Who suffered the most?

[rightwinger]

No question that White People have suffered the most

They were forced to give up their slaves
They no longer were entitled to reserved seats at the front of the bus
They had to allow other people to vote
They no longer had exclusive rights to the best jobs, locations for homes, political and sports positions

Will the indignities ever stop?

Oddly, I agree with you. The whites came here and with the Mayflower, the colonization began. Forty five of the 102 passengers on the Mayflower died from from diseases like scurvy, lack of shelter, and general conditions on board ship within the first year.

They fought Indians, King George, diseases, the elements and built a nation where people from all the over the world would come to take advantage of opportunities created by those white devils.

The filthy white trash gave up 2.5 percent of their population in order to bring an end to slavery in the War of Northern Aggression (aka the Civil War.) Put into context, if the same percentage of Americans were killed in a war today, that would be 6.3 MILLION people.

The whites sent more missionaries into the world than all other races combined. The whites have sent more people into battle to fight for the Freedoms and Liberties all over the world in numbers the non-whites cannot begin to fathom. The white nations have spent TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of dollars in nation building and rebuilding after wars... all without taking an inch of ground for themselves.

Whites have even fought their own in order to protect people like the Jews from Hitler and Ishmaelites from one another - and again, never once expanding their own holdings.

How dare those people think they, like the Jews, Muslims, Japanese, Chinese, North Koreans - and even the Africans in Zimbabwe dare think about having a homeland for their own people. Perish the thought. Stupid honkies. Sarcasm intended.

Sick and perverted

The whites killed each other in order to maintain slavery?

You truly are sick and perverted. The war was not to maintain slavery. It ended it. Trying to misquote people the way you did me is dishonest. If you don't want to have a productive conversation, leave me out of it.

The Confederacy was created for the sole purpose of preserving slavery in perpetuity
They would rather die than give up their slaves

Every other nation on earth gave up slavery without violence. We had to kill 600,000
It even took violence to allow blacks to ride in the front of the bus

OMG. Did you pull that out your ass? White nations led the world in stopping slavery and ISIS still practices it today.

The Confederacy was created to preserve states rights and to resist the financial powers of the North. Slavery was only the political excuse. Poor bastards without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out didn't join the Confederacy over rich guys owning blacks.

Japan fought in a WORLD WAR to preserve their country - and they are proud to be among the most racially pure on the planet.

King Cotton was built on the backs of free slave labor

The south would rather see 300,000 of their boys killed than give up their slaves. The Confederacy was established for the primary purpose of maintaining slavery. Just read their Constitution and articles for seceding

White nations did stop slavery. Most did it by just abolishing the practice. It took 600,000 lives to end it here

 

[Humorme]

Blacks owned white slaves in early colonial America:

http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

It's okay, however. They didn't own as many as the whites did and should get free pass. (sarcasm intended.)

 

[Humorme]

No question that White People have suffered the most

They were forced to give up their slaves
They no longer were entitled to reserved seats at the front of the bus
They had to allow other people to vote
They no longer had exclusive rights to the best jobs, locations for homes, political and sports positions

Will the indignities ever stop?

Oddly, I agree with you. The whites came here and with the Mayflower, the colonization began. Forty five of the 102 passengers on the Mayflower died from from diseases like scurvy, lack of shelter, and general conditions on board ship within the first year.

They fought Indians, King George, diseases, the elements and built a nation where people from all the over the world would come to take advantage of opportunities created by those white devils.

The filthy white trash gave up 2.5 percent of their population in order to bring an end to slavery in the War of Northern Aggression (aka the Civil War.) Put into context, if the same percentage of Americans were killed in a war today, that would be 6.3 MILLION people.

The whites sent more missionaries into the world than all other races combined. The whites have sent more people into battle to fight for the Freedoms and Liberties all over the world in numbers the non-whites cannot begin to fathom. The white nations have spent TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of dollars in nation building and rebuilding after wars... all without taking an inch of ground for themselves.

Whites have even fought their own in order to protect people like the Jews from Hitler and Ishmaelites from one another - and again, never once expanding their own holdings.

How dare those people think they, like the Jews, Muslims, Japanese, Chinese, North Koreans - and even the Africans in Zimbabwe dare think about having a homeland for their own people. Perish the thought. Stupid honkies. Sarcasm intended.

Sick and perverted

The whites killed each other in order to maintain slavery?

You truly are sick and perverted. The war was not to maintain slavery. It ended it. Trying to misquote people the way you did me is dishonest. If you don't want to have a productive conversation, leave me out of it.

The Confederacy was created for the sole purpose of preserving slavery in perpetuity
They would rather die than give up their slaves

Every other nation on earth gave up slavery without violence. We had to kill 600,000
It even took violence to allow blacks to ride in the front of the bus

If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

Blacks owned white slaves in early colonial America:

http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

It's okay, however. They didn't own as many as the whites did and should get free pass. (sarcasm intended.)

Statistically insignificant
Tiny number and ignores that blacks bought other blacks into freedom

Does nothing to end white guilt

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I'm an idiot? Why because you can't handle the fact that blacks owned other blacks?

Please debunk what I said about Anthony Johnson. Here I'll help you out:Whats that say? The courts recognized him as not only a black slave owner, but one of the first slave owners in the colonies. SMFH

Like I said youre a fucking idiot. If you werent illiterate you would know "one of the first" is totally different from being the first. SMGDH

"On July 9, 1640, members of the General Court decided the punishment for three servants-a Dutchman, a Scotsman, and an African-who ran away from their master as a group. The proceedings reveal an example of interracial cooperation among servants at a time when the colony’s leaders were starting to create legal differences between Europeans and Africans. John Punch became the first African to be a slave for life by law in Virginia (and all 13 colonies)."

John Punch was placed into indentured servitude for life, for this reason he is assumed to be the first slave, yet he wasn't recognized as a slave by the legal system of the time.

Thus, John Punch’s name should go down in history as being the first official
slave in the English colonies.

Coates (2003). "Law and the Cultural Production of Race and Racialized Systems of Oppression" (PDF). American Behavioral Scientist. 47 (3).

Anthony Johnson was one of the first to be legally recognized as an actual slave owner by the courts. The First Slave

Now if you want to keep playing this little game, there were slaves already here in the various other colonies, those of Spanish, Portuguese and English Colonies in the Carribbean and South America.

I'm guessing you also dont know what indentured means by this excuse for a reply? No dummy. He was legally the first slave.

Indentured servitude - Wikipedia

"An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a signed or forced contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. "

Here is the wording of the sentence. Notice how they didnt mention his indenture when the sentenced him to life?

John Punch (slave) - Wikipedia

"One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."

"The difference between a servant and a slave is elementary and fundamental. The loss of liberty to the servant was temporary; the bondage of the slave was perpetual. It is the distinction made by Beverly in 1705 when he wrote, "They are call'd Slaves in respect of the time of their Servitude, because it is for Life." Wherever, according to the customs and laws of the colony, negroes were regarded and held as servants without a future right to freedom, there we should find the beginning of slavery in that colony.


"
Historians have noted that John Punch ceased being an indentured servant and was condemned to slavery, as he was sentenced to "serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural Life."[18] Edgar Toppin states that "Punch, in effect, became a slave under this ruling."[19] Leon A. Higginbotham said, "Thus, although he committed the same crime as the Dutchman and the Scotsman, John Punch, a black man, was sentenced to lifetime slavery."[20] Winthrop Jordan also described this court ruling as "the first definite indication of outright enslavement appears in Virginia ... the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or else where."[21]

Theodore W. Allen notes that the court's "being a negro" justification made no explicit reference to precedent in English or Virginia common law, and suggests that the court members may have been aware of common law that held a Christian could not enslave a Christian (with Punch being presumed to be a non-Christian, unlike his accomplices), wary of the diplomatic friction that would come of enslaving non-English Europeans, and possibly hopeful of replicating the lifetime indentures of African slaves held in the Caribbean and South American colonies.[22]"

As your link says he "in effect" became a slave. Yet the courts did not refer to him as a slave, but an indentured servant for the remaining portion of his life, since he was not considered to be a Christian.

Looking back on history it is easy to make claims based on what you think, looking at history from the time frame and understanding what they are saying, doesn't quite make your claim complete or factual.

My first post recognized indentured servitude as a form of slavery. Now, should Punch be considered the first "slave" in the Virginia Colony, I would probably agree, but he was not considered a slave at the time, he was merely an indentured servant for life because he was presumed to be a non-christian.

No dummy. Evidently you didnt read my post. You must be retarded because I told you to specifically look at the difference. The indentured status for the whites is what was address. This is what they said.

"One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."

I know you are having a hard time trying to comprehend things, there milkweed, that's OK. John Punch was considered an indentured servant for life (English Virginia Colony), he was not considered a slave. Try reading your wikilinks footnotes, hell I even linked to one for your dumb ass that said Punch "should be" but isn't, and that there were already slaves in the Americas via other countries colonies. I can't dumb this down any further for you.

 

[Asclepias]

Like I said youre a fucking idiot. If you werent illiterate you would know "one of the first" is totally different from being the first. SMGDH

"On July 9, 1640, members of the General Court decided the punishment for three servants-a Dutchman, a Scotsman, and an African-who ran away from their master as a group. The proceedings reveal an example of interracial cooperation among servants at a time when the colony’s leaders were starting to create legal differences between Europeans and Africans. John Punch became the first African to be a slave for life by law in Virginia (and all 13 colonies)."

John Punch was placed into indentured servitude for life, for this reason he is assumed to be the first slave, yet he wasn't recognized as a slave by the legal system of the time.

Thus, John Punch’s name should go down in history as being the first official
slave in the English colonies.

Coates (2003). "Law and the Cultural Production of Race and Racialized Systems of Oppression" (PDF). American Behavioral Scientist. 47 (3).

Anthony Johnson was one of the first to be legally recognized as an actual slave owner by the courts. The First Slave

Now if you want to keep playing this little game, there were slaves already here in the various other colonies, those of Spanish, Portuguese and English Colonies in the Carribbean and South America.

I'm guessing you also dont know what indentured means by this excuse for a reply? No dummy. He was legally the first slave.

Indentured servitude - Wikipedia

"An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a signed or forced contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. "

Here is the wording of the sentence. Notice how they didnt mention his indenture when the sentenced him to life?

John Punch (slave) - Wikipedia

"One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."

"The difference between a servant and a slave is elementary and fundamental. The loss of liberty to the servant was temporary; the bondage of the slave was perpetual. It is the distinction made by Beverly in 1705 when he wrote, "They are call'd Slaves in respect of the time of their Servitude, because it is for Life." Wherever, according to the customs and laws of the colony, negroes were regarded and held as servants without a future right to freedom, there we should find the beginning of slavery in that colony.


"
Historians have noted that John Punch ceased being an indentured servant and was condemned to slavery, as he was sentenced to "serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural Life."[18] Edgar Toppin states that "Punch, in effect, became a slave under this ruling."[19] Leon A. Higginbotham said, "Thus, although he committed the same crime as the Dutchman and the Scotsman, John Punch, a black man, was sentenced to lifetime slavery."[20] Winthrop Jordan also described this court ruling as "the first definite indication of outright enslavement appears in Virginia ... the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or else where."[21]

Theodore W. Allen notes that the court's "being a negro" justification made no explicit reference to precedent in English or Virginia common law, and suggests that the court members may have been aware of common law that held a Christian could not enslave a Christian (with Punch being presumed to be a non-Christian, unlike his accomplices), wary of the diplomatic friction that would come of enslaving non-English Europeans, and possibly hopeful of replicating the lifetime indentures of African slaves held in the Caribbean and South American colonies.[22]"

As your link says he "in effect" became a slave. Yet the courts did not refer to him as a slave, but an indentured servant for the remaining portion of his life, since he was not considered to be a Christian.

Looking back on history it is easy to make claims based on what you think, looking at history from the time frame and understanding what they are saying, doesn't quite make your claim complete or factual.

My first post recognized indentured servitude as a form of slavery. Now, should Punch be considered the first "slave" in the Virginia Colony, I would probably agree, but he was not considered a slave at the time, he was merely an indentured servant for life because he was presumed to be a non-christian.

No dummy. Evidently you didnt read my post. You must be retarded because I told you to specifically look at the difference. The indentured status for the whites is what was address. This is what they said.

"One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."

I know you are having a hard time trying to comprehend things, there milkweed, that's OK. John Punch was considered an indentured servant for life (English Virginia Colony), he was not considered a slave. Try reading your wikilinks footnotes, hell I even linked to one for your dumb ass that said Punch "should be" but isn't, and that there were already slaves in the Americas via other countries colonies. I can't dumb this down any further for you.

How could there possibly already be slaves in the Americas when you just claimed Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner? See? Youre so angry about getting busted spreading your lie you failed to realize you just contradicted yourself.

 

[Asclepias]

Blacks owned white slaves in early colonial America:

http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

It's okay, however. They didn't own as many as the whites did and should get free pass. (sarcasm intended.)

Indentured servants arent slaves until they cross that threshold into being servants for life.

 

[Asclepias]

Oddly, I agree with you. The whites came here and with the Mayflower, the colonization began. Forty five of the 102 passengers on the Mayflower died from from diseases like scurvy, lack of shelter, and general conditions on board ship within the first year.

They fought Indians, King George, diseases, the elements and built a nation where people from all the over the world would come to take advantage of opportunities created by those white devils.

The filthy white trash gave up 2.5 percent of their population in order to bring an end to slavery in the War of Northern Aggression (aka the Civil War.) Put into context, if the same percentage of Americans were killed in a war today, that would be 6.3 MILLION people.

The whites sent more missionaries into the world than all other races combined. The whites have sent more people into battle to fight for the Freedoms and Liberties all over the world in numbers the non-whites cannot begin to fathom. The white nations have spent TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of dollars in nation building and rebuilding after wars... all without taking an inch of ground for themselves.

Whites have even fought their own in order to protect people like the Jews from Hitler and Ishmaelites from one another - and again, never once expanding their own holdings.

How dare those people think they, like the Jews, Muslims, Japanese, Chinese, North Koreans - and even the Africans in Zimbabwe dare think about having a homeland for their own people. Perish the thought. Stupid honkies. Sarcasm intended.

Sick and perverted

The whites killed each other in order to maintain slavery?

You truly are sick and perverted. The war was not to maintain slavery. It ended it. Trying to misquote people the way you did me is dishonest. If you don't want to have a productive conversation, leave me out of it.

The Confederacy was created for the sole purpose of preserving slavery in perpetuity
They would rather die than give up their slaves

Every other nation on earth gave up slavery without violence. We had to kill 600,000
It even took violence to allow blacks to ride in the front of the bus

OMG. Did you pull that out your ass? White nations led the world in stopping slavery and ISIS still practices it today.

The Confederacy was created to preserve states rights and to resist the financial powers of the North. Slavery was only the political excuse. Poor bastards without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out didn't join the Confederacy over rich guys owning blacks.

Japan fought in a WORLD WAR to preserve their country - and they are proud to be among the most racially pure on the planet.

King Cotton was built on the backs of free slave labor

The south would rather see 300,000 of their boys killed than give up their slaves. The Confederacy was established for the primary purpose of maintaining slavery. Just read their Constitution and articles for seceding

White nations did stop slavery. Most did it by just abolishing the practice. It took 600,000 lives to end it here

Slavery is actually still legal here in the US. This is the root ideology behind the Black Codes and Vagrancy laws the south practiced in order to reinstitute slave labor. If you note this law was passed the next year after Blacks were "emancipated" (funny they chose that word).

Vagrancy Act of 1866

"Shortly after its passage, the commanding general in Virginia, Alfred H. Terry, issued a proclamation declaring that the law would reinstitute "slavery in all but its name" and forbidding its enforcement."

 

[MyParentsAreProud]

I'm not white so I cant do anything a chimp does.

Not even peel a banana?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

John Punch was placed into indentured servitude for life, for this reason he is assumed to be the first slave, yet he wasn't recognized as a slave by the legal system of the time.Coates (2003). "Law and the Cultural Production of Race and Racialized Systems of Oppression" (PDF). American Behavioral Scientist. 47 (3).

Anthony Johnson was one of the first to be legally recognized as an actual slave owner by the courts. The First Slave

Now if you want to keep playing this little game, there were slaves already here in the various other colonies, those of Spanish, Portuguese and English Colonies in the Carribbean and South America.

I'm guessing you also dont know what indentured means by this excuse for a reply? No dummy. He was legally the first slave.

Indentured servitude - Wikipedia

"An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a signed or forced contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. "

Here is the wording of the sentence. Notice how they didnt mention his indenture when the sentenced him to life?

John Punch (slave) - Wikipedia

"One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."

"The difference between a servant and a slave is elementary and fundamental. The loss of liberty to the servant was temporary; the bondage of the slave was perpetual. It is the distinction made by Beverly in 1705 when he wrote, "They are call'd Slaves in respect of the time of their Servitude, because it is for Life." Wherever, according to the customs and laws of the colony, negroes were regarded and held as servants without a future right to freedom, there we should find the beginning of slavery in that colony.


"
Historians have noted that John Punch ceased being an indentured servant and was condemned to slavery, as he was sentenced to "serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural Life."[18] Edgar Toppin states that "Punch, in effect, became a slave under this ruling."[19] Leon A. Higginbotham said, "Thus, although he committed the same crime as the Dutchman and the Scotsman, John Punch, a black man, was sentenced to lifetime slavery."[20] Winthrop Jordan also described this court ruling as "the first definite indication of outright enslavement appears in Virginia ... the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or else where."[21]

Theodore W. Allen notes that the court's "being a negro" justification made no explicit reference to precedent in English or Virginia common law, and suggests that the court members may have been aware of common law that held a Christian could not enslave a Christian (with Punch being presumed to be a non-Christian, unlike his accomplices), wary of the diplomatic friction that would come of enslaving non-English Europeans, and possibly hopeful of replicating the lifetime indentures of African slaves held in the Caribbean and South American colonies.[22]"

As your link says he "in effect" became a slave. Yet the courts did not refer to him as a slave, but an indentured servant for the remaining portion of his life, since he was not considered to be a Christian.

Looking back on history it is easy to make claims based on what you think, looking at history from the time frame and understanding what they are saying, doesn't quite make your claim complete or factual.

My first post recognized indentured servitude as a form of slavery. Now, should Punch be considered the first "slave" in the Virginia Colony, I would probably agree, but he was not considered a slave at the time, he was merely an indentured servant for life because he was presumed to be a non-christian.

No dummy. Evidently you didnt read my post. You must be retarded because I told you to specifically look at the difference. The indentured status for the whites is what was address. This is what they said.

"One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."

I know you are having a hard time trying to comprehend things, there milkweed, that's OK. John Punch was considered an indentured servant for life (English Virginia Colony), he was not considered a slave. Try reading your wikilinks footnotes, hell I even linked to one for your dumb ass that said Punch "should be" but isn't, and that there were already slaves in the Americas via other countries colonies. I can't dumb this down any further for you.

How could there possibly already be slaves in the Americas when you just claimed Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner? See? Youre so angry about getting busted spreading your lie you failed to realize you just contradicted yourself.

Like I said, you don't know how to comprehend anything. There were other countries that had colonies here as well, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French, the Germans, they all had slaves, but our heritage is based on English colonization, not those other guys.

You haven't busted anybody on anything. I haven't contradicted myself on anything, but please keep trying, you make yourself look more and more inept with each comment.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm guessing you also dont know what indentured means by this excuse for a reply? No dummy. He was legally the first slave.

Indentured servitude - Wikipedia

"An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a signed or forced contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. "

Here is the wording of the sentence. Notice how they didnt mention his indenture when the sentenced him to life?

John Punch (slave) - Wikipedia

"One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."

"The difference between a servant and a slave is elementary and fundamental. The loss of liberty to the servant was temporary; the bondage of the slave was perpetual. It is the distinction made by Beverly in 1705 when he wrote, "They are call'd Slaves in respect of the time of their Servitude, because it is for Life." Wherever, according to the customs and laws of the colony, negroes were regarded and held as servants without a future right to freedom, there we should find the beginning of slavery in that colony.


"
Historians have noted that John Punch ceased being an indentured servant and was condemned to slavery, as he was sentenced to "serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural Life."[18] Edgar Toppin states that "Punch, in effect, became a slave under this ruling."[19] Leon A. Higginbotham said, "Thus, although he committed the same crime as the Dutchman and the Scotsman, John Punch, a black man, was sentenced to lifetime slavery."[20] Winthrop Jordan also described this court ruling as "the first definite indication of outright enslavement appears in Virginia ... the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or else where."[21]

Theodore W. Allen notes that the court's "being a negro" justification made no explicit reference to precedent in English or Virginia common law, and suggests that the court members may have been aware of common law that held a Christian could not enslave a Christian (with Punch being presumed to be a non-Christian, unlike his accomplices), wary of the diplomatic friction that would come of enslaving non-English Europeans, and possibly hopeful of replicating the lifetime indentures of African slaves held in the Caribbean and South American colonies.[22]"

As your link says he "in effect" became a slave. Yet the courts did not refer to him as a slave, but an indentured servant for the remaining portion of his life, since he was not considered to be a Christian.

Looking back on history it is easy to make claims based on what you think, looking at history from the time frame and understanding what they are saying, doesn't quite make your claim complete or factual.

My first post recognized indentured servitude as a form of slavery. Now, should Punch be considered the first "slave" in the Virginia Colony, I would probably agree, but he was not considered a slave at the time, he was merely an indentured servant for life because he was presumed to be a non-christian.

No dummy. Evidently you didnt read my post. You must be retarded because I told you to specifically look at the difference. The indentured status for the whites is what was address. This is what they said.

"One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."

I know you are having a hard time trying to comprehend things, there milkweed, that's OK. John Punch was considered an indentured servant for life (English Virginia Colony), he was not considered a slave. Try reading your wikilinks footnotes, hell I even linked to one for your dumb ass that said Punch "should be" but isn't, and that there were already slaves in the Americas via other countries colonies. I can't dumb this down any further for you.

How could there possibly already be slaves in the Americas when you just claimed Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner? See? Youre so angry about getting busted spreading your lie you failed to realize you just contradicted yourself.

Like I said, you don't know how to comprehend anything. There were other countries that had colonies here as well, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French, the Germans, they all had slaves, but our heritage is based on English colonization, not those other guys.

You haven't busted anybody on anything. I haven't contradicted myself on anything, but please keep trying, you make yourself look more and more inept with each comment.

Youre deflecting from your claim that the first person to have a slave was Black in the US. Nothing you say will change the focus.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

As your link says he "in effect" became a slave. Yet the courts did not refer to him as a slave, but an indentured servant for the remaining portion of his life, since he was not considered to be a Christian.

Looking back on history it is easy to make claims based on what you think, looking at history from the time frame and understanding what they are saying, doesn't quite make your claim complete or factual.

My first post recognized indentured servitude as a form of slavery. Now, should Punch be considered the first "slave" in the Virginia Colony, I would probably agree, but he was not considered a slave at the time, he was merely an indentured servant for life because he was presumed to be a non-christian.

No dummy. Evidently you didnt read my post. You must be retarded because I told you to specifically look at the difference. The indentured status for the whites is what was address. This is what they said.

"One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."

I know you are having a hard time trying to comprehend things, there milkweed, that's OK. John Punch was considered an indentured servant for life (English Virginia Colony), he was not considered a slave. Try reading your wikilinks footnotes, hell I even linked to one for your dumb ass that said Punch "should be" but isn't, and that there were already slaves in the Americas via other countries colonies. I can't dumb this down any further for you.

How could there possibly already be slaves in the Americas when you just claimed Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner? See? Youre so angry about getting busted spreading your lie you failed to realize you just contradicted yourself.

Like I said, you don't know how to comprehend anything. There were other countries that had colonies here as well, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French, the Germans, they all had slaves, but our heritage is based on English colonization, not those other guys.

You haven't busted anybody on anything. I haven't contradicted myself on anything, but please keep trying, you make yourself look more and more inept with each comment.

Youre deflecting from your claim that the first person to have a slave was Black in the US. Nothing you say will change the focus.

I haven't deflected from anything, you seem to fail basic English Comprehension. Besides you were the one that changed the focus trying to claim John Punch was the first slave when he was nothing more than the first indentured servant to serve for life. Anthony Johnson was one of the very first to have been legally recognized as a slave owner in the 13 colonies. John Casor was the first person legally declared a slave in the 13 colonies and Anthony Johnson owned him.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody has suffered as much as white, male Christians in this country

Nobody gives them the respect they deserve

 

[Asclepias]

No dummy. Evidently you didnt read my post. You must be retarded because I told you to specifically look at the difference. The indentured status for the whites is what was address. This is what they said.

"One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."

I know you are having a hard time trying to comprehend things, there milkweed, that's OK. John Punch was considered an indentured servant for life (English Virginia Colony), he was not considered a slave. Try reading your wikilinks footnotes, hell I even linked to one for your dumb ass that said Punch "should be" but isn't, and that there were already slaves in the Americas via other countries colonies. I can't dumb this down any further for you.

How could there possibly already be slaves in the Americas when you just claimed Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner? See? Youre so angry about getting busted spreading your lie you failed to realize you just contradicted yourself.

Like I said, you don't know how to comprehend anything. There were other countries that had colonies here as well, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French, the Germans, they all had slaves, but our heritage is based on English colonization, not those other guys.

You haven't busted anybody on anything. I haven't contradicted myself on anything, but please keep trying, you make yourself look more and more inept with each comment.

Youre deflecting from your claim that the first person to have a slave was Black in the US. Nothing you say will change the focus.

I haven't deflected from anything, you seem to fail basic English Comprehension. Besides you were the one that changed the focus trying to claim John Punch was the first slave when he was nothing more than the first indentured servant to serve for life. Anthony Johnson was one of the very first to have been legally recognized as a slave owner in the 13 colonies. John Casor was the first person legally declared a slave in the 13 colonies and Anthony Johnson owned him.

I wasnt the one that claimed he was the first slave. The history books did that for me. Again your comprehension of the english language is faulty. You said Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in the US. Now your trying to say he was one of the first. Get your story straight. Get your facts together and try again. You look like a fool.

Here is your statement...

Oddly enough the first slave owner in the US was actually a black freeman who had 2 indentured servants that ran away and the courts made them slaves for life. In the beginning there was no difference based on ones color of their skin.

Now explain to the board how you went from that to "well he was one of the first"?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I know you are having a hard time trying to comprehend things, there milkweed, that's OK. John Punch was considered an indentured servant for life (English Virginia Colony), he was not considered a slave. Try reading your wikilinks footnotes, hell I even linked to one for your dumb ass that said Punch "should be" but isn't, and that there were already slaves in the Americas via other countries colonies. I can't dumb this down any further for you.

How could there possibly already be slaves in the Americas when you just claimed Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner? See? Youre so angry about getting busted spreading your lie you failed to realize you just contradicted yourself.

Like I said, you don't know how to comprehend anything. There were other countries that had colonies here as well, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French, the Germans, they all had slaves, but our heritage is based on English colonization, not those other guys.

You haven't busted anybody on anything. I haven't contradicted myself on anything, but please keep trying, you make yourself look more and more inept with each comment.

Youre deflecting from your claim that the first person to have a slave was Black in the US. Nothing you say will change the focus.

I haven't deflected from anything, you seem to fail basic English Comprehension. Besides you were the one that changed the focus trying to claim John Punch was the first slave when he was nothing more than the first indentured servant to serve for life. Anthony Johnson was one of the very first to have been legally recognized as a slave owner in the 13 colonies. John Casor was the first person legally declared a slave in the 13 colonies and Anthony Johnson owned him.

I wasnt the one that claimed he was the first slave. The history books did that for me. Again your comprehension of the english language is faulty. You said Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in the US. Now your trying to say he was one of the first. Get your story straight. Get your facts together and try again. You look like a fool.

Here is your statement...

Oddly enough the first slave owner in the US was actually a black freeman who had 2 indentured servants that ran away and the courts made them slaves for life. In the beginning there was no difference based on ones color of their skin.

Now explain to the board how you went from that to "well he was one of the first"?

The history books do no such thing. The history books state John Casor was the first legally recognized slave in the 13 colonies and that he was owned by Anthony Johnson (a free black man) thus making Johnson the first legally recognized slave owner in the 13 colonies.

Yes Anthony Johnson was one of the first legally recognized slave owners in the 13 colonies, and since he owned the first legally recognized slave, that would make him the first.

The only one with a comprehension problem is you, sorry its not Eubonics, for you milkweed.

 

[Esmeralda]

Well, there's a lot of choices.

IMO it's actually African Americans who wait for it, suffered the least on this particular list.

IMO it's actually either Ukrainians, or Asian Indians who suffered the most, or some Native Americans.

Slavery in the US lasted 250 years. It was extremely vicious and destroyed cultures, families, languages, and beliefs. It was brutal physically and women were raped regularly. It is estimated that 10.5 million blacks died because of slavery. It was followed by another hundred years of blacks being treated as sub-human and as third class citizens without the same rights as other Americans. Of course American slavery was the worst.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, there's a lot of choices.

IMO it's actually African Americans who wait for it, suffered the least on this particular list.

IMO it's actually either Ukrainians, or Asian Indians who suffered the most, or some Native Americans.

Slavery in the US lasted 250 years. It was extremely vicious and destroyed cultures, families, languages, and beliefs. It was brutal physically and women were raped regularly. It is estimated that 10.5 million blacks died because of slavery. It was followed by another hundred years of blacks being treated as sub-human and as third class citizens without the same rights as other Americans. Of course American slavery was the worst.

As much as I despise our slavery

Slavery in the Carribean and South America was worse

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Well, there's a lot of choices.

IMO it's actually African Americans who wait for it, suffered the least on this particular list.

IMO it's actually either Ukrainians, or Asian Indians who suffered the most, or some Native Americans.

Slavery in the US lasted 250 years. It was extremely vicious and destroyed cultures, families, languages, and beliefs. It was brutal physically and women were raped regularly. It is estimated that 10.5 million blacks died because of slavery. It was followed by another hundred years of blacks being treated as sub-human and as third class citizens without the same rights as other Americans. Of course American slavery was the worst.

The Black slave population in the U.S.A grew faster than anywhere in Europe.
How would that have happened if 10.5 million of them died?

 

[rightwinger]

Well, there's a lot of choices.

IMO it's actually African Americans who wait for it, suffered the least on this particular list.

IMO it's actually either Ukrainians, or Asian Indians who suffered the most, or some Native Americans.

Slavery in the US lasted 250 years. It was extremely vicious and destroyed cultures, families, languages, and beliefs. It was brutal physically and women were raped regularly. It is estimated that 10.5 million blacks died because of slavery. It was followed by another hundred years of blacks being treated as sub-human and as third class citizens without the same rights as other Americans. Of course American slavery was the worst.

The Black slave population in the U.S.A grew faster than anywhere in Europe.
How would that have happened if 10.5 million of them died?

He didn't say in the U.S.

Slaves in South America and the Carribean died at horrendous rates

 

[MaryL]

Who suffered the most? Who's to judge?