Skip to comments.Father of U.S. slavery was a black man
Posted on 02/25/2013 7:50:35 AM PST by re_tail20
February has been officially designated, recognized by many and even celebrated by some as Black History Month or National African-American History Month. While it is acknowledged in some other countries (most notably Canada and the U.K.), it is primarily devoted to the achievements of African-Americans in the U.S. It will, henceforth, include the historical fact that Barack Hussein Obama became the first African-American president of the United States.
However, early American history also reveals another dramatic first involving a black American.
In truth, it should be considered a joint celebration. We are, in actuality, acknowledging the achievements of both blacks and America. Since we are celebrating the achievements of both, it may be appropriate to begin at the beginning.
Black History remembrance began as Negro History Week in 1926 by Carter G. Woodson, a son of former slaves. The second week of February was chosen in honor of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln (both born in that week), and in 1976 the entire month was declared Black History Month.
Now to the beginning. It is well known that the first colonials arrived on these shores following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607. Perhaps what is not so well known is the fact that following the Thirty Years War, the European economy was extremely depressed. Consequently, many skilled and unskilled laborers there were without work, and the New World offered hope and a chance for a new future.
According to some reports, one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants, and this included some Africans, who arrived in Jamestown in 1619. This distinction is critical; indentured servants were not slaves.
The first blacks to arrive in America were not slaves but indentured servants.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
They didn’t teach that in History class.
There have been more white slaves in history of the world than black.
Next we’ll have Black History Year, then decade etc... Followed closely by Fags week, month...
I remember learning it in college and was shocked.
They didnt teach that in History class.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
I ‘learned’ that in History class.
I also ‘learned’ or was aware that the ‘slave transporters’ did NOT go into the bush or shanghai potential ‘cargoes’ as they were readily provided - at a cost - by the Natives of the African Ports where the ‘cargo’ was loaded. Also, so long as the ‘slaves’ were PAID for, the chances of any but the ‘MOST’ rowdy had to be kept in a physical condition as to be worth a resale value upon arrival at the destination.
Owning slaves was expensive, as it was your ‘responsibility’ to make sure ‘they’ were able to perform certain duties on a daily basis, so as to get a return for the ‘investment’.
A good portion of the original Irish were indentured servants, whose accommodations on the ‘crossing’ were somewhat less than that ever popular steerage and in the beginning, the Irish Immigrant was not favored much higher than the African Immigrant with the Irish ‘doing the jobs that Americans wouldn’t do’ and the Irish did ‘favor’ slavery, in as much, that freed slaves would mean fewer jobs for the Irish.
Of course those of us of Irish descent are eagerly awaiting reparations etc, but I don’t think I will ‘hold my breath’ in bated anticipation.
Very interesting. At the end of the article is a list of questions asking you to vote on one that sums up your perspective on the article. I chose the one that said I was not surprised considering Blacks sold other Blacks into slavery. 54% also chose that option. Only 3%, out of over 800 votes chose answers along the line of :
1. Doesn’t matter whites continued holding slaves.
2. I want a second source to confirm this information.
Europeans were routinely enslaved by Muslims as late as 1830. It is estimated that about a million were enslaved between 1600 and 1830.
Slaves were originally captured by other blacks in Africa. The whites didn’t capture them, there were captured by tribal lords to make money.
the Irish Immigrant was not favored much higher than the African Immigrant
The Washington Times is somehow listed as the cited resource, but the link redirects to World Net Daily. Maybe a mod will fix that.
..but we don’t want the Irish...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Now that you mention “BS”, Chris Plante (WMAL AM630 WASHDC) had a caller bring up the “Sheriff Bart” arriving in town, when the townspeople ‘realize’ what the ‘new Sheriff’ really is and Bart ends up holding a gun to his own head and dragging himself back to the office - Once there he mentions How them ‘folks’ is sooooo stoooopid...”
The caller then cited BO doing the same thing....reading the script and going back to his ‘office’ for a good laugh.
My understanding was that if the job was significantly dangerous they would use the Irish as apposed to African slaves. Slaves represented a capital investment of up to $600 dollars, which in today's dollars would be in the thousands. If an Irish man was killed or seriously injured nobody was out any money.
The idea that white slavers went into the bush to catch slaves was given to us by the movie ( and possibly the book, I didn’t read it ) “Roots.” The African chiefs who sold slaves wouldn’t have stood for it. They had armies of jungle fighters to stop any poachers. White slavers who went ashore would have been in “Indian Country” the whole time and lucky to escape with their lives. IIRC there were a couple of islands and select ports where slaves were sold, the only places outside ships could land.
On reading the First Census of Texas 1835, I discovered my earliest Texas ancestors listed their property as 2 black slaves and one wooden clock. I did NOT inherit the clock! :[
and boy do they lay it on....but often with the most ignorant blather
"Alright, we'll give some land to the n@ggers and the ch@nks.....But we don't want the Irish."
we weren’t brainwashed about the sins of the west when i was young
we venerated our history
sad for younger folks
I have to deprogram my kids all the time
but if one is inquisitive they can learn around the whitewash
you should read about the barracoon culture of the Bight of Africa in the slave trade days to get a real feel for the kinder gentler side of black history towards each other
it’s like Saturday nite south side of Chicago but with spears and other more culturally appropriate implements of torture
don;t miss the infant toss...the ultimate half time show
* this stuff is such a joke...Rome burns and we pay homage to the matchlighters
I am likely the last freeper expected to defend black suffering and all that crap
but this notion here expounded by so many that the poor Irish were so beat up upon here and to equate that with chattel slavery...however benign or not it was in North America compared to say...Saint Dominingue
it is absolute hogwash to equate those two
it’s like Irish today are claiming me too...BS
and I am Scots Irish aplenty...Sullivan
every new group gets some resistance
problem is today there is no resisitance and unlike the Irish these browns don’t want to assimilate...they want to take over
and they are
My greatX4 grandma was Mary Workman..an Irish daughter of a servant at William Dunbar’s plantation* in Natchez....Dunbar arranged her as my g4grandpa’s second wife when number one blew out after 16 kids...my g4grandpa was a cattle breeder who supplied Dunbar from his cattle works over on the Leaf river bottoms about 80 miles northeast
unless you were gentry all had it hard...and gentry lost half their kids by aged 6 same as anyone
enough bitching to go around
but all had it better materially and life expectancy than from where they came...maybe the occasional first son who ventured over had it worse
including the slaves...and you won’t hear that in black history month will you?
*Dunbar was arguably the largest land and slave holder in the US at that time...he also sent a fair number back to Africa before he was stopped by fellow plantation owners...Dunbar had been pretty tough repressing slave rebellions in his younger days
Good catch. Thanks. Just viewed the Washington Times before going over to WND, and had it in mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.