Sure, in some cases. But you may be mixing up American colonies with Australian ones. Also, convict labor is completely different from endutured servitude, so the two should not be conflated.
Indentured servants voluntarily signed a contract. That's what an "indenture" was, a contract copied twice on the same sheet of paper and torn unevenly. The proof that they were true copies of each other was that the indentions on the pages would match.
I don't see equating voluntarily contracting to serve a term of labor in exchange for passage to the land of opportunity as being "captured and exported." Slavery was exactly that, and so was convict labor. That the endentured servants could read and sign their names put them leaps and bounds ahead of most of the captured and sold labor in America, be they UK convicts, or African prisoners.
CONVICT LABOR SYSTEMSCONVICT LABOR SYSTEMS. In 1718 the British government decided that "transportation," the banishing of convicts to work in the colonies, created a more effective deterrent to recidivism than the standard punishments of whipping and branding. This change in policy was favored...
www.encyclopedia.com
Why would you say it is "wrong on many counts," and then provide a similar example? Did you think that I would say "Oh, no. They could not have been low-IQ, they were white?" Please don't buy the hype of a certain poster on this thread, who states that he is black.
Yes, the convict laborer brought to the colonies was almost certainly low-IQ, just as modern day convicts are.
Yes, there were Democrats who did not support slavery and secession. But, with the overwhelming majority of Democrats strongly in favor of both, one has to wonder if those anti-slavery, pro-union, Democrats were just Democrats because their family had always been and they were raised to hate the Whigs, and simply had not yet heard of the relatively new Republican Party, which was the party of anti-slavery and then anti-secession.
We can guess all we want, but we know that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, and the party of Jim Crow, until the saw the inevitibility of black enfranchisement. Then they had a miraculous change of heart.
You really need to quit this shit. Republicans authored the slavery amendment that was passed in congress in 1861 which would have been the 13th Amendment and it would have made slavery protected by the constitution in every state. So stop talking about the democrats as if they were the only ones for slavery.
Sure, in some cases. But you may be mixing up American colonies with Australian ones. Also, convict labor is completely different from endutured servitude, so the two should not be conflated.
Indentured servants voluntarily signed a contract. That's what an "indenture" was, a contract copied twice on the same sheet of paper and torn unevenly. The proof that they were true copies of each other was that the indentions on the pages would match.
I don't see equating voluntarily contracting to serve a term of labor in exchange for passage to the land of opportunity as being "captured and exported." Slavery was exactly that, and so was convict labor. That the endentured servants could read and sign their names put them leaps and bounds ahead of most of the captured and sold labor in America, be they UK convicts, or African prisoners.
CONVICT LABOR SYSTEMSCONVICT LABOR SYSTEMS. In 1718 the British government decided that "transportation," the banishing of convicts to work in the colonies, created a more effective deterrent to recidivism than the standard punishments of whipping and branding. This change in policy was favored...
www.encyclopedia.com
Why would you say it is "wrong on many counts," and then provide a similar example? Did you think that I would say "Oh, no. They could not have been low-IQ, they were white?" Please don't buy the hype of a certain poster on this thread, who states that he is black.
Yes, the convict laborer brought to the colonies was almost certainly low-IQ, just as modern day convicts are.
Yes, there were Democrats who did not support slavery and secession. But, with the overwhelming majority of Democrats strongly in favor of both, one has to wonder if those anti-slavery, pro-union, Democrats were just Democrats because their family had always been and they were raised to hate the Whigs, and simply had not yet heard of the relatively new Republican Party, which was the party of anti-slavery and then anti-secession.
We can guess all we want, but we know that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, and the party of Jim Crow, until they saw the inevitibility of black enfranchisement. Then they had a miraculous change of heart.
Soā¦I suppose POWās are low IQ since they were ādumb ā enough to get captured? Seems to me anyone who voluntarily sold himself into indentured servitude (a very abusive system) canāt be all that smart. And yesā¦many of the early colonists were convicts and poor people that Europe wanted rid of (what were considered white trash) and were sent to the colonies as cheap labor. So many dumb people right?
1) She grew up in an anti-white household, with a Black Panther father.
2) From her appearance on the stand, she is unprofessional, average in intelligence, and cannot even speak English properly. That is NOT what one should see in a law school graduate, let alone a D.A.
3) She herself played the race card when caught with her pants down (pun intended), asking that standards be lowered for black females.
4) The odds are that she got into Emory Law School because she was black, and her presentsation on the witness stand makes it even more likely.
1) She grew up in an anti-white household, with a Black Panther father.
2) From her appearance on the stand, she is unprofessional, average in intelligence, and cannot even speak English properly. That is NOT what one should see in a law school graduate, let alone a D.A.
3) She herself played the race card when caught with her pants down (pun intended), asking that standards be lowered for black females.
4) The odds are that she got into Emory Law School because she was black, and her presentsation on the witness stand makes it even more likely.
I've already schooled you on this Lisa. There is no such thing as proper English. That's made up. It doesn't objectively exist. How unintelligent are you that you don't know this?
Different situation. Many POW's were draftees, often in planes that got shot down due, with any incompetence being on the part of the plane commander. Not to mention that they were sent on mission after mission until they did get shot down, so Einstein could not have overcome those odds.
Well, first of all, if you mean that then you are accepting my point about the slaves.
But, you'd be wrong to make the comparison. First of all, because my statement was not that every single slave captured was low-IQ, but only that the system tended ot select for the slow and low.
As to why people chose indentured servitude, this is a hard concept for progressives to understand: Parents of both genders, but especially fathers, want their children to have better lives than they had. In order to make that happen, they will literally make their own lives worse if it will further that goal. They will move west in a risky venture to claim 40 acres they've never seen, and work it harder than any slave ever worked, hoping their children will not grow up to be share croppers like them.
They will cross oceans, deserts and rivers (even rivers with razor wire), so that their children will have better futures. The same thing that motivated the not "all that smart" indentured servants you speak of.
But, it isn't completly unselfish. Sure, an indentured servant might have a rough ten years. But after that, he was free, in the land of opportunity. That beats a lifetime in the potato fields of Ireland, watching the benevolent Brits take all but the most worm-ridden for themselves.
BTW, avoiding dying in the potato fields, is what motivated many soldiers in history to risk dying - or being captured - on the battle field. Not a sign of low IQ.
And yesā¦many of the early colonists were convicts and poor people that Europe wanted rid of (what were considered white trash) and were sent to the colonies as cheap labor. So many dumb people right?
Yes, we have dumb people, smart people, and a spectrum in-between. Why do progressives want to pretend that IQ is racist, and that ability matters less than preferred demographics?
Different situation. Many POW's were draftees, often in planes that got shot down due, with any incompetence being on the part of the plane commander. Not to mention that they were sent on mission after mission until they did get shot down, so Einstein could not have overcome those odds.
When militant groups like the Janjaweed in Sudan or Boko Haram and many others capture civilians for Ransoms or even sexual slaveryā¦.were they too stupid and slow?
POWās represent a tiny fraction of the millions of soldiers sent in to combat. Your argument doesnāt fly. You are simp,y trying to carve out a special exception for African slaves.
Seriously, this is the worst argument Iāve heard justifying the false claim that American descendants of slaves (or slaves themselves) are ādumberā than others because to be captured and enslaved meant you were slower and dumber.
But, you'd be wrong to make the comparison. First of all, because my statement was not that every single slave captured was low-IQ, but only that the system tended ot select for the slow and low.
As to why people chose indentured servitude, this is a hard concept for progressives to understand: Parents of both genders, but especially fathers, want their children to have better lives than they had. In order to make that happen, they will literally make their own lives worse if it will further that goal.
They will move west in a risky venture to claim 40 acres they've never seen, and work it harder than any slave ever worked, hoping their children will not grow up to be share croppers like them.
They will cross oceans, deserts and rivers (even rivers with razor wire), so that their children will have better futures. The same thing that motivated the not "all that smart" indentured servants you speak of.
Againā¦indentured servitude was not that simple in terms of motivation. Children were forced into it for example. It was used and abused to cancel debt. No more or less intelligent than those captured and enslaved through war or raids. You know, like POWās (hell, your man Trump even said that about POWās like McCain).
But, it isn't completly unselfish. Sure, an indentured servant might have a rough ten years. But after that, he was free, in the land of opportunity. That beats a lifetime in the potato fields of Ireland, watching the benevolent Brits take all but the most worm-ridden for themselves.
BTW, avoiding dying in the potato fields, is what motivated many soldiers in history to risk dying - or being captured - on the battle field. Not a sign of low IQ.
Yes, we have dumb people, smart people, and a spectrum in-between. Why do progressives want to pretend that IQ is racist, and that ability matters less than preferred demographics?
When militant groups like the Janjaweed in Sudan or Boko Haram and many others capture civilians for Ransoms or even sexual slaveryā¦.were they too stupid and slow?
POWās represent a tiny fraction of the millions of soldiers sent in to combat. Your argument doesnāt fly. You are simp,y trying to carve out a special exception for African slaves.
Seriously, this is the worst argument Iāve heard justifying the false claim that American descendants of slaves (or slaves themselves) are ādumberā than others because to be captured and enslaved meant you were slower and dumber.
Againā¦indentured servitude was not that simple in terms of motivation. Children were forced into it for example. It was used and abused to cancel debt. No more or less intelligent than those captured and enslaved through war or raids. You know, like POWās (hell, your man Trump even said that about POWās like McCain).
That doesn't change the fact that many joined for smart reasons. Why fear cannon fire, when you're destined to die young picking peas? Take the risk and earn the rewards. I think it's a guy thing.
I knew a mixed race sergeant who volunteered for Vietnam to get out of his Chicago tenament. He said he heard gunfire every day in his neighborhood, so it didn't bother him when it was occasional. He was about to be a very young Sergeant Major when I last saw him. That means a big house, comparable to a senior officers, a relatively high salary and respect, even from junior officers. Many of his friends from the block were dead. He seems to have made a good choice.
But, yeah. If you look at combat as a Darwinian selection process, it would strongly select against the slow and the dimwitted. They would be more likely to stick their heads up and die than be captured, but the slave hunting was only successful through capture, so killing was not the goal.
The race does not influence the IQ. But the science has shown over and over, in spite of near desparate attempts to find fault with that science, that different racial groups score differently on average on IQ tests. Do you accept that science, or should it be ignored?
No, it does not mean that Neil deGrasse Tyson is a dummy, or that Hunter Biden is a genius. It's an trend demonstrated by statistics.
I am all in favor of the individual over the collective, which is why I oppose Affirmative Action. Do you?
Blacks are very different from all other races........yet what passes for black culture is often just the result of children not being raised properly aka black behavior is more the result of systemic failures in the black community that causes so many problems aka violence, drug use etc.
Proof of this being how black crime and violence before the woke 60's was not out of proportion...as in....very similar to white communities level of crime and violence if not even lower.
When the democrats began giving black women a financial incentive to be single mothers...thel children were the biggest victims of this huge mistake...that resulted in their being raised in a home with no father present.
I'm white so I don't know. I'm asking any black posters on here if they feel that the white lawyers questioning her are coming from a different place as far as how important marital honesty is, or the morality of romance with someone who is married to another.
In this clip:
She seems very surprised and annoyed that the opposing is asking her about the money that she gave her married lover, for their vacations and dinners and other entertainments they shared. She tries to be a bit of a wise guy, but she does not really evade the fact of having given him money, just tries not to answer about the form.
More oddly to me is that she is not at all embarrassed about the fact that she was doing all this with a man who has a wife at home who may or may not be aware of this affair.
Is that a common thing, that all that would be important is the relationship she enjoys, and has no thoughts or feelings about the wife whose husband she is taking. In her world, it that normal, I guess is my question.
That part where Fani says, "He likes wine, I drink Grey Goose". I think she had a lil bit of it before testifying. Mainly a druggie or drunkard would admit that in court.
Fani says she took over her friend's condo (friend who testified) and she began paying her friend via "cash app" in which the transactions are traceable.
Yet she never paid Wade via "cash app" for her part of the vacations - weak claim of paying him in cash only - untraceable. Fani is certainly familiar with paying by way of a more traceable option, and has experience in doing so.
Make no doubt about it, that condo was used as the hideout love nest for her and her married lover. Fani seems to know that she could not bring him into her family home. That's what they do in the business world to cheat on spouses. They do not go to hotels and motels. They live in the suburbs, but rent an apartment or get a condo/townhouse in the inner city for their extramarital extravaganzas.
It says nothing about "hundreds of thousands" fighting for the Union.
I hope you don't mean this (AI):
Evidence of Espionage:
Some cases: There were documented instances of individual Northern Democrats engaging in espionage for the Confederacy. These individuals often held strong Copperhead sentiments and actively opposed the war effort. They used methods like smuggling information and communicating with Confederate agents.
Damn Democrats never change their stripes, do they?
Fair point. But, of course, I spoke of the Darwinian selection process, not of a universal truism.
No, I never mentioned them. I spoke about African tribal people being captured by their fellow tribal people.
Each event in history is different from every other event. While it is fair to claim an analogy, that analogy may be tested.
Hm.
Maybe my ancestors were those dumb indentured servants, then.
Eh, we're going round and round.
Agree to disagree.
Nothing is ever "that simple." But your idea that they were dumb for agreeing to it doesn't fly.
Is it a racist book? I'll still read it if it is, but I want to be prepared for the racism, if it is there.
Nothing is ever that simple. But analogies either hold or the don't, regardless of how complicated.
Yes, the smart ones did avoid conscription.
Look at Vietnam with the college deferment.
That doesn't change the fact that many joined for smart reasons. Why fear cannon fire, when you're destined to die young picking peas? Take the risk and earn the rewards. I think it's a guy thing.
I knew a mixed race sergeant who volunteered for Vietnam to get out of his Chicago tenament. He said he heard gunfire every day in his neighborhood, so it didn't bother him when it was occasional. He was about to be a very young Sergeant Major when I last saw him. That means a big house, comparable to a senior officers, a relatively high salary and respect, even from junior officers. Many of his friends from the block were dead. He seems to have made a good choice.
But, yeah. If you look at combat as a Darwinian selection process, it would strongly select against the slow and the dimwitted. They would be more likely to stick their heads up and die than be captured, but the slave hunting was only successful through capture, so killing was not the goal.
The race does not influence the IQ. But the science has shown over and over, in spite of near desparate attempts to find fault with that science, that different racial groups score differently on average on IQ tests. Do you accept that science, or should it be ignored?
No, it does not mean that Neil deGrasse Tyson is a dummy, or that Hunter Biden is a genius. It's an trend demonstrated by statistics.
I am all in favor of the individual over the collective, which is why I oppose Affirmative Action. Do you?
You ADMIRE those big swarms of āmigrantsā who are making up bogus asylum claims, demanding hotel rooms, and meals prepared to the Central American tastes? They sound like entitled people who barged into our country under false pretenses and then demand that we taxpayers provide for them.
And Iām not even talking about the real lowlife criminals who are dragging citizens through the streets and kicking and bursting up cops.
Certainly! During the American Civil War, the political landscape was diverse, and soldiers from both the Union (North) and the Confederacy (South) held various political affiliations. Letās explore this further:
Union Soldiers (Northern States):
Whig/Republican Party: A significant number of Northern soldiers belonged to the Whig or Republican political party. These parties were more likely to attract individuals with careers in business, medicine, or education. Engineers, for instance, were six times more likely to hail from the North than the South. Northern children were also slightly more prone to attend school1.
Copperheads: Some Northern Democrats, known as Copperheads, opposed the war and criticized President Lincolnās administration. They advocated for peace negotiations with the Confederacy.
War Democrats: On the other hand, there were War Democrats who supported the war effort and aligned with the Republican cause.
In summary, the political affiliations of soldiers during the Civil War were diverse, and itās safe to say that hundreds of thousands of Northern Democrats were among the three million soldiers who participated in this historic conflict.
www.encyclopedia.com
