Reality check on black slavery

[Turtlesoup]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

 

[fncceo]

Then white Christians in Europe and North America, for the first time in history, cast slavery in moral terms, declared its immorality, outlawed it for the first time in history

In fact, the first nation to abolish chattel slavery on moral grounds was The Philippines (under Spanish rule) in 1574. Japan abolished all forms of slavery in 1590.

 

[Penelope]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

 

[IM2]

It was based on color.

 

[Turtlesoup]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

Well I go by historic fact....it was based on religion initially. They first justified slavery based on heathens needing to be civilized and made christians. Then it went to if the person was from an area that wasn't typically christian (as apparently many indians and blacks converted hoping to not be slaves anymore) and then it went to skin color.

It is important to know this because of the first BLACK slave in america and his black slave owner ANTHONY JOHNSON story. The slave owner had apparently been converted and educated in africa by missionaires before being captured and sold into slavery (based on just released new information). Fortunate for him but not us that the spanish slavers ran out of supplies and needed to trade some of their slaves for supplies. America didn't enslave him--they turned him into a indentured servant instead which means he was freed a certain number of years. He was made an indentured servant and given lands and basics to start off when freed from his contract-------and then he bought 4 indentured servants himself. Three of them were white (christian implied) and one black. He turned the white ones loose or they died but the black one he kept as a slave and refused to release. I couldn't figure out for the longest time why the courts (they went to court over the man being an indentured servant or a slave) wouldn't release this man, but then I read some accounts of what happened---this man likely wasn't a christian or the better educated able to speak better english and able to read slave owner told the courts that the slave wasn't a christian so the courts allowed him to be enslaved for life.

 

[IM2]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

No, because in Africa a slave could earn his freedom and there were slaves who became Kings. Most African tribes enslaved prisoners of war. Slavery was used to pay off debt. Slavery was also used as a punishment for criminal behavior.

This African slave ended up being a King. That did not happen in America.

King Jaja of Opobo: A slave boy who became a King in Africa (1870 - 1887) | The African History

King Jaja of Opobo was a merchant prince and the founder of the city-state of Opobo in an area which

theafricanhistory.com

Again, most of this persons post is inaccurate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

Ya cause the British didn't enslave the Irish and Scots first right?

 

[IM2]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

Well I go by historic fact....it was based on religion initially. They first justified slavery based on heathens needing to be civilized and made christians. Then it went to if the person was from an area that wasn't typically christian (as apparently many indians and blacks converted hoping to not be slaves anymore) and then it went to skin color.

It is important to know this because of the first BLACK slave in america and his black slave owner ANTHONY JOHNSON story. The slave owner had apparently been converted and educated in africa by missionaires before being captured and sold into slavery (based on just released new information). Fortunate for him but not us that the spanish slavers ran out of supplies and needed to trade some of their slaves for supplies. America didn't enslave him--they turned him into a indentured servant instead which means he was freed a certain number of years. He was made an indentured servant and given lands and basics to start off when freed from his contract-------and then he bought 4 indentured servants himself. Three of them were white (christian implied) and one black. He turned the white ones loose or they died but the black one he kept as a slave and refused to release. I couldn't figure out for the longest time why the courts (they went to court over the man being an indentured servant or a slave) wouldn't release this man, but then I read some accounts of what happened---this man likely wasn't a christian or the better educated able to speak better english and able to read slave owner told the courts that the slave wasn't a christian so the courts allowed him to be enslaved for life.

Apparently you don't go by fact because Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner. The Anthony Johnson story is fake news. 14 years before Johnson went to court, Hugh Gywnn made John Punch a slave for life, and furthermore the 1619 Project documents slavery before Johnson got here. The reality of Johnsons situattion is that it was illegal at that time for blacks to own property.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

No, because in Africa a slave could earn his freedom and there were slaves who became Kings. Most African tribes enslaved prisoners of war. Slavery was used to pay off debt. Slavery was also used as a punishment for criminal behavior.

This African slave ended up being a King. That did not happen in America.

King Jaja of Opobo: A slave boy who became a King in Africa (1870 - 1887) | The African History

King Jaja of Opobo was a merchant prince and the founder of the city-state of Opobo in an area which

theafricanhistory.com

Again, most of this persons post is inaccurate.

that's how the British treated the Irish and Scots first.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

Well I go by historic fact....it was based on religion initially. They first justified slavery based on heathens needing to be civilized and made christians. Then it went to if the person was from an area that wasn't typically christian (as apparently many indians and blacks converted hoping to not be slaves anymore) and then it went to skin color.

It is important to know this because of the first BLACK slave in america and his black slave owner ANTHONY JOHNSON story. The slave owner had apparently been converted and educated in africa by missionaires before being captured and sold into slavery (based on just released new information). Fortunate for him but not us that the spanish slavers ran out of supplies and needed to trade some of their slaves for supplies. America didn't enslave him--they turned him into a indentured servant instead which means he was freed a certain number of years. He was made an indentured servant and given lands and basics to start off when freed from his contract-------and then he bought 4 indentured servants himself. Three of them were white (christian implied) and one black. He turned the white ones loose or they died but the black one he kept as a slave and refused to release. I couldn't figure out for the longest time why the courts (they went to court over the man being an indentured servant or a slave) wouldn't release this man, but then I read some accounts of what happened---this man likely wasn't a christian or the better educated able to speak better english and able to read slave owner told the courts that the slave wasn't a christian so the courts allowed him to be enslaved for life.

Apparently you don't go by fact because Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner. The Anthony Johnson story is fake news. 14 years before Johnson went to court, Hugh Gywnn made John Punch a slave for life, and furthermore the 1619 Project documents slavery before Johnson got here. The reality of Johnsons situattion is that it was illegal at that time for blacks to own property.

1619 is wrong as dozens of Historians have stated. it's supposed facts are wrong and it's premise is a joke.

 

[IM2]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

Ya cause the British didn't enslave the Irish and Scots first right?

They didn't. Liam Hogan, a top Irish historian says:

“I conservatively estimate that tens of millions of people have been exposed to ‘Irish slaves’ disinformation in one form or another on social media.”

Liam Hogan​

From 2015 until 2019, Liam Hogan compiled some 52 different articles debunking the tale of Irish slavery. The intent here is to destroy a popular white supremacist meme that has plagued social media and American culture for years. According to Hogan and other Irish historians in his compilation, the Irish were indentured servants and not slaves. The fallacy in the white supremacist argument lies in the fact that indentured servitude was a contractual agreement made between 2 or more parties. One party agreed that for payment of passage to America, the individual(s) would work for a specified term to repay the cost of passage. To say it was not much better than slavery is simply a lie. Slavery was permanent. Slavery was also generational. If you we born into a slave family, you were a slave. When you had children, they were slaves.

“The tale of the Irish slaves is rooted in a false conflation of indentured servitude and chattel slavery. These are not the same. Indentured servitude was a form of bonded labour, whereby a migrant agreed to work for a set period of time (between two and seven years) and in return the cost of the voyage across the Atlantic was covered. Indentured servitude was a colonial innovation that enabled many to emigrate to the New World while providing a cheap and white labour force for planters and merchants to exploit. Those who completed their term of service were awarded ‘freedom dues’ and were free. The vast majority of labourers who agreed to this system did so voluntarily, but there were many who were forcibly transplanted from the British Isles to the colonies and sold into indentured service against their will. While these forced deportees would have included political prisoners and serious felons, it is believed that the majority came from the poor and vulnerable. This forced labour was in essence an extension of the English Poor Laws, e.g. in 1697. John Locke recommended the whipping of those who ‘refused to work’ and the herding of beggars into workhouses. Indeed this criminalisation of the poor continues into the 21st century. In any case, all bar the serious felons were freed once the term of their contract expired.”

Liam Hogan​

 

[IM2]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

No, because in Africa a slave could earn his freedom and there were slaves who became Kings. Most African tribes enslaved prisoners of war. Slavery was used to pay off debt. Slavery was also used as a punishment for criminal behavior.

This African slave ended up being a King. That did not happen in America.

King Jaja of Opobo: A slave boy who became a King in Africa (1870 - 1887) | The African History

King Jaja of Opobo was a merchant prince and the founder of the city-state of Opobo in an area which

theafricanhistory.com

Again, most of this persons post is inaccurate.

that's how the British treated the Irish and Scots first.

No, you are incorrect.

 

[IM2]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

Well I go by historic fact....it was based on religion initially. They first justified slavery based on heathens needing to be civilized and made christians. Then it went to if the person was from an area that wasn't typically christian (as apparently many indians and blacks converted hoping to not be slaves anymore) and then it went to skin color.

It is important to know this because of the first BLACK slave in america and his black slave owner ANTHONY JOHNSON story. The slave owner had apparently been converted and educated in africa by missionaires before being captured and sold into slavery (based on just released new information). Fortunate for him but not us that the spanish slavers ran out of supplies and needed to trade some of their slaves for supplies. America didn't enslave him--they turned him into a indentured servant instead which means he was freed a certain number of years. He was made an indentured servant and given lands and basics to start off when freed from his contract-------and then he bought 4 indentured servants himself. Three of them were white (christian implied) and one black. He turned the white ones loose or they died but the black one he kept as a slave and refused to release. I couldn't figure out for the longest time why the courts (they went to court over the man being an indentured servant or a slave) wouldn't release this man, but then I read some accounts of what happened---this man likely wasn't a christian or the better educated able to speak better english and able to read slave owner told the courts that the slave wasn't a christian so the courts allowed him to be enslaved for life.

Apparently you don't go by fact because Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner. The Anthony Johnson story is fake news. 14 years before Johnson went to court, Hugh Gywnn made John Punch a slave for life, and furthermore the 1619 Project documents slavery before Johnson got here. The reality of Johnsons situattion is that it was illegal at that time for blacks to own property.

1619 is wrong as dozens of Historians have stated. it's supposed facts are wrong and it's premise is a joke.

No, the 1619 Project is accurate. Right wing "historians" don't like it, and you being a white supremacist is naturally going to fall for their claims.

 

[alang1216]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

Well I go by historic fact....it was based on religion initially. They first justified slavery based on heathens needing to be civilized and made christians. Then it went to if the person was from an area that wasn't typically christian (as apparently many indians and blacks converted hoping to not be slaves anymore) and then it went to skin color.

It is important to know this because of the first BLACK slave in america and his black slave owner ANTHONY JOHNSON story. The slave owner had apparently been converted and educated in africa by missionaires before being captured and sold into slavery (based on just released new information). Fortunate for him but not us that the spanish slavers ran out of supplies and needed to trade some of their slaves for supplies. America didn't enslave him--they turned him into a indentured servant instead which means he was freed a certain number of years. He was made an indentured servant and given lands and basics to start off when freed from his contract-------and then he bought 4 indentured servants himself. Three of them were white (christian implied) and one black. He turned the white ones loose or they died but the black one he kept as a slave and refused to release. I couldn't figure out for the longest time why the courts (they went to court over the man being an indentured servant or a slave) wouldn't release this man, but then I read some accounts of what happened---this man likely wasn't a christian or the better educated able to speak better english and able to read slave owner told the courts that the slave wasn't a christian so the courts allowed him to be enslaved for life.

The man in the court case you mentioned was an indentured servant, John Casor, who, the courts decided, left Johnson's farm before the end of his service. His punishment was that the indentured servant term became indefinite. He was not a slave since that status didn't exist in VA until some years later.

 

[initforme]

A human being considering another human property is simply anti Christian so did slave owners enter the kingdom of god? We shall see but I have my doubts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

Well I go by historic fact....it was based on religion initially. They first justified slavery based on heathens needing to be civilized and made christians. Then it went to if the person was from an area that wasn't typically christian (as apparently many indians and blacks converted hoping to not be slaves anymore) and then it went to skin color.

It is important to know this because of the first BLACK slave in america and his black slave owner ANTHONY JOHNSON story. The slave owner had apparently been converted and educated in africa by missionaires before being captured and sold into slavery (based on just released new information). Fortunate for him but not us that the spanish slavers ran out of supplies and needed to trade some of their slaves for supplies. America didn't enslave him--they turned him into a indentured servant instead which means he was freed a certain number of years. He was made an indentured servant and given lands and basics to start off when freed from his contract-------and then he bought 4 indentured servants himself. Three of them were white (christian implied) and one black. He turned the white ones loose or they died but the black one he kept as a slave and refused to release. I couldn't figure out for the longest time why the courts (they went to court over the man being an indentured servant or a slave) wouldn't release this man, but then I read some accounts of what happened---this man likely wasn't a christian or the better educated able to speak better english and able to read slave owner told the courts that the slave wasn't a christian so the courts allowed him to be enslaved for life.

Apparently you don't go by fact because Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner. The Anthony Johnson story is fake news. 14 years before Johnson went to court, Hugh Gywnn made John Punch a slave for life, and furthermore the 1619 Project documents slavery before Johnson got here. The reality of Johnsons situattion is that it was illegal at that time for blacks to own property.

1619 is wrong as dozens of Historians have stated. it's supposed facts are wrong and it's premise is a joke.

No, the 1619 Project is accurate. Right wing "historians" don't like it, and you being a white supremacist is naturally going to fall for their claims.

OL ya cause a bunch of Journalists know more about History then trained Historian, you are such a moron.

 

[Penelope]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

Well I go by historic fact....it was based on religion initially. They first justified slavery based on heathens needing to be civilized and made christians. Then it went to if the person was from an area that wasn't typically christian (as apparently many indians and blacks converted hoping to not be slaves anymore) and then it went to skin color.

It is important to know this because of the first BLACK slave in america and his black slave owner ANTHONY JOHNSON story. The slave owner had apparently been converted and educated in africa by missionaires before being captured and sold into slavery (based on just released new information). Fortunate for him but not us that the spanish slavers ran out of supplies and needed to trade some of their slaves for supplies. America didn't enslave him--they turned him into a indentured servant instead which means he was freed a certain number of years. He was made an indentured servant and given lands and basics to start off when freed from his contract-------and then he bought 4 indentured servants himself. Three of them were white (christian implied) and one black. He turned the white ones loose or they died but the black one he kept as a slave and refused to release. I couldn't figure out for the longest time why the courts (they went to court over the man being an indentured servant or a slave) wouldn't release this man, but then I read some accounts of what happened---this man likely wasn't a christian or the better educated able to speak better english and able to read slave owner told the courts that the slave wasn't a christian so the courts allowed him to be enslaved for life.

Show me a link for your assumptions. I say the blacks were slaved for based on color of their skin, and then they were turned into Christians.

read the aftermath of this link?

Elizabeth Key Grinstead - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and now read this:
Research indicates that when Johnson died in 1670, his plantation was given to a white colonist, not to Johnson's children. A judge had ruled that he was "not a citizen of the colony" because he was black.
Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia

 

[irosie91]

A human being considering another human property is simply anti Christian so did slave owners enter the kingdom of god? We shall see but I have my doubts.

"saint paul" advised slaves to be happy and content with their situation----
he was a ROMAN SHILL

 

[irosie91]

If Arab and African's had not enslaved black men and sold them to white men we never would have had black slaves. And guess what even today 2021 Blacks and Arabs still enslave blacks and whites.

That's not the complere rea;ity. Besides whites didn't have to buy anyone.

The ones that were brought by the white man-----------faired far far far better than the ones that weren't. Slave in America was far far better than being a slave in africa or south america or on the islands or killed because they were not sold.

I do not believe it is FAIR to say that black slaves in the USA were "better off" than slaves
elsewhere. The situation VARIED widely

It did vary widely-------but culture played a huge part in how well slaves were treated. American slaves were treated better than say spanish colony owned slaves or those owned by other blacks whether it be an african, african-american slave owner, or an island slave holder. Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion---it was seen as a way to convert. Once converted to christianity-many christian sects had issues with people being slaves. (which didn't include catholics--since they pushed slavery.)

Remember slavery in the US did not start off based on color but religion

I say it was based on color first, not religion.

"first" means what? In the WORLD HISTORY of slavery? in the americas? In the USA?

 

[candycorn]

Slavery has existed in nearly every society on Earth since before recorded history. Aristotle argued that some people (not any specific race) are slaves by nature. People from almost every race have been slaves at one time in their history.

Slavery didn't begin with Arabs or Black slave traders and it didn't end with White American slave owners. The British only abolished slavery 30 years before America. Russia freed their own domestic slaves at the same time Americans were fighting a war to end slavery. The West African country of Maruitania didn't abolish slavery until 1981.

It's a heinous crime that it took mankind until the later part of the of the 19th Century to realize that slavery is neither natural or acceptable, but we finally did.

Some seem to have forgotten.