport such a long distance (50 sterling in the late 1600's). Irish slaves on the other hand, were relatively cheap in comparison (5 sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Because Irish slaves were so much cheaper, the loss of investment from torturing and killing them was not considered an effective deterrent. In an ironic twist, this caused some to recommend importing African slaves instead for humanitarian reasons.

From (http)://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef2_1336262149

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

The first slave owner in American history was black.

Anthony Johnson came to the American colonies in August, 1619 as an indentured servant. In 1623 Johnson had completed his indenture and was recognized as a free negro. In 1651 he acquired 250 acres of land in Virginia, later adding another 250 acres; a sizable holding at the time.

John Casor, a black indentured servant employed by Johnson, became America's first slave after a legal dispute with Robert Parker. Parker was a white colonist who employed Casor while Casor was still indentured to Johnson. Johnson sued Parker in Northampton Court in 1654. The court upheld Johnson's right to hold Casor as a slave on March 8, 1655. The court found:

The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master ... It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.

Five years later, in 1670, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting blacks and Indians the right to own slaves of their own race, but prohibiting them from owning White slaves.

1637 Barbados is not 1850 United States

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think its a good thing. Its a private university and there seems to be some history there with slaves. If a private university wants to give prefferential treatment to Irish Orphans, thats ok too, they're allowed to come up with their own criteria in admissions

Once we have free state university tuition nation wide and we will, the private schools are going to specialize more for their historical ethnic interests.....and then after a few decades go out of business because online education will be so cheap it will be ridiculous.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Read it Timmy, then you won't look like the clueless fucktard you are.

Interesting

Were they slaves or indentured servants?
Did they agree to their servitude?
Was it for a set period or their whole lives and their children's lives?
Were they bought and sold?
Did they have a right to vote?
Could they legally marry?

Well, the black muslims from africa already enslaved them and did that nearly 700 years before the Europeans got involved.

I don't give two shits some black's ancestors were slaves 150 years ago.

Of course YOU don't . If you were around 150 years ago, you wouldn't care then either .

My ancestors fought to free them...once again Timmy gets his bell rang. You'll never learn.....child. Now run along

Your ancestors should've given those guns to the slaves so you wouldnt be here claiming all the credit...but they didnt trust them with 'em so what were they fighting for?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your ancestors should've given those guns to the slaves so you wouldnt be here claiming all the credit...but they didnt trust them with 'em so what were they fighting for?

Says the local race baiting thug.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Interesting

Were they slaves or indentured servants?
Did they agree to their servitude?
Was it for a set period or their whole lives and their children's lives?
Were they bought and sold?
Did they have a right to vote?
Could they legally marry?

Well, the black muslims from africa already enslaved them and did that nearly 700 years before the Europeans got involved.

I don't give two shits some black's ancestors were slaves 150 years ago.

Of course YOU don't . If you were around 150 years ago, you wouldn't care then either .

My ancestors fought to free them...once again Timmy gets his bell rang. You'll never learn.....child. Now run along

Your ancestors should've given those guns to the slaves so you wouldnt be here claiming all the credit...but they didnt trust them with 'em so what were they fighting for?

Bu they didn't now did they? GFY

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Your ancestors should've given those guns to the slaves so you wouldnt be here claiming all the credit...but they didnt trust them with 'em so what were they fighting for?

Says the local race baiting thug.

That one is as stupid as a stump

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your ancestors should've given those guns to the slaves so you wouldnt be here claiming all the credit...but they didnt trust them with 'em so what were they fighting for?

Says the local race baiting thug.

That one is as stupid as a stump

But the thinks he is being clever.

But he is simply a black racist at best, a posturing white liberal at worst.