Page 2 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jan 2011, 11:18 pm

Southern men did actively engage in coitus with their female slaves, and by such unions did produce offspring which were their property. Because they were slaves, Southerners called them "Black" or "Mulatto" as a means of easing the conscience, but many were, in fact, White.



Salonfilosoof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

19 Jan 2011, 11:40 pm

pandabear wrote:
Southern men did actively engage in coitus with their female slaves, and by such unions did produce offspring which were their property. Because they were slaves, Southerners called them "Black" or "Mulatto" as a means of easing the conscience, but many were, in fact, White.


It doesn't have anything to do with easing their conscience. Anyone who had ancestors that were Sub-saharan Africans were considered Black and thus inferior to Whites. It didn't matter how many European genes you had as long as you had a single Sub-saharan Africans as an ancestor.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

20 Jan 2011, 9:20 am

Which, of course, eased their conscience--thinking of the women they raped as "Black" or "Mulatto", and their children as being property.

Many of the slaves were much more White than Black, and some had no Black ancestry at all, but were nonetheless considered "n****rs."



Salonfilosoof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

20 Jan 2011, 12:47 pm

pandabear wrote:
Which, of course, eased their conscience--thinking of the women they raped as "Black" or "Mulatto", and their children as being property.


They didn't need to clear their conscience. As harsh as it sounds, they regarded these people as animals by default back in a day when animal rights didn't exist.

pandabear wrote:
Many of the slaves were much more White than Black, and some had no Black ancestry at all, but were nonetheless considered "n****rs."


I know it makes no sense, but neither does Christianity which - I guess - was pretty popular in the South as well back then.

No Black ancestry at all, you say? How do we know this?



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

20 Jan 2011, 10:06 pm

Salonfilosoof wrote:
No Black ancestry at all, you say? How do we know this?


I'm still researching this. I have two theories of origins of White slaves.

1. Convicts and political prisoners brought over as slaves during the early colonial period. Most were probably male, which is one hole in the theory.

2. White children who were orphaned, abandoned, sold by their parents, kidnapped, etc.

There are many reports of slaves who had no perceptible trace of African blood, but who were labeled as "n****rs" and presumed to have had a remote African ancestor. Some white children could easily have been trafficked as slaves. Trafficking of child sex slaves exists today.



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

20 Jan 2011, 11:54 pm

I've never heard of white slaves in the south, however I've heard of black slave owners.

Maybe you are thinking of endentured servants? That was in the 1700's I believe. These were usually people form Europe who couldn't afford ship passage and had no means to establish themselves in the new world but wanted to emigrate. They would do this by signing themselves over to someone to work for a number of years, sometimes 7, in return for ship passage, housing, food, and so on, in the Americas.

I have an ancestor who came over this way.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

21 Jan 2011, 10:51 am

Well, here is an article concerning Scottish children being abducted and brought to America to work as servants.

http://heritage.scotsman.com/people/Col ... 2680828.jp

I suppose, in a legal sense, these child slaves would not officially have been subjected to life-long slavery, nor would the children of such female servants have automatically become the property of their masters, due to the fact that they came from a Christian country.

However, would a colonial master have necessarily been above labeling these children as "mulattoes", and keeping them in perpetual servitude?



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

21 Jan 2011, 10:53 am

Are you going to write a paper for this? It could be interesting.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

21 Jan 2011, 11:06 am

Here is another interesting article:

http://www.stormfront.org/crusader/texts/bt/bt07.html

Quote:
.....According to Thomas Burton's Parliamentary Diary 1656-1659, in 1659 the English parliament debated the practice of selling British Whites into slavery in the New World. In the debate, these Whites were referred to not as "indentured servants" but as "slaves."
In the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies of 1701, we read of a protest over the "encouragement to the spiriting away of Englishmen without their consent and selling them for slaves, which hath been a practice very frequent and known by the name of kidnapping." In the British West Indies, plantation slavery was instituted as early as 1627. In Barbados by the 1640s there were an estimated 25,000 slaves, of whom 21,700 were White.
This document records that while White slaves were worked to death, as they cost next to nothing, there were Caribbean Indians brought from Guiana to help propagate native foodstuffs who were well-treated and received as free persons by the wealthy planters.
The Englishman William Eddis, after observing White slaves in America in the 1770s wrote: "Generally speaking, they groan beneath a worse than Egyptian bondage." Governor Sharpe of the Maryland colony compared the property interest of the planters in their White slaves, with the estate of an English farmer consisting of a "Multitude of Cattle."
Lay historian Col. A. B. Ellis, writing in the British Newspaper Argosy for May 6, 1893, said: "Few, but readers of old colonial state papers and records, are aware that between the years 1649 to 1690 a lively trade was carried on between England and the plantations, as the colonies were then called, [a trade] in political prisoners... they were sold at auction... for various terms of years, sometimes for life, as slaves."
Sir George Sandys' 1618 plan for Virginia referred to bound Whites assigned to the treasurer's office to "belong to said office forever." The service of Whites bound to Berkeley's Hundred was deemed "perpetual."
Numerous documents from the seventeenth, eighteenth, and even nineteenth centuries reveal that these Whites in bondage certainly referred to themselves as slaves, and there are even records of Blacks referring to them as "White slaves." Did you know that the expression "kidnapping," (originally kid-nabbing) had its origin in the abduction of poor White children to be sold into factory slavery in Britain or plantation slavery in America? Did you know that the expression "spirited away" likewise originated with the White slavers, who were also called "spirits"?
The White slavery in America was but an extension of the White slavery in the mother country, Britain, where the legal form of contracted indentured servitude and apprenticeship was maintained as a spurious cover for plain and simple lifetime chattel slavery. Particularly shocking was the enslavement of White children for factory labor. Children were openly seized from orphanages and workhouses and placed in the factories.
In Brian Inglis' Poverty and the Industrial Revolution we read: "Here then was a ready source of labor - and a very welcome one. The children were formally indentured as apprentices... What happened to them was nobody's concern. A parish in London, having got rid of a batch of unwanted pauper children, was unlikely to interest itself in their subsequent fate... The term 'apprenticeship' was in any case a misnomer...."
In Marjorie Cruikshank's Children and Industry: "many employers imported child apprentices, parish orphans from workhouses far and near. Clearly, overseers of the poor were only too keen to get rid of the orphans... children were brought (to the factories) like 'cartloads of live lumber' and abandoned to their fate... poor children, taken from workhouses or kidnapped in the streets of the metropolis, used to be brought down by... coach to Manchester and slid into a cellar in Mosley Street as if they had been stones or any other inanimate substance."
White children worked up to sixteen hours a day and during that period the doors were locked. Children - and most of the mill workers were children - were allowed out only to 'go to the necessary.' In some factories it was forbidden to open the windows... The child 'apprentices' who were on night shift might have to stay on it for as long as four or five years. They were lucky if they were given a half penny an hour.
This was labor without any breaks - unceasing labor. When the children fell asleep at the machines, they were lashed into wakefulness with a whip. If they arrived late to the factory, talked to another child, or committed some other infraction they were beaten with an iron bar known as a "billy-roller," eight feet long and one inch and a half in diameter. Many were thus murdered, often for trifling offenses such as calling out names to the next child.
Thousands of children were mangled or mutilated by the primitive factory machinery every year. They were often disfigured or disabled for life, then abandoned, receiving no compensation of any kind. Similar conditions obtained for enslaved White children on this side of the Atlantic, as what William Blake called "these Satanic Mills" spread to our shores.
Historian Oscar Handlin writes that in colonial America, White servants could be bartered for a profit, sold to the highest bidder for the unpaid debts of their masters, and otherwise transferred like moveable goods or chattels...

White slaves were actually owned by Blacks and Indians in the South to such an extent that the Virginia Assembly passed the following law in 1670: "It is enacted that no negro or Indian though baptized and enjoying their own freedom shall be capable of any such purchase of Christians." The records of the time reveal that free Blacks often owned Black slaves themselves. In 1717, it was proposed that a qualification for election to the South Carolina Assembly was to be "the ownership of one White man."
From 1609 until the early 1800s, between one half and two thirds of all the White colonists who came to the New World came as slaves. White slaves cleared the forests, drained the swamps, built the roads, sweated in the fields, and died like flies in hellish factories. Owned like property, they had no rights nor recourse to the law. Fugitive slave laws applied to them just as to Blacks if they should flee their masters. Black slaves were expensive, and though at times cruelly used, were not often used beyond the limits of human endurance. That would have been a waste of a costly investment. White slaves, however, consisting of the poor and unwanted "surplus population" of Britain, were available for nearly nothing, just a few pence for a thug to billyclub them and shanghai them aboard a westward-bound vessel. Thus they were expendable.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

21 Jan 2011, 11:09 am

<.< inb4 STORMFRONT!?!?!



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

21 Jan 2011, 11:21 am

Here is another article: http://www.salon.com/books/it/2000/06/1 ... index.html

..and within the comments to the article: http://www.salon.com/letters/daily/2000 ... ite_slaves

Quote:
The belief that whites were never sold into slavery in America must be a Northern ignorance. As a child in southern Louisiana I knew about this, I was told by my grandfather. It was common enough that it was not talked about. They were usually immigrants, always poor. Often kidnapped, but sometimes they were children or wives sold to pay debts or just because they would fetch a good price. And they were sold as blacks. Even though everyone knew they were white. Because even in the selling of white slaves, slavery in America is a black thing.

-- Wahrena Brown