Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not slavery was a formal system in the conies when black africans were brought here is immaterial. They definitely didn't end up here under the same circumstances as European Indentured servants who either owed a debt, had been sentenced to be transported, or volunteered to relocate

Yes, but he specifically mentioned a particular point in time, 1619, when they were considered to be indentured servants.

considered to be, not WERE
Indentured servants generally weren't captured in wars and sold to traders
Saying they were treated in a similar way to indentured servants is a smokescreen

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating. “Mansplaining” and “whitesplaining” all rolled into one.

I assume that instead of learning history, you prefer ignorance and making up stupid words. You would make a great Trump supporter. MAGA.

Black people haven't responded well to Northam's use of "indentured servant." But carry on telling why they should feel otherwise.

I'm responding to a quote in black text on a light blue background. That's the only color to which I'm talking. Anyone is welcome to feel however the want to feel. But facts are facts. From today's Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/in-his-first-televised-interview-virginia-gov-northam-vows-im-not-going-anywhere/2019/02/10/4c725e0c-2d46-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html

"The first Africans brought to Virginia were captured in Angola and brought in a slave ship, but Virginia did not have a formal legal system for slavery in 1619. There appears to be some ambiguity over their legal status, with some still forced to work for life while others had a path to freedom, according to the National Park Service. "

BTW, are you black yourself or just a self-appointed spokesperson for African-Americans?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not slavery was a formal system in the conies when black africans were brought here is immaterial. They definitely didn't end up here under the same circumstances as European Indentured servants who either owed a debt, had been sentenced to be transported, or volunteered to relocate

Yes, but he specifically mentioned a particular point in time, 1619, when they were considered to be indentured servants.

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not slavery was a formal system in the conies when black africans were brought here is immaterial. They definitely didn't end up here under the same circumstances as European Indentured servants who either owed a debt, had been sentenced to be transported, or volunteered to relocate

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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."

Fascinating. “Mansplaining” and “whitesplaining” all rolled into one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/429335-gayle-king-corrects-northam-for-referring-to-slaves-as-indentured

Holy crap, this guy is worse than I thought. I hope that if I am ever in a situation like this, I can remain as classy and diplomatic as Gayle King. My goodness.

He's actually not wrong. The first slaves were treated as indentured servants. Looks like he's been doing his reading, though that's probably too fine of a distinction to make to quell the outrage machine.

Well the first slaves that arrived in Virginia were “human cargo” that were actually taken from a Portuguese ship the British captured and stole. So then they took the people to Virginia and voila. The Portuguese were headed to somewhere in the Caribbean when the ship was intercepted. The Africans were never treated like indentured servants.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating. “Mansplaining” and “whitesplaining” all rolled into one.

I assume that instead of learning history, you prefer ignorance and making up stupid words. You would make a great Trump supporter. MAGA.

Black people haven't responded well to Northam's use of "indentured servant." But carry on telling why they should feel otherwise.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating. “Mansplaining” and “whitesplaining” all rolled into one.

I assume that instead of learning history, you prefer ignorance and making up stupid words. You would make a great Trump supporter. MAGA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/429335-gayle-king-corrects-northam-for-referring-to-slaves-as-indentured

Holy crap, this guy is worse than I thought. I hope that if I am ever in a situation like this, I can remain as classy and diplomatic as Gayle King. My goodness.

He's actually not wrong. The first slaves were treated as indentured servants. Looks like he's been doing his reading, though that's probably too fine of a distinction to make to quell the outrage machine.

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating. “Mansplaining” and “whitesplaining” all rolled into one.

jsteele wrote:

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."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/429335-gayle-king-corrects-northam-for-referring-to-slaves-as-indentured

Holy crap, this guy is worse than I thought. I hope that if I am ever in a situation like this, I can remain as classy and diplomatic as Gayle King. My goodness.

He's actually not wrong. The first slaves were treated as indentured servants. Looks like he's been doing his reading, though that's probably too fine of a distinction to make to quell the outrage machine.