Kidnapped or Legal Slaves

[presonorek]

Alright. This is a big deal.

I was always told that English and American slaves were purchased from African nations. I was taught that all slaves were captured in combat by warring nations. This means the slave voluntarily chose to surrender with shame rather than die with honor.

Now I am learning that slaves were obtained from thugs who went into African nations and kidnapped people.

This changes the entire dynamic of the discussion. By Judeo Christian standards kidnapping is disgusting and punishable by death. Obtaining slaves through combat was fair game in ancient days. Kidnapping was not.

What were you guys taught about the slave trade? Were slaves kidnapped or did they voluntarily surrender? Sure. This makes little difference under today's ethics. Both are wrong but if we judge by 17th Century principles kidnapping was wrong even back then. Buying and selling legally obtained slaves was not wrong. Is anybody following me?

 

[irosie91]

Alright. This is a big deal.

I was always told that English and American slaves were purchased from African nations. I was taught that all slaves were captured in combat by warring nations. This means the slave voluntarily chose to surrender with shame rather than die with honor.

Now I am learning that slaves were obtained from thugs who went into African nations and kidnapped people.

This changes the entire dynamic of the discussion. By Judeo Christian standards kidnapping is disgusting and punishable by death. Obtaining slaves through combat was fair game in ancient days. Kidnapping was not.

What were you guys taught about the slave trade? Were slaves kidnapped or did they voluntarily surrender? Sure. This makes little difference under today's ethics. Both are wrong but if we judge by 17th Century principles kidnapping was wrong even back then. Buying and selling legally obtained slaves was not wrong. Is anybody following me?

English and American slaves were kidnapped ---generally from large ships at sea by muslim pirates

 

[IM2]

Alright. This is a big deal.

I was always told that English and American slaves were purchased from African nations. I was taught that all slaves were captured in combat by warring nations. This means the slave voluntarily chose to surrender with shame rather than die with honor.

Now I am learning that slaves were obtained from thugs who went into African nations and kidnapped people.

This changes the entire dynamic of the discussion. By Judeo Christian standards kidnapping is disgusting and punishable by death. Obtaining slaves through combat was fair game in ancient days. Kidnapping was not.

What were you guys taught about the slave trade? Were slaves kidnapped or did they voluntarily surrender? Sure. This makes little difference under today's ethics. Both are wrong but if we judge by 17th Century principles kidnapping was wrong even back then. Buying and selling legally obtained slaves was not wrong. Is anybody following me?

English and American slaves were kidnapped ---generally from large ships at sea by muslim pirates

No, that's not how it happened.

 

[IM2]

Alright. This is a big deal.

I was always told that English and American slaves were purchased from African nations. I was taught that all slaves were captured in combat by warring nations. This means the slave voluntarily chose to surrender with shame rather than die with honor.

Now I am learning that slaves were obtained from thugs who went into African nations and kidnapped people.

This changes the entire dynamic of the discussion. By Judeo Christian standards kidnapping is disgusting and punishable by death. Obtaining slaves through combat was fair game in ancient days. Kidnapping was not.

What were you guys taught about the slave trade? Were slaves kidnapped or did they voluntarily surrender? Sure. This makes little difference under today's ethics. Both are wrong but if we judge by 17th Century principles kidnapping was wrong even back then. Buying and selling legally obtained slaves was not wrong. Is anybody following me?

Most slaves were not legally obtained.

 

[irosie91]

Alright. This is a big deal.

I was always told that English and American slaves were purchased from African nations. I was taught that all slaves were captured in combat by warring nations. This means the slave voluntarily chose to surrender with shame rather than die with honor.

Now I am learning that slaves were obtained from thugs who went into African nations and kidnapped people.

This changes the entire dynamic of the discussion. By Judeo Christian standards kidnapping is disgusting and punishable by death. Obtaining slaves through combat was fair game in ancient days. Kidnapping was not.

What were you guys taught about the slave trade? Were slaves kidnapped or did they voluntarily surrender? Sure. This makes little difference under today's ethics. Both are wrong but if we judge by 17th Century principles kidnapping was wrong even back then. Buying and selling legally obtained slaves was not wrong. Is anybody following me?

English and American slaves were kidnapped ---generally from large ships at sea by muslim pirates

No, that's not how it happened.

how what happened? please note that the poster alluded to AMERICAN AND BRITISH slaves------it did happen-----via piracy. As to the rest of the
slave trade it was a virtual ARAB monopoly for a few thousand years. The place called SUDAN is an ancient arab colony-------a slave trading post
founded by persons from Arabia-----VERY ANCIENT-----it goes back AS SUCH
several thousand years. You want to tell me about the fantasy of evil "white guys" grabbing black children out of the bush with butterfly nets?

 

[Paul Essien]

how what happened? please note that the poster alluded to AMERICAN AND BRITISH slaves------it did happen-----via piracy. As to the rest of the
slave trade it was a virtual ARAB monopoly for a few thousand years. The place called SUDAN is an ancient arab colony-------a slave trading post
founded by persons from Arabia-----VERY ANCIENT-----it goes back AS SUCH
several thousand years. You want to tell me about the fantasy of evil "white guys" grabbing black children out of the bush with butterfly nets?

Being cruel to black people and being racist are not necessarily the same thing. Of course, if I was being marched across the Sahara into slavery, I would scarcely care about the difference.

I know no one who has been affected by the Arab slave trade nor do I live in a country that has been shaped and continues to be shaped by that trade. That is quite untrue about the Atlantic slave trade

One of the main differences between slavery in America and the Middle East was that at least slaves could marry Arabs and be accepted into mainstream society while America had anti-miscegenation laws in place to keep the races separate. The Arab slave trade generally ignored race, seeing only religion. However, the Transatlantic slave trade had the express intention of dehumanizing blacks and keeping them separate from whites, as if the two were distinct species.

The central impact of the African Transatlantic Slave trade you nonchalantly brush aside is the legacy. And it’s that legacy that connects us and everyone else posting in this forum today and will continue until the day it’s resolved or addressed.

You cannot (and here is the challenge if you are up for it) point to any other form of slavery (present, past or pre-historic) that has had such an immense and global impact on this planet than the African Holocaust

The outcome of that operation is the crucial factor which in terms of scale and magnitude has gone unsurpassed and has had a profound effect on millions worldwide.

Not just because of slavery, that was just the starting point. But because white supremacy would not allow themselves to see blacks as humans and it carried on long after the slave trade was abolished.

But at the end of the day your moral reasoning is broken.

If you disagree, then when your Husband or Boyfriend catches you with another man all you have to do is say this: “I know what I did was wrong, but my friend Sue has been cheating on her partner WAY LONGER than me. And she steals from him too. Please keep that in mind!”

And if he continues to be angry at you, say this: “Why are you so angry at me but not at my friend? I mean, she is way worse than me! You are being unfair.”

 

[irosie91]

how what happened? please note that the poster alluded to AMERICAN AND BRITISH slaves------it did happen-----via piracy. As to the rest of the
slave trade it was a virtual ARAB monopoly for a few thousand years. The place called SUDAN is an ancient arab colony-------a slave trading post
founded by persons from Arabia-----VERY ANCIENT-----it goes back AS SUCH
several thousand years. You want to tell me about the fantasy of evil "white guys" grabbing black children out of the bush with butterfly nets?

Being cruel to black people and being racist are not necessarily the same thing. Of course, if I was being marched across the Sahara into slavery, I would scarcely care about the difference.

I know no one who has been affected by the Arab slave trade nor do I live in a country that has been shaped and continues to be shaped by that trade. That is quite untrue about the Atlantic slave trade

One of the main differences between slavery in America and the Middle East was that at least slaves could marry Arabs and be accepted into mainstream society while America had anti-miscegenation laws in place to keep the races separate. The Arab slave trade ignored race, seeing only religion. However, the Transatlantic slave trade had the express intention of dehumanizing blacks and keeping them separate from whites, as if the two were distinct species.

The central impact of the African Transatlantic Slave trade you nonchalantly brush aside is the legacy. And it’s that legacy that connects us and everyone else posting in this forum today and will continue until the day it’s resolved or addressed.

You cannot (and here is the challenge if you are up for it) point to any other form of slavery (present, past or pre-historic) that has had such an immense and global impact on this planet than the African Holocaust

The outcome of that operation is the crucial factor which in terms of scale and magnitude has gone unsurpassed and has had a profound effect on millions worldwide.

Not just because of slavery, that was just the starting point. But because white supremacy would not allow themselves to see blacks as humans and it carried on long after the slave trade was abolished.

But at the end of the day your moral reasoning is broken.

If you disagree, then when your Husband or Boyfriend catches you with another man all you have to do is say this: “I know what I did was wrong, but my friend Sue has been cheating on her partner WAY LONGER than me. And she steals from him too. Please keep that in mind!”

And if he continues to be angry at you, say this: “Why are you so angry at me but not at my friend? I mean, she is way worse than me! You are being unfair.”

your knowledge of this topic-----ie----slavery in the middle east, is
REALLY PATHETIC. --------or you are the victim of lots of
propaganda . The arab slave trade was not some sort of EGALITARIAN
thing. While it is very true that adoption of islam as a religion by a black
slave CONFERRED some advantage------and SOMETIMES even led to a kind
of assimilation into the society--------if you believe that there is no actual
RACIAL discrimination in arab muslim society------you are VERY VERY deceived. In fact-----ANTI-BLACK is intense. Have you been reading
NOI literature? Feel free to ask questions-----I have relatives born in
classical arab/muslim countries and well acquainted with lots and lots
or person from other muslim countries. Try asking an Iranian muslim if
he would like a black muslim to marry his daughter. Whilst doing so----
keep in mind-----PERSIANS have USED black slaves for millennia

 

[Paul Essien]

your knowledge of this topic-----ie----slavery in the middle east, is
REALLY PATHETIC. --------or you are the victim of lots of
propaganda.

OK.

The arab slave trade was not some sort of EGALITARIAN
thing.

I never said it was

While it is very true that adoption of islam as a religion by a black
slave CONFERRED some advantage------and SOMETIMES even led to a kind
of assimilation into the society--------

So we agree then that Arab slavery and chattel transatlantic slavery was a different thing

if you believe that there is no actual
RACIAL discrimination in arab muslim society------you are VERY VERY deceived.

Where did I say that there was no racial discrimination towards black people in Arab / Muslim society ?

In fact-----ANTI-BLACK is intense. Have you been reading
NOI literature? Feel free to ask questions-----I have relatives born in
classical arab/muslim countries and well acquainted with lots and lots
or person from other muslim countries. Try asking an Iranian muslim if
he would like a black muslim to marry his daughter. Whilst doing so----
keep in mind-----PERSIANS have USED black slaves for millennia

Where did I say that there was no racial discrimination towards black people in Arab / Muslim society ?

My point is Arab slavery not only was it not race-based but notice there was no huge effort to keep slaves at the very bottom of society.

Where as black slavery by the early 1800s was a well-oiled machine based on race and supported by law, religion, racist beliefs, slave patrols, and the latest science. All of that did not fall from the sky. It took over a hundred years to assemble. It grew out of indentured servitude, and then become full-blown slavery which was race-based.

Where as Arab slavery, plenty of people with black slave mothers (Ethiopian concubines in most cases) and Arab fathers made it to top positions – so long as their Arab father legitimated them and backed them. But that is not to say they did not experience racism. That would be the black president argument.

Arabs, unlike people in India or America, did not seem to think in castes. Partly, I think, because they were in the middle of the cline not at one end: they were not light-skinned people taking over darker-skinned people. Where they lived there were no sharp lines like that – like there were for the British in West Africa 400 years ago and the Indo-Aryans in Dravidian India 3,000 or so years ago.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

your knowledge of this topic-----ie----slavery in the middle east, is
REALLY PATHETIC. --------or you are the victim of lots of
propaganda.

OK.

The arab slave trade was not some sort of EGALITARIAN
thing.

I never said it was

While it is very true that adoption of islam as a religion by a black
slave CONFERRED some advantage------and SOMETIMES even led to a kind
of assimilation into the society--------

So we agree then that Arab slavery and chattel transatlantic slavery was a different thing

if you believe that there is no actual
RACIAL discrimination in arab muslim society------you are VERY VERY deceived.

Where did I say that there was no racial discrimination towards black people in Arab / Muslim society ?

In fact-----ANTI-BLACK is intense. Have you been reading
NOI literature? Feel free to ask questions-----I have relatives born in
classical arab/muslim countries and well acquainted with lots and lots
or person from other muslim countries. Try asking an Iranian muslim if
he would like a black muslim to marry his daughter. Whilst doing so----
keep in mind-----PERSIANS have USED black slaves for millennia

Where did I say that there was no racial discrimination towards black people in Arab / Muslim society ?

My point is Arab slavery not only was it not race-based but notice there was no huge effort to keep slaves at the very bottom of society.

Where as black slavery by the early 1800s was a well-oiled machine based on race and supported by law, religion, racist beliefs, slave patrols, and the latest science. All of that did not fall from the sky. It took over a hundred years to assemble. It grew out of indentured servitude, and then become full-blown slavery which was race-based.

Where as Arab slavery, plenty of people with black slave mothers (Ethiopian concubines in most cases) and Arab fathers made it to top positions – so long as their Arab father legitimated them and backed them. But that is not to say they did not experience racism. That would be the black president argument.

Arabs, unlike people in India or America, did not seem to think in castes. Partly, I think, because they were in the middle of the cline not at one end: they were not light-skinned people taking over darker-skinned people. Where they lived there were no sharp lines like that – like there were for the British in West Africa 400 years ago and the Indo-Aryans in Dravidian India 3,000 or so years ago.

Muslims often castrated Blacks, so they wouldn't reproduce, which is somehow so much less Racist, and so much better, huh?


Contrary to your opinions, Arabs were also Racist against Blacks.

Ibn Khaldun Quotes - QuotesCosmos


About Ibn Khaldun

Categories: Historians, Muslims, 15th century deaths


"Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated."
Ibn KhaldunSource

"Beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings."
Ibn Khaldun

 

[MindWars]

Everything taught to you was either a lie or real information was left out.....



Learn real history and the parts left out to you during school years........ " DUMBING DOWN AMERICA" worked.

According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.

Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.


America’s first slave owner was a black man.
More than half the idiots in our nation do NOT know history nor there were BLACK SLAVE OWNERS...

 

[irosie91]

your knowledge of this topic-----ie----slavery in the middle east, is
REALLY PATHETIC. --------or you are the victim of lots of
propaganda.

OK.

The arab slave trade was not some sort of EGALITARIAN
thing.

I never said it was

While it is very true that adoption of islam as a religion by a black
slave CONFERRED some advantage------and SOMETIMES even led to a kind
of assimilation into the society--------

So we agree then that Arab slavery and chattel transatlantic slavery was a different thing

if you believe that there is no actual
RACIAL discrimination in arab muslim society------you are VERY VERY deceived.

Where did I say that there was no racial discrimination towards black people in Arab / Muslim society ?

In fact-----ANTI-BLACK is intense. Have you been reading
NOI literature? Feel free to ask questions-----I have relatives born in
classical arab/muslim countries and well acquainted with lots and lots
or person from other muslim countries. Try asking an Iranian muslim if
he would like a black muslim to marry his daughter. Whilst doing so----
keep in mind-----PERSIANS have USED black slaves for millennia

Where did I say that there was no racial discrimination towards black people in Arab / Muslim society ?

My point is Arab slavery not only was it not race-based but notice there was no huge effort to keep slaves at the very bottom of society.

Where as black slavery by the early 1800s was a well-oiled machine based on race and supported by law, religion, racist beliefs, slave patrols, and the latest science. All of that did not fall from the sky. It took over a hundred years to assemble. It grew out of indentured servitude, and then become full-blown slavery which was race-based.

Where as Arab slavery, plenty of people with black slave mothers (Ethiopian concubines in most cases) and Arab fathers made it to top positions – so long as their Arab father legitimated them and backed them. But that is not to say they did not experience racism. That would be the black president argument.

Arabs, unlike people in India or America, did not seem to think in castes. Partly, I think, because they were in the middle of the cline not at one end: they were not light-skinned people taking over darker-skinned people. Where they lived there were no sharp lines like that – like there were for the British in West Africa 400 years ago and the Indo-Aryans in Dravidian India 3,000 or so years ago.

WRONG!!!! you are doing what some people call "cherry picking" Arab muslim society is INTENSELY stratified ------and southeast Asian muslim society is INTENSELY stratified. You are focusing on the issue of possible
social mobility and convincing yourself that it was FAR easier in muslim
society than in either American or in South east Asian society. NOPE.
The paths were different but the possibility existed in both.--------more so in
American society than in muslim society----either middle east or south east
Asian---(and certainly not in Persian society) The one issue you got right is--------CONVERTING TO ISLAM was the ONLY way to get anywhere in those
places that you are convinced were UTOPIAS of egalitarianism. << That
policy is called GENOCIDE---and has been very successful. BTW----in the muslim paradise of Yemen----
descendants of Ethiopians are STILL TRASHED and are cleaning the sewers.
You have been badly propagandized-------do you worship FARAKHARAHAN?

 

[Paul Essien]

WRONG!!!! you are doing what some people call "cherry picking" Arab muslim society is INTENSELY stratified ------and southeast Asian muslim society is INTENSELY stratified. You are focusing on the issue of possible
social mobility and convincing yourself that it was FAR easier in muslim
society than in either American or in South east Asian society. NOPE.
The paths were different but the possibility existed in both.--------more so in
American society than in muslim society----either middle east or south east
Asian---(and certainly not in Persian society) The one issue you got right is--------CONVERTING TO ISLAM was the ONLY way to get anywhere in those
places that you are convinced were UTOPIAS of egalitarianism. << That
policy is called GENOCIDE---and has been very successful. BTW----in the muslim paradise of Yemen----
descendants of Ethiopians are STILL TRASHED and are cleaning the sewers.
You have been badly propagandized-------do you worship FARAKHARAHAN?

I don't worship anyone but Louis Farrakhan is one the few black men who will tell the truth the white man's face.

So I respect for that alone.

The rest of your post made no sense and not even worth responding to

 

[irosie91]

WRONG!!!! you are doing what some people call "cherry picking" Arab muslim society is INTENSELY stratified ------and southeast Asian muslim society is INTENSELY stratified. You are focusing on the issue of possible
social mobility and convincing yourself that it was FAR easier in muslim
society than in either American or in South east Asian society. NOPE.
The paths were different but the possibility existed in both.--------more so in
American society than in muslim society----either middle east or south east
Asian---(and certainly not in Persian society) The one issue you got right is--------CONVERTING TO ISLAM was the ONLY way to get anywhere in those
places that you are convinced were UTOPIAS of egalitarianism. << That
policy is called GENOCIDE---and has been very successful. BTW----in the muslim paradise of Yemen----
descendants of Ethiopians are STILL TRASHED and are cleaning the sewers.
You have been badly propagandized-------do you worship FARAKHARAHAN?

I don't worship anyone but Louis Farrakhan is one the few black men who will tell the truth the white man's face.

So I respect for that alone.

The rest of your post made no sense and not even worth responding to

you sentence ".....Louis Farrakkhan is one of the few black men who will tell the truth the white man's face. " Makes sense??? Feel free to ask
questions.

 

[Paul Essien]

you sentence ".....Louis Farrakkhan is one of the few black men who will tell the truth the white man's face. " Makes sense??? Feel free to ask
questions.

You don't know anything about anything for me to want to ask you any questions.

 

[presonorek]

English and American slaves were kidnapped ---generally from large ships at sea by muslim pirates

How do you know?

 

[presonorek]

No, that's not how it happened.

How do you know? I can't find much of anything on this subject.

 

[presonorek]

You want to tell me about the fantasy of evil "white guys" grabbing black children out of the bush with butterfly nets?

Is this something that really happened? Kidnapping was a crime even in the 1600's. Slavery was legal. I always thought slavery was justified by 17th and 18th century standards. (Don't beat me up. I know slavery isn't justified by today's standards.) Now I am finding out that the slave trade of that time was a criminal enterprise. This is upsetting and could likely change my political views. I always thought slaves were descendants of conquered peoples. I'm not saying that was nice or polite but it was in line with the zeitgeist of the times to obtain slaves in this manner. Kidnapping is utterly disgusting and repulsive. People believed kidnapping was wrong even in ancient writings from thousands of years ago.

Did the English or United States government engage in kidnapping? Did the English or United States government turn a blind eye to its own citizens kidnapping persons to be sold into slavery? This is utterly repulsive but I don't even know what phrases to type into a search engine to find this type of information.

 

[JBvM]

Alright. This is a big deal.

was it not a big deal before - before you stumbled upon what you are now claiming is new information?

where did you find this new information and when - how long ago?

I was always told that English and American slaves were purchased from African nations. I was taught that all slaves were captured in combat by warring nations. This means the slave voluntarily chose to surrender with shame rather than die with honor.

purchased from African nations? Can you name any of these African nations?

all were caught in combat - by warring nations? can you name one group of nations that were at war with each other?

you were taught slaves were "voluntarily chose to surrender with shame rather than die with honor?" - this sounds like something straight out of some mythical story/book/movie

Now I am learning that slaves were obtained from thugs who went into African nations and kidnapped people.

Thugs? Ok.What nations did they go into and in what years -- you can be sort of vague here, but early/mid/late some century?

This changes the entire dynamic of the discussion. By Judeo Christian standards kidnapping is disgusting and punishable by death. Obtaining slaves through combat was fair game in ancient days. Kidnapping was not.

"kidnapping is disgusting and punishable by death?" - where? can you name a few places a kidnapper was last put to death for a conviction of kidnapping?



.

What were you guys taught about the slave trade? Were slaves kidnapped or did they voluntarily surrender? Sure. This makes little difference under today's ethics. Both are wrong but if we judge by 17th Century principles kidnapping was wrong even back then. Buying and selling legally obtained slaves was not wrong. Is anybody following me?[

Taught? Not much, which is why I am curious about your supposed lessons on slavery. Where were you taught these things? When, what years?

People who became slaves (not being born into slavery - chattel slavery). Do you know if the English (not Americans) ever had a chattel slavery system? (English before they became British)

During the 17th century, kidnapping may have been illegal, but have you ever heard of (during your great years spent learning) impressment?

"17th Century principles kidnapping was wrong even back then. Buying and selling legally obtained slaves was not wrong?" Did nations care if slaves who were bought and sold were legally obtained?

... ... ...

Now I am finding out that the slave trade of that time was a criminal enterprise. This is upsetting and could likely change my political views. I always thought slaves were descendants of conquered peoples. I'm not saying that was nice or polite but it was in line with the zeitgeist of the times to obtain slaves in this manner. Kidnapping is utterly disgusting and repulsive. People believed kidnapping was wrong even in ancient writings from thousands of years ago.

Did the English or United States government engage in kidnapping? Did the English or United States government turn a blind eye to its own citizens kidnapping persons to be sold into slavery? This is utterly repulsive but I don't even know what phrases to type into a search engine to find this type of information.

Now I am finding out that the slave trade of that time was a criminal enterprise.

If somebody legally bought or legally sold a slave, it is not a criminal enterprise, is it? If you want to say you believe it was legal to put people into slavery, which it was in most places where people were captured and placed into slavery, what is it you are talking about?

If nation A is at war with nation B, and nation A believes slavery is legal, and nation B believes it is not legal .. where do you stand on nation A's opinion or nation B's opinion. I mean you are speaking about things being legal - or not. Does things being legal make those these okay with you? Do you respect all laws?

This is upsetting and could likely change my political views.

one of the oddest of your oddest claims. could you explain this gem? Start with the 'why'

Did the English or United States government engage in kidnapping? Did the English or United States government turn a blind eye to its own citizens kidnapping persons to be sold into slavery?

In Africa? I don't believe so. The governments sent people in to capture slaves? When was this? Please, do not protest. You made a claim people went into Africa - thugs, you called them, went in and captured people and put them into slavery. Then you ask if the English and American's did this. ***It's obvious here that you are either a troll playing games, or incredibly dumb - in which case: I welcome you to usmb. May you live out the rest of your life here in the Rubber Room

This is utterly repulsive but I don't even know what phrases to type into a search engine to find this type of information.

please, see the reply above this one [I use three ***]

 

[irosie91]

English and American slaves were kidnapped ---generally from large ships at sea by muslim pirates

How do you know?

its history-----does the BARBARY PIRATES ring a bell? There is ALSO a
painless way to learn history-----try reading "historic fiction" novels---they
are really well researched

 

[presonorek]

1. was it not a big deal before - before you stumbled upon what you are now claiming is new information? No. I never really thought slavery was a big deal. It was normal in the 17th Century. The people living in the 17th Century never had access to google, electric cars, or 4+ generations of ancestors that all taught them slavery is wrong. Even though we consider it wrong today it was not consider wrong back then.

2. where did you find this new information and when - how long ago? Britain, slavery and the trade in enslaved Africans, by Marika Sherwood I found it just a few days ago.

3. purchased from African nations? Can you name any of these African nations? That is the part that I am saying probably wasn't true. I was never given names of the African nations that captured their enemy and sold them into slavery. It must not have happened that way.

3. all were caught in combat - by warring nations? can you name one group of nations that were at war with each other?
This question is the same as the previous one.

4. you were taught slaves were "voluntarily chose to surrender with shame rather than die with honor?"
Sure I dressed it up a little bit. What I always envisioned was that enemy combatants surrounded a village and the cowards surrendered. The winning nation didn't want to feed the people because it was too costly. They didn't to kill the people because it was too time consuming. It was much more profitable to sell them as slaves. As far as I'm concerned this would have been fair game at that time in history. That's the way enemies were treated back then.

5. Thugs? Ok.What nations did they go into and in what years -- you can be sort of vague here, but early/mid/late some century? The American colonies utilized slaves from the 1600's through the mid 1800's. I don't know what nations the slaves came from.

6. "kidnapping is disgusting and punishable by death?"
- where?
can you name a few places a kidnapper was last put to death for a conviction of kidnapping?
The Hebrew Old Testament

7. Where were you taught these things? When, what years? The United States. 1995 ish.

8. Do you know if the English (not Americans) ever had a chattel slavery system? (English before they became British)

I'm not sure what you mean by chattel slavery system. I assume that you mean they bred the slaves and made slaves of the children. If that is the case, I imagine that they did.

9. During the 17th century, kidnapping may have been illegal, but have you ever heard of (during your great years spent learning) impressment?

No. I have never heard of impressment.

10. Did nations care if slaves who were bought and sold were legally obtained?

It doesn't sound like it. I always imagined that it was regulated in some way. Congress had a committee that regulated the slave trade.

11. If nation A is at war with nation B, and nation A believes slavery is legal, and nation B believes it is not legal .. where do you stand on nation A's opinion or nation B's opinion?

I guess the winning nation.

12. Does things being legal make those these okay with you? Do you respect all laws?

I do not have to like or obey laws in order for them to be valid. My opinion is irrelevant. The law is the law whether I like it or not. If I don't like cigarettes being purchased people are still allowed to purchase them. If I don't like to wear my seat belt I am still obligated to wear it.

13. one of the oddest of your oddest claims. could you explain this gem? Start with the 'why'

I forgot what this was about.

14. In Africa? I don't believe so. The governments sent people in to capture slaves? When was this?

Between 1600-1865 I guess.

15. It's obvious here that you are either a troll playing games, or incredibly dumb?

I'm incredibly dumb. That is why I have so many questions.