A bizarre historic fact about slavery
Bookworm on Jan 17 2009 at 1:58 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
According to List Universe, the first official slave owner in Virginia — the one who brought a lawsuit that made slavery a recognized practice in that state in 1654 — was a black man who contended that his black indentured servant was, in fact a slave.
This tidbit shouldn’t really be that surprising. First, slavery seems to be as old as humankind itself and, second, according to the same list, Africa has as old a history of slavery as any other nation (and sadly, it’s also home to a significant number of the world’s modern slaves).
Email This Post To A Friend
32 Responses to “A bizarre historic fact about slavery”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
(and sadly, it’s also home to a significant number of the world’s modern slaves).
You can thank the Islamic slave trade for that.
I presume that “official” does not include slaves kept by the Indian tribes long before the coming of the Man.
Another bizarre slavery fact is the large number of slaves whose “one drop” of African blood occurred so many generations earlier that they appeared completely white and were identified by recognition, manner of speech, and identity. Racially they may have had only one African ancestor eight generations back, but they were still considered black and therefore enslaved, though they were high risk for successfully running away and vanishing into white society. Thus names like quadroons, octoroons, and the like. Many were referred to as “white n***rs” and one fear of the north was that poor northern whites might get consumed into slavery from this practice. Walter White, one of the early heads of the NAACP came from this type of background. He looked Caucasian, was blond and blue-eyed, but self-identified as black and used his appearance to investigate and fight against lynchings. Sally Hemmings, Jefferson’s mistress, was described as “looking white”- their children looked completely white, so when freed, most “passed” into white society though a few continued to self-identify as black.
Dear Leader…
The San Francisco Boys Chorus and the San Francisco Girls Chorus are heading to D.C. to sing at the inauguration. I had the opportunity to hear them perform yesterday at San Francisco City Hall, and their singing is just beautiful…….
The relevant issue is not slavery, which is certainly old. The great invention of the 17th Century was ‘race’ which did not exist before 1610.
American slavery (all over America) was the first slavery based on black skin that permitted multi-generational slavery and made it very hard for slaves to escape or disappear into the general population.
It was the history of slavery in Africa that made black slaves so accommodating and desirable.
Phillips, what you say may or may not be true for Western Society – people were certainly characterized by tribal characteristics well before 17th Century Europe. However, the Arab pejorative for “Black” person is “Abed”, which means “slave”. I think that racism against black people or anyone markedly of different tribes well antidates European history.
Danny,
RE: “I think that racism against black people or anyone markedly of different tribes well antidates European history.”
It does. But Americans perfected it.
You haven’t been in Europe lately, have you, Helen? True, the continent never had organized black slavery, but the racism against blacks was then (and often continues to be) ferocious. America has worked harder than any other nation in the world to purge its racism. Europeans, refusing to acknowledge the problem, are, to put it simply, awful.
Perfect it, Helen? It was England and America that repudiated it. Europe may not have “perfected” slavery on the continent, but they sure “perfected” it in their colonies – the French in the Americas and Africa, the Spaniards in the Americas, the Italians and Germans in Africa. None of them could hold a candle to the Arabs and North Africans, however, some of which states still support slavery.
You seriously need to travel more and get some historical perspective, Helen. Or is it easier to wallow in the moral vanity of proudly pointing your finger at your own, thereby putting yourself a notch higher than the rest (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)?
Since Helen turned black, I have no doubt that she has run into a lot of black Muslims. Perhaps she sits around with them and they enjoy a group gripe about about “perfected” U.S. slavery, which has only been over for 144 FRICKIN’ YEARS.
Now because Helen is black, it gives her the cred to ask her black Muslim bruthas the following: “Why is it that your honorable and loving religion, founded by a slaveholder [peace be upon him!] continues to support African slavery and Asian indentured servitude to this very day?”
(Helen probably assumed that once she became a black woman she would, like all dark people everywhere, cease all oppresserly thoughts and actions, and become an enlightened non-white being.)
So what gives? How come her bruthas are not protesting black enslavement that actually exists but would rather sit around on their authentic black asses bitching about something that ceased to exist 144 FRICKIN’ YEARS AGO?
Just askin’.
Hey Charles.
Kors states that at an academic conference sponsored by the University of Nebraska, the attendees articulated the view that “White students desperately need formal ‘training’ in racial and cultural awareness. The moral goal of such training should override white notions of privacy and individualism.” One of the leading “diversity experts” providing scores of “training programs” in universities, corporations, and government bureaucracies is Hugh Vasquez of the Todos Institute of Oakland, California. Vasquez’s study guide for a Ford Foundation-funded diversity film, Skin Deep, explains the meaning of “white privilege” and “internalized oppression” for the trainees. It also explains the concept of an “ally,” as an individual from the “dominant group” who rejects his “unmerited privilege” and becomes an advocate for the position of the subordinate groups. This concept of the “ally,” of course, is Gramscian to the core; it is exactly representative of the notion that subordinate groups struggling for power must try to “conquer ideologically” the traditional intellectuals or activist cadres normally associated with the dominant group.
Helen is an “ally” of the Xommies.
She has become “black” by turning her back on everything that allows her to have this life she currently holds. She discarded them, because it’s better to serve the interests of class warfare. Cause it is fun like that, Charles.
These group identity grief mongers cause death, conflict, destruction, and slavery to be maintained. Cause the only thing that matters is fighting the patriarchy, aka America. Nothing else matters. Not justice, not equality, not individual rights, not safety, and certainly not honor.
Book, I heard from a former Navy enlisted, for the 80s 90s, that Italian prostitutes wouldn’t accept the money of blacks.
Helen:
RE: “I think that racism against black people or anyone markedly of different tribes well antidates European history.” It does. But Americans perfected it.
So has the KKK has been giving lessons to Russia?
If the US “perfected” racism, then why does it appear to be more evident these days outside the US? Just wondering.
THe “group” is what matters. Helen doesn’t care about individual problems or deaths. It is the group and the fact that they were oppressed by America, not Russia, that is important, Gringo.
The illusion that it is individuals that have rights, Gringo, is a product of white privilege. And Helen has already abdicated white privilege in favor of black privilege.
Tina Robinson said her son had just finished working out at a gym and was headed for a bus stop when a single stranger approached and punched him. Robinson punched back, his mother said.
He needed TFT. Would have saved his life.
Now because Helen is black, it gives her the cred to ask her black Muslim bruthas the following: “Why is it that your honorable and loving religion, founded by a slaveholder [peace be upon him!] continues to support African slavery and Asian indentured servitude to this very day?”
The answer is simple. Muslims oppress and do violence because, just like criminals, it was their basic economic despair which made them adopt the Western Imperialist slavery traditions.
You see, Hamas kills children because Israelis killed Palestinians. Hamas is only fighting because of Israeli oppression. Just as Muslims only trade in slaves because of Western Imperialism and the occupation of Arab/Muslim lands/holy places.
How can you not see this obvious causality, Charles?
Given the prevalence of slavery all over the world, I suspect that all of us have ancestors who had been slaves. To say America perfected slavery is the most foolish statement I have read in years, although I can’t say I am surprised. Given the poor teaching of American History, it’s to be expected.
To all the readers that responded to Helen:
It just goes to show you that some comments/questions, should not be dignified with a response.
I’ve heard of ‘white washing’ history, but to subscribe to the idea that America ‘perfected racism’ ignores all historical and cultural history.
From the Absurd Report: Murphy’s Law by Jim Murphy
I am sure that many of you remember that the present country of Zimbabwe had been called Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia at various points in time when it was a British Colony up until 1965 when the country declared its independence from Great Britain but returned to Colonial status briefly in 1979 up until control was turned over to the majority in 1980 and re-named Zimbabwe. Much of what was Zimbabwe was under the control of several primitive African tribes until the Matabele under their founder and King Mzilikazi invaded the area from South Africa. The Matabele under this king were break aways from the Zulu nation under their founder and King, Shaka. Mzilikazi had been a general under Shaka. The Matabele were as warlike and well trained as the Zulus and it did not take long for them to conquer the other tribes, principle among which were the Mashona people.
And of course the politically correct historians don’t want us civilized people to know that the Matabele enslaved all of the other tribes. The only reason they were allowed to live was to do the labor for the war-like Matabele. I read one account of an encounter between a British envoy and a Matabele King. The King was asked about who did all of the manual labor insofar as tending the crops and doing all of the heavy lifting so to speak and the Matabele King’s answer was this: “Why do you think we allow these Shona Monkeys to live? They do that work.” So as you can see, Africa knew slavery long before the white men took power.
And basically things haven’t gotten much better in Zimbabwe under the present rule of Robert Mugabe. There has been ethnic cleansing and of course the present government has taken over EVERYTHING of value in that country. They seized property of people, both black and white, whose ancestors were born in Rhodesia before Robert Mugabe was born.
SADIE:
Aside from enjoying a challenge, which I think is one of her strengths, Helen realizes that the depth of intelligence and knowledge exhibited here is way beyond that of her mentors.
Obviously she gets bored with an undending diet of political correctness, white guilt, goddess worship and Kumbaya. Yuck, who can live on hippie gruel all her life? So, she comes here for some steak and sizzle.
Who are we, as professional waitpersons, to fret about her dissing the food when she keeps showing up so she can complain some more?
I suspect that Helen absolutely loves her role as agent provocateur. Look at how she stirs up a hornet’s nest with only a few very well-chosen words (six, at last count). It certainly makes for great entertainment all around.
You have the right of it here, Danny. Helen got everyone up in arms.
I just want to add one thing, though, to the well-informed discussion going on here about America perfecting — not slavery, which is as old as human-kind — but white on black slavery. That theory ignores French and British slavery in the Caribbean, which was also white on black, and which not only predated American slavery in many instances, but also exceeded it in cruelty on a level hard to fathom.
The Belgians also had a pretty good game going, with King Leopold not even bothering to import the slaves into Europe, which would have upset the nascent liberalism of the late 19th Century. Instead, he simply turned the entire Belgian Congo into a slave state, with the Black population forced to labor for his wealth. It too was a white on black system of almost unparalleled cruelty and, I believe, lasted into the 20th Century
One of the interesting things is the comparison to the labor movement in the US. To be honest, I don’t really remember the historically relevant facts, but prior to the early stages, the laborers were suppressed. There were no unions, there were no uprisings. It was only after certain rights were granted to the workers that the unions arose and then increased their power to the point where today, their demands will probably result in killing the golden goose that has been nourishing them for so long in the automotive industries.
The slave states mentioned above never allowed the workers any chance to get any power or rights. In the US, slaves _were_ given rights, and here we are today.
Charles and Danny:
So, if I have this right…Helen comes here with seasonings and we serve up the main course.
Rather reminds me of the jihadists with their cries of Allah hu Akbar and then seem stymied and stunned when we reject their anger and call us racists.
A Gary Larson cartoon shows three cavemen holding pieces of meat over a fire with their bare hands. Of course their hands are charred and burnt.
One of them looks across the cave at a nerdy caveman, sitting by himself, who’s wearing glasses and calmly holding his piece of meat over a fire with a stick.
He exclaims, “Hey, look what Zog do!”
Helen is one of the three cavemen.
We are Zog.
She is fascinated by intelligence.
Helen has more than provided adequate background for her six words. Since she has not changed her position, nor do we lack comprehension of her beliefs, she need only raise the topic and we will interpret the consequences of her positions. For have no fear, for all of Helen’s complaints that I, for example, seek to (erroneously) read her mind, I understand the strengths and weaknesses of her views far better than she understands mine.
Thus, because she can’t analyze my positions or our positions, she has to fall back on reiterating her own. And since offense wins wars, I see no problem with taking the fight to her turf. For the only other option is to have this kind of thing go on:
I just want to add one thing, though, to the well-informed discussion going on here about America perfecting — not slavery, which is as old as human-kind — but white on black slavery. That theory ignores French and British slavery in the Caribbean, which was also white on black, and which not only predated American slavery in many instances, but also exceeded it in cruelty on a level hard to fathom.
The fundamental religious belief that Western Civilization and the dominant culture’s Judeo Christian views are the source of oppression, economic inequality, and evil in the world is perfectly reinforced by European sins. Because America is part of the so called Western Civilizations or First Powers, America can be tarred by European problems. After all, given a choice between blaming Europe and blaming America, Europe would pick the latter over the former. And so would the rest of the world’s fanatics. Even Israel is considered the little Satan in comparison to America. It just so happens that Israel is closer and thus, more convenient a target.
If we do not go on the offense and tear down the legitimacy and authority of multiculturalism, anti-American qua anti-war philosophies, and social welfare, we will forever be on the defense. Our dominant culture will be chipped away a small piece at a time until the next generation can no longer find anything to be proud of to be an American, except through the shortsightedness of identity politics and reverse racist Obama changes.
The Left knows very well that should they destroy the legitimacy and authority of American traditions and the Judeo-Christian culture and religion, that they will have to replace it with something. Hollywood sex and fake violence has accomplished some of that, but in the end it will not be vital, strong, and courageous enough to truly take power. No, what will take power is the gang-ghetto-tribal-orgcrime culture. Europe and Russia is a great example in this respect. Something has to replace the current dominant culture in America, and once American values have lost their legitimacy and authority due to people’s shame about “American historical oppression”, the next strongest culture will come into play. And that just so happens to be something other than the Culture of Corruption amongst Democrats. While strong, it is not as strong as OrgCrime, Gang Land Politics, or Black Ghetto culture. The former doesn’t like using violence while the latter does. You decide which one will win.
And, after all, having destroyed the legitimacy of the legal and cultural traditions of America, what will the new Democrat aristocrats be able to use as a reason for why blacks, minorities, terrorists, and orgcriminals should NOT attack the legitimacy and authority of this New Order? After all, the new cultural template got into power by attacking and destroying the old one, so why can’t this cycle repeat itself?
And thus, civilization falls into chaos.
Don’t let the Left fool you into believing that their “protests” aren’t generating chaos, violence, and death. Every time they talk about American “sins” or American “Imperialism” and “Colonialism” they are creating justifications for more murder and mayhem in both the world and in America.
People here may see nations as having individual qualities and independent sovereignty vis a vis other nations. People here may see cultural barriers such as language, custom, and behavioral standards as enough of a distinction to separate Europe and America.
But to Helen, to see it from her view, views things only in terms of ethnicity. She judges the content of people, groups, and nations based upon their skin color. Thus, since white people are the majority in America and white people are the majority in Europe, she sees no real difference between European white on black slavery and American white on black slavery. They are both the sins of the “white man” in her view.
Thus any attempt to separate the two, to somehow say that one nation’s sins are not another nation’s responsibility, is up against the basic philosophical and religious belief of people like Helen: the belief that the group shares responsibility, that there is such a thing as Original Sin and no person named Jesus made it go away for whites or any other culturally dominant and illegitimate “patriarchy”.
Reparations for slavery rests upon the same concept. The concept of Original Sin, that you as an individual did nothing wrong, it just so happens one of your ancestors did something wrong and now you have to pay the price for that. This is perfectly legitimate with the Left and with Helen. She sees no problems with this (because of what they call white privilege or institutional racism). Helen is nice in this respective: she does not attempt to hide her views like most Leftists do. Most Leftists know and understand that they would get very bad Publicity if they honestly told America what their philosophy really was. Instead, the Leftists overturn American tradition using… American tradition: things like the Constitution, which they don’t believe in. Like Obama said, FDR’s Bill of Rights trumps the real Bill of Rights.
Compared to someone like Dagon, Helen is an intellectual. Her views are consistent, if you adopt her philosophical assumptions, at least. Other Leftists, like Dagon, only parrot what they are told to say. Thus, their views are not consistent because they say and do whatever they believe works. What that means is that they will do or say anything that will decrease the legitimacy and authority of the dominant cultural template here in AMerica. You know, the one that built up America into a superpower in the first place. Now these people may have some personal reasons for why they subscribe to Leftism, different from, say, any other Leftist, but it does not really change their behavior or their beliefs.
That’s why most Leftists are inconsistent, incoherent, and a leaf in the wind: meaning, they blow wherever the wind makes them blow.
Helen, at least, is not inconsistent. She is just wrong. Of course, compared to Oz, at least Helen cares. Oz doesn’t really care who wins.
“Thus any attempt to separate the two, to somehow say that one nation’s sins are not another nation’s responsibility, is up against the basic philosophical and religious belief of people like Helen: the belief that the group shares responsibility, that there is such a thing as Original Sin and no person named Jesus made it go away for whites or any other culturally dominant and illegitimate “patriarchy”.” – YM
That’s an excellent point, YM. For Helen to profess that not only are all Whites collectively guilty for something that happened “144 frickin’ years ago”, as Charles put it, but also that an individual is guilty for the sins of his/her father is to ignore the very precepts of Christianity that HelenL claims to uphold. It certainly bespeaks a very shallow understanding of Christianity and the meaning of “original sin”.
That being said, I, too, can applaud HelenL for being consistent and willing to engage an intellectually oppositional audience.
Helen once made a remark concerning what she thought she was doing here. As she phrased it, she was here to check out the other side, the ones that either don’t accept white guilt or who don’t know about it. But these differences between views in opposition isn’t something as simple as what is between water and ice cream. While, one thing is more vital than the other, the other also tastes better.
No, the differences and obstacles that we present to Helen is more accurately seen in terms of fire wanting to be hot and ice needing to be cold. It is just not compatible. It’s not a difference of opinion. It is a mutually exclusive world view here.
If it wasn’t, Helen wouldn’t have become “black” just by voting for Obama. Or did folks here not notice that she only started talking about that after Obama’s election and not in the months and years before?
It’s about deconstructing and de-legitimatizing the “whites”. That has nothing to do with peaceful coexistence and everything to do with conquest.
For all the complaints about European and American “imperialist” conquests, Helen’s Leftist Democrats are the second most extreme and jingoistic conquerors around. The first used to belong to the Soviet Union, but the Islamic Jihad has taken over their mandate now a days.
So, yes, Helen has some motivation to engage the other side. Less now that Obama has been elected, since she trusts in the blackness to take care of things and we’re not exactly high priority at the moment. But “engage” only in the sense that AQ has engaged the Sunnis.
As Code Pink showed in Berkley, Leftists can’t coexist with people they can’t agree with. We, on the other hand, can simply ignore them and look to ourselves. They can’t do that. Or rather, something motivates them with a positive reward cycle to check on the ‘other’ with the express purpose of demoralizing them, converting them, or de-legitimatizing them (Remember how Oz kept posting anti-Republican articles/conspiracy theories about Stolen Elections and then claiming that she wasn’t “partisan”?). While not many of us can stand Daily Kos or even the New York Times, plenty of Leftists spend their time trolling on patriotic blogs like Blackfive and Neo-Neocon’s. This is a sociological trend in human behavior that has some simple explanations in my view: the explanation that they need to convert us while we would prefer to ignore them. We can live with the Left, in fact the very things we defend in the Constitution allows the Left to prosper. But the Left can’t live with us, they must either get rid of us (like sending us to war in a draft cause chickenhawks can’t support a Republican war), convert us, or exile us like Marine recruiters or ROTC. We can live with the Left so long as we aren’t required to do things their way, but that is the very thing which the Left cannot stand: the fact that we need nothing from them, but they need us.
They cannot construct a social utopia so long as we exist to prove that their gun bans, economic theories, and national security platforms are crap. In that sense, they are in the same position as the Arabs vis a vis the Jews. So long as the Jews are around, the Arabs can’t ignore their own failures. California is about the perfect example of what happens when Democrats have a one party rule there. The amount of corruption and shenanigans going on there are immense. Now the Left will try to say something about Florida, but Florida has no income tax cause their State Constitution forbids it. And Georgia? Georgia has something stipulated in its State Constitution that you can’t spend over budget. Georgia’s legislation is required to make cuts if the budget income becomes less than the budget expenses. That’s what you get under Republican “one party rule” when the Republicans are Southern conservatives and not Illinois Chicago products.
Now, if the Helens of the world succeed in de-legitimatizing America’s ancestors and achievements, what good will anybody’s constitution be? It is not a big step to go from believing that the Founding Fathers didn’t know what they were doing to believing that social injustice requires a “slight” change in the US and State Constitutions. They have been doing something like this with the Supreme Court judges for awhile now. They didn’t start on the constitutions themselves cause constitutions are by design, hard to change. It requires political power and political supremacy. First you have to get rid of the dissent, you see. Something like what Pelosi has been doing.
It certainly bespeaks a very shallow understanding of Christianity and the meaning of “original sin”.
It’s also why people are looking for another Messiah. Given the number of sins they have been taught America has done, people under the Judea Christian culture would naturally, even if they know nothing about theology, expect a messiah to “save them”. In Iran, they call it the 13th Imam.
>>And thus, civilization falls into chaos.>>
And anarchy – which is the effect of the chaos – requires a very strong government to establish order again.
So…as long as we had a law abiding nation as the result of the respect for law and supported by the fact that the majority of the population had religious beliefs which required that they follow the law, there was no opportunity to impose the dominant government desired by the leftist fascists. Destroy belief in religion, destroy respect for law and order, and the facist government which enforces law and order because the people can no longer do it for themselves will be viewed as a blessing. The people will demand it.
It’s a big country. Destroying it from the outside is probably unlikely. Destroying it from the inside, on the other hand….!!
>>Instead, the Leftists overturn American tradition using… American tradition: things like the Constitution, which they don’t believe in.>>
Alinsky principle: require the opponent to follow their own rules – to the letter.
(No rules, no problem. That’s how they win – you can’t hold them to anything)