Anonymous wrote:https://ids.si.edu/ids/dynamic?id=NMAAHC-2010_1_316_001&max=&iframe=true&width=85%25&height=85%25&container.padding=0&container.fullpage=1, no but here's a deed of saleAnonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
]So if the pirates had found rum or flour on the boat, and taken it to Virginia to exchange for money, you'd say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the rum/flour instead of abandoning it at sea? The word "sold" would not be accurate? smh
Had the colonists bought rum or flour, the rum or flour would have been theirs, end of story. However, the Africans were not held as property, but were instead able to earn their freedom and become landowners. Obviously, things changed later and eventually the institution of slavery as we know came to exist. It's just that in this specific case -- the Africans of 1619 -- things hadn't gotten that far.
When the pirates brought those africans off the ship to hand over to white colonists, in exchange for money, I'd argue that the africans WERE definitely property, and logged in the plantation ledgers as such
If you read the previous link, you would see that the exchange of money would have been for their transport and not for ownership of the person. It wasn't until 1705 that Africans were legally considered to be property. Do you have a link that shows they were logged into the plantation ledgers as such?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:C'mon! Where all the black folks at?
They aren’t here because they don’t care as much as all the freakiing out Democrats looking to quickly remove anything or anyone that makes their side look bad.
https://ids.si.edu/ids/dynamic?id=NMAAHC-2010_1_316_001&max=&iframe=true&width=85%25&height=85%25&container.padding=0&container.fullpage=1, no but here's a deed of saleAnonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
]So if the pirates had found rum or flour on the boat, and taken it to Virginia to exchange for money, you'd say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the rum/flour instead of abandoning it at sea? The word "sold" would not be accurate? smh
Had the colonists bought rum or flour, the rum or flour would have been theirs, end of story. However, the Africans were not held as property, but were instead able to earn their freedom and become landowners. Obviously, things changed later and eventually the institution of slavery as we know came to exist. It's just that in this specific case -- the Africans of 1619 -- things hadn't gotten that far.
When the pirates brought those africans off the ship to hand over to white colonists, in exchange for money, I'd argue that the africans WERE definitely property, and logged in the plantation ledgers as such
If you read the previous link, you would see that the exchange of money would have been for their transport and not for ownership of the person. It wasn't until 1705 that Africans were legally considered to be property. Do you have a link that shows they were logged into the plantation ledgers as such?
Anonymous wrote:C'mon! Where all the black folks at?
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Because I’m white, and it’s not my place. My ancestors weren’t the ones kidnapped, raped, sold like property, forced from their homelands, etc. Instead of thinking I need to lecture others, I choose to learn from the perspectives of those who WERE affected by this. To each his own, though!
Well, isn't this special? Two out two of the posters accusing me of "whitesplaining" are themselves white. You are welcome to your position that white people can't discuss history, but I'll have to disagree with you. By the way, for someone who doesn't like to lecture others, you are sure doing a lot of lecturing, along with name-calling.
Aww, did I hurt your feelings?
No, you just offered further support for my belief that anyone who accuses others of "splaining" something is an idiot.
Yikes. So POC who use this are idiots? Round and round and round we go again.
Anonymous wrote:It’s just really, really frustrating to watch how frequently you call OTHER people out for being racists/xenophobic/etc. but the moment someone says...you know, Jeff, your “hot takes” are pretty problematic and offensive to a lot of people as well...you go on the defensive. I’m a white liberal myself, but this arrogant, “I know all the answers” savior complex is a great example of why POC don’t trust white people.
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
]So if the pirates had found rum or flour on the boat, and taken it to Virginia to exchange for money, you'd say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the rum/flour instead of abandoning it at sea? The word "sold" would not be accurate? smh
Had the colonists bought rum or flour, the rum or flour would have been theirs, end of story. However, the Africans were not held as property, but were instead able to earn their freedom and become landowners. Obviously, things changed later and eventually the institution of slavery as we know came to exist. It's just that in this specific case -- the Africans of 1619 -- things hadn't gotten that far.
When the pirates brought those africans off the ship to hand over to white colonists, in exchange for money, I'd argue that the africans WERE definitely property, and logged in the plantation ledgers as such
If you read the previous link, you would see that the exchange of money would have been for their transport and not for ownership of the person. It wasn't until 1705 that Africans were legally considered to be property. Do you have a link that shows they were logged into the plantation ledgers as such?
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
]So if the pirates had found rum or flour on the boat, and taken it to Virginia to exchange for money, you'd say that the colonists paid the costs of the pirates delivering the rum/flour instead of abandoning it at sea? The word "sold" would not be accurate? smh
Had the colonists bought rum or flour, the rum or flour would have been theirs, end of story. However, the Africans were not held as property, but were instead able to earn their freedom and become landowners. Obviously, things changed later and eventually the institution of slavery as we know came to exist. It's just that in this specific case -- the Africans of 1619 -- things hadn't gotten that far.
When the pirates brought those africans off the ship to hand over to white colonists, in exchange for money, I'd argue that the africans WERE definitely property, and logged in the plantation ledgers as such
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Because I’m white, and it’s not my place. My ancestors weren’t the ones kidnapped, raped, sold like property, forced from their homelands, etc. Instead of thinking I need to lecture others, I choose to learn from the perspectives of those who WERE affected by this. To each his own, though!
Well, isn't this special? Two out two of the posters accusing me of "whitesplaining" are themselves white. You are welcome to your position that white people can't discuss history, but I'll have to disagree with you. By the way, for someone who doesn't like to lecture others, you are sure doing a lot of lecturing, along with name-calling.
Aww, did I hurt your feelings?
No, you just offered further support for my belief that anyone who accuses others of "splaining" something is an idiot.
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Because I’m white, and it’s not my place. My ancestors weren’t the ones kidnapped, raped, sold like property, forced from their homelands, etc. Instead of thinking I need to lecture others, I choose to learn from the perspectives of those who WERE affected by this. To each his own, though!
Well, isn't this special? Two out two of the posters accusing me of "whitesplaining" are themselves white. You are welcome to your position that white people can't discuss history, but I'll have to disagree with you. By the way, for someone who doesn't like to lecture others, you are sure doing a lot of lecturing, along with name-calling.
Aww, did I hurt your feelings?
No, you just offered further support for my belief that anyone who accuses others of "splaining" something is an idiot.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Because I’m white, and it’s not my place. My ancestors weren’t the ones kidnapped, raped, sold like property, forced from their homelands, etc. Instead of thinking I need to lecture others, I choose to learn from the perspectives of those who WERE affected by this. To each his own, though!
Well, isn't this special? Two out two of the posters accusing me of "whitesplaining" are themselves white. You are welcome to your position that white people can't discuss history, but I'll have to disagree with you. By the way, for someone who doesn't like to lecture others, you are sure doing a lot of lecturing, along with name-calling.
Aww, did I hurt your feelings?