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

[ancientlight]

And the Arab slave trade, and the British crusade against slavery!  I was never thaught this is school. I left HS in 1990, and was only taught about Dutch history. I hated history because of it, as it was too boring! I wanted them to include world history, but don't recall that every being part of the curriculum.

Anyway. I think as the 1% want to keep us as divide as possible we should try to spread this truth far and wide.






MSM would never cover this 

[EndtheMadnessNow]

It was never mentioned when I was in HS.

A Slave To Ignorance

While all of this is fun and fascinating, as real education always is, the word that will blow the dear reader out of his or her chair is "slave".

Slave literally refers to the Slavic people of Eastern Europe.  That's right, the very word "slave" comes from a race of WHITE European people who were valued as excellent slaves as late as the 16th century.  In fact, it seems that the Romans adopted the word "sclavus" from the name of this race of people.
The origin, or etymology, of the word "slave" can be found pretty much anywhere educated people congregate.  There are extensive citations in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is the go-to source for the history of English words.

To quote one online source, etymonline.com:

"The oldest written history of the Slavs can be shortly summarised--myriads of slave hunts and the enthralment of entire peoples. The Slav was the most prized of human goods. With increased strength outside his marshy land of origin, hardened to the utmost against all privation, industrious, content with little, good-humoured, and cheerful, he filled the slave markets of Europe, Asia, and Africa."

What is particularly notable here is that the Slavs were highly prized as slaves across three continents, including Africa.  Thus, white slaves were being traded in Africa BEFORE the first known African slaves were brought to the New World.
...

USS Enterprise (1799), a schooner that fired the first shots in the First Barbary War. She was active in suppressing pirates, smugglers, and slavers.

Ironically, there was another ship named Enterprise, a US merchant vessel in the early 19th century along the Atlantic Coast. It was a slave ship.

[Ninurta]

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.

.

[Michigan Swamp Buck]

Paying my property taxes feels like indentured servitude or a serf in some medieval feudal system. 

I'm one-quarter Czech on my dad's side not to mention the Irish from Mom's side. How many generations can pass before I can't claim their enslaved history?

[SomeJackleg]

And the Arab slave trade, and the British crusade against slavery!  I was never thaught this is school. I left HS in 1990, and was only taught about Dutch history. I hated history because of it, as it was too boring! I wanted them to include world history, but don't recall that every being part of the curriculum.

Anyway. I think as the 1% want to keep us as divide as possible we should try to spread this truth far and wide.






MSM would never cover this 

here is a fact / estimate that seems to have been scrubbed from most of net, and the U.S. is not the the big bad slaver nation it is portrayed as in the rest of the world.

a article from Henry Louis Gates Jr., you know the black guy that digs up peoples ancestors history on PBS.

The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial "gold standard" in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America. 

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage. 

In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade. 

How Many Slaves Landed in the US?

another thing, the U..S. Constitution had a clause in it that stated the Federal Government could not ban the slave trade for 20 years.

Article I  

• Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
• • Clause 1 Migration or Importation
    
  • The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
    • ArtI.S9.C1.1  Restrictions on the Slave Trade
      

Article I        Section 9 Powers Denied Congress

my understanding the reason for this is that before independence much of the U.S. economy was based out of the south and slave labor was the means for it. if slavery was banned from the start the u.S. econmy would have suffered tremendously and that would have been good for a fledgling nation. granted slave trade between the states in the south carried on until the civil war was over, but the U.S. was not a big importer of slaves, the number of slave grew to the fact slaves were having youngins who became slaves themselves.

but as it stands the U.S. took steps before any other nation to end the Trans Atlantic slave trade long before any other nation did. no matter what the Uk government wants to claim, and was not a big importer of slaves from the get go. that dishonor belongs to Portugal, and the UK who did their damnest to become number one, they just didn't have the same amount of time
Portugal did, they imported slaves for 400 years, they started in 1444 in europe and then in 1526 to Brazil, the Uk depending on what date you want to go with started in 1562 by john hawkins, or 1618 by king james when the crown started granting slave trade companies.

[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.

[Ninurta]

...

I'm one-quarter Czech on my dad's side not to mention the Irish from Mom's side. How many generations can pass before I can't claim their enslaved history?

Interesting question. The DNA of entire ancestors starts dropping  out of your DNA after between 7 and 10 generations on one hand. SO, at that time, some individuals will no longer be represented in your DNA - but you don't get to choose which ones disappear from it.

On the other hand, all of your DNA had to come from someone, so some of them will always be represented in it, and you don't get to choose which of those are represented, either.

In either case, they are still your ancestors, whether their DNA shows up in yours or not.

As an example, I mentioned above that the Nigerian (that's right - I might be that Nigerian Price everyone e-mails you about!) DNA dropped out of mine between myself and my son. 1/10th of 1% of my DNA is Nigerian, but 0.0% of my son's DNA is Nigerian. The Nigerian ancestry is still there, and always will be, but it no longer shows up in his DNA.

However, some of my DNA traces back to a knot of un-named people between 2400 BC and 1700 BC who lived in the Prague, CZ area, and it is still present in both mine and his DNA. That DNA will always be around, because all of our DNA has to come from somewhere, and it is the luck of the draw that it remains present.

I still carry Pictish DNA from Scotland, 1500 years after the Picts ceased to be a separate ethnic group. My DNA still scores a match with Cheddar Man, from 9000 years ago - the Neolithic of Britain. It's just the luck of the draw that his DNA persists while the DNA  of other ancestors from the same time period around the world has long since vanished from mine.

Going even farther back, I carry more Neanderthal DNA than 83% of the rest of humanity, and the Neanderthals vanished as a species 24,000 to 28,000 years ago. I carry DNA from Bangladesh that is so old that there is no record of whom it came from, or how it got into the family tree.

My paternal Y-DNA traces back all the way to the Balkans or Northern Greece during the late Neolithic or early Bronze age, and was probably carried into Central Europe during an invasion from the Balkans, and only persisted because the invaders carried better weaponry, made of bronze, than the native population had, who still had a chipped flint technology.

I have a Powhatan Indian woman in my ancestry from around 1620 or so that some tests can detect, but others do not. Her name is listed simply as "Powhatan Mary" in the genealogical paper trail. The reason some tests pick her DNA up and others do not is down to the database they are comparing the DNA against - some of them contain Indian DNA for comparison, and some do not... so the Indian DNA is ascribed to the next closest thing that IS represented (usually a Siberian or Central Asian), because that particular database doesn't contain anything to match it to.

So, really, I reckon you can claim whichever ancestors you still have some evidence for, whether DNA or a paper trail, and you don't have to claim those that you don't have any evidence left pointing to them.

.

[ancientlight]

...

I'm one-quarter Czech on my dad's side not to mention the Irish from Mom's side. How many generations can pass before I can't claim their enslaved history?

Interesting question. The DNA of entire ancestors starts dropping  out of your DNA after between 7 and 10 generations on one hand. SO, at that time, some individuals will no longer be represented in your DNA - but you don't get to choose which ones disappear from it.

On the other hand, all of your DNA had to come from someone, so some of them will always be represented in it, and you don't get to choose which of those are represented, either.

In either case, they are still your ancestors, whether their DNA shows up in yours or not.

As an example, I mentioned above that the Nigerian (that's right - I might be that Nigerian Price everyone e-mails you about!) DNA dropped out of mine between myself and my son. 1/10th of 1% of my DNA is Nigerian, but 0.0% of my son's DNA is Nigerian. The Nigerian ancestry is still there, and always will be, but it no longer shows up in his DNA.

However, some of my DNA traces back to a knot of un-named people between 2400 BC and 1700 BC who lived in the Prague, CZ area, and it is still present in both mine and his DNA. That DNA will always be around, because all of our DNA has to come from somewhere, and it is the luck of the draw that it remains present.

I still carry Pictish DNA from Scotland, 1500 years after the Picts ceased to be a separate ethnic group. My DNA still scores a match with Cheddar Man, from 9000 years ago - the Neolithic of Britain. It's just the luck of the draw that his DNA persists while the DNA  of other ancestors from the same time period around the world has long since vanished from mine.

Going even farther back, I carry more Neanderthal DNA than 83% of the rest of humanity, and the Neanderthals vanished as a species 24,000 to 28,000 years ago. I carry DNA from Bangladesh that is so old that there is no record of whom it came from, or how it got into the family tree.

My paternal Y-DNA traces back all the way to the Balkans or Northern Greece during the late Neolithic or early Bronze age, and was probably carried into Central Europe during an invasion from the Balkans, and only persisted because the invaders carried better weaponry, made of bronze, than the native population had, who still had a chipped flint technology.

I have a Powhatan Indian woman in my ancestry from around 1620 or so that some tests can detect, but others do not. Her name is listed simply as "Powhatan Mary" in the genealogical paper trail. The reason some tests pick her DNA up and others do not is down to the database they are comparing the DNA against - some of them contain Indian DNA for comparison, and some do not... so the Indian DNA is ascribed to the next closest thing that IS represented (usually a Siberian or Central Asian), because that particular database doesn't contain anything to match it to.

So, really, I reckon you can claim whichever ancestors you still have some evidence for, whether DNA or a paper trail, and you don't have to claim those that you don't have any evidence left pointing to them.

.

That's so interesting all, I love it! I'd love to do DNA ancestory testing, but they keep/sell your DNA data.  
How did you do it , which site?

[Ninurta]

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.

True. As a matter of fact, the John Punch I mentioned as being the first documented slave in 1640 ran away in the company of two Europeans, one a German and the other a Scotsman. The Europeans had their indentures extended for 4 years total - I year to their Master and 3 additional years to "the colony", as punishment for their runaway attempt. John Punch had his indenture extended for the term of the rest of his life.

Now, some folks will point to that as evidence for blacks being treated differently from whites in colonial days, and make the claim that it was "racist" to give him what appears at first blush to be a harsher sentence, but in fact race didn't really enter into the equation except as a means of identifying him. It didn't factor into the sentencing. In reality, the judiciary couldn't legally extend the indentures of the Europeans to a life term, or else they certainly would have,

The reason for that was not racial, but religious. There were laws on the books preventing one "Christian" from enslaving another "Christian" for life. Non-Christians had no such protection.  So, all 3 had the book thrown at them, but the Black guy, not being a Christian, got slaved for life just because they could. Had they slaved the Europeans as well, the Virginia Colony would certainly have faced diplomatic repercussions from Germany, and another uprising in Scotland, so they left it alone. It was just too dangerous for them to slave up a couple of Christians, but the African (probably some form of Animist or Voudoun follower) had no such luck.

The next "slave for life" case I find was that of John Casor, in Northampton County, VA - a Virginia county on the "eastern shore" of VA, the Delmarva Peninsula. He was indentured to another Black man, a free Black named Anthony Johnson who came over indentured in 1621, but who worked through his indenture and was released with his rewards. He purchased the indentures of other incoming Africans, but when it cane time to release them, he reneged and took the case of Casor to the courts, gaining a "slave for life" through legal maneuverings. He thus enslaved fellow Africans, and a fledgling institution of slavery was born..

Only non-Christians could be enslaved for life under the then current laws, and so it was that only Africans (and some American Indians) got mired up in the slave trade. Under the laws at the time, English Common Law only covered Englishmen, with everyone else being termed "aliens" in the English colonies, and so it came to be that the local Indian populations were labeled as "aliens" in their own ancestral lands.

Another group of my ancestors  (the Norman family) came over as religious refugees from France (French Heuegenots), and settled at Manakin Town outside of what later became Richmond, VA.  They, too were "aliens" by virtue of being Frenchmen instead of Englishmen. The crucial difference was that they were "Christians", and so could not legally be enslaved even though they were "aliens".

.

[Ninurta]

That's so interesting all, I love it! I'd love to do DNA ancestory testing, but they keep/sell your DNA data.  
How did you do it , which site?

I've been tested at both 23 And Me and at Ancestry. Each of those sites tests for slightly different sets of "SNP's", individual DNA markers. What I did was download the resulting datasets - each having 600,000 to 750,000 SNPs, and then combine both of them into a single file which gave much finer resolution of my DNA. The resulting combined file has about 1,200,000 SNPs, almost twice the resolution of the individual testing service files.

I did the merging of the files into one myself, here at home, on my own computer. I have software that will merge the files - shuffle them together like shuffling two decks of cards together into one - and then put the SNP's in the proper order and throw out any doubles that were tested by both services, and just keep one set of those doubled SNPs, all in a DNA "master file".

I'm not too worried about my data being shared. I mean, what are they gonna do, clone me? Still, I do understand the reluctance of many. A lot of folks worry that their insurance companies will get hold of their DNA and up the rates based on genetic roulette. At both 23 and Me and Ancestry, you can have your DNA test results purged from their systems upon request, after the testing is done and you've gotten your results - they just won't be able to re-evaluate the results in light of new discoveries is all. I've downloaded my raw result files to my local computer so that they don't just vanish, and so that I can work with the data on a local level..

I've also reconstructed my Dear Old Dad's DNA using those files. I used my file and one of my sisters who has been tested to reconstruct about 75% or so of dad's DNA file. I have two other sisters who won't get tested, but if they did I could reconstruct close to 95% of Dad;s DNA file, up from the current 75%.

There is a service at "MyTrueAncestry.com" which will compare your DNA to a few hundred ancient DNA samples from archaeological sites. They do not do actual testing, so folks have to upload their DNA from a testing service to the My True Ancestry site. That site runs the tests once, and then automatically purges the raw DNA file from their system as soon as the runs are completed. That's how I found my deeper ancestry. I used it to find "clumps" of ancient ancestors around Prague, in the Netherlands, in Denmark and a few clumps in the UK from hundreds or thousands of years ago. It's a pretty interesting service, to me.

.