Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yes, he has jumped the shark with that African Indentured Servant crap
Now being factually correct is a bad thing, apparently. Too bad for Northam that he is better informed than his critics. It's one thing to have the blind leading the blind, but now the blind want to lead the sighted. It may be true that Idiocracy was a documentary.
being "treated" like an Indentured servant is different from "being" an indentured servant
Was there any debt owed by the Africans who arrived in the US? Had they been sentenced to indenture as a result of a crime?
Does tre as ting someone like family make them family, in the eyes of the law? French slaves in the Americas were treated LIKE french serfs, but they were, in fact, not serfs
At that time, slavery as it came to be in the Colonies and later in the US did not exist. See this article:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html
"We sometimes imagine that such oppressive laws were put quickly into full force by greedy landowners. But that's not the way slavery was established in colonial America. It happened gradually -- one person at a time, one law at a time, even one colony at a time."
...
"Historically, the English only enslaved non-Christians, and not, in particular, Africans. And the status of slave (Europeans had African slaves prior to the colonization of the Americas) was not one that was life-long. A slave could become free by converting to Christianity. The first Virginia colonists did not even think of themselves as "white" or use that word to describe themselves. They saw themselves as Christians or Englishmen, or in terms of their social class. They were nobility, gentry, artisans, or servants."