Florida indoctrinating it's teachers?

[Tecumsehsbones]

I agree that could be true of both slaves and actual indentured servants (although an indentured servant MUST be paid SOMETHING or it's more akin to slavery) so it's not in and of itself definitive on its own.

For many stretches of time that also applied to irish indentured servants. As noted in some of the material i posted they were frequently tortured, burned and killed without any recourse or consequence.

it was frequently for the irish as well. If an irish IS had a child with a black slave (remembering they were frequently kept in the same lodging) then the child was a slave as well. That was not so automatically with 'regular' white people.

The reason that they are included in the same amendment is that they can easily be functionally the same, and banning one without the other doesn't solve the problem.

The simple reality is that for large hunks of time and for many irish IS's the difference in practical terms was non existent. It would be like saying that the blacks who worked at farmer A's plantation weren't REAL slaves while the ones at farmer B's were - because farmer A would let the slaves buy their own freedom someday if they could save enough money. It wouldn't be an accurate statement. Both were slaves despite there being slight differences in the terms of their slavery.

I do concede that not all Indentured people were treated as or could be considered slaves, but many were and should be. And i feel that this sense out there that recognizing this horrid injustice somehow takes away from the horrid injustice of black slavery or that one has to be worse than the other is simply faulty thinking. Two things can be true at once. black slavery was horrible and irish slavery was horrible.

Do you deny that many people will use the harsh conditions of indentured workers in some bizarre attempt to mitigate the wrong of slavery?

Here's another one. Did you know that there are still countries that have indenture, but slavery is one of the five violations of the jus cogens norms of customary international law, which means, among other things, that any jurisdiction that catches a slaver can try and punish him without the usual jurisdictional requirements?

 

[The_Foxer]

Yeah, TB does know a bit more about things than I do, it's why I pay attention more to his posts than others. I can learn a lot, even if sometimes I don't agree with him.

He certainly does. He at least makes a cohesive argument and while his argument may not stand up to rebuttal it's still well made and intelligent and worthy of consideration. And i hope you DO learn from that. You clearly have much to learn

(Really you should take your own advice though, cause knowing shit is a good thing! )

I didn't give you any advice - see, this is why you lose discussions

Your facts were wrong, and clearly the result of spending 30 seconds googling in a desperate attempt to confirm your bias and preconceived opinon rather than educating yourself on the subject. He at least is presenting defensible facts even tho the interpretation or conclusions drawn can be challenged.

 

[Serryah]

Do you deny that many people will use the harsh conditions of indentured workers in some bizarre attempt to mitigate the wrong of slavery?

Here's another one. Did you know that there are still countries that have indenture, but slavery is one of the five violations of the jus cogens norms of customary international law, which means, among other things, that any jurisdiction that catches a slaver can try and punish him without the usual jurisdictional requirements?

I knew indenture was still a thing, but didn't know about the slavery bit.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I knew indenture was still a thing, but didn't know about the slavery bit.

The other four are piracy, war crimes, genocide, and torture.

There are continual attempts to add terrorism to the list, but they keep tripping over definitions and disagreement on terrorism vs. assymetrical warfare.

It springs from the obvious fallacy that if you drive a 500-lb bomb into a barracks and set it off, it's "terrorism," but if you drop a 500-lb bomb into a barracks from an FA-18, it's legitimate warfare.

 

[Serryah]

The other four are piracy, war crimes, genocide, and torture.

There are continual attempts to add terrorism to the list, but they keep tripping over definitions and disagreement on terrorism vs. assymetrical warfare.

It springs from the obvious fallacy that if you drive a 500-lb bomb into a barracks and set it off, it's "terrorism," but if you drop a 500-lb bomb into a barracks from an FA-18, it's legitimate warfare.

I'm not surprised there's a 'trip' over defining Terrorism, and it can't even be said to be just US specific since other nations as well can be just as 'careless' in warfare.

 

[The_Foxer]

Wrong. The "calf follows the cow." The child of a female slave was a slave. The child of a male slave had the status of its mother.

Actually if what you say is true then i'm right. At least for males, their children went into slavery. Unlike a slave owner who could choose to free the child or the like, the indentured servant would have no such opportunity.

Not to mention depending on the time period it was most likely that the child would have to be indentured as well to pay for it's upkeep. Tho that sometimes was considered a humanitarian thing and not quite the same.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Actually if what you say is true then i'm right. At least for males, their children went into slavery. Unlike a slave owner who could choose to free the child or the like, the indentured servant would have no such opportunity.

Not to mention depending on the time period it was most likely that the child would have to be indentured as well to pay for it's upkeep. Tho that sometimes was considered a humanitarian thing and not quite the same.

Any owner of a slave or holder of a bond could free a slave or an indentured bondservant. I'm not sure I follow your statement.

Suffice to say that I believe I have demonstrated that slavery was uniquely evil. Responding to statements about the morality or legality of slavery of Blacks in America is either simply wrong or cheap whataboutery. If you insist that you are not wrong, I have nothing further to say. And I'm bored stiff by whataboutery.

 

[The_Foxer]

Any owner of a slave or holder of a bond could free a slave or an indentured bondservant. I'm not sure I follow your statement.

Sure - so if a white slave owner got a black slave pregnant it would be a choice as to whether or not to leave the child in slavery. Not so for the indentured servant (sorry - should have made my point a little more clear, my bad).

Suffice to say that I believe I have demonstrated that slavery was uniquely evil.

Well of your two conditions for proving that the first was shot down entirely right off the bat, and the second is extremely weak. At best you could say that of the two evils there were minor differences depending on the circumstances.

Responding to statements about the morality or legality of slavery of Blacks in America is either simply wrong or cheap whataboutery.

that literally made no sense. So any response to any statement about morality or slave law is 'whataboutery'? Did you want to take a moment to rethink that?

I have nothing further to say. And I'm bored stiff by whataboutery.

I accept that you concede defeat and are taking your ball and going home LOL.

There was never a question about whether black slavery was a good or bad thing. I don't know how you get that in your head. And in fact the 'whataboutery' is more on your end, trying to lessen the injustice suffered to one group by claiming another group should be a 'greater' evil. Whereas i argue that they are both evi and in fact only brought the first group up, it was not me who tried to disclaim my view by saying 'whatabout' the blacks.

Many irish were captured against their will, shipped to the americas against their will where their indenture was sold to bidders, forced to work in horrid conditions with no legal recourse and were tortured or burned or killed, and saw their children made slaves or indentured themselves. That is slavery by any reasonable definition.

 

[pgs]

I disagree. I sometimes hear of people from other cultures being "enslaved" in the U.S., by which they mean confined to the house and forced to work without pay.

That's not slavery. Two key differences between that and the chattel slavery practiced in the U.S. is that a chattel slave is just that. . . chattel. They are not regarded as human beings by the law. The owner can beat them, rape them, and kill them with complete impunity.

The other is that chattel slavery for Blacks in America was hereditary.

The specific reason that the Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery AND "involuntary servitude" is that they are different.

That's the deal. Slavery is not having to work hard. It is not being flogged. Slavery is a legal status, and in the U.S. until the 13th Amendment, that status was "chattel," like a pair of trousers or a goat.

Indentured servants were treated harshly, as were the people who built the railroads. You could do things to an indentured servant you couldn't do to an employee. But indentured servants' legal status was "human beings" or "persons."

The people being held and forced to work are not slaves. They are victims of kidnapping and false imprisonment. If they can escape and contact the authorities, their captors will be punished and they will be free. If a slave escaped, the authorities would return him to his owner.

So what kind of slavery did your tribe practice ?

 

[petros]

So what kind of slavery did your tribe practice ?

The good kind of course and didnt stop until after Europeans did.

Native American slave ownership refers to the ownership of enslaved Africans and Native Americans by Native Americans from the pre-colonial period to the U.S. Civil War. Waves of European colonization (and the concurrent Atlantic slave trade) brought enslaved Africans to North America. Following this development many indigenous tribes began to acquire Africans as slaves. Many prominent people from the "Five Civilized Tribes" purchased slaves from their white neighbors and became members of the planter class.

The 1863 Emancipation Proclamation only applied to States in rebellion, and did not legally affect slavery in Indian areas that fought for the Confederacy. All slaves in the United States were legally emancipated upon the ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865, just after the American Civil War.[1] In practice, slavery continued in Indian territories. The federal government negotiated new treaties with the "Five Civilized Tribes" in 1866, in which they agreed to end slavery.[2]

 

[Dixie Cup]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1558969217034194944

Another "mean" action taken by DeSantis! (Good on 'im)

 

[Dixie Cup]

Our righties should look into emigrating to Floriduh. Most recently, a judge has struck down provisions of Floriduh's "Stop Woke Act" which purported to tell PRIVATE corporations how they could and could not train their employees.

I like the Act. It lays bare the inescapable truth (though I'm sure the righties will do their best, bringing their entire bag of logical fallacies). . . DuhSantis and the Floriduh legislature value White male Christian supremacy above freedom of speech, above private property, above democracy, and above every other principle upon which the U.S. was founded.

Floriduh: Come for the mouse. Stay for the Nazism.

I'd go there in a heart beat! No nazi's there, just crocks & snakes and lots of people with common sense!!

 

[petros]

I'd go there in a heart beat! No nazi's there, just crocks & snakes and lots of people with common sense!!

And too many Mexicans from Cuba.

 

[Serryah]

I'd go there in a heart beat! No nazi's there, just crocks & snakes and lots of people with common sense!!

Well, you'd fit in with the gaters (not crocks) and snakes at least...

 

[pgs]

The good kind of course and didnt stop until after Europeans did.

Native American slave ownership refers to the ownership of enslaved Africans and Native Americans by Native Americans from the pre-colonial period to the U.S. Civil War. Waves of European colonization (and the concurrent Atlantic slave trade) brought enslaved Africans to North America. Following this development many indigenous tribes began to acquire Africans as slaves. Many prominent people from the "Five Civilized Tribes" purchased slaves from their white neighbors and became members of the planter class.

The 1863 Emancipation Proclamation only applied to States in rebellion, and did not legally affect slavery in Indian areas that fought for the Confederacy. All slaves in the United States were legally emancipated upon the ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865, just after the American Civil War.[1] In practice, slavery continued in Indian territories. The federal government negotiated new treaties with the "Five Civilized Tribes" in 1866, in which they agreed to end slavery.[2]

As well as documented instances of British sailors in Haida Quai , commonly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands .

 

[pgs]

Well, you'd fit in with the gaters (not crocks) and snakes at least...

So much anger .