I've mentioned this on another post. Thought it was worth a bit more exposure, so as to keep you from being blind-sided. The 1619 Project (prime mover behind the project - Nikole Hannah-Jones - Wikipedia) The 1619 Project - Wikipedia Grievance Industry trope: In 1493, Portugal was granted a monopoly on trade in West Africa by Pope Alexander VI. This paved the way for the transatlantic slave trade, which has had a lasting impact on American history, as well as on the socio-economic development of the country. (Note - the last part of this statement is, at best, questionable,.) The Portuguese ship carrying the first 20 African slaves to be brought to what would become the present day United States of America landed at Port Comfort in the British colony of Virginia in August of 1619. Although slavery was officially outlawed in (the small remainder of) the United States on 16 December 1865 with the ratification of the 13th amendment, the authors argue that the African American citizens who make up 12% of the United States population, face institutional racism and a disproportionate amount of socio-economic and political challenges in 2019, four hundred years since the first slaves landed and more than 150 years since the abolition of slavery. Reality: (Chicago Crime 2019 | Chicago Murder, Crime & Mayhem | HeyJackass!) Does this matter? Prolly not. But it is bound to come up - so it could be worth a couple of min to skim thru the Trope put out by the times. Some "conservative" media heads are calling this a re-write of American history. Not quite. Does this feed the Grievance Industry? More than not. What I find 'interesting' is this full-on focus on Slavery and just how bad AA community have these days - and an election coming up n 2020 with the Dems losing ground in the AA community. AA unemployment is the lowest in history, the economy is rock'n along. So, drag out some ancient history and try to fire up the base? I find that believable.... Anyway - this mess (Trope) is bound to percolate down into more local and regional papers and other media outlets. In case it comes up in polite conversation (doubtful) you will at least have an idea of the Trope being pushed. The Russians didn't mess with the last election - the US mass media most certainly did - along with the Big Tech players.... Over to you.
African Slavery was a well established industry long before America was Populated by Northern Europeans.
The Crown (Brits) banned slavery in the UK in the year 1833, went in effect 1 Aug 1834. Details The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) abolished slavery throughout the British Empire. This Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom expanded the jurisdiction of the Slave Trade Act 1807 which made the purchase or ownership of slaves illegal within the British Empire, with the exception of "the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company", Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Saint Helena. Yet slaves in the colony of Jamaica were not emancipated until 1838. The Act was repealed in 1997 as a part of wider rationalisation of English statute law; however, later anti-slavery legislation remains in force. and then there is this: It was one of those tweets by a public body you couldn’t quite believe. “Here’s today’s surprising #FridayFact,” HM Treasury declared last week. “Millions of you helped end the slave trade through your taxes.” Attached to the tweet was an image of slaves in chains with the caption: “In 1833, the British government used £20m, 40% of its national budget, to buy freedom for all slaves in the empire. The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn’t paid off until 2015. Which means that living British citizens helped pay to end the slave trade.” The slave trade was actually abolished in 1807. The 1833 Slavery Abolition Act abolished, as the name suggests, slavery itself. A Treasury so loose with its facts might explain something about the state of the British economy. Worse, however, was the claim that British taxpayers helped “buy freedom for slaves”. The government certainly shelled out £20m (about £16bn today) in 1833. Not to free slaves but to line the pockets of 46,000 British slave owners as “recompense” for losing their “property”. Having grown rich on the profits of an obscene trade, slave owners grew richer still from its ending. That, scandalously, was what the taxpayer was paying for until 2015. (Let’s put an end to the delusion that Britain abolished slavery | Kenan Malik)
Then, there is this in the background: The Irish and the Atlantic slave trade - History Ireland talks of 'Irish Slaves' to the Americas. More than a few sites covering this, tho the NY Times seems to have skipped over this segment of the Trade. This is another area of some controversy.
yet another take on the Project Slavery In America Did Not Begin In 1619, And Others NYT Gets Wrong The money quote The project’s summary makes the aim quite clear: “[The 1619 Project] aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.” Considered this way, the 1619 Project looks very different. It isn’t mostly about helping Americans understand the role played by plantation agriculture in American history. It’s mostly about convincing Americans that “America” and “slavery” are essentially synonyms.
There are more slaves today than any other time in world history. How about the people who grouse about a past we had no part in and can't change worry about the people who are CURRENTLY enslaved. Not as in first world people who think "The Man" has turned them into slaves, but real honest to God slaves who are bought and sold for as little as $100 for a family of four in equatorial Africa? FFS, what the hell is wrong with people? Small point, but the Russians have been meddling in US elections since the USSR was formed. In the last election they just went about their normal business the same as WE do in everybody else's elections thanks to our three letter agencies. Their efforts, however, were dwarfed like a tick on an elephant due to the interference you pointed out in the quote above.
Africans didn't become slaves until 1705, before that the were indentured servants. The same as the ancestors of many whites. Once they had worked-off their debt, they were freed, and received tools, land, etc. They became hard-working taxpayers and subjects of the Commonwealth of Virginia / British Crown. Many became planters of tobacco and they themselves owned indentured servants, both white and black. As a matter-of-fact, it was a free black man that petitioned the Virginia legislature to make black indentured servants slaves.
Indenture for whites was in exchange for learning a service. This was so the master (as in trade master) could get a return on his investment of training and lodging the student. Upon completion of indenture the student became a journeyman - literally free to leave and sell his services. It still lingers in modified form where employees sign contracts to employers to remain with the company for a period of time after gaining a degree at the company's expense. I do not know what indenture for blacks entailed, my guess is that some learned trades and that others for food and board. I'm curious now and will dig a bit for my own edification. Here is agood treatise on how indenturement evolved into slavery in the US in the 1600's. Africans in America | Part 1 | Narrative | From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery From the first man endentured for life to another black man to the emancipation of all slaves took about 200 years, not the 400-500 we are told. It's interesting that in the Caribbean islands where slavery lasted much longer we do not see the same lingering issues we have in the states.
I myself am "indentured" to my company for another 6 months (by a handshake contract) for training received in my transition from millwright to automation tech/programmer. I'm getting paid way under my value now but it's been debt free and will be well worth it in the long run. It is kinda cool to share something similar to my ancestors experience.
The UK never ended the slave trade. Slavery is alive and well in many parts of the world, still. While the UK may have ended slavery in the UK by purchasing existing slaves from UK owners, Americans bought the freedom for US slaves with their blood... something propaganda rags like the NYTs will ignore as will everyone else wishing to divide the US population along racial lines for political purposes. What other country has done such a thing and made such a sacrifice? None that I am aware of. Still its of no consequence to the propagandist in search of perpetual political power... the power that will enable them to make slaves out of us all.
