Politesub53
Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
This wasnt the case prior to the revolution. More white people were indentured servants, ie white slaves, than black people. Most left their homelands due to religious persecution or because they were convicts. Here in the UK if you were caught stealing to feed your family, the choice was " Do you want to hang or be removed to the Colonies " Guess which people " Chose" The founding fathers left England not for a better life but to escape persecution.
As far as the flag is concerned, it`s a bit of a generalisation to call everyone displaying it white scum.
"Indentured servants, i.e., white slaves"???
There were fundamental differences between indentured servants and slaves!
An indentured servant willingly entered into his agreement to serve his or her "master" for a definite period of years. In exchange for his or her service for those years, an indentured servant received free passage from Europe to America.
An indentured servant could, after the indenture was completely served, go on to be a property-owning (even a slave-owning), voting, full member of society. Often, at the end of his or her service, an indentured servant received his or her own plot of land to work.
Does that sound like slavery as blacks knew it in America? I don't think so!
While an indentured servant's period of indenture was settled and finite, a slave served his or her master until the day he or she died! While an indentured servant's status did not pass down to his or her children, the child of a slave was, by definition, a slave. A slave's status as slave was inherited, and a slave could not escape his status until he was freed by his owner, or was allowed to purchase his freedom, or escaped from slave territory. The status passed down, from generation to generation, in perpetuity, until slavery was abolished!
An indentured servant had rights. As the Supreme Court famously ruled, a slave had "no rights a white man need respect."
So, let's not talk about indentured servants and slaves as though the two statuses were equivalent, ok?
<Snip>
To me, that case is closed!
If you don't want to see that, I can't make you, and I wouldn't bother trying. You'll see what you want to see, and you won't see what you would prefer not to see!
With respect to many of you, I can't help but wonder, why it's so damned hard to see what's right in front of your face?
Do you really know the history of indentured servants prior to the revolution, which is which i have refered to all along ? Firstly, the terms convicts had to serve were 7 years minimum, the maximum term was often indeterminate and set by the slave owner. A minor infringement was enough to increase the term, as the owner wished. Poor white people worked the same jobs, lived in the same conditions and endured the same punishments as the Africans they worked alongside.
Not all white people were enslaved either, many had been kidnapped and sold, till death, and yes any children in a relationship inherited their parents slavery. If you think this is B/s look up the word kidnapped. Kid and nap or nab which are slang english words for snatch. Street urchins were taken from major ports and cities to work on mainly North American plantations.
Are these children any different than the ones taken from Africa, it seems to me none had any say in the matter. I know the numbers involved with whites were nowhere near as large, but i never said they were.
Here is one link but there are many available for you to read.
http://www.crusader.net/texts/bt/bt07.html
As you said yourself, you will see or not see what you wish.
|
RE: Heritage or Hate? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread