Africanize the Founding Fathers

Post Reply New Topic

Sally Hemmings would agree if she were still alive.

ruveyn

A lawyer working for shippers and manufacturers etc .. who depended on the slave trade.

Also defending people who did not make any money on the trade. Adams also had a great deal to do with the Colonies getting their independence from Britain.

Everyone has rights, even slave holders in a land where slavery is legal.

ruveyn

History ought to be about facts, however there's been at least one dictator in history who has said "the past is the key to the present". In other words, people will use history to shape peoples opinions about other people, and coming from textbooks and teachers who is able to question them without being ridiculed or expelled?

Everyone has rights, even slave holders in a land where slavery is legal.

ruveyn[/quote]

What the H.... does THAT have to do with anything?

Im not attacking Adams nor any other individual as a person.

Im saying that the economy of colonial america relied on slavery.
This was as true of the north as it was of the south.

No matter how much adams hated slavery he still relied on slavery for a livlihood simply because he lived in Colonial New England relying as it did on shipping, ship building, the sugar trade, molaisses, textiles,all of which relied on slavery and the slave trade.

He wouldnt even have been living in America if the english colonization of new england had faiiled. New England wouldve reverted to a wilderness it wasnt for the success of local industries that relied on the caribean and southern slave trade and cash crops produced by caribean and southern slaves.


If you had waved a magic wand and had instandtly abolished slavery and the slave trade in say 1750 the economy of the northern half of the 13 colonies would have crumbeled as fast as of that of the slave owning south because slavery was so far reaching and so central to the New World economy.

Since you cant even argue your own point im forced to argue your point for you.

Okay. Here is how you argue YOUR point:

Instead of crying because you think im beating up on poor old John Adams what you should do is to make a study of the economy of colonial America to see just how much the economy of the northern colonies really did rely directly or indirectly on the the slave trade and on slavery itsself in the caribean and in south.

Lets say you did this study ( or found some historian who already did this) and found that that new england's economy was only say ten percent dependant on slavery instead of say 70 percent. Then you could plausibly say that "you're wrong", and that the founding fathers who came from north of the mason dixon line did not rely on slavery to become founding fathers.

That would be the way to disprove the one half-of-a-sentence I wrote about one half of the founding fathers.

The trouble is that half sentence I wrote is rather tangential to my point anyway.


Okay lets say Im wrong and let say that the founding fathers from Pennsylvania northward are all somehow NOT complicit in the slave trade. Lets leave them out of it . Okay.
What then?

That still means that half of the signers of the declaration of independence and about half of our first fifteen presidents were slaveowners.
That stll pretty much "africanizes" the founding of america ( and africanizes the governing of the first 80 years of America)!

You still dont need to make up anything to africanize the founding of america!

The economy of the north was reliant on brutal wage slavery well-into the 20th century.

There is no such thing as wage slavery. Anytime a worker wants to walk off the job, he is free to go.

So much for slavery.

ruveyn

And anybody who wanted to pack his things and climb the wall out of Auschwitz was free to go.

In my country the government will not allow you not to have money; means of acquiring money outside of employment are illegal or restricyed to a very small group; walking away from a lousy job risk landing with no sanctioned access to money.

No, it is not serfdom, but there are limitations.

You have to admire the good old colonial strategy:

The natives do not want to work except for themselves [how perverse]
The colonist wants someone OTHER than himself to do the work.
Solution: a tax.
Tax must be paid in money, not in cattle or grain or hides.
The native cannot obtain money EXCEPT by working on the plantation.

QED

It still works in these united former colonies.

"Blah blah blah blah, pc trends, blah blah blah presidents in black face with editing software blah blah blah" You're just being an offensive dork.

Yah, but if they tell you to do something that could endanger your life and personal safety and you have to pay your rent and buy your food, quitting the job really isn't optional, especially in the days when there was no Department of Labor to file complaints to nor any workers comp if you did happen to get your arm lobbed off by a piece of machinery for being forced to do something counter-intuitive to your personal safety, your best bet would be panhandling wares on the street after being let go for not being of any use to the company anymore after losing an arm.