Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,901
Indentured service is NOT slavery because it is a contractual agreement.You've been proven wrong. Your race is no better than any other race that was held in slavery without adding in the inconsequential indentured servitude. Cabron, you were given the answer to the question you asked on that one. Deal with it.
I never said anything of the sort. In fact you'll see in most of my posts I never mention race because the color of a person's skin is completely irrelevant to me. But you can't say the same about yourself can you?
And no Fuckstick you are wrong
Slaves and indentured servants are not the same thing they never have been. One is the ownership of people as chattel the other is an agreed upon exchange of services.
Slaves never agreed to be someone else's property
You were quoted the official definition of the word slave. If you are that stupid, cabron, then you are stupid. Whether or not an indentured servant is a slave (and they are)
is IRRELEVANT except that you asked if someone ever sold themselves into slavery. You just want that woe is me mantra to work for you, making us think that others never suffered. You make indentured servitude sound like it was Easy Street. Here are some FACTS for you:
"Each INDENTURED SERVANT would have their fare across the Atlantic paid in full by their master. A contract was written that stipulated the length of service — typically five years. The servant would be supplied room and board while working in the master's fields. Upon completion of the contract, the servant would receive "freedom dues," a pre-arranged termination bonus. This might include land, money, a gun, clothes or food. On the surface it seemed like a terrific way for the luckless English poor to make their way to prosperity in a new land. Beneath the surface, this was not often the case.
Only about 40 percent of indentured servants lived to complete the terms of their contracts...."
Indentured Servants [ushistory.org]
www.ushistory.org
You want to know who had a longer lifespan between black slaves and indentured servants? Do you want to know who got the worse treatment? You've already marginalized white slavery throughout history and by trying to ignore it, you've proven one thing: If you ain't a racist, there ain't a cow in the whole state of Texas.
WHat contracts did slaves enter into with the people who bought them?
So no one has ever voluntarily sold themselves into slavery.
And FYI i never specified Black or White Slavery.
Because as I said skin color is irrelevant.
I'm sorry that the United Nations General Assembly disagrees with your definition. I promise to let them know you object. I really will do it for you today. Meanwhile, I have to accept their definition, even if it means pissing you off. IF I get a reply, I will let you know.
Sir, you asked me a question. I gave you an honest and accurate answer to the question asked. People voluntarily sold themselves into a practice known as indentured servitude and the United Nations General Assembly outlawed the practice calling it slavery. All your name calling, filibustering, and bullshit cannot change the facts. White, black, green or yellow, it is what it is.
Fuck the UN. That has nothing to do with the ACTUAL definition of the term.
And no you gave me an INACCURATE answer because indentured service was not slavery it was a labor and compensation contract freely entered into by 2 parties.
If you can't realize that when there is a choice slavery does not exist