The origins of Slavery in North America

[Hanny]

Ham and his descended-ts, Canaanites, were burnt black, so all would know they as a race were fit for slavery. Its the biblical explanation for black skin colour and why it was a ok with God to make them into slaves in America.

All of the above is to be found in the Bible, if you want it to be, And how it was used to promote and excuse slavery in the 17 to 1800s, is explained in the worlds education systems https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4fNp5cl1eY See Palmer and his teachings and writings.

So, your ignorant of the history of slavery itself, and ignorant of how its taught in the world today, that religion was used to justify it, version used in the South to support its use, which interpreted the mark of cain also to be that blackness.

This isn't biblical, it's Muslim.

Its another religions version of the same event, 3 Muslim sources have similar version, Tab-uri, mas udi and Dimashhqi, all relate the curse of ham, and how whay he was burnt black and fit for slavery. Other christian sources include but are not limited to, Lacanticus in his Divine institutes 325 AD, another is the 3 cent Syric christian text of the Caves of treasures, being teh first christian text to contain it, and it is in accord with Muslim texts.


In Muslim texts" Noah was angry with ham and said, let Canaan be cursed and let him be a a slave to his brothers. therefore his sons became slaves, they are the cops, the kush the indians the Musin and the other black blacks (Sudan) Nubia, Abysinians, Berbers and so on.


In the Jewish faith Eupolemus wrote in the 2 cent, This one fathered Canaan, to him was born a son, whom the greeks call, Asbbolous ( soot), Ham means black.


Canaan being black, was the father of kush and Kushites were also black in Muslim texts that pre date the Biblical accounts, the biblical account of the story has changed, while the Muslim account has not, so if you want to better understand the curse of ham,l you trace it back through all accounts to find the primary sources it comes from. The first christian account is Cave of treasures.


"Canaan was cursed because it had dared do this his descendants were reduced to slavery and they are all whose skin colour is black."


By the 10 cent the Bible contained, "When Noah awoke,,, he cursed him and said "Cursed be ham and may he be a slave to his brothers" and he became a slave, he and his lineage namely the Egyptians, the Abyssinian, and Indians. indeed ham lost of sense of shame he became black and was called shameless all the days of his life, forever.

I don't think this is even in the Koran, so there is no point in addressing this.

The reason scholars in this field look at all the evidence, not just some of it, to understand ancient text origins, is lost on you.


[/QUOTE]
I have heard/read of this theory before, and there are many others like/similar to it. Problem is that Ham is often considered the father of the African/Black peoples, but it was Canaan who was cursed. Canaan was the father of the Canaanites, who are a Semitic people, hence not "black".[/QUOTE]


Not a problem, its the Curse of Ham, who is turned black, and the curse of slavery is on his progeny. Canaan in biblical times was one of the 7 black nations, and Isralites barred from marriage with them in the bible.


Ham was Cursed, turned black, and his descendants fit for slavery, Nimrod son of Cannon is described as black flat nosed boy in Muslim text while in christian his is a son of Kush instead.


Christain Philopounus 6 cent, terms them ( cannanites) as black. Genissis rabba, Usually the germani ( white skinned) sells the kushi (black skinned, but here the kushi is selling the germani when refering to Joseph being sold into slavery.


https://www.nybooks.com/articles/200...-by-the-bible/


Alexander Crummell, a distinguished free African-American who had been educated at Cambridge, hardly exaggerated when he declared in 1862 that “the opinion that the sufferings and the slavery of the Negro race are the consequence of the curse of Noah [is a] general, almost universal, opinion in the Christian world.” This opinion, Crummell added,


is found in books written by learned men; and it is repeated in lectures, speeches, sermons, and common conversation. So strong and tenacious is the hold which it has taken upon the mind of Christendom, that it seems almost impossible to uproot it. Indeed, it is an almost foregone conclusion, that the Negro race is an accursed race, weighed down, even to the present, beneath the burden of an ancestral malediction.

He was writing at a a time when the mark of cain, was also understood to be that of being black, and interracial marriage barred by statute , in the USA and remained so, lawyers using the bible to argue why that was so and not losing till the 29th century.


Which is why its ( Christians used the bibles content to support the ownership of blacks as slaves, as did Muslims use their religion to condone the practice of black slavery) taught that way in the worlds education system.https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3535

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/180453

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/180453

[Common Soldier]

...at the same time trying to domesticate them, by turning them in "white people".In fact, racism was invented and codified by law. Racism is not part of the human nature. Harvard Professor of African and African American Studies Walter Johnson writes in his new book,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Despite what the good professor wrote, I would beg to differ. It is a common theme throughout history to look down upon rhose who are different, who dress and talk differently, and look different. Ancient Greek and Chinese looked down upon "barbarians" and the differenr appearances of thr "barbarians" were often derided. The Hindu caste system is a form of racism, low caste Hindus are born into their caste, which they cannot alter and face discrimination by high caste Hindus.

Europeans in the 18th through first half 20th century might have put it on a more scientific basis, just like they did all other fields of science and knowledge, but racism existed before then. Just as they turned rhe study of the past and past artifacts from an antiquarian hobby into the more rigorous science of archeology, so they did with racism, but the motivation behind it lies in human nature.

"There was no such thing as capitalism without slavery: the history of Manchester never happened without the history of Mississippi. The history of capitalism it must be emphasized, is a history of wages as well as whips, of factories as well as plantations, of whiteness as well as blackness, of freedom as well as slavery"

If Manchester did not get the cotton from the American South, they would have just goten it from somewhere else, Egypt, or India, as they did during the American Civil War. Nor did capitalism depend on slavery for generating the "capital" of capitalism. Brirain had becoms wealthy in the.wool trade long before it got involved in slavery, and rhe first commercial steam engines were built from mining coal, which already in the middle ages had begun an active trade. Nothing demostrates the falsity of the claim then capitalism continued to exist long after slavsry was abolished.

As Luther King put it, "The segregation of the races was really a political stratagem employed by the emerging Bourbon interests in the South to keep the southern masses divided and southern labor the cheapest in the land".
On a side note, I can't help but notice that the Democratic establishment loves to cite some carefully chosen citations from King's speeches, while at the same time excluding, avoiding, omitting his approach to social justice.

Martin Luther King wmay have been a great man, but he is wrong in his analysis. Slavery might have arose to support the plantation economy and life style of the rich plantation owners, but segregation itseld was motivated by fear of slave revolts like the one in Haiti that resulted in the extermination of the whites living there. Laws at teaching blacks to read were passed after.the Nat Turner Revolt, since it was believed education contributed to the revolt. The white plantation owners were often heavily outnumbered by theid black slaves, and segregation was used to maintain their identity and control, and prevent their identity from being swallowed up by the larger black population.


That slavery and segregation led to reducing the wage of free whites as well as blacks was just a byproduct, not the intended results. Slavery was needed to maintain the plantation life style, and the cash crops would not be as economical without the low wages of slavery. Rice, which was an important crop during slavery, was abandoned after slavery. But the Southern elites in control were not particularly interested in manufafturing, and the South greatly lagged in manufacturing, contributing to its failure in revolting.

[Kritias]

I didn't have time to read all of your points, and I will briefly reply to some of them now. A longer response will have to wait. Sorry for that.

1 - Slavery in the ancient world did not share the characteristics of slavery in the colonial era. The Aristotelian belief that phenotypic differentiation among humans was a result of climatic difference speaks volumes to that effect. Slavery, according to Aristotle and Plato was supposed to be based on behavioural deficiencies that reduced a person to a 'living tool'. Homer argued that, even though a person might not be a slave to begin with, the process of slavery made them so. Here's a quotation:

Jove takes half the goodness out of a man when he makes a slave of him.

2 - Kudos on reading Durkheim! Plus rep. On your point, yes and no; when Durkheim speaks of rapid social change he talks about the industrial revolution so the passing of an economic paradigm to another. This definitely explains the change of values between the pre and post-colonial eras, where the economy shifted from a peasant economy to a slave economy. However, even if we take that he meant a crisis by rapid social change, don't you think that especially now where more than 40 million people have been fired in the US, and during a global pandemic, is this crisis? I said some people overlooking the killing as 'cool and normal' was anomie; not the policing part. Check again what I write.

On the rest of your post: a) eon comes from the Greek work aionas and it means a thousand years; b) check the source I provided from scholars all agreeing upon the differences between indentured work and slavery; c) being indentured worker because of a crime doesn't change the point that indenture service ended after seven years on average and any child born was not also condemned to indentured service like it happened with the slaves. So, wrong.

3 - Slavery and the Bible. Aside the fact that the translation from Greek to English leaves a lot to be desired (The Bible was written down in ancient Greek; pais means young servant but also a foolish boy, oiketis means household slave but also a beggar), the biggest argument against this is that neither the blackened skin or the servant parts appear in the Talmud or the Orthodox Bible, with the latter being, before the Great Schism of 1050, the only Bible for all Christians; the reason both these terms come to use after 1050 should tip you off that the interpretation was political and not theological. The same argument can be found in the following scholars: Whitford, 2009; R. Boyle, 1664; Robinson, 2007; Davis, 2006 to name but a few. But let's take the point that you're right for just a second, and look it from a theologian's side:

a) There's no curse of Ham, but of Canaan - one of the four children. So even if the narrative is correct, it doesn't justify the enslavement of all Africans.

b) God decrees that his curses do not last for eternity (Exodus, 20:5), which means that Black slavery could not have originated from, even if it was justified by false biblical claims.

You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am fa jealous God, gvisiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Which leads me to the next point:

c) It's not God himself who curses Canaan, but Noah. Looses some of it's edge as an argument, right?

d) St. Paul in Galatians 12:3, not only abolishes slavery but gender divided. What a chav! Here:

"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

Which means that even if slavery was re-enforced in the Old Testament, it is abolished for all time in the New Testament. So, nope. The bible does not endorse slavery, and certainly not a race-based slavery. It was just European racists who wanted to justify to themselves their actions - with alternative facts. How quaint, right?

4 - The Indian caste system. I don't know much about the Indian system, but I will attempt to explain what I do know. First, there's two approaches on the caste system: the Varna, meaning a class system like ours, and the Jati, where the religious and ethnic communities incorporated in today's India were subjected by the various empires to certain geographic regions and certain occupations. However, according to the following scholars: de Zwart, Bayly, Jawaharlal; it was the British during the Raj that turned this caste organisation into a central mechanism of administration with the whiter Indians and Christian populations at the top of the pyramid. After 1920s and the Indian revolts, the British enforced a divisive positive discrimination campaign that furthered the problem. But again, I am not an expert on Indian politics and my knowledge on this subject is very limited. So, the kinda racist vibes you discover in the caste system - yeah, the English implemented that.

[Common Soldier]

I didn't have time to read all of your points, and I will briefly reply to some of them now. A longer response will have to wait. Sorry for that.

1 - Slavery in the ancient world did not share the characteristics of slavery in the colonial era. The Aristotelian belief that phenotypic differentiation among humans was a result of climatic difference speaks volumes to that effect. Slavery, according to Aristotle and Plato was supposed to be based on behavioural deficiencies that reduced a person to a 'living tool'. Homer argued that, even though a person might not be a slave to begin with, the process of slavery made them so. Here's a quotation:

The reason that slavery in.the European colonial era was different is because by that time slavery was generally regarded as wrong - France had abolished slavery in the Middle Ages. To justify having slaves, you had to believe the slaves were some how inferior, less developed, so owning these slaves was like owning a horse or dog - you wouldn't object to owning a cow, and even animals have anti-cruelty laws ro protect them. The ancients thought nothing of enslaving someone, and if you became a slave due to debt, for Romans it was just bad luck but acceptable. It was easier to convince yourself someone who looks very different was inferior, ans so you could justify enslaving them. Also by making slaves a different race, youndidn't run of being enslaved yourself.

Because of blacks easily identified different appearance, and the blacks coming from less advanced societies, it was easiernto justify the claim they were somehow inferior. (Although not politically correct, it the fact is that that where the slave came from were areas of a less advance state of.social development. Whole societies, not just a few individuals, were illiterate, and many Africans lived in societies where the highest level of government was the village. Most Africans were not producing any written records comparable to the English parish records. Because many Africans were not yet living in nation states that could protect them, it made them vulernable to enslavement.)

Note: Ancient slavery lasted for thousands of years and the ancients never really rook deliberate steps to end it Colonial slavery was ended by the by the Western societies themselves. The slaves, except for Haiti, did not free themselves, and what lever contributies slaves may have made in the American Civil War, it was dwarfed by the contributions whites made to end slavery.

[Kritias]

The reason that slavery in.the European colonial era was different is because by that time slavery was generally regarded as wrong - France had abolished slavery in the Middle Ages. To justify having slaves, you had to believe the slaves were some how inferior, less developed, so owning these slaves was like owning a horse or dog - you wouldn't object to owning a cow, and even animals have anti-cruelty laws ro protect them. The ancients thought nothing of enslaving someone, and if you became a slave due to debt, for Romans it was just bad luck but acceptable. It was easier to convince yourself someone who looks very different was inferior, ans so you could justify enslaving them. Also by making slaves a different race, didn't run of being enslaved yourself.

Because of blacks easily identified different appearance, and the blacks coming from less advanced societies, it was easiernto justify the claim they were somehow inferior. (Although not politically correct, it the fact is that that where the slave came from were areas of a less advance state of.social development. Whole societies, not just a few individuals, were illiterate, and many Africans lived in societies where the highest level of government was the village. Most Africans were not producing any written records comparable to the English parish records. Because many Africans were not yet living in nation states that could protect them, it made them vulernable to enslavement.)

Note: Ancient slavery lasted for thousands of years and the ancients never really rook deliberate steps to end it Colonial slavery was ended by the by the Western societies themselves. The slaves, except for Haiti, did not free themselves, and what lever contributes slaves may have made in the American Civil War, it was dwarfed by the contributions whites made to end slavery.

The French actually had turned racism against themselves in true French fashion, were the peoples of the Third Estate were considered of lesser stock (Mediterraneans) in contrary to the Germanic nobility and priesthood. According to Henri de Boulainvilliers who was a racist theorist at the start of the trend, he didn't really believe the rest of France were "lesser" so much as that they were different peoples conquered by the "true" French and by right of conquest, they could do whatever they wanted to them. As to the French abolishing slavery since the Middle Ages, maybe you should google about the French Caribbean and its history. The French were actually the third biggest slavers behind the English and the Dutch.

The rest of your paragraphs are puzzling me. The ancients would enslave anyone despite their race; yes, we agree. Cruelty against slaves is a theme in Seneca, yes, but mostly didn't really care about it. That Africans had non-modern in industrial terms societies; yes, we agree. That Africans didn't live in nation states, since nationalism is an industrial by-product, yes they didn't - we agree.

And yes, whites ended slavery - there's no debating that. But the fact that the ancients never took any step to end it has to do with the lack of technology; when everything required humongous amounts of labor to be produced, never mind the monumentality required to support continent spanning empires like Rome, there was simply no alternative factor for its abandonment as an economic practice. However, if you put the end of slavery in context, the Industrial revolution, you will see that it simply made white capitalists more money to end slavery and convert these people to wage labor. If you study the British boom of industry next to the fact that slave owners were given huge capital as compensation for freeing their slaves, it all makes perfect sense.

But what is the point of bringing up this point? Is it to say that the whites did it so they can't be that bad? Because yes, white men ended slavery. And yes, only a fraction of white people are racists, though the public discourse is informed and promoted to be had in terms of racist ideas. Like we're doing right now.

[Common Soldier]

The French actually had turned racism against themselves in true French fashion, were the peoples of the Third Estate were considered of lesser stock (Mediterraneans) in contrary to the Germanic nobility and priesthood. According to Henri de Boulainvilliers who was a racist theorist at the start of the trend, he didn't really believe the rest of France were "lesser" so much as that they were different peoples conquered by the "true" French and by right of conquest, they could do whatever they wanted to them. As to the French abolishing slavery since the Middle Ages, maybe you should google about the French Caribbean and its history. The French were actually the third biggest slavers behind the English and the Dutch.

The rest of your paragraphs are puzzling me. The ancients would enslave anyone despite their race; yes, we agree. Cruelty against slaves is a theme in Seneca, yes, but mostly didn't really care about it. That Africans had non-modern in industrial terms societies; yes, we agree. That Africans didn't live in nation states, since nationalism is an industrial by-product, yes they didn't - we agree.

I brought up the point ro put things into context. Mentioned ancient slavery was different, so it is relevant to discuss how and why colonial slavery was different.

And yes, whites ended slavery - there's no debating that. But the fact that the ancients never took any step to end it has to do with the lack of technology; when everything required humongous amounts of labor to be produced, never mind the monumentality required to support continent spanning empires like Rome, there was simply no alternative factor for its abandonment as an economic practice. However, if you put the end of slavery in context, the Industrial revolution, you will see that it simply made white capitalists more money to end slavery and convert these people to wage labor. If you study the British boom of industry next to the fact that slave owners were given huge capital as compensation for freeing their slaves, it all makes perfect sense.

The technogy argument does not hold up to scrutiny. Thr American South was more technologically more advanced than ancient societies, yet slavery was still flourishinf there. And Roman slagery had largely disappeared in medieval European societies, yer they were not much more technically advanced.and were economically thriving. The great pyramids, contrary to popular myth, werr not built with slave labor. And the more numerous American slaver owners were not compensated when slavery was abolished, again your arguments do not hold up. Americsn society was as capitalistic as Britain in thr mid 19th century.

But what is the point of bringing up this point? Is it to say that the whites did it so they can't be that bad? Because yes, white men ended slavery. And yes, only a fraction of white people are racists, though the public discourse is informed and promoted to be had in terms of racist ideas. Like we're doing right now.

To put things i to context. Just as it is relevant that blacks commit more crimes like murder and robbery https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...-commit-crimes when discussing Georgr Floyd's death. As a result of committing more crimes, blacks will come into conflict with the police more often and a.certsin percent of those encounters will end badly.


Also, when police encounters end badly for whites, they don't get as much nation media coverage. A whire man killed in a manner similar ro.Floyd did not create much national.media attention https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/tony-timpa/.

And this skilling of a white man in bed just a month before the black woman in Kentucky was also ignored by the national media https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...lling-69587748

And was this beating to death of a white man by cops https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kelly_Thomas

And as was this killing of of an unarmed white woman in her pajamas by a Minneapolis black cop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoo...Justine_Damond

[Cyclops]

This isn't biblical, it's Muslim. I don't think this is even in the Koran, so there is no point in addressing this.

I have heard/read of this theory before, and there are many others like/similar to it. Problem is that Ham is often considered the father of the African/Black peoples, but it was Canaan who was cursed. Canaan was the father of the Canaanites, who are a Semitic people, hence not "black".
Therefore it is not" the biblical explanation for black skin colour and why it was a ok with God to make them into slaves in America.".

It was a stupid evil theory proposed by people to sustain a stupid evil institution. Your problem is with the Southerners defending slavery and justifying it from OT examples, not Hanny's explanation.

[Frostwulf]

It was a stupid evil theory proposed by people to sustain a stupid evil institution. Your problem is with the Southerners defending slavery and justifying it from OT examples, not Hanny's explanation.

Agreed! I doubt I will continue with this issue, but will try to address it one last time.

Ham and his descended-ts, Canaanites, were burnt black, so all would know they as a race were fit for slavery. Its the biblical explanation for black skin colour and why it was a ok with God to make them into slaves in America.

Your post is useless for our discussion. This is the quote in dispute:

Except for the fact that it does.Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers (Genesis 9:25) Ham and his descendedts, cananites, were burnt black, so all would know they as a race were fit for slavery. Its the biblical explanation for black skin colour and why it was a ok with God to make them into slaves in America.

Nothing you have put down in this post or previous posts addresses what you posted here. You say it's the biblical explanation, and nowhere in the Bible does it say such a thing. So what do you do, you pull external useless information that does not have any reflection on the bible itself! This is about the Bible, not the koran, not some writings of others, but strictly the Bible. People can interpret things as they wish, but you say its in the Bible and it's not. If you have scripture from the Bible then by all means put it down! It doesn't matter what is written in the koran or any muslim writings for that matter, nor does their interpretation mean anything. Islam is a different religion and Mohamed interpreted things differently.
But if you are wondering what the Bible says:

Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Once again, just so you understand, your statement was about the Bible. It's not about Mohammad's writings (1800+ yrs after the Torah/writings of Moses) or anything outside of the Bible. So if you cannot show in the Bible where it says :

Except for the fact that it does.Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers (Genesis 9:25) Ham and his descendedts, cananites, were burnt black, so all would know they as a race were fit for slavery. Its the biblical explanation for black skin colour and why it was a ok with God to make them into slaves in America.

Your wasting my time.

[Hanny]

1 - Slavery in the ancient world did not share the characteristics of slavery in the colonial era.

Actually it did, its was the colonials who looked at the classical past to further justify the present actions they were engaged in.

The Aristotelian belief that phenotypic differentiation among humans was a result of climatic difference speaks volumes to that effect. Slavery, according to Aristotle and Plato was supposed to be based on behavioural deficiencies that reduced a person to a 'living tool'. Homer argued that, even though a person might not be a slave to begin with, the process of slavery made them so. Here's a quotation:


Jove takes half the goodness out of a man when he makes a slave of him.

Greeks in short understood slavery to be both natural ( natural slavery is the same argument made for black slavery by the CSA and UK in the colonial period, white rarely owned other whites, just as in the greek world slavery was for non greeks was the natural order of things, greeks rarely slave of other greeks,( natural slavery was for non greeks see Politics I.6, 1255a28-29 where he only argues natural law can only mean greeks are not natural slaves to non greeks, ie those natural slaves can not by right make slaves of their natural masters, he understood at time teh natural master, all greeks, could lose at war and become slaves of the inferior natural slaves, but it was against natural law to do so and he was against it) and necessary for society, ( it allowed the master the time and opportunity to think clever thoughts, like all those clever slave owning clergy in the enlightenment went about doing in Europe, just as in classical greece)and it was hereditary, “From the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” Aristotle


But even more to the point, he believed in natural slavery because some people were inferior in mental reasoning,meaning that they would inherently lack the capacity to rationally direct their own lives. and this set them as out as natural slaves, who needed the direction of the natural master. Natural slavery was also of benifit to the slave to be a slave, as he could learn to think better by instruction through work, sound familiar?,


Commonality between Greek views and colonial views.
slavery was necessary for a leisured aristocracy
slavery benefitted the enslaved – so-called “planter paternalism;”
slavery was justified because some people (black people, according to racist whites) were inherently less rational and intelligent.


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/


As to your Homer. http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odysse...%20his%20feet."This hound," answered Eumaeus, "belonged to him who has died in a far country. If he were what he was when Ulysses left for Troy, he would soon show you what he could do. There was not a wild beast in the forest that could get away from him when he was once on its tracks. But now he has fallen on evil times, for his master is dead and gone, and the women take no care of him. Servants never do their work when their master's hand is no longer over them, for Jove takes half the goodness out of a man when he makes a slave of him."

So the analogy is the slave dog has lost his master (Ulysses) and is now indolent. Servants/slaves need supervision or they become indolent, and god makes men slaves. looks like homer is in accord with Aristotle on natural slavery. Since the dog then recognises Ulysses as his master and returns to his former state

2 - Kudos on reading Durkheim! Plus rep.

I think at least one of should have understood him if he is going to be used.

On the rest of your post: a) eon comes from the Greek work aionas and it means a thousand years;

Incorrect, Eon https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/eon is a billion years, the greek bible uses aionas as an indeterminate period of time, ie yours is the glory, for ever and ever, each ever is each an aionas. Another is that debt slavery ( you owed productive labour but were not owned) had a period of duration, and the debt slave became free, the year of jubalee, so the bible uses one word of a fixed time period when society re sets itself and debt slaves are manumatted, and another, aionas, for how long the Curse of slavery was to last on Ham progeny, ie the other form of slavery chattel slavery.

b) check the source I provided from scholars all agreeing upon the differences between indentured work and slavery;

I did,and explained why you are wrong.

c) being indentured worker because of a crime doesn't change the point that indenture service ended after seven years on average and any child born was not also condemned to indentured service like it happened with the slaves. So, wrong.

Criminal indentures were not bound to a period as voluntary indentures, criminal indentures were life time indentures. Some US free states ended slavery Pre WBTS by making the former slaves serve a life time indenture. So, no not wrong.

3 - Slavery and the Bible. Aside the fact that the translation from Greek to English leaves a lot to be desired (The Bible was written down in ancient Greek; pais means young servant but also a foolish boy, oiketis means household slave but also a beggar), the biggest argument against this is that neither the blackened skin or the servant parts appear in the Talmud or the Orthodox Bible, with the latter being, before the Great Schism of 1050, the only Bible for all Christians; the reason both these terms come to use after 1050 should tip you off that the interpretation was political and not theological. The same argument can be found in the following scholars: Whitford, 2009; R. Boyle, 1664; Robinson, 2007; Davis, 2006 to name but a few. But let's take the point that you're right for just a second, and look it from a theologian's side:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/slavery-in-judaism

a) There's no curse of Ham, but of Canaan - one of the four children. So even if the narrative is correct, it doesn't justify the enslavement of all Africans.

Asked and asnwered.

b) God decrees that his curses do not last for eternity (Exodus, 20:5), which means that Black slavery could not have originated from, even if it was justified by false biblical claims.
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am fa jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
Which leads me to the next point:

Slavery in the bible is covered by the bible where it deals with it, in Exodus 20:5 the bible is dealling with worship of false idols and who gets punished and who gets to sins the sins of fathers visted on theirn progeny. But hey why bother with bible classes to teach this when you can just conflate that with slavery term of operation?.https://biblehub.com/commentaries/exodus/20-5.htm


Exodus, 20:5 is concerned with:
"You shall not bow down to them or serve them", ie no to worship or obedience in religious matters.


"for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God" Ie jealous of honour done to him, will not allow it to another, if it is he will come with great wrath against them.


"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" Ie insult to God, is high treason, and pun ishemnt is visted on the perps and his future progeny.


"unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" Ie god wants the generation he punishes to see the puishment pass on to the generations they will live to see punished.

c) It's not God himself who curses Canaan, but Noah. Looses some of it's edge as an argument, right?

http://jsr.fsu.edu/honor.htm
Kinda, as head of the family Noah had the right and power of life and death over his children, as head of the household he was teh master and they bound to his will, he made one sons progeny bound to the will of his other sons.


"Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him," Some in th colonial interpreted this as ham had intercourse with Noah, hence the severity of the curse is explained, being as sodomy was no no in those bibles, modern ones, not so much.

d) St. Paul in Galatians 12:3, not only abolishes slavery but gender divided. What a chav! Here:


"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
Which means that even if slavery was re-enforced in the Old Testament, it is abolished for all time in the New Testament. So, nope.

Not at all what it means. Paul meant you are all equal before gods eyes, there are no lesser Christians, because of their station in life, or gender. Paul had no authority to end slavery, and never preached its end*.Paul’s advice, he freed no one and certainly did not end slavery, to his readers to keep their current social status — as a citizen or slave and single or married person, male and female, was to enable them to focus more clearly on the great day when Christ will come again


*https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...31&version=NIV

[Hanny]

The white plantation owners were often heavily outnumbered by theid black slaves, and segregation was used to maintain their identity and control, and prevent their identity from being swallowed up by the larger black population.

Scholars have looked and cannot find any fiscal link to state expenditures and the rise of black population, plantations got bigger, and more of them, slave population was rising far quicker than white, so the ratio on a slave farm/plantation of males of military age increased, yet the number of slave insurrections decreased while this occurs, and the number of whites in arms ( militia service numbers) to subdue any rebellion did not increase by the same ratio of population increase between the slave and free.

That slavery and segregation led to reducing the wage of free whites as well as blacks was just a byproduct, not the intended results. Slavery was needed to maintain the plantation life style, and the cash crops would not be as economical without the low wages of slavery. Rice, which was an important crop during slavery, was abandoned after slavery. But the Southern elites in control were not particularly interested in manufacturing, and the South greatly lagged in manufacturing, contributing to its failure in revolting.

Economics is the answer here. North had a socoil pyramid of near equality of wealth across all members of the society. Slave states did not, most wealth was held in the slave owning class, who were uber wealthy but in the minority. Then the white social pyramid had a the not as wealthy as the average free states, and then it had its slaves, most having little wealth,


So Why the North was industrialised to a far greater extent than the Slave south was also to do with market forces, the North made things to sell, and it had a large population base with income to purchase it, a mass market economy of supply and demand that could be met by producing things people wanted and could purchase.


The slave economy was radically different, the white slave owners were capitalist without capital as Ranson put it, ( the world wanted cotton and a minority got rich providing it) the majoirity however of the population simply lacked the $ income to operate in a mass market economy, as in the free states, a third of the population barely acted as consumers of mass production goods, it simply lacked incentive to indstralise, as whever it produced, if it even had the raw resources, meant competing with the already existing Free North or the RoTW, both doing it better than the slave states knew how to, so why bother?, they already had a virtual monopoly on cotton production.


In 1860 VA produced 3.3 million bushels of wheat for forgien export, rest of the Union provided .7 million, for a 4 million export value, Cotton, CS sent $225 million North and $191 million ROTW, during the WBTS the north took over wheat exporting and to a new level, almost time 10 on average for the war years, but it was still dwarfed by the $ value of cotton. CS did not lose because it lacked a large industrial base, this is CS revisionism, they lost at what they thought they superior at, it imported from Europe and from the USA what it required to fight the war, and never lacked enough, and still lost.During the entire war, for every bale of cotton exported to Europe from anywhere in the CS, via bloackade running, 2 were exported to the North under licenses granted by Chase. Around 15% of ships stopped by the US blockade were carrying incensed arms for cotton, comming South from the North. “Better give [southerners] guns for it [cotton] than let [them], as now, get both guns and ammunition for it….And if pecuniary greed can be made to aid us in such effort, let us be thankful that so much good can be got out of pecuniary greed.” A Lincoln

[Hanny]

Your wasting my time.

Funny, your the one using biblical quotes that dont refer to slavery. Im the one pointing out that for centuries its been taught that race based slavery was supported by biblical texts, used from the pulpit by the clergy.

[Hanny]

However, if you put the end of slavery in context, the Industrial revolution, you will see that it simply made white capitalists more money to end slavery and convert these people to wage labor. If you study the British boom of industry next to the fact that slave owners were given huge capital as compensation for freeing their slaves, it all makes perfect sense.

If........

Industrial revolution in the Uk was 1750 to 1850, slavery in the Empire ends 1833, slavery in Uk ends in 1772, labour to perform it in Uk never used slave labour, and that ( the UK using free labour in industry) was where the revolution was , in UK slave free lands and was only possible because of the agricultural revolution that increased population levels to produce a larger free workforce, slavery in the Empire, was resisted by decades by Parliament, on economic grounds dressed up as moral good for the slaves to be slaves etc, as soon as the Uk slave population overseas was stabilised requiring no further imports of them to the colonies that produced the sugar etc, and others Nations did not have that, S America, Caribbean etc and required slave imports to be exploited, the economics of slavery changed in the UK, as Uk now sought to create/exploit a monopoly it had achieved, by banning slave imports, to cripple their economic competition, and the RN enforced it and they grew wealthy from doing so.

Compensation was payed in the UK for lost income from the productive labour from emancipation, 20 million to emancipate 800k, is £25 a slave, less than years average income for a labourer. kindly explain, using numbers, how the compensation of 1 years labour, is as good as a lifetimes gain from it when it is a slave? If it such a sweet economic deal, how come when the Uk ends slavery before the Industrial revolution occurs, it does not do it for the Empire?.

Its all so clear now you have explained that instead of a labour cost of 100 a year under slavery, i now have a labour cost of 300 a year under free labour , this may make perfect economic sense to you, but not most would agree.

US 1860 slave maintenance cost per year was c$100 to the owner. Different books arrive at different values but thats a high end value.

US 1860n Free labour cost per year
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2500.pdf

From the US Gov Figures for labour
labourers, 5.88 a week which is $305 a year.

[Common Soldier]

Scholars have looked and cannot find any fiscal link to state expenditures and the rise of black population, plantations got bigger, and more of them, slave population was rising far quicker than white, so the ratio on a slave farm/plantation of males of military age increased, yet the number of slave insurrections decreased while this occurs, and the number of whites in arms ( militia service numbers) to subdue any rebellion did not increase by the same ratio of population increase between the slave and free.

The fear of slave revolts remained, even if the reality of the revolts declined, and it was the fear, not the revolts themselves, that drove policy. Revolts like Nat Turner were recent enough theirnfear of potential slave revolts were not entirely groundless.

Economics is the answer here. North had a socoil pyramid of near equality of wealth across all members of the society. Slave states did not, most wealth was held in the slave owning class, who were uber wealthy but in the minority. Then the white social pyramid had a the not as wealthy as the average free states, and then it had its slaves, most having little wealth,


So Why the North was industrialised to a far greater extent than the Slave south was also to do with market forces, the North made things to sell, and it had a large population base with income to purchase it, a mass market economy of supply and demand that could be met by producing things people wanted and could purchase.

That was my point, the South imported the manufactured goods it wanted and had no desire to make labor cheap in general, so Martin Luther Kig was mistaken in his claim that segregation arose from.a desire to keep labor as cheap as possible. Segregation is not absolutely necessary for slavery, you could have slave plantatiojs without it, and segregation did not arise from a desire ro keep wages low, Mr. King was quite wrong about that.

The slave economy was radically different, the white slave owners were capitalist without capital as Ranson put it, ( the world wanted cotton and a minority got rich providing it) the majoirity however of the population simply lacked the $ income to operate in a mass market economy, as in the free states, a third of the population barely acted as consumers of mass production goods, it simply lacked incentive to indstralise, as whever it produced, if it even had the raw resources, meant competing with the already existing Free North or the RoTW, both doing it better than the slave states knew how to, so why bother?, they already had a virtual monopoly on cotton production.

Slavery wasn't a capitalist society, it was really more.of an aristocratic one with slaves substituring for serfs. Like the old aristocratic manor, the plantations were largely self sufficient, importing just luxury items that they could not make for themselves.

In 1860 VA produced 3.3 million bushels of wheat for forgien export, rest of the Union provided .7 million, for a 4 million export value, Cotton, CS sent $225 million North and $191 million ROTW, during the WBTS the north took over wheat exporting and to a new level, almost time 10 on average for the war years, but it was still dwarfed by the $ value of cotton. CS did not lose because it lacked a large industrial base, this is CS revisionism, they lost at what they thought they superior at, it imported from Europe and from the USA what it required to fight the war, and never lacked enough, and still lost.During the entire war, for every bale of cotton exported to Europe from anywhere in the CS, via bloackade running, 2 were exported to the North under licenses granted by Chase. Around 15% of ships stopped by the US blockade were carrying incensed arms for cotton, comming South from the North. “Better give [southerners] guns for it [cotton] than let [them], as now, get both guns and ammunition for it….And if pecuniary greed can be made to aid us in such effort, let us be thankful that so much good can be got out of pecuniary greed.” A Lincoln

The lack of iustrialization of the Confederacy played a role in its defeat. While the South could import arms and ammunitions, it still.lacked other supplies; the Battle of Gettysburg csme about because Confederates were looking for shoes and other supplies. Captured Spencer repeating rifles were useless to the Confederates since they lacked the ability to manufacture the metal metal cartridge ammunition for the guns. Lack.or railroads hindered the South's ability to move men and equipment. Nor could thr South match thr Union's ability to produce iron clad river boats, contributing tonthr South's loss of control of the Mississippi.

Plus a policy that relied on importing critical supplies left the South vulnerable to blockade, which was increaingly effective as the war went on.

[Hanny]

The fear of slave revolts remained, even if the reality of the revolts declined, and it was the fear, not the revolts themselves, that drove policy. Revolts like Nat Turner were recent enough theirnfear of potential slave revolts were not entirely groundless.

My point was no one was acting on this fear. So was is it a real fear, or more anti slavery assumptions?. If its a real fear no one has found the evidence to support any measures to show actions werer taken over these fears.

That was my point, the South imported the manufactured goods it wanted and had no desire to make labor cheap in general, so Martin Luther Kig was mistaken in his claim that segregation arose from.a desire to keep labor as cheap as possible. Segregation is not absolutely necessary for slavery, you could have slave plantations without it, and segregation did not arise from a desire ro keep wages low, Mr. King was quite wrong about that..

He was not least because the North was more segregated than the south pre war, In the 11 CSA states, pre war, only SC prevents free Afro Americans from voting, and enrollment on the state Militia rolls, in the Free states only 4 allow them the vote and only 2 allow them on the Militia rolls, 10 of the CSA States ( SC does not and requires you leave the state as well) automatically grant state citizenship to a slave manumitted in that state, only 4 free states have the same, the rest do not allow the black vote,5 do not allow any black to stay beyond 24 hours in the state, if they do they are sold back into slavery.


During the WBTS CSA States raised formations that included free blacks in combat rolls, ( only men of color taken pows at G/Burg are 6 CSA ones who when told they were free now, explained they already were and went into captivity. US Pensions records show a little over 10k CS free men of colour served, in contrast the Free states segregated slaves and free men of colour in all black Regiments. This merely followed Northern pre war policies of racial segregation in schools health care and military, that the defeated slave states adopted post war. And was why the US Army was segregated.

European who visited America, pre war A Tocqueville for instance remarked that racism in the North was far greater than the South. Dickins that the Northern poor were worse off than Southern slaves.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2957.html
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4i2987.html

Slavery wasn't a capitalist society, it was really more.of an aristocratic one with slaves substituting for serfs. Like the old aristocratic manor, the plantations were largely self sufficient, importing just luxury items that they could not make for themselves. .

In general no it was not, but for the slave owning class it was, and they ran the show.

The lack of industrialisation of the Confederacy played a role in its defeat. While the South could import arms and ammunition, it still.lacked other supplies; the Battle of Gettysburg came about because Confederates were looking for shoes and other supplies. Captured Spencer repeating rifles were useless to the Confederates since they lacked the ability to manufacture the metal metal cartridge ammunition for the guns. Lack.or Railroads hindered the South's ability to move men and equipment. Nor could thr South match thr Union's ability to produce iron clad river boats, contributing tonthr South's loss of control of the Mississippi.


Plus a policy that relied on importing critical supplies left the South vulnerable to blockade, which was increasingly effective as the war went on.

G/Burg was fought because lee wanted to take a flank position in PA so as to draw the AoP there and defeat it there, at a time the harvest was brought in back in VA, in doing so he ex[pected to live of the land and assembled the largest number of wagons any CS Army had in the field, what he brought back on them, along with livestock in the 10s of 000s, fed the ANV till mid 64. Looking for shoes is a myth, other troops had already confiscated/requisitioned from the town several days earlier everything they could carry. Spencers, or any repeaters, were of little; use in a campaign as the logistical ability to keep them supplied required the motorizatation of supply to meet its consumption. Lightning Brigade had no ammo supply for its RR for 3 months after using it all at Chickamauga.Union Repeating rifle formations were re armed arfter most battle with singe shot weapons as they consumed all the munitions available, so its tactical use was superior, but not always, on the way to G/Burg a newly raised US force of 11k, had half its number with repeaters, and was totally destroyed, over half its number and all it 24 Art captured for little loss by Ewell. Rail roads, yes rails never matched the number required to be replaced, but that because they spent the time buiklding the 3 biggest ironcl;ad fleet in the world instead, they could have chosen to have better rail road but went for ironclads instead. The CSA moved 30k by rail to attack at Corinth, more than the US used rail to concentrate. It had the capacity to do this because the US had to supply 00s of thousand of men several hundred miles into CS land over the rail, a problem the CS did not have. US required 6k tons of coal a week to fuel the US naval blockade, thats the same RR requirement to feed 4 million men a day. the north could afford that luxury and still attack in the west with 100k armies 600 miles from a base of supply, and at the same time attack in the east at 75 miles from a base of supply, all the CS had to do against that was to supply at 75 miles from each US army, so it required a fraction of the rail capacity to defend with, and it had it to do that, as it always had a higher % of its military manpower committed to combat than the North, around 80% of the Northern battlefield numbers, when outnumbered between 2 and 3 to 1 at teh strategic level, as the CS RR supplied and put them into combat as effectively on the defense, as the massive RR capacity of the north could only just outnumber them when on the offensive. CS ironclads, wasted effort, forts outshoot ironclads, more anti shipping guns was the answer, not 20 ironclads ships/batteries.

CS never ran out of weapons nor munition, it could even afford to make roads out of old rifles in the winter of 64, this concept that the CS lost because it was not industrialised enough misses two key points, the CSA only looks that way compared to the USA, to anyone else its very comparable, but it was up against a giant. Everyone looks un industrialised against the northern effort, but in combat both sides casualties are similar, and CS munitions expended to effect them is not that far short of the higher US munition expenditure.

Blockade was largely ineffective, hell the US sold the CS almost a third of its war time requirement https://www.jstor.org/stable/2370334...o_tab_contents and https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trading-Ene.../dp/1594161992

[Kritias]

I don't have time to hammer a reply to everything. I will update this post whenever I have the time!


1 - Estimates of the prevalence of slavery vary but the most agreed upon figures say that at the peak of the Roman empire there were roughly 5 million slaves for a total population of 60 million people, so roughly 10 per cent. Of those, around 60% were owned by the 1.5%: the rich aristocrats .In addition to slavery, up until 300AD Romans practiced serfdom, which would become the main economic paradigm of the Roman Empire and later medieval states. By serfdom we mean the practice of leasing the land off the emperor, or their representative, paying back a rent and a portion of production. And despite colonialism fascination with the Hellenistic and Roman past, there are severe points of departure from what the ancient Greeks and Romans believed. The Greeks enslaved each other to a far greater degree than they enslaved other peoples, even through purchasing them. The example of both Athens and Sparta comes to mind. It's a gross misinterpretation of history to believe that Sparta for example did not enslave Messinia and the other neighboring Greek provinces, but somehow had 'non-whites' slaves. So, when Aristotle writes the natural cause of slavery in the Greek city states, he's talking primarily about other Greeks - and definitely not entire regions where Greeks lived, but individuals no matter where they came from. In Roman times, a slave had political rights at the point of their freedom; this aspect of antiquity certainly did not pass over in the American emancipation for example. Again, the Greeks or the Romans did not deal with foreign cultures as inferior to them; even mythology treats their skin color as the mistake of a God, where Helios burns them when he drunkenly passed too close by Ethiopia with his chariot. For Greeks, inferiority came out of living in a system that wasn't the polis, which was the definition of a barbarian. For Romans, anyone who wasn't a Roman (born in the city to begin with, later from cities with civil rights) was different to them and subject to different laws. This changed with the Socii Wars were all of Italy gets the same rights, and gradually every person inside the Empire was ruled under the same set of laws.


2 - Eon in ancient Greek meant an age, eternity, a hundred or a thousand years. Interpretation varies. In Greek, eon is used interchangeably with the word century. For example, where I to write in Greek "21st century", I'd say "Εικοστός Πρώτος (21st) Αιώνας (Eon)" which includes the years 2001-2100. In Our Father, for example, there's the line where "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." which is translated from the Greek "Διότι σου είναι η βασιλεία και η δύναμις και η δόξα εις τους αιωνας των αιώνων". But that translates more like "for a thousand thousand years." Mathematically, that would be interpreted as 1000 X 1000 = 1, 000, 000 years. A million, not a billion years. Even the link you provide says it's an undetermined length of time. But why is this an issue? This is more a cultural difference on how you use the word and how we Greeks use it than anything else. But since it's our word...


3 - Debt slavery isn't exactly the same as indentured service; the latter was placed upon a person as a punishment for a crime, and sometimes in exchange for the transatlantic voyage in a colonial trafficking system. Debt service, however, stemmed for the money you owed and worked until you paid it back. That could range from a few months, to years, to all your life. As to slavery being turned into indentured service for life, this proves my argument rather than yours. What you should take from it is how determined some people were to keep them slaves and played around with the law to accomplish that. In any case, the action of being born a child of indentured servants did not make you an indentured servant yourself. This was not the case with slavery, where children were slaves themselves as well. So, nope.


4 - The bible does not write God cursed Ham, but that Noah cursed Canaan - one of the four children. Find me where God curses Ham and all his progeny, please, or submit this particular argument. Also, a) third and fourth generation since God cursed Ham, which he didn't, does not compute with black people being enslaved until 1800s. And again, Noah cursing Canaan looses 99% of its edge as an argument, precisely for the reasons you write. Noah had power of life and death over his family. Not over every family of the world for an indefinite period of time ever since the biblical family restarted humankind, since only the father has the power over life and death, and Noah may have fathered the original family but after his passing his curse ends. And regardless of what happened in the Old Testament, the New Testament smoothed out these parts; and if I remember correctly New Testament was God's New Deal with Humanity. In The New Testament, slaves are requested at points to keep their stations because the Kingdom of Heaven is coming, but in others the act of owing slaves is condemned. Paul says that everyone is the same under God, so it stems to reason that everyone is the same to each other - which blows up the racist ideology of slavery during the colonial times, which is my point exactly. Paul himself asks of a slave owner to treat his slave as his brother (which naturally means to free the person). Other examples:

No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.

fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (Timothy 6:1)

And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.

But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. (when a servant has their ear cut off at the time Big J is arrested)

cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, choice flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, slaves—and human lives.

So, the Bible holds contradictory evidence as to what to do with slavery; at some points, brutality is condemned, at others it must be endured, at some points masters should treat their slaves like brothers, at others slaves and free men are one and the same at the eyes of God. And this is the point: there is no definitive permission to have slaves, much more to have black slaves. Which leads to the following argument: if faced with option a) the Bible says to enslave black people or b) the colonialists used the bible much like other religious entity to justify a system by picking and choosing what to promote, why do you think option (a) is more correct?

[Hanny]

The Greeks enslaved each other to a far greater degree than they enslaved other peoples, even through purchasing them. The example of both Athens and Sparta comes to mind. It's a gross misinterpretation of history to believe that Sparta for example did not enslave Messinia and the other neighboring Greek provinces, but somehow had 'non-whites' slaves. So, when Aristotle writes the natural cause of slavery in the Greek city states, he's talking primarily about other Greeks - and definitely not entire regions where Greeks lived, but individuals no matter where they came from

Your grasp of chronology is all wrong, the maths of the number of slaves in Greek polis proves they cannot have been mostly Greek, and the slave centres where they were bought from, Byzanatium, tanis on the Don, ephesus all imply from barbarian lands they canme, which is supported by the slave nationality list we have, one listy of 32 sold contains 13 came from Thrace, 7 from Caria, and the others came from Cappadocia, Scythia, Phrygia, Lydia, Syria, Ilyria, Macedon and the least from Peloponnese, names in greek comedies given to slaves are all geographical in nature, ie slave women from thrace is Thratta. Aristotle was writing a couple of decades after the helots (who were more life serfs than slaves being all, owned by the state bound to lifetime service on the estates of citizens of the statae, ie a land enhancing tool, just like a serf.) were all emancipated. Aristotle Thucydides Plutarch and Plato all refer to sparta as having both slaves and helots, they simply cannot have been both the same thing. Aristotle was ok with slaves from conquest, messine greeks werer ok as slaves as they had lost in warfare, not been bought and sold at market.

In Roman times, a slave had political rights at the point of their freedom; this aspect of antiquity certainly did not pass over in the American emancipation for example.

All fact free. Emancipated slaves in the South became citizens, along with all political rights and duties of a citizen, of the state they were emncipated in.https://casetext.com/case/state-v-manuel-43


6. Foreigners, unless made members of the State, continue aliens. Slaves manumitted here become freemen — and if born within North Carolina are citizens of North Carolina — and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.

Around 10k emancipated former slaves served in the WBTS, ( for the CSA out of a mil population of 37k free slaves) as we have their pensions records.


So sorry i simply cannot abide this level of historical incompetence, correcting it would consume to much free time as it seldom has anything that is accurate, bye.

[Kritias]

Your grasp of chronology is all wrong, the maths of the number of slaves in Greek polis proves they cannot have been mostly Greek, and the slave centres where they were bought from, Byzanatium, tanis on the Don, ephesus all imply from barbarian lands they canme, which is supported by the slave nationality list we have, one listy of 32 sold contains 13 came from Thrace, 7 from Caria, and the others came from Cappadocia, Scythia, Phrygia, Lydia, Syria, Ilyria, Macedon and the least from Peloponnese, names in greek comedies given to slaves are all geographical in nature, ie slave women from thrace is Thratta. Aristotle was writing a couple of decades after the helots (who were more life serfs than slaves being all, owned by the state bound to lifetime service on the estates of citizens of the statae, ie a land enhancing tool, just like a serf.) were all emancipated. Aristotle Thucydides Plutarch and Plato all refer to sparta as having both slaves and helots, they simply cannot have been both the same thing. Aristotle was ok with slaves from conquest, messine greeks werer ok as slaves as they had lost in warfare, not been bought and sold at market.

Greek city states were perpetually at war against each other, and the rule of war at that time stipulated that both sides agreed to terms, with the losing side having to give as reparations a part of its citizenry to become slaves at the winner's city, adding to the captured soldiers. It was such an ancient custom it can even be found in mythology; remember that the Minotaur is slain by Theseus, who goes to Crete as part of 14 men and women annually paid from Athens to the Minoan King. The fact that ancient Greeks were horrified and saw the enslavement of entire cities as tyrannical, as in the cases of Olynthos by Philip and Thebes by Alexander is well attested in Demosthenes and others, who write how slaves are supposed to be exchanged in cases of war and use their excesses as justification against them. Secondly, piracy and banditry was the main source of slave-getting, where Greek city states would attack other Greek and foreign cities to get them slaves. Lastly came international trade, where slaves were brought from the places you describe. According to Critias, ironically, the helots were "the utmost of slaves". So, no serfdom in ancient Sparta. That system would come way later in time. But the argument isn't whether in all the years of Classical Greece there were or weren't foreign slaves, as much as if there was any difference between the two categories; and the answer is no. Aristotle does not say that foreign slaves were inferior to Greek slaves. Period.

If anything else, here's Xenophon ("Xenophon," Constitution Of the Athenians 1.10-1.12) on slaves and free speech of all things:

Slaves and metics at Athens lead a singularly undisciplined life; one may not strike them there, nor will a slave step aside for you. Let me explain the reason for this situation: if it were legal for a free man to strike a slave, a metic, or a freedman, an Athenian would often have been struck under the mistaken impression that he was a slave, for the clothing of the common people there is in no way superior to that of the slaves and metics, nor is their appearance. There is also good sense behind the apparently surprising fact that they allow slaves there to live in luxury and some of them in considerable magnificence[...] This, then, is why in the matter of free speech we have put slaves and free men on equal terms; we have also done the same for metics and citizens because the city needs metics because of the multiplicity of her industries and her fleet; that is why we were right to establish freedom of speech for metics as well.

Notice how Xenophon says not even their appearance is any different, so one might be mistaken to slap an Athenian instead of a slave. That cannot but mean that at the time Xenophon writes the crushing majority of slaves were of similar if not identical racial stock. Also notice that for the Athenian democracy, slaves and foreigners have the same rights of free speech as the citizens. So, again, it seems the colonialists picked and chose what to imitate from ancient Greece according to their own political expediences.

All fact free. Emancipated slaves in the South became citizens, along with all political rights and duties of a citizen, of the state they were emncipated in.https://casetext.com/case/state-v-manuel-43


6. Foreigners, unless made members of the State, continue aliens. Slaves manumitted here become freemen — and if born within North Carolina are citizens of North Carolina — and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.

Around 10k emancipated former slaves served in the WBTS, ( for the CSA out of a mil population of 37k free slaves) as we have their pensions records.

You stopped at six, you should have read at least until 8.What seems to have happened is manumitted persons of color were granted citizenship without political rights.

8. The possession of political power is not essential to constitute a citizen. If it be, then women, minors, and persons who have not paid public taxes are not citizens.

Yes, a free man didn't have political rights; that's my argument. I said Romans allowed political rights on freedom for their slaves. There's a fundamental difference. Unless you mean to tell me that the Civil Rights movement wasn't also about the African-American disenfranchisement (ie no political rights!).

So sorry i simply cannot abide this level of historical incompetence, correcting it would consume to much free time as it seldom has anything that is accurate, bye.

Irony. So. Much. Irony.

[Hanny]

You stopped at six, you should have read at least until 8.What seems to have happened is manumitted persons of colour were granted citizenship without political rights.

6 is where the franchise is awarded upon emancipation to the male, NC having universal make suffrage in 1838, so all male citizens have the right of suffrage, all US Statesgain that by 1856. Just as Roman emancipation gave franchise to males, it then excepted them from holding public office, unlike in NC where any citizen had the right to run for public office, in the US Constitution all citizens, male female provide voting representation for that state in the Union of States. Even as slaves they provided this representation at 3/5 of a citizen, Rome gave no such representation.


So number 8 then , thats Judge Gastion pointing out taxation/representation, political rights and duties of a citizn,is apportioned under the Constitution, based on the number of free citizens, not free citizens paying taxes.


Had you read the ruling, he explains that, he also explains," According to the laws of this State, all human being within it who are not slaves, fall within one of two classes. Whatever distinctions may have existed in the Roman law between citizens and free inhabitants, they are unknown to our institutions."

Yes, a free man didn't have political rights; that's my argument. I said Romans allowed political rights on freedom for their slaves. There's a fundamental difference. Unless you mean to tell me that the Civil Rights movement wasn't also about the African-American disenfranchisement (ie no political rights!).

Except he did, further he had more than did an emancipated Roman.

Irony. So. Much. Irony.

Irony?, indeed it it is,, another english/american word, like eon (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...ry/english/eon) you have no idea of its meaning. See post 29 for multiple examples of ironies, for instance the Homer quote, the use of which proves beyond any doubt at all, the argument put is uneducated, and ironic.

[Kritias]

Irony?, indeed it it is,, another english/american word, like eon (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...ry/english/eon) you have no idea of its meaning. See post 29 for multiple examples of ironies, for instance the Homer quote, the use of which proves beyond any doubt at all, the argument put is uneducated, and ironic.

Once Caracalla made every person in the Roman empire a roman citizen in AD 212, it took just 32 years for the first slave to become emperor - it was Diocletian. But you can keep telling me how African Americans were so much better than Roman ex-slaves in their political freedoms. He wasn't even the only one who made it to the royal purple, either as an Emperor or Empress. Don't try to tell me Greeks and Romans were the same with the colonialists. They weren't. In some aspects they were far worse, but in some aspects they were way better. Deal with it.

As to the economics of slavery versus wage labor consider this: you yourself say that slave owners had costs to house, feed and maintain slaves in productive state. Contrast that to wage labour, where you merely pay a sum for employing someone for the day - the costs for housing, feeding, clothing etc all go to the worker. And if you consider that most industrialists were also landlords, and that the products they made were often used by their workforce you can see a simple truth: they turned parts of their costs to profit. The reason the South fought a war to keep slavery was because their entire economy was based on slavery and its abolition meant a huge restructuring the southern capitalists did not care to have.

Now let me just answer the hilarious ending of your post. This "another English/american word" is the perfect manifestation of your entire argumentation and ignorance. You really saying that the word irony is English in origin?! My dear, it's a loan from ancient Greek, like eon. (εἴρων ---> irony, meaning a hypocritical statement). You do understand that part of colonialism was the ancient Greek and Roman craze that shaped a lot of the vocabulary, right? So you telling me I don't even know my own language is beyond ridiculous. I understand that you need to get back at me since your arguments are proved wrong but this is getting sad. Here, let me help you -- these words are a no-no: 1, 2, 3.

And Homer, writing of Greeks and Trojans, writes of slavery not to praise it (and certainly not in terms of race) but to condemn the brutality of the institution and how it left the person less than what they once were. Jove takes half the goodness out of a man he makes a slave. How you think that this condemnation works to your benefit is beyond me. Especially for the Iliad, where the whole point is being humane even to your enemies of all things! - but hey! If it makes you feel happy, right?

If I could leave you with a thought, if only for the lolz you so graciously shared with me, stop thinking in black and white narratives (pun intended). History is neither linear, going necessarily from worse to best, nor simple. It's extremely complicated and messy and just plain wrong the more you look at it.

[Frostwulf]

Funny, your the one using biblical quotes that dont refer to slavery. Im the one pointing out that for centuries its been taught that race based slavery was supported by biblical texts, used from the pulpit by the clergy.

No what I brought up were quotes that support the Christian principle that we are all equal in the eyes of God, doesn't matter of your skin tone, where your from, etc. as your trying to say there is.
Once again look at what your wrote:

Except for the fact that it does.Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers (Genesis 9:25) Ham and his descendedts, cananites, were burnt black, so all would know they as a race were fit for slavery. Its the biblical explanation for black skin colour and why it was a ok with God to make them into slaves in America.

I'm not denying that some people erroneously used the Bible for wrong doing/slavery, but what you implied was in the Bible, was not in there. That was my entire point which you danced around and continue to avoid. This quote from you is not at all supported in the Bible:

Except for the fact that it does.Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers (Genesis 9:25) Ham and his descendedts, cananites, were burnt black, so all would know they as a race were fit for slavery. Its the biblical explanation for black skin colour and why it was a ok with God to make them into slaves in America.

In the Bible there isn't anything about people being "burnt" black or turned to black. There is nothing that says a particular color was "fit for slavery". There is nothing like what you wrote in the Bible, but you just cannot bring yourself to admit it. Once again, and I hope you understand, this quote of yours is not even remotely Biblical.