Page 1 of 2

Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2017 9:12 am
by H
I've noticed that certain aspects are overshadowed or, even, forgotten relative to the history of a given topic. The title they were debunking was
"Slavery was confined to the [U.S.] South"

The explanation starts with, "America always had its abolitionist movements, but slavery existed in every colony. Massachusetts, in the northern United States, was the first colony to legalize slavery."
The problem here is in the manner of specification. Yes, Massachusetts is one of the states of the United States of America. Yes, it was also a colony, one of thirteen -- of the British Empire ("after the Revolutionary War..." in a following paragraph isn't explicit enough). Neither slavery nor the United States had its beginnings restricted to America, historically or otherwise. The British colonies to first become the United States of America were much more limited with inter-active laws until they freed themselves from the oversea government; even then there was a progression of 'federal' jurisdiction versus the individual state.
As to slavery, itself, some of the more notorious accounts of enslavement in the Americas is with the Spanish colonization; their treatment of Native Americans, such as tethering each arm and leg to a horse and ripping the person asunder, is a gruesome record. A further and very sad fact is that slavery far predates European colonization of the Americas, let alone the United States. Slavery well predates them, as well, but the Romans made slaves through many of their conquests -- Celts, Germans, Greeks and any others; part of my ancestral lineage is Irish and Scottish and, centuries ago, they pressed their own relatives into servitude, let alone those captured in nearby foreign raids.



H

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2017 10:13 am
by Hawkeye07
H wrote:I've noticed that certain aspects are overshadowed or, even, forgotten relative to the history of a given topic. The title they were debunking was
"Slavery was confined to the [U.S.] South"

The explanation starts with, "America always had its abolitionist movements, but slavery existed in every colony. Massachusetts, in the northern United States, was the first colony to legalize slavery."
The problem here is in the manner of specification. Yes, Massachusetts is one of the states of the United States of America. Yes, it was also a colony, one of thirteen -- of the British Empire ("after the Revolutionary War..." in a following paragraph isn't explicit enough). Neither slavery nor the United States had its beginnings restricted to America, historically or otherwise. The British colonies to first become the United States of America were much more limited with inter-active laws until they freed themselves from the oversea government; even then there was a progression of 'federal' jurisdiction versus the individual state.
As to slavery, itself, some of the more notorious accounts of enslavement in the Americas is with the Spanish colonization; their treatment of Native Americans, such as tethering each arm and leg to a horse and ripping the person asunder, is a gruesome record. A further and very sad fact is that slavery far predates European colonization of the Americas, let alone the United States. Slavery well predates them, as well, but the Romans made slaves through many of their conquests -- Celts, Germans, Greeks and any others; part of my ancestral lineage is Irish and Scottish and, centuries ago, they pressed their own relatives into servitude, let alone those captured in nearby foreign raids.

H


All very true. High school History classes in the USA today like to dwell on slavery like it's a defining facet of the American experience. As stated in the above, slavery predates the thirteen colonies and even the British Empire by thousands of years. It is even addressed in the "Code of Hammurabi" which was a code of law in ancient Mesopotamia dating back to around 1754 BC.
Another "forgotten" fact concerning slavery in the U.S. is the relative ineffectiveness of the Emancipation Proclamation which was an Executive Order signed by President Lincoln in 1863. It only proclaimed freedom for the slaves in 10 states, those being the Confederate States of America. It did nothing to free slaves in any other state and was basically unenforceable while the Confederates held control of those states or areas of those states.

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2017 10:21 am
by Fozzer
What runs through my thoughts every day that I read the troubled internal news from various parts of the USA, is that North America must now be ruing the day that they ever imported slave folks from South Africa.
They are now reaping what they had sown.

http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery

A hot topic, and not popular, but with my daily observations, its always on my mind.

Paul.

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2017 10:34 am
by Hawkeye07
Another "fact" I've read about but haven't been able to confirm is that when George Washington became president he contemplated shipping all the slaves back to Africa. There were two problems with that idea.
1, where would the states, especially the South, find the manpower to replace the slaves.
2, cost prohibitive. The United States was virtually broke after the revolution.

Yep, many unintended consequences followed.

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2017 10:51 am
by Hawkeye07
Fozzer wrote:What runs through my thoughts every day that I read the troubled internal news from various parts of the USA, is that North America must now be ruing the day that they ever imported slave folks from South Africa.
They are now reaping what they had sown.

http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery

A hot topic, and not popular, but with my daily observations, its always on my mind.

Paul.


Paul a minor correction if I may...
n 1672, King Charles II rechartered the Royal African Company (it had initially been set up in 1660), as an English monopoly for the African slave and commodities trade—thereafter in 1698, by statute, the English parliament opened the trade to all English subjects. In the early 18th century, England passed Spain and Portugal to become the world's leading slave-trader.

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2017 11:15 am
by Sinkrate
What narks me is that it was the toffs and their descendents who benefited from the slave trade. The plebs couldn’t afford to keep slaves; they were practically slaves themselves, and yet it is their descendants who are now suffering from it the most.

As a Brit, I have to hold my hand up and say it was us wot dunnit. We’ve done more raping and pillaging of foreign countries than the Vikings ever did to us, and many of our “old money” families are still living it up on the proceeds. I’m not saying the Yanks can be proud of their history – it’s just that they’ve got less of it than us!

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2017 11:38 am
by Hawkeye07
Sinkrate wrote:What narks me is that it was the toffs and their descendents who benefited from the slave trade. The plebs couldn’t afford to keep slaves; they were practically slaves themselves, and yet it is their descendants who are now suffering from it the most.

As a Brit, I have to hold my hand up and say it was us wot dunnit. We’ve done more raping and pillaging of foreign countries than the Vikings ever did to us, and many of our “old money” families are still living it up on the proceeds. I’m not saying the Yanks can be proud of their history – it’s just that they’ve got less of it than us!


"I’m not saying the Yanks can be proud of their history – it’s just that they’ve got less of it than us!" :lol: :lol: Give us time, I'm sure we'll catch up!

On the other side of the Fickle Finger of Fate I think England and the UK in general have a tremendous amount of history to be justly proud of. Image

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2017 4:41 am
by Fozzer
One of the things that I am forever grateful for, is that I was born in the new land of the Angles and Saxons, and was taught the wonderful English Language at school.
England: Together with its wealth of History, both good and bad, it is a wonderful repository of information from times long ago!
I am always proud of the fact that my language was carried across the Atlantic Ocean to the North Americas, where it became the predominant language for all.
Truly amazing, for such a small island such as England!
A very versatile language, and fun to master!!

Paul Fosbery....>>> http://fosbery.tripod.com/

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2017 9:52 am
by H
Fozzer wrote:http://fosbery.tripod.com/
Avast! Your site caused an immediate, "Threat has been detected," Mr Fosbery... er, Fossbery... Fors... :?
are you sure your linguistic ancestry isn't Celtic: put the initial letter in place, then just throw in a whole bunch of letters -- the needed ones should be in there somewhere! Must be the effect of the Norman overlordship, causing an eternal and nigh complete change in the English language. As this post began, how often facts of history are forgotten or twisted. The northernmost county of NH is Coos, derived from the name of the aboriginal tribe, the descendants of whom have their own website. In our ignorance we thought the name Cowasuck in the northern area of Vermont and NH on old maps was overrun and heavily fertilized by cattle -- too many cows and it sucked! Not only the wrong interpretation -- the wrong language!

:roll:


8-)

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2017 10:12 am
by Hawkeye07
Fozzer wrote:One of the things that I am forever grateful for, is that I was born in the new land of the Angles and Saxons, and was taught the wonderful English Language at school.
England: Together with its wealth of History, both good and bad, it is a wonderful repository of information from times long ago!
I am always proud of the fact that my language was carried across the Atlantic Ocean to the North Americas, where it became the predominant language for all.
Truly amazing, for such a small island such as England!
A very versatile language, and fun to master!!

Paul Fosbery....>>> http://fosbery.tripod.com/


Let's not forget another amazing feat of good old Britannia. Her navy and merchant fleets literally "Ruled The Waves" for decades and that is no small feat for such a small island!

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2017 10:27 am
by Sinkrate
Avast! Your site caused an immediate, "Threat has been detected," Mr Fosbery... er, Fossbery... Fors... :?


Mine didn't like the taste of it either! Reports "HTML script infected." Possibly a false positive - Avast is quite sensitive.

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2017 10:28 am
by Fozzer
Never fear @H.... :D ...1

The greatest danger to the Internet resides in the chair that I am sat upon....

The rest of The Fosbery Clan are perfectly harmless...

...trust me... ;) ...!

AVG Anti-Virus...another one of those strange; "Quarantine" operations!.... :o ....!

Paul Fosbery....(Suitable Quarantined).... :lol: ...!

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:21 pm
by OldAirmail
As predominantly of European descent, I think that I can say that at sometime in our histories we all have had relatives who were slaves, and other relatives who were slave owners.

One thing about the "rich" being THE slave owners in this country, even some free blacks owned black slaves. Plenty of poor white people had a slave or two also.

Speaking of slaves, the indentured servants were treated no better than the black slave, often sharing the same food and quarters. They simply had to survive seven years of it.

And as to slavery being something "back in history", BS. It's still going on in northern Africa, the mid east, and some Asian countries. It's even a hidden fact of life in the US. Primarily in California with illegal aliens.

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 11:19 pm
by H
Fozzer wrote:I am always proud of the fact that my language was carried across the Atlantic Ocean to the North Americas, where it became the predominant language for all.
If one dials an automated answering number here, the first question one hears is often, "English or Español?" To further my amazement at the twist of history, I just visited a site that was arguing language predominance in the U.S. and a number of times someone interjected that Spanish was the first European language to be spoken in the Americas or in the territory of what's now the United States. False!!! Even ignoring Natives, Columbus, the Italian who sailed for Spain, was not the first European to set foot on the Americas -- nor were the English, Dutch, French...
Pertaining only to a European language being spoken, from Massachusetts there is a Native story about an armor-clad visitor with a long knife (a sword, I expect) who was pin-cushioned with arrows; he was buried by a nearby stream. This story aligns with another from Scotland. In the 1300s a certain laird's bodyguard was killed while he was exploring a land to which he'd sailed far to the west of Ireland. I'm sure some particular Scottish words were spoken, rather loudly, during the event.
Archeological evidence indicates that Norse (or Viking) colonization in North America, including in New England, predates Columbus by near half a millennia. However, these colonies, long gone, went long periods without provision or contact from their homeland and seem to have been in constant conflict with the native population. There are other indications of less certainty, such as the Roman mentions of those who'd escaped capture when chased far across the sea to an unknown land; although it's recorded that the Phoenicians obtained much of their tin and other resources from Briton, there is claim that they sailed far further west in their quest.
As to those colonies that first became the United States:
From Maine (Massachusetts in colonial time) to Maryland, none were officially explored by Spanish. The recorded exploration of Maryland was by the English in 1498; Virginia was documented in the 1500s by Spanish explorers; in North Carolina, by 1569, only one Spaniard survived the destruction of the forts built since their incursion on Native land in 1566; the DeSoto expedition traveled from Florida into what became Carolina and west to what's now Texas, laying official claim to only certain places, but no colonies were established and the unreceptive Natives remained the official claimants; however, as with those in Virginia and North Carolina, the expedition spoke Spanish during this traverse.
So, yes, it seems Spanish speaking had preceded English in the four most southern of the British colonies that became the United States -- but limited, if used at all, much north of the Georgia border well before these colonial states were established solely under the jurisdiction of Britain. However, when speaking of the United States as a nation, nothing west, south, north or east of these thirteen originating states counts; these were the crux of the United States and even the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam, with those remaining Dutch, had succumbed to predominant English.


Fozzer wrote:Never fear @H
The greatest danger to the Internet resides in the chair that I am sat upon....

You tell me this...
and then expect this...

Fozzer wrote:...trust me...

?!?

8-)

Re: Out of [Historical] Context...

PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 2:44 am
by Fozzer
A fantastic read, as always @H.

A very interesting place, with its history; "New England" tucked up in the North-East Corner, and also some places further down the East Coast, where explorers landed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England

Many of my You-Tube Motorcycling Chums in various parts of the USA had their origins in the British Isles and Ireland (Eire).
I can tell by certain aspects of their speech!
I get bits of Scots, Irish, and Welsh, popping out now and again. Sometimes they emphasise those accents in moments of hilarity!!

I eagerly absorb all these bits of information from the New World!

English or Spanish?

Most of the West Coast and South-West, and South, have predominantly Spanish sounding location names; San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, etc, etc....and I suspect many of their Folk speak "Spanish" to each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... population

Most of my USA daily news originates from here:

http://kron4.com/

http://www.sfgate.com/

Paul.... :D ...!