Knowing history is a good thing but sometimes it turns your stomach.
“Sad they rescued him.”
Why’s that? I’ve got no problem with poets Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow; and actors Humphrey Bogart, Clint Eastwood and Anthony Perkins, as well as many others.
Sarah Palin’s pretty hot, too.
Bush’s and Baldwin
Nonsense.
By 1700 the population of the colonies was estimated to only be around 200,000. The population of Ireland was around 2mil.
If someone is going to make up bullshit they should leave out ‘facts’ that are illogical and easily disproven.
A few cases wouldn’t be unexpected but to say it was widespread is a myth.
Indentured servitude is a whole different animal than chattel slavery.
better not call saul, reread your history, not the bullshit printed today and read your dictionary, indentured servitude is slavery, chattel or otherwise.
Did Saul say something?
Yep.
An ‘indenture’ is a contract.
An indentured servant is a person who has a contract to work for a fixed period of time to repay a debt, at the end of which he or she is free. In the colonies that debt was typically to pay for passage to the Americas.
It could be considered ‘temporary slavery’. The contract of the servant could be bought and sold but there was still an expiration date. Indentured servants had legal rights and the right to access courts. Slaves did not.
Chattel slaves and their children and grandchildren ad infinitum are the property of the master, no rights or freedom unless the master was benevolent.
Indentured servants were frequently abused and treated like slaves during their indenture, but unlike a slave, it was temporary.
Since we don’t have slaves here now, it seems it was temporary too. Also, everyone has the right to access the courts, if you can afford to hire a lawyer. I imagine those indentured servants were a product of a contract made under duress.
Would you rather be a slave with no hope of freedom in your lifetime or an indentured servant who would typically be free in 5 – 7 years?
In those days most people just went to court on their own to plead their case. Slaves didn’t have that option.
From the article you linked but obviously didn’t even read:
“Upon their release, indentured servants were not only given clothing, tools, and, often, even land; they also were usually freed of the stigma of having been a servant at all. In 1665, half of Virginia’s House of Burgesses was made up of former indentured servants.”
Indentured servitude – temporary.
Chattel slavery – lifetime and intergenerational.
I don’t see how what you’re talking about matters to the post at all. So there were 200,000 in the original colonies by the end of 1699. How does that argue that 100 kids weren’t brought from Ireland to the colonies in 1619? 80 years later, those kids are either dead or part of the population (or their kids are). So what?
The right panel is about Irish people sold as slaves into other countries into the West Indies, with just a mention of Virginia and New England. It doesn’t give a number for either of those. I can’t see how the population in 1700 relates to this at all.
https://www.hhhistory.com/2024/02/john-howland-pilgrim-who-fell-off.html
Sad they rescued him. Now check this out.
https://mayflowerhistory.com/famous-descendants
Knowing history is a good thing but sometimes it turns your stomach.
“Sad they rescued him.”
Why’s that? I’ve got no problem with poets Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow; and actors Humphrey Bogart, Clint Eastwood and Anthony Perkins, as well as many others.
Sarah Palin’s pretty hot, too.
Bush’s and Baldwin
Nonsense.
By 1700 the population of the colonies was estimated to only be around 200,000. The population of Ireland was around 2mil.
If someone is going to make up bullshit they should leave out ‘facts’ that are illogical and easily disproven.
A few cases wouldn’t be unexpected but to say it was widespread is a myth.
Indentured servitude is a whole different animal than chattel slavery.
better not call saul, reread your history, not the bullshit printed today and read your dictionary, indentured servitude is slavery, chattel or otherwise.
Did Saul say something?
Yep.
An ‘indenture’ is a contract.
An indentured servant is a person who has a contract to work for a fixed period of time to repay a debt, at the end of which he or she is free. In the colonies that debt was typically to pay for passage to the Americas.
It could be considered ‘temporary slavery’. The contract of the servant could be bought and sold but there was still an expiration date. Indentured servants had legal rights and the right to access courts. Slaves did not.
Chattel slaves and their children and grandchildren ad infinitum are the property of the master, no rights or freedom unless the master was benevolent.
Indentured servants were frequently abused and treated like slaves during their indenture, but unlike a slave, it was temporary.
Since we don’t have slaves here now, it seems it was temporary too. Also, everyone has the right to access the courts, if you can afford to hire a lawyer. I imagine those indentured servants were a product of a contract made under duress.
Would you rather be a slave with no hope of freedom in your lifetime or an indentured servant who would typically be free in 5 – 7 years?
In those days most people just went to court on their own to plead their case. Slaves didn’t have that option.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/indentured-white-slaves-colonies-1770-william-eddis
Get back on your fucking plantation Saul.
From the article you linked but obviously didn’t even read:
“Upon their release, indentured servants were not only given clothing, tools, and, often, even land; they also were usually freed of the stigma of having been a servant at all. In 1665, half of Virginia’s House of Burgesses was made up of former indentured servants.”
Indentured servitude – temporary.
Chattel slavery – lifetime and intergenerational.
I don’t see how what you’re talking about matters to the post at all. So there were 200,000 in the original colonies by the end of 1699. How does that argue that 100 kids weren’t brought from Ireland to the colonies in 1619? 80 years later, those kids are either dead or part of the population (or their kids are). So what?
The right panel is about Irish people sold as slaves into other countries into the West Indies, with just a mention of Virginia and New England. It doesn’t give a number for either of those. I can’t see how the population in 1700 relates to this at all.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jun/28/viral-image/no-first-slaves-shipped-american-colonies-werent-w/