The TRUTH ABOUT SLAVERY THAT NOBODY HEARS

"POPULAR" HISTORY IS MOSTLY LIES

There were MORE WHITE SLAVES than BLACK in colonial America...YET one NEVER EVER hears about it!!!


Link with extensive historical references & facts:

http://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/White Slaves [A].htm

Knowing US and world history, many various ethnicities and races were held as slaves in one time or another. The term Slave came from "Slav", when Germanic tribes held captured Slavic peoples in present-day Poland and eastern Germany as...slaves. They were traded to Greece, the Roman empire and wherever else throughout Europe. Either these slaves were bought in markets or captured in tribal wars, although slavery was seen as a temporarily condition until the slave was freed and made into a citizen.

Instead of "slaves," I think you mean "indentured servants." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant These European immigrants did have a period of servitude, to pay for their passage to America, but it ended within a pre-arranged period of time; and often included a pay-out of land and farm implements at the end of the indenture. This isn't to say that chattel slavery didn't exist.

As was the case in Australia, some British prisoners were shipped off to America, notably to Georgia, which was set up as a penal colony. Again, this wasn't the same as African slavery' although no doubt prisoners' conditions were harsh.

Slavery of Europeans was common in ancient times and during the early Middle Ages in Europe.

But not a scale comparable to African slavery.

There is nothing new about slavery during the Roman Empire, Dark Ages, and other times past. It's been in the history books for a very long time. One wonders where the author was when the substantial histories of Antiquity and the feudal period were being written.

waybread said:

Instead of "slaves," I think you mean "indentured servants." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant These European immigrants did have a period of servitude, to pay for their passage to America, but it ended within a pre-arranged period of time; and often included a pay-out of land and farm implements at the end of the indenture. This isn't to say that chattel slavery didn't exist.

Click to expand...

Indentured servitude the way it's described in history books sounds like it wasn't a bad thing, but in fact, indentured servitude was very much like slavery. Through most of the colonial period, there were really only two differences between an indentured servant and a slave: the slave was legally a slave for life while the indentured servant had a contract that would theoretically expire (more on that in a moment), and skin color.

Other than that, the lot of indentured servants and that of slaves were the same. They lived the same way and were usually treated the same way. And while the indentured servants theoretically had freedom in their future, only a minority of them ever lived to see it. Life in the colonies was so harsh, especially for laborers, that the majority of indentured servants died within three to five years of arrival. Their contracts, however, were rarely shorter than seven years, and the masters had all kinds of ways of manipulating the contracts so that they could be extended. Punishment for some trumped up infraction could mean extension of the contract for another decade or more. The servant's chances of living another decade or more were slim to none.

African slaves also had a high mortality rate in the first few years, but most of them had some genetic resistance to malaria, which the European indentured servants did not. So the mortality rate among indentured servants was higher than that of slaves. Malaria was rampant in the colonies.

Furthermore, babies born to indentured servants were classed as indentured servants themselves until a certain age. Usually, that age was 21--that's where we get the tradition of 21 as the age of majority--but given the high mortality rate, that was like saying you can have your freedom when you're 91. Very few people born into indentured servitude lived to see their 21st birthdays. And there was no legal requirement for freedom at 21, so some masters set the age at 31, or higher.

So while indentured servants were not legally classed as slaves, they were slaves for all practical purposes. There's a whole other chapter to the history on how indentured servants and slaves initially identified with each other and banded together, and in response to that threat, the upper classes created the concept of whiteness that persists to this day. That got the indentured servants to identify as white and believe they could live better if they didn't throw their lot in with the blacks, and laid the foundation for our society's current racism... but that's a whole other story.

WHYNOT said:

"POPULAR" HISTORY IS MOSTLY LIES

There were MORE WHITE SLAVES than BLACK in colonial America...YET one NEVER EVER hears about it!!!


Link with extensive historical references & facts:

http://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/White Slaves [A].htm

Click to expand...

There were indeed lots of white slaves in the colonies if we count indentured servants as slaves. However, there were probably not more of them than black slaves. If anything, the black slaves outnumbered all of the white people put together. By the time of the American Revolution, the highest percentage of people in America were black, except for Native Americans, who were considered to belong to separate nations altogether, and almost all of the black people in America were either slaves or former slaves. Whites didn't start outnumbering blacks until the late 1800s, when there was a new wave of immigration from Europe.

As for the "facts" at that site, it's a white supremacist site. That doesn't necessarily mean none of the tidbits posted there are true, but there's an obvious motive to manipulate the facts.

It is fair to say that the history of indentured servitude should be told as what it was and not glossed over. But then we also need to look at the history of race and how race came to be defined as it is today, which is directly linked with that history.

In the first 2 centuries of US history before independence as English or British colonies, esp. in the north, there wasn't yet an exact racial hierarchy of an entire African-American population as a slave caste. By the 1790 Census, the first one conducted in US history, most slavery ceased to be practiced north of the Mason-Dixon Line (PA-MD state line) or 40th North parallel. In the South, the white population was convinced Africans were more "suited" to be permanent slaves from birth to death than previous temporary indentured servants, often from Ireland and Scotland were soon integrated into the white Anglo-Protestant majority. Over time, the consensus was a free "white race", esp. of Anglo-Celtic descent, established the majority of black people as a slave "race" class.

What else to note is Native American tribes, esp. the Cherokee and other tribal nations in the Southeastern states practiced slavery of Black/African people. Yes, a few Cherokee Indians held slaves in their plantations and some interracial marriage or mating occurred between slaves or Black Freedmen with the Cherokee in the late 18th-early 19th century. When the Cherokee as well the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Muskogee peoples were forced west in the Trail of Tears in the 1830s, they planted the practice of slavery into Indian Territory, now the state of Oklahoma since 1907. Many Cherokee Nation soldiers fought for the Confederacy, whom also were defeated by the Union and after the civil war, the Cherokee Nation freed all slaves they held and eventually the tribe took in Black Freedmen.

MOST OF HISTORY IS LIES.
Many of you above quote from what you learned/read, as if that were TRUE AUTHORITY!!

HOW would you even know TRUTH??



TRY to understand that there have been many archealogical discoveries that are SUPPRESSED by the $$$ "ESTABLISHMENT", BECAUSE they are conflicting.

You SURELY understand that , above all ELSE , $$$$ RULES today.
$$$$ = Those WHO RULE,
.. & Have their AGENDA!

BTW Nothing's changed in all of human history, EXCEPT...
>>> that it's NEVER been EASIER to CONQUER & RULE the minds of the MASSES/Public ..than TODAY.

-Thanks to... Modern Technology.. Deliberately( mis-)Used to control... program...ie.... starting with TV ..(one in EVERY house!)
Since then, of course so many other methods (you can name them)

INFO going IN..
-INto peoples minds...ONLY going in..

TRY to draw a diagram of ALL the different ways that outside info is going IN to peoples minds .
to PROGRAMME their minds..

BUT
with VERY LITTLE independent brain processing happening..!

VERY LITTLE >> INDEPENDENT<< Mind processing..

ie (your minds are NOT your OWN!!!)

There is a book about the Irish slaves that England got rid of by sending them to America. They were treated much worse and often died compared to black slaves which were considered expensive property and generally better looked after. Depending on the state, many blacks earned their freedom and became tradesmen and small landowners, sometimes having their own slaves.

It's the Arabs and Asians who are the modern day slave owners. There will be a story popping up every so often about some slaves escaping from a NY penthouse or some palace in the Middle East. Generally the slaves are Filipino.

race played no role in slavery until the 15th century. to the greeks. you were born a slave or born free, there was no other perspective.
rahu

CapAquaPis said:

In the first 2 centuries of US history before independence as English or British colonies, esp. in the north, there wasn't yet an exact racial hierarchy of an entire African-American population as a slave caste. By the 1790 Census, the first one conducted in US history, most slavery ceased to be practiced north of the Mason-Dixon Line (PA-MD state line) or 40th North parallel. In the South, the white population was convinced Africans were more "suited" to be permanent slaves from birth to death than previous temporary indentured servants, often from Ireland and Scotland were soon integrated into the white Anglo-Protestant majority. Over time, the consensus was a free "white race", esp. of Anglo-Celtic descent, established the majority of black people as a slave "race" class.

Click to expand...

I remember reading something about that for a paper I wrote in college (that was what I was dredging out of my memory when I posted), but I've forgotten the sources. Do you remember where you got that from--books, class lecture, etc?

CapAquaPis said:

What else to note is Native American tribes, esp. the Cherokee and other tribal nations in the Southeastern states practiced slavery of Black/African people. Yes, a few Cherokee Indians held slaves in their plantations and some interracial marriage or mating occurred between slaves or Black Freedmen with the Cherokee in the late 18th-early 19th century. When the Cherokee as well the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Muskogee peoples were forced west in the Trail of Tears in the 1830s, they planted the practice of slavery into Indian Territory, now the state of Oklahoma since 1907. Many Cherokee Nation soldiers fought for the Confederacy, whom also were defeated by the Union and after the civil war, the Cherokee Nation freed all slaves they held and eventually the tribe took in Black Freedmen.

Click to expand...

That was mentioned in the books 1491 and 1493, as I recall. Was that your source, or did you hear or read it somewhere else?

It's fascinating how the hidden history plays such a part: the slave states in America were where the Indians had been slave owning societies; the free states were where there had been little or no slavery prior to European conquest. Good evidence that our history has much more contributions from the indigenous peoples than the history books ever say.

WHYNOT said:

MOST OF HISTORY IS LIES.
Many of you above quote from what you learned/read, as if that were TRUE AUTHORITY!!

HOW would you even know TRUTH??

Click to expand...

How do you know TRUTH, as you call it? You yourself are quoting from a source you've read.

WHYNOT said:

TRY to understand that there have been many archealogical discoveries that are SUPPRESSED by the $$$ "ESTABLISHMENT", BECAUSE they are conflicting.

Click to expand...

And how do you know this? Were you yourself present at those archaeological discoveries? Are you a trained archaeologist? Do you know how to interpret archaeological findings?

I spent ten years in a relationship with a professional archaeologist, and from that, I know that archaeologists keep an open mind when interpreting what they find. For instance, one site he worked on included small pit houses, which had been considered to be dwellings... but he and several other archaeologists thought they were more likely storehouses, because the space was so small that scarcely one or two people could fit inside. It wouldn't make sense to live in that kind of space, let alone wait out a whole winter in there, but storing food in there would have made sense. But it was all a question of interpretation. It wasn't like there were signs on those pits reading, "Former storehouse," or, "Former winter home." Many archaeological discoveries are even more murky than that, leading to lots of debate among archaeologists about what they actually were.

If you are not an archaeologist and were not present at those archaeological discoveries, then the only way you could know about them is through what you have learned/read. So you, too, are believing what you read.

rahu said:

If you are not an archaeologist and were not present at those archaeological discoveries, then the only way you could know about them is through what you have learned/read. So you, too, are believing what you read.

here are a few examples of the censorship of sciencific discoveries.



another link explaining the 33,000 year old triceratops.
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...rticalresponse

California Statue University, Northridge scientist, Mark Armitage found what he believed was the largest Triceratops tops horn ever unearthed in Montana. When he analyzed the horn at CSUN he was fascinated to find soft tissue on the sample. This discovery stunned Armitage and several members of the biology department because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the Earth only thousands of years in the past and not over 60 million years ago!
............................................................................................
A US Supreme Court ruling has forced the Smithsonian institution to release classified papers dating from the early 1900′s that proves the organization was involved in a major historical cover up of evidence showing giants human remains in the tens of thousands had been uncovered all across America and were ordered to be destroyed by high level administrators to protect the mainstream chronology of human evolution at the time.

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and...rticalresponse

............................................................................................
also you should read Forbidden Archeology. this is an excellent book that shows that some examples of the censorship of science going back a hundred years and going upo into the 1980'w.
the researchers went through old scientific journals and brought out facts that were ignored if not actively suppressed.
one example is the discoverer of a fossil man dating over 300,000 years based on strata analysis.this was verified by though famous anthropologist Louis leaky, yet ignored.

then you might read Immanuel velokovsky's books. tthey show the totally censorship of the geological, historical and astronomical facts.

someof velikovsky's findings are covered in my Tesla,Velikovsky and the Fraud of Science thread

rahu

rahu

Click to expand...

Both of your examples are paleontology, not archaeology. Paleontology is the study of fossils. Archaeology is the study of artifacts of human societies. Archaeologists do dig up human bones sometimes, if they're excavating a burial site, but they don't handle dinosaurs, and human remains old enough to be fossilized are outside the scope of archaeology. Anthropologists may deal with those, but archaeology is a different subset of anthropology. And not even anthropologists would study dinosaur bones. That's a paleontologists' job.

And now that I've checked those links... at one of them, the article isn't there, and at the other, it's a poorly written article that relies on excessive exclamation points and doesn't cite any legitimate sources, just homemade creationist videos. Furthermore, that site lets anyone post anything and doesn't do any fact checking.

That's not to say it's impossible for new findings to change our picture of evolution or of more recent history, but Before It's News is not a reliable source for anything but comedy.

Furthermore, the giant human remains story is a hoax that's been debunked by the well researched and reliable Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/giantcoverup.asp

And Mark Armitage isn't even a scientist: http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/09/04/a-creationist-mole-and-a-sorry-mess/

http://observationdeck.kinja.com/how-to-not-handle-a-young-earth-creationist-employee-1611575699

rahu said:

and you appear to rely on the internet your your wisdom. velikovsky's books and the book forbidden archeology give examples scientific evidence that has been suppressed.

Click to expand...

Since we're communicating through the internet, it's easiest to mention internet sources. Non-internet sources for the same information exist. They're just not as quick and easy to find while I'm on this discussion board talking to you.

And if you criticize me for that, you're the pot calling the kettle black... because you yourself have used internet sources only, and only one site at that, to back up your claims.

I see some bait and switch here: you don't address the holes in your claims that I've pointed out at all.

rahu said:

velikovsky stated venus is a comet, an idea thoroughly "debunked" but low and behold the concentrations of hydroxyl radicals in it's atmosphere are the same as is found in .... comets, while no other planet have significant hydroxyl radicals in their atmosphere.
and it turns out venus has a ionized tail following it around in it's orbit. unlike any planet but common to all comets

Click to expand...

I actually was somewhat familiar with Velikovsky already. I don't recall if I've ever seen any of his original work, but years ago, I read God Is Red by Vine Deloria, who described Velikovsky's work and theories in detail. I found what I read there quite plausible. Deloria, incidentally, makes a case for some "prehistoric" animals having coexisted with humans in the Americas, based on stories from multiple Native American tribes.

I haven't heard of any definitive fossil evidence backing this up, but I don't think it's implausible that some of those animals could have existed past the time scientists think they went extinct. That is not, however, proof positive that the earth was created by God in six days only six thousand years ago or so, which is the claim Armitage made--along with the unproven claim that he found animal tissue in that dinosaur bone. It might have been tissue, or might not... others had observed that before, and what it is has been a subject of debate, as has been how it got preserved if it really is tissue.

If science doesn't (yet?) tell us that there were giant saurians coexistent with early hominids, myth and legend suggests that. Pretty much every culture in the world has dragon stories. To my mind, that suggests some race memory of some dragon-like animal. That doesn't mean there wasn't a big die off of dinosaurs long before humans appeared, but if just one or two giant reptilian species overlapped with our earliest ancestors, that could have give rise to the stories. For that matter, simply finding dinosaur bones could have done that.

rahu said:

have you even heard of the Piltdown man fraud perpetrated by natural history museum in England at the turn of the century. scientific fraud goes way back.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/de...ry-and-archives/collections/piltdown-man.html

Click to expand...

Yes, been there, heard of that. It's as big a hoax as that giant human skeletons one you were so eager to use to prove your point.

rahu said:

you might take the time to read forbidden archeology, though it would eat into your internet surfing
rahu

Click to expand...

That is a rude dig, and honestly, it turns me off the suggestion. I do read pretty much everything I get my hands on, time permitting. Maybe I'll read that book someday, but I have enough on my plate already.

Yes, all the slaves that were harmed should be paid.

But that was the past...
That would mean that genes would be very diluted by now and as much as 100 people are related to the slave that got hurt.
Makes no sense to me !

And Britain would go bankrupt LOL

Being honest here: how are reparations paid ? I don't know anything about it . but how will money cover the wounds of the past ?

And not all slave captures were from Europeans,yet that is all I hear reparations being asked from. Because they have money ?

Europeans used to be slaves too back in the day. Ex. Greeks were purchased and used for brainpower

I haven't read any of the replies yet, but the initial post is beyond ridiculous. Indentured servitude was neither socially nor economically analogous to chattel slavery as practiced in the United States. For one, indentured servitude was a choice, whereas slavery was involuntarily imposed upon one as a condition of birth or violent force. It's the same reason modern day "wage slavery" (i.e., the idea that people in the United States and other first world countries are somehow slaves because they have to work a job in order to obtain the material comforts and so-called necessities of life in a post-industrial world) is not the same thing as actual slavery. You have the choice to live your life any way you want, even if that means eschewing a job and living your life on the streets or out in the wilderness somewhere; actual slaves did not have that privilege. They were kept in bondage through the threat of violent force. Unless you're forced to work a job at gunpoint, you're not a wage slave.

StarryEyedDismay said:

I haven't read any of the replies yet, but the initial post is beyond ridiculous. Indentured servitude was neither socially nor economically analogous to chattel slavery as practiced in the United States. For one, indentured servitude was a choice, whereas slavery was involuntarily imposed upon one as a condition of birth or violent force. It's the same reason modern day "wage slavery" (i.e., the idea that people in the United States and other first world countries are somehow slaves because they have to work a job in order to obtain the material comforts and so-called necessities of life in a post-industrial world) is not the same thing as actual slavery.
You have the choice to live your life any way you want,
even if that means eschewing a job and living your life on the streets or out in the wilderness somewhere;
actual slaves did not have that privilege.
They were kept in bondage through the threat of violent force.

Unless you're forced to work a job at gunpoint, you're not a wage slave.

Click to expand...

"Gunpoint" is not the sole form of coercion experienced by Modern Day Slaves

One form of coercion is the use of a bond, or debt.
Often referred to as “bonded labor” or “debt bondage,” the practice has long been prohibited under U.S. law by its Spanish name, peonage,
and the Palermo Protocol calls for its criminalization as a form of trafficking in persons.


Workers around the world fall victim to debt bondage
when traffickers or recruiters unlawfully exploit
an initial debt the worker assumed as part of the terms of employment.
Workers may also inherit intergenerational debt
in more traditional systems of bonded labor. http://www.state.gov/j/tip/what/