White slaves were treated much worse than black slaves

Wow. That is so completely wrong in every way.

Not that white slaves (who were usually called "servants") were treated great. Yes, white slaves could be lashed, mutilated or killed for any number of offenses, or sometimes just because a master felt like it, but the black slaves had it even worse.

There were legal distinctions between white and black slaves, not to mention the vast social distinctions.

Even just getting the whites to America, which was a gruesome enough affair, pales in comparison to what the blacks had to endure on the trip across the Atlantic.

The person that told you that white slaves had it worse than black slaves is not your friend. They're making fun of you.

 

the slave contract, or indenture, you exist, you are owned.



Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


so much for the consent of the governed, and supreme court cases abrahamson comes to mind suport this,

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.




Sorry that is not consent of the governed, that is in your face dictatorship and claim of ownership of you and everything in your name!

A nation of indentured servants!

That is why they can come n your property and do any dam thing they want, tazer you on the side of the road, penalize you for farting on the sidewalk and so forth and so on.

You, if you are in the united states are PWNED!






^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THAT IS FROM A LAW DICTIONARY USED IN THE US BLACKS I THINK.



BELOW IS THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD





a feud BTW IS a contract with the sovereign! In England the kings or one of his pals, in america the states or fed!


No difference!

IN SUBSTANCE AND MERIT.

 

What contract did the chained slave enter into that was repealed by the slave and renegotiated?

NONE it was and is to this day BY FORCE!

Just like the american indians, mexicans, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc etc etc etc, ad criminal.

Putting people in chains then forcing them into a contract to be released is complete tyranny and despotism from th etop down.

you will find that is what they did and continue to do.

Dyncorp comes to mind as an overt player, government is the covert player under the guise of protection.

Its for your own protection.

Where have we heard that before? You do not rant and lodge complaints you are "assumed" by the courts to have agreed.

They expect you to give up your life and lose everything to fight in courts or lose everything paying an attorney to do it for you.

Wonderful life. If you value freedom.

Government out of control

 

speaking of credit!

where the hell is my dividend check for putting my property on the line as collateral and loaning the nation my credit?

HHHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

Irrelevant.
The fact that there is a contractual way out puts the indentured servant in a better position than a lifelong slave.

Going to prison isn't voluntary.
Is a five-year sentence equal to life without parole (and your children also going to prison just because)?

 

so by your own admission its not so wrong in any way. just a typo maybe?

 

well there is escape and a bullet in the brain of the enslaver too which would seem like the most appropriate way out for a total trespass and violation of every unalienable right of nature known to men.

Going to prison is a contractual agreement. If you agree to join the USA or state club then you gotta play by the club rules.

Oh wait that is right, the STATE because they are SELF PROCLAIMED SOVEREIGNS WITH THE EXACT SAME POWERS AS A KING control all the "organized" guns in the country TAKE jurisdiction and BY FORCE they FORCE you into SUBJECTION just like with the indians, iraq, afghanastan et al.











Seems people have a trapped rat mentality of solving problems now days.

 

I would say not. They were still slaves and it was still a crime, for all that it was considered socially acceptable at the time.

 

I'm not following you.

The white slaves had it rough. The black slaves had it rougher. The OP is trying to claim that white slaves had it worse than black slaves and that simply isn't true. I can't even imagine why he'd think that.

 

Some did on either side, some did not.

Every slave owner was different.

The bottom line however is that the union of states merely continued the old feudal tradition of removing the "yoke" of servitude and replacing it with "bond" slavery as a bonded "free" citizen or subject.

its their usual word games, slavery non the less.

That means they only went from one form a slavery to another, which takes us to today.

 

Uh, I'm sorry you feel that way about yourself. Of course your reading of the 14th Amendment says it all.

"Feu" BTW is froim the Scottish "fee", so your musings on feudalism are also - a guess - that is made to somehow validate an argument that has no merit.

Only you hold the key to your cage. Insert the key, open the door, and walk out; you'll feel better.

 

many of us are tired of hearing that white people need to kiss black people's asses b/c their distant ancestors were slaves.

 

My understanding is that purchased American slaves were treated like animals. How did this compare with slaves in the country of proletarian dictatorship? Yes I am thinking about the Gulag slaves. My father was one of them; he died in Kolyma, at the age of 38. Was the purpose to extract as much labor as possible or to physically annihilate the accused?
.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

 

What circles do you guys travel in where you hear this all the time?

 

the USA......

 

Who's this "many of us" and how often are you hearing these claims about having to bow down to black people? Most importantly what's that got to do with the OP's thorough lack of knowledge on anything in this thread?

 

Unreaonable State of Angst?

 

Surfer Joe,

while I certainly do not subscribe to the 'information' in the post you cited, it is true that not only whites owned black slaves in the United States. Blacks, especially in Louisianna, owned other blacks as slaves and in fact, some of the largest slaveholders in the state were black. Native Americans also owned slaves and when the Cherokee marched to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears, their black slaves went along with them.

It is also true that slavery still exist today and that the vast majority of slave holders are either black or Arab.

The history, both past and present, of slavery is convoluted.

 

dilligaf,

You seem woefully ignorant of history, especially American history as it involves the question of slavery.

Initially, instead of slavery, there was indentured servitude in the United States. Both blacks and whites could be indentured servants. If you were an indentured servant, your 'master' owned your service for a set number of years. He did not own your person. After a legally stipulated period of time you indentured servitude ended and you were a free person. This freedom was guaranteed by law.

Eventually, blacks and whites were no longer treated the same. Blacks became no longer indentured servants but slaves. Slavery was for life and the condition of the parents, ie, slavery, was inherited by their children, unlike indentured servants, whose children were born free.

It is also true, that other than in the cases of convicted convicts, indentured servants entered into their condition of servitude voluntarily as a way to come to the new world. They contracted to work for the person sponsering their immigration for a number of years in payment for their travel expenses. The case of convicts was different and they entered into involuntary servitude but no matter what, it could not extend past their own, personal life and on to the lives of their children.

 

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention the Tea Party. I have to wonder no longer.

If a thread goes on long enough, someone on the left will eventually bring up the term Tea Party or Nazi. This is a given. The only question is how long it will take.

 

It didn't take long for the other favorite term of the lefties to pop up either.

 

Next thing you'll be telling us is that at least Americans treated the Negro people better than the Germans treated the Jew people. What the heck. As long as you can point to something worse than what Americans did to Negros for well over 200 years wasnt really all that bad?

 

You are very correct, Frogger.

The liberals in this group love to throw around the word, "Nazi" to describe people who do not accept or agree with their socialist beliefs!

Unfortunately, they have not studied history and are unaware that Hitler was indeed an avowed socialist who detested capitalism!

Hitler was a socialist. He hated capitalism and like most of the liberals in this group he thought socialism was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Hitler hated the Jews because he thought the Jews were the quintessential capitalists! He blamed them for Germany’s economic problems that surfaced immediately after World War One.

Hitler's love of ” socialism” is clearly and correctly stated in the following reliable references.

To rescue Germany from the effects of the Great Depression, Nazism promoted an economic Third Position; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist.[15][16] The Nazis accused communism and capitalism of being associated with Jewish influences and interests.[17] They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.[18] Nazism supported private property rights and the market economy, though it did not consider the market to be a perfect mechanism and supported the subordination of the economy to be to the goals of the political leadership of the state.[19]

Spengler denounced Marxism for seeking to train the proletariat to "expropriate the expropriator", the capitalist, and then to let them live a life of leisure on this expropriation.[57] He claimed that "Marxism is the capitalism of the working class" and not true socialism.[57]

In 1927, Hitler said: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."[115]

Spengler's conception of socialism and a number of his political views were shared by the Nazis as well as the Conservative Revolutionary movement.[55]

Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said: “The Jew is the enemy and destroyer of the purity of blood, the conscious destroyer of our race ... As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.”[120]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

 

Would it make you more comfortable if I said "exceptional individual" then? Of course white supremacist would've worked too.

 

that would be black people and their constsnat whining about racism, discrimination and past wrongs while at the same time getting low SAT scores and committing crimes against white people at an alarming rate.