This is not know by enough people : the Barbary slave trade etc

[SomeJackleg]

There is a certain class of folk who do not want to hear any facts regarding the African slave trade. Generally, they are the same class of folks who believe ancient Egypt was populated and ruled by sub-saharan Africans, who think that every civilization advance was first accomplished by sub-saharan Africans, and who believe that American Indians - especially the civilized sorts - all came from sub-saharan Africa when the Africans discovered the Americas before Columbus.

These same folk are the ones that believe the first African slaves were imported into British Colonial America in 1619, and who will endlessly try to convince us of that tripe. Fact is, that 1619 shipment of Africans were treated as indentured servants - their indentures were purchase (not the persons themselves, but their indentures), and once their indentures were finished, they were set at liberty with the customary set of clothes, plot of land, and firearm.

However, if we insist on counting those 1619 Africans as "slaves", then we must also count all of the "slaves" that arrived in the Americas before them as indentured servants, particularly the British and especially the Irish ones. At least one of my own ancestors was one of those indentured "slaves". She was an Irish girl, indentured to the Custis family as a means of getting her to the Americas and out of Ireland, which was undergoing a rough patch at the time.

As it turned out, her future husband came into the Americas from England under his own steam, without an indenture. He seemed to be a rowdy one, a young fella full of piss and vinegar and not afraid of a bit of trouble. He fell ass over appetite for the young Irish lass indentured to the Custis family, and made off with her before her indenture was complete, which generated some bother for the two of them, according to the court records. She was treated as a "runaway", and he was charged with "stealing" her.

It all worked out just fine, though. They flipped off the Virginia colony and hauled ass for the Maryland colony, and lived happily ever after. Her husband became a well-to-do man by trading with the Naticoke Indians and eventually becoming the official interpreter to the Nanticokes for the Colony of Maryland. His name was Christopher Nutter, if anyone wants to verify the tale.

Paradoxically, another of my ancestors was one of those African indentures. He served out his indenture, got his release and set of clothes, patch of land, and firearm, and he too lived happily ever after, as a free man, on his own farmstead. He was so far back in the family tree, so close to the opening of the Americas, that I carry just the barest sliver of his DNA, and am the last in the line to carry it. His DNA fell out of the family tree between myself and my son's generation. He's still in the family tree of course, it's just that there will be no DNA confirmation beyond my generation.

Point is, there was absolutely no difference at all in the "slave" statuses of both of those two ancestors - one so white she nearly glowed, and the other as black as coal. When their indenture terms were up, they were as free as anyone else in the colonies. Anyone who tells you any different is a goddamned liar, and pushing an agenda.

Slavery as we think of it today was not legal, it wasn't a "thing", until some time in the 1660's I believe. The first recorded "slave for life" was determined in a court case in Virginia, a black man named John Punch or Punche I believe, He was an indentured servant, but "ran away" before his indenture was complete, and received slavery for life in a court decision in July 1640 as punishment for being a runaway. Still, that was a one-off case of judicial punishment, and actual slavery was not a normal thing until slavery laws started being passed in the 1660's.

Some things will never be taught in schools, as they run counter to the accepted narrative.

.

there was one big difference in the indentured status. although similar it was not the first africans choice to become indentured  the first ones were slaves taken from Portuguese slave ships and forced to become indentured, and before 1620 the the practice of indenturing was more of a punishment for vagrancy and petty theft and other minor crimes or being unwanted orphans. it only became more voluntary in 1620, although if i remember correctly forced indentured contracts continued for a while after that.

not only that just because you were indentured didn't mean your were treated like a normal person. you could be treated just like a slave, forced to work long hours, fed what they owners saw fit, and beaten like a dog, contracts could be extended for breaking laws, running away and even for women becoming pregnant.