SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"At some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens. It's not enough to express sympathy. You don't see this kind of murder, on this scale, with this kind of frequency in other advanced countries on earth." - President Obama.
Discuss.
- A Hectic Day at Church, and Then a Hellish Visitor
- Charleston relatives 'forgive' shooting suspect in court
- Latest on church shooting: Black, white pastors get together
- Terrorism v hate crime: How US courts decide: After the murder of nine black Americans at a church in Charleston, South Carolina by a white man, advocates and commentators are calling for suspect Dylann Roof to be described as a terrorist.
- Why we shouldn't call Dylann Roof a terrorist
- We Asked a Lawyer if Dylann Roof Could Face Terrorism Charges
- As Media Labels Roof 'Troubled Loner,' Justice Department Moves Forward With Domestic Terrorism Charges
- Was the South Carolina shooting a hate crime or a terrorist attack?
- Terrorism in Charleston demands the government act like black lives matter
- Criminal Justice Professor Discusses Charleston Shooting Suspect Dylann Roof
- Dylann Roof's friend: 'He never said anything racist': Christon Scriven, 21, told the BBC's Rajini Vaidyanathan that Mr Roof "wanted to shoot that school up - UCA university of Charleston - it's 3 miles up the street from that church."
- Mitt Romney Calls on South Carolina to Remove Confederate Flag at Capitol
- Dylann Storm Roof Photos Found on Website [manifesto archive]
- Here's What Appears to Be Dylann Roof's Racist Manifesto
- Photos Of Dylann Roof, Racist Manifesto Surface On Website
- BBC: The collection of photographs found on a website also show 21-year-old Dylann Roof burning the US flag and visiting a former slave plantation.
- Possible manifesto of Dylann Roof draws from hate group's text, expert says
- Police: Charleston church shooting suspect Dylann Roof is on suicide watch
- Charleston Church Shooter Dylann Roof Was Loner Caught in 'Internet Evil': Family
- The Mainstream Media Is Showing Its Bias In Charleston Massacre. And It's Ugly.
- Rick Perry: Charleston massacre was an 'accident' caused by drugs — not guns
- Suboxone: What is the drug linked to Charleston shooting suspect?
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You can't have your cake and let your neighbor eat it too.
-- Ayn Rand
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:47AM
There WAS another difference, which you entirely gloss over.
Jews didn't sell other Jews into Dachau. In Africa, Africans sold other Africans into the slave trade.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:54AM
That is true. Didn't really think of that.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:27AM
> Jews didn't sell other Jews into Dachau. In Africa, Africans sold other Africans into the slave trade.
So what?
What difference does that make? One tribe selling another tribe into slavery. Just because they both happen to live in proximity to each other, that's meaningful? How is that different from german protestants putting german jews into concentration camps?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:45AM
So - what are you saying? It's alright to sell members of another tribe into slavery? Alright then - IF that is the position that you choose to take, then there would be no shame in white people enslaving black people. They are OBVIOUSLY not from the same tribe.
Hypocricy, much?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:45AM
> So - what are you saying? It's alright to sell members of another tribe into slavery?
You are so racist that you couldn't conceive that I was making another point, could you?
I am saying what I said explicitly, that it doesn't make a difference that one tribe did it to another. The SAME THING happened in germany, ergo your entire 'difference' is no difference at all. Except to racists like yourself who think grouping all africans together as a single group somehow makes what german protestants did to german jews worse.
(Score: 1) by timbojones on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:27AM
The bucket "African" is a lot bigger than the bucket "Jew". Africans have more genetic diversity than all other humans combined.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:51AM
As I posted to AC above - hypocricy much?
All men are brothers, but in the case of Africans, you take the time to point out their diversity? Are all men brothers, or not? If you choose to take the position that Africans selling Africans into slavery is understandable or forgivable, then you MUST ALSO understand and forgive white people for using blacks as slaves.
Your position is untenable. You must either accept and condone slavery, or you must condemn slavery - you can't claim that slavery is alright in one circumstance, but not alright in another.
Unless, of course, you happen to be a racist who hates whites, but loves blacks. In such a case, then anything and everything that a white person does seems wrong to you, and anything and everything that a black person does is fine with you.
Old Shakespeare had it right.
"What's in a name? That which we call a racist
By any other name would smell like shit."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:01AM
The bucket "African" is a lot bigger than the bucket "Jew". Africans have more genetic diversity than all other humans combined.
What is your point in bringing that up?
The Africans selling other Africans into slavery were neighboring clans, sometimes long time rivals, sometimes just one warlord coveting another's farmland or cattle. Sometimes brothers. This wasn't a case of of one radically different ethnic group from afar invading new territories. They got paid by the head, and got to keep the lands, cattle, often the wives of the merchandise. In all, about 250,000 slaves were imported to the US, while about 4.9 million were imported to Brazil, mostly from Angola.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:17AM
The reason a lot of folks ended up in Camp Delta (Guantanamo) was that it was economically advantageous to that guy's neighbor.
Just make up a story about a competitor, "rat him out" to the gullible USA operatives, take all that guy's stuff after he's gone--and you get a bounty from the USA's fools to boot.
.
Why don't double quotes work in Subject lines any more?
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:44AM
I usually read that this is only because of isolated pygmy tribes [wikipedia.org], in particular around the Congo. Do you have any other evidence handy? There is a lot of FUD around that particular statistic on the web and would be interested to read more.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Gorb on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:35AM
There is a thesis out there with some circumstantial evidence that the Jewish Council and Zionists allowed and supported the elimination of the poorest of jews in 1944, with 460,000 being sent to Auschwitz. "They were unworthy to enter the Holy Land" quoted from (translated) http://ioncoja.ro/holocaust-in-romania/cine-i-a-trimis-la-auschwitz-pe-cei-460-000-de-evrei-din-ungaria/ [ioncoja.ro]
Is it wrong to have sexual fantasies about cartoon characters?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:58AM
Yes, I'm aware of that controversy. I can't read the link you supply, but there is plenty of English language material on the subject. Even before the Balfour agreement, it was decided that "the end justifies the means". At least some Jews thought it desirable to sacrifice some Jews, as a means to unite Jews around the world, as well as helping to sway non-Jewish people to accept a Jewish homeland.
I'd rather not go very deeply into that here. It should suffice that we agree there are some Jews who are as deplorable as the low lifes from any other community of human beings.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday June 21 2015, @10:40AM
He might not have sold them but turncoat Jews like George Soros did colaborate with the Nazis to help them round them up. And he ain't got any better since.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:42AM
You get points for that observation - but there is a tremendous difference between a few (or even a few hundred) collaborators, and a continent-wide industry.
When the Jews were loaded onto the trains, they saw German soldiers by the hundreds, and some few of them may have spotted a race traitor among the crowds of soldiers. When the Africans were loaded onto the ships, they saw some dozens of white faces, among the thousands of their fellow blacks who participated openly in the slave trade.
I'm still having problems drawing an equivalency between the slave trade, and the holocaust. For me to see them as parallels, someone is going to have to do a much better job of demonstrating the parallelism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:38PM
turncoat Jews like George Soros did colaborate with the Nazis
You get points for that observation
And there we have proof of the quality of your analysis - anything that fits your nasty worldview is true.
Soros was a 13 year old boy [mediamatters.org] when forced to accompany the nazi who was protecting him as he inventoried the estate of a jewish family that had paid it as ransom to escape nazi germany. To you a 13-year old is a collabrator, to anyone who isn't a total asshole that's a kid not even old enough to be in high school.
For me to see them as parallels, someone is going to have to do a much better job of demonstrating the parallelism.
If you weren't so racist you would have seen it in the example jmorris provided - white germans profited immensely by confiscating the property of their fellow white jews. [livescience.com] Same thing happened with the japanese internment in the US - most of them lost all their property, including real estate, to their neighbors.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:39PM
Is he still 13? Because he's still supporting [wikipedia.org] nazis, both the self-confessed ones and the others, in fact he (along with far too many others) is supporting the only nazi government in existence and helped establish it with seed money of about a hundred million USD. He also wants the EU (i.e. other people's money) to fund them with 50 billion Euro.
Or how would you see things if it was you who was “not $nationality enough” and violently attacked, shelled, shot, or burnt alive?
Notice that Soros also supports the existence of Kosovo which seems very likely to have been the first attempt at creating an entire US/NATO “black site” state. Whether or not it was successful is up for debate.
Not that Soros is not the only one either: the Azov battalion [wikipedia.org] wouldn't exist was it not for the funds from jewish local big shot Ihor Kolomoyskyi [wikipedia.org]. It's precisely the same people who ran Maidan; the same guys who had internal rules like “no handguns, only rifles allowed” while patrolling and corralling the paid protesters; the boots on the ground and the enablers of the false flag shootings.
Soros & McCain & Obama = scum jackpot, add the EU dictator Juncker [wikipedia.org] and you've got yourself a full house of evil.
And when it comes to Juncker also remember that Luxembourg is Europe's biggest and most important tax haven and corruption central; it's how the likes of Google and Apple get away with paying nearly no tax at all. That puts “successful politician” in the right context.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:06AM
He might not have sold them but turncoat Jews like George Soros did colaborate with the Nazis to help them round them up. And he ain't got any better since.
Soros was 13 when he "collaborated" with the Nazis. Unlike say, Prescott Bush, who was a US senator and helped build the Bush family fortune helping to finance the Nazis rise to power.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:37PM
It doesn't fucking matter who sold the slaves, the people who bought them were even more culpable. Even if Southerners try to deny this.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:00PM
Yes - it matters. It matters a lot. The people who TOOK the slaves are no less culpable than those who bought and sold the slaves. How do you think they GOT the slaves, anyway? A raiding party went into a village, killed off however fighting age men was necessary, raped the women, tied/shackle/chained the captured survivors together, and marched those prisoners for miles and miles with inadequate food and drink, then drove them into pens like animals. Let's not forget that the weak and infirm would have been killed off along the way - toddlers, the elderly, people suffering from disease. Then, the auctions, separating mothers from children, etc ad nauseum. Man's inhumanity to man started with raiders destroying the lives of people in neighboring villages, not with pirate vessels raiding the coasts.
Maybe worse than raiding neighboring villages, were the political maneuverings. The shaman can't get along with the chief, so one or the other has his opponent captured and delivered to a coastal town as a slave. Or, a jealous lover has his/her rival kidnapped, and sent to the coast.
I don't know how the hell you measure evil, but the locals who traded in slaves are equals with the sea captains and their crews in every way. And, neither was one whit better than the end buyers in the Americas.
Evil is evil - and you can't excuse those Africans who engaged in the same evil that the white men were doing.
(Score: 1) by eof on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:09PM
Slavery has existed throughout history. The difference with the US slave model was the dehumanization of the slave. The fact that Africans sold to slave traders does not necessarily mean they subscribed to the US practices. In other cultures, slaves could hold positions of prominence, some were generals. In many Muslim societies slaves were simply a symbol of wealth and there are examples of slaves being married off to the daughters of kings.
A further consequence of the US slave history was the association skin color with being non-human. Thus, when slavery ended, the perception of the freed slaves as being lesser continued.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:26PM
Now, you are on to something. But - the dehumanization didn't take place early in our history. It might surprise you, but that came rather late in history.
I think that I linked to gun law history elsewhere in this discussion - http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-long-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/ [theblaze.com]
Also, one of those people who bears much of the responsibility for dehumanizing black people, was himself a black man. Green, I think his name was - let me find him again . . . No, Anthony Johnson was his name. He argued in court that black people should remain enslaved in perpetuity, and the court agreed with him! http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/08/the-first-legal-slave-owner-in-what-would-become-the-united-states-was-a-black-man/ [todayifoundout.com] Prior to his case, blacks were considered as indentured servants, no different than any white servant.
So, sadly, yet again, a black man bears much of the responsibility for the reprehensible treatment of his own people.
But, your final statement, regarding skin color, is spot on. It's a terrible shame that a black person might blend into almost any population in the world after a generation or two - but here in the US the courts worked hard to ensure that he could never blend in.
Sometimes, I want to curse black people for not assimilating - but then I remember that he wasn't PERMITTED to assimilate for 200 years and more. It's a fokking complicated mess we have here, that's for sure.
(Score: 1) by eof on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:22PM
I think you are stretching the level of responsibility of Anthony Johnson in regards to the treatment of black people. Yes, he filed suit, and may have done so without regard to the race of Casor. I see no evidence that race was a factor in the suit for him, simply 'property rights.'
The article you cite (under "Bonus Facts") makes reference to an earlier case that already suggests a disparity in treatment of blacks and whites (note the second paragraph):
While Johnson is generally considered by most historians to be the first legal slave owner in what would become the United States, there was one person who preceded him in 1640 who owned a slave in all but name. The virtual slave was John Punch, ordered to be an indentured servant for life, though by law was still considered an indentured servant with all the rights that went with that. In Punch’s case, he was made a lifelong indentured servant owing to the fact that he tried to leave before his contract was up. When he was captured and brought back, the judge in the matter decided a suitable punishment was to have Punch’s contract continue for the rest of his life.
What makes Punch’s case even more interesting (and unfair) is that when he ran away, he ran away with two white indentured servants who were also seeking to get out of their contract. The punishment for the white indentured servants was not a lifetime of servitude, though. Rather, they were given 30 lashes with a whip and a mere additional 4 years on their contracts.
Thus, the courts seem to have sided with Johnson on the matter of property rights, but the decision may have been tainted by existing biases. What might have happened if Casor were white?
The 17th century continued with people of African and Indian descent being exploited. Again, from your cited article:
In Virginia, in 1662, legislatures enacted a law stating that if you owned a slave, not only were they yours for life, but any children of a slave mother would also be a slave, regardless of whether the father was a slave or not. Before this, the father’s status was typically what was used to determine the child’s status, regardless of race or the mother.
A further change of the laws came in 1670 when a law was passed forbidding those of African or Indian descent from owning any “Christian” slaves. In this case, this did not necessarily mean literal Christian slaves; if you had a black or Indian slave who was a Christian, that was fine, as they were black or Indian, and thus “heathen”, regardless of what they said or believed or even if they were baptized.
A further hardening of the laws came in 1699. In an attempt to get rid of all the prominent free black people, Virginia enacted a law requiring all free black people to leave the colony, to further cement the majority of free people in the colonies as non-black, and allow the tyranny of the majority with respect to those of African descent to progress unhindered.
I think it hard to argue that these developments were caused by the Johnson case, but reflect already existing biases.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:44PM
I'm starting to like your thinking - you're working MUCH harder than most people are willing to do.
Existing biases. Hmmmm. I agree, and I disagree. The US hasn't managed to erase bigotry, racism, and hatred in the 150 years since slavery was ended. Likewise, all that hatred didn't spring forth in full bloom. It was cultivated over a period of almost 400 years. Mr. Johnson advanced an argument in court that his servant should not be protected by indentured servitude laws. Johnson very specifically argued that those laws did not pertain to black African slaves - they were slaves, not servants.
I believe that it took time for blacks and whites to learn to hate and distrust each other, and that Johnson contributed to that learning. In fact, his contribution is at least equal to any other person in the US, black or white. It's kinda tough wading through all the search hits - there are one hell of a lot of bigots, both black and white, who show up in the results. Here is a better link to the case - http://www.historyinanhour.com/2011/03/08/the-first-slave-john-casor/ [historyinanhour.com]
"But Johnson had a change of mind and decided not to let the matter rest. He took the case to the County Court of Northampton County, Virginia, claiming that Parker had taken his “negro servant” and declaring that, by rights, “Thee had ye Negro for his life.”"
Johnson was the FIRST PERSON to claim ownership of another person for life.
Indentured servitude and/or slavery had existed in the US for about 120 to 150 years already, without any person being declared a slave in perpetuity. Johnson was the first to assert that a slave should remain a slave for life.
Immediately after his death, Johnson's own arguments worked against his own children.
"Johnson died in 1670 and his 300 acres of land passed, not to his children, but by court ruling, to a white colonist. The courts declared that “as a black man, Anthony Johnson was not a citizen of the colony.”"
Imagine that . . .
(Score: 1) by eof on Monday June 22 2015, @01:11AM
I still see nothing in the link you provided that says Johnson argued Casor had no rights because he was "a negro." Johnson may have been the first person to legally claim ownership of another person for life in the colonies (though there is still the Punch case). I find it hard to believe that he would make the arguments you suggest in the Casor case for the simple reason that doing so would place him in jeopardy--he had arrived in the colonies under the same circumstances. I can believe he pursued the claim for selfish and petty reasons. I would like greater detail on the arguments presented. Further, the decision may have been a one-time sentence, similar to the Punch case. For example, did the ruling bind the other servants on his farm to him for life?
I also don't see that "Johnson's own arguments worked against his own children..." First, because I haven't seen Johnson's arguments, and second, because his children were not indentured servants (or were they?). The fate of Johnson's family is more likely an example of the biases of (some) white colonists who went on exploiting the minority communities, as they had been doing for a while (e.g., taking advantage of illiteracy among the kidnapped Africans and others to extend their servitude). The same can be said of the declaration that Johnson, as a black man, was not a citizen of the colony. What better way to eliminate competition for land and opportunity than to single out the members of a weaker community?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 22 2015, @03:27AM
Please read Ben Kinchlow's explanation of Johnson's actions. http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/father-of-u-s-slavery-was-a-black-man/ [wnd.com]
(Score: 1) by eof on Monday June 22 2015, @07:25PM
The offered article still does not answer my questions: Did Johnson argue that Casor was his slave? On what would the claim be based? Where is that documentation? Under what authority would such enslavement be recognized? Did Johnson ask for Casor's punishment to be lifelong indenture? To quote from the court findings as given in the article:
“Whereas complaint was this day made to the court by the humble petition of Anthony Johnson, Negro, against Mr. Robert Parker that he detains one John Casor, a Negro, the plaintiff’s servant under pretense that the said John Casor is a freeman..."
I read that at there is a dispute about whether or not Casor is a freeman as opposed to still having obligations as an indentured servant. That would make it an analog of the Punch case.
I continue to assert that this ruling does not lay the origin of slavery in the US to Johnson. Independent of that issue, it does not explain the lengths that were gone through to cast those with African ancestry as less than human (something I'm pretty confident Johnson didn't argue in court.) The way I read them, the contemporaneous sources already suggest that efforts to differentiate blacks were already evident: Why else the insistence on describing Johnson and Casor as Negro?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:23AM
Sorry, man, but the answers to those questions are in the article. The author "translated" what he read into modern legalese. Yes, Johnson informed the court that because his slave was a black African, that the terms of indentured servitude did not apply. Ye Negro is mine for life! And, the court agreed with him!
You may be right that efforts to differentiate blacks was evident - but the fact remains that up intil Johnson argued his case, blacks were accorded the same rights as other indentured servants, that is, upon completing their terms of indenture, they were awarded property and/or money and the means to support themselves for some period of time, and granted their freedom.
Casor was the first genuine slave in America, and Johnson was the first slave owner. This was the case that led to slavery in perpetuity. This case condemned the black man to suffer the next couple hundred years of indignities and suffering.
(Score: 1) by eof on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:10PM
There is nothing in the article that answers the questions I have raised, translation into modern language or not. Where is the fact that Casor is African mentioned, as you suggest it is? The "translation" also only gives the conclusion of the court and no arguments provided by Johnson.
As for your claims regarding blacks being treated equally, take a look at this page (and article) which provides some of the context of the times in addition to touching on the Johnson case: https://books.google.com/books?id=BEd85InqqAIC&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false [google.com]
Further quick searches yield other interesting bits of context: http://www.virtualjamestown.org/practise.html [virtualjamestown.org]
For the last link, search for "Deed from Henry Brooks Junior to Nicholas Brooks Senior"
I am confident discussion with a scholar in this field would yield a much greater understanding than is provided by a few commentaries.
I maintain that reference to the Johnson case as the root of slavery in the colonies is inaccurate. The episode provides a snapshot of the changing environment in the colonies regarding race and station, but using it to argue it laid the foundation for enslavement and mistreatment of a group of people strikes me as looking for a convenient way to ignore the bigger picture.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:50PM
Good citations there. I'll toss back a paragraph from your own citation - oh crap, you can't copy/paste from those pages. Re-read "Complicity on the part of the King" heading, and the four paragraphs. Note the dates. "The status of the Negro steadily deteriorated . . . this transition is difficult to trace . . . "official pretense" that lifetime servitude did not exist . . ."
I was totally unaware that the king of England had a vested interest in the slave trade. So, maybe government was moving that way anyway - but they needed case law to make it happen.
At the very least, Johnson gave the slavers a solid plank on which to build their platform. And, at the very least, his suit and his claims offered legitimacy to the idea that black people should be treated differently than white people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:57PM
I've been searching off and on for a couple days for the transcript of the court case - it it even existed. This is the best hit yet:
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655 [encyclopediavirginia.org]
Transcription from Original
The deposition of Captain Samuel Goldsmith taken (in open court) 8th of March Sayth, That beinge at the howse of Anthony Johnson Negro (about the beginninge of November last to receive a hogshead of tobacco) a Negro called John Casar came to this Deponent, and told him that hee came into Virginia for seaven or Eight yeares (per Indenture) And that hee had demanded his freedome of his master Anthony Johnson; And further said that Johnson had kept him his servant seaven yeares longer than hee ought, And desired that this deponent would see that hee might have noe wronge, whereupon your Deponent demanded of Anthony Johnson his Indenture, hee answered, hee never sawe any; The said Negro (John Casor) replyed, hee came for a certayne tyme and had an Indenture Anthony Johnson said hee never did see any But that hee had him for his life; Further this deponent saith That mr. Robert Parker and George Parker they knew that the said Negro had an Indenture (in on Mr. Carye hundred on the other side of the Baye) And the said Anthony Johnson did not tell the negro goe free The said John Casor would recover most of his Cowes of him; Then Anthony Johnson (as this deponent did suppose) was in a feare. Upon this his Sonne in lawe, his wife and his 2 sonnes perswaded the said Anthony Johnson to sett the said John Casor free. more saith not
Samuel Goldsmith
This daye Anthony Johnson Negro made his complaint to the Court against mr. Robert Parker and declared that hee deteyneth his servant John Casor negro (under pretence that the said Negro is a free man.) The Court seriously consideringe and maturely weighinge the premisses, doe fynde that the said Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master as appeareth by the deposition of Captain Samuel Goldsmith and many probably circumstances. It is therefore the Judgment of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of his said master Anthony Johnson, And that mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charge in the suit. also Execution.
(Score: 1) by eof on Tuesday June 23 2015, @04:42PM
The view that those of African and non-European descent were lesser predates the Johnson case. Any reading of colonial history based in fact will demonstrate this (for instance, the ABA article). One web resource by a group of historians focuses on the history of the Johnson family based on historical records: http://nabbhistory.salisbury.edu/settlers/profiles/johnson1.html [salisbury.edu]
They do not say much about the suit involving Casor, but they do provide context for his time (See Chapter 1).
Johnson's may be the first civil case around the concept of slavery, but I do not believe he is the first slave holder, nor do I believe anyone took a cue from him as to how non-Europeans should be treated. (Even in the Casor case there is no evidence his claim was based on Casor being African or black.) No doubt Johnson took a cue from others regarding property rights.
Consider this quote from the ABA article in a previous message:
"English slavery was borrowed from Spanish and Portuguese slavery, with none of the legal safeguards that existed in those societies regarding the care and treatment, manumission, marriage, and familial duties of the master...[T]hat slavery became entrenched in America evidences the evil wrought by governmental passivity to the economic depredations of one social group on another."
Johnson was but one man, and exceptional in many ways, but the history of US slavery cannot be laid at his feet.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday June 22 2015, @11:38AM
Actually there were a number of Jewish collaborators: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_Nazi_collaborators [wikipedia.org]
Bottom line, there are bad people in every group who will participate in crimes against their own people for their personal benefit.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)