All non-africans part neanderthal, genetics confirm

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Slavery was abolished in the USA in large part because of the deeply Christian faith of many of the nation's Founders. Thomas Jefferson tried to abolish the practice with his original draft of the Declaration of Independence but it was removed in the final draft because the others realized they needed the cooperation of all the colonies to fight off their own government troops. It was several decades before the newly created USA was stable enough to fulfill that vision.

I think Benjamin Rush said it best: “Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.”

Founding Fathers' Christian Faith and their anti-slavery movement
https://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

---

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

Thomas Jefferson's view of African Americans:

"For men probably of any color, but of this color we know, brought from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves, and are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising young. In the mean time they are pests in society by their idleness, and the depredations to which this leads them."

Jefferson's view on miscegenation:

"Their amalgamation with the other color produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character can innocently consent."

And here is your deeply Christian founding father saying:

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging three headed beast like god one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes, fools and hypocrites. "
— Thomas Jefferson

Anathstryx

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by anathstryx:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

---

We, like Thomas Jefferson, abhor those who use the name of God to justify abuses against the teachings of Jesus.

The Christian principle quoted by the Founders to abolish slavery is that we are all created by God and are therefore all Equal. It's in the Declaration of Independence, if you have any doubt. Under that principle, no man has innately greater authority over another and can therefore not own another.

When the Roman Government selected specific books to construct the Bible, they surely left out a lot of useful material. I don't know whether or not the omitted material addressed slavery in any way but Jesus certainly objected to one person taking a position of power over another. That's what his whole "turn the other cheek" bit was about. He lived in a system where Romans were superior to Jews and could therefore strike a Jew (back-handed) as an insult. Jesus proposed returning the humiliation by turning the other cheek to invite another strike. And if the Roman takes your cloak, then take off the rest of your clothing, hand it to him and stand there naked. How embarrassing to the fellow who claimed a "superior" position. But I'm digressing.

The principle that we are all created Equal is the Christian foundation for abolition of slavery in the United States. It is not a principle held by Islam, Hindu or most other systems.

I'd like to clarify a quote that you clearly did not understand when you said it is Jefferson's view of African Americans:

"For men probably of any color, but of this color we know, brought from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves, and are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising young. In the mean time they are pests in society by their idleness, and the depredations to which this leads them."

He made an observation on human nature for people OF ANY COLOR. That, when they are brought up from cradle to grave, provided for so that they don't have to strive, learn and achieve, become like children incapable of taking care of themselves. Such persons, with too much idle time on their hands and lacking a good upbringing, resort to mischief. Just look at inner city kids in families where "the check comes". I've seen for myself their hatred of things that a hard working person who overcomes life challenges values. Their gangs are increasingly violent, their willful disruption of schools wrecks their chances for education...

Jefferson's comment on people probably of any color is demonstrably accurate.

The real problem we have here is people who do not actually read and try to understand Jefferson's quotes, in context. They don't say what you are trying to say by posting them.

Now, I must insist we start another thread for this conversation. This topic is about Neanderthals. We would not wish to annoy the moderator by bombarding this topic with off-topic posts.

I'll start the thread, addressed to you. It will contain another important correction.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Now, I must insist we start another thread for this conversation. This topic is about Neanderthals. We would not wish to annoy the moderator by bombarding this topic with off-topic posts.

I'll start the thread, addressed to you. It will contain another important correction.

---

Odd little side-trip. I'll need to pay more attention to the map. Wow! So sorry, Wacconians! The Neanderthals deserve their unsullied niche!

Anathstryx

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by anathstryx:

Odd little side-trip. I'll need to pay more attention to the map. Wow! So sorry, Wacconians! The Neanderthals deserve their unsullied niche!

Anathstryx

---

It's generally a courtesy on a discussion forum that if someone starts a discussion of a specific topic, we respect the conversation they were hoping to have on that topic.

Yes, the Neanderthal discussion does deserve its own niche. We can chat about slavery and the Founders in a thread devoted to that purpose. It's a matter of respect to the creator of this thread.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

It's generally a courtesy on a discussion forum that if someone starts a discussion of a specific topic, we respect the conversation they were hoping to have on that topic.

Yes, the Neanderthal discussion does deserve its own niche. We can chat about slavery and the Founders in a thread devoted to that purpose. It's a matter of respect to the creator of this thread.

---

Nooo! Really??? Thanks for telling me that! I've only been in discussion groups online for...oh...probably longer than you've been alive. That's why I apologized.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by anathstryx:

Nooo! Really??? Thanks for telling me that! I've only been in discussion groups online for...oh...probably longer than you've been alive. That's why I apologized.

---

And I misunderstood the meaning of your post to be sarcasm. Apologies.

Regarding Neanderthals...

I expressed some confusion about the mixing of human species. Neanderthals went back much further than 70,000 years, when the human species nearly became extinct. I was under the impression that the only humans to survive were a small group in Africa. However, it's possible that the original source meant that the only Homo Sapiens to survive was that group - while other humans, like Neanderthal, were doing okay elsewhere.

It's an event in history I'm hoping someone can shed more light upon.

let's not forget the Romans (who enslaved nearly all peoples they integrated into their empire) plus they referred to the anglo-saxons and the germans (carthage as well) as the "barbarians" because those people were not of the empire ... funny how the term "barbaric acts" is now just a description of the treatment the Romans gave the peoples they invaded!

history says the Egyptians enslaved other peoples as well.

Seems to be a human quality -- just take something if you want it (and can get away with it). Today, we need to realize and accept this aspect of human nature, no?

Sadly on the news in Oakland a man named "brother john" was shot and killed while his wife and two daughters were giving home cooked meals to homeless people. Humans are dangerous and more importantly, unpredictable!

Regarding the pictures of the unkempt ancestors ... take away your knowledge and ability to clothe yourself, clean yourself, accumulate enough water to bathe in, no grocery stores, no soft bed to sleep on, and you may come to understand what it is like to be ungroomed, don't you think? Today we have it sooooooo easy; we can't begin to imagine what their lives must have been like!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

...I have something to say on the subject of slavery. ...

---

It is with great trepidation that I tread on this tangential discussion, but here goes:

The Europeans imported African slaves because they were put up for sale by other Africans who had taken them as prisoner of war and so forth. It was and to an unfortunate extent still is a cultural custom on the African continent. The African sellers even went so far as to create at least one port and detention facility specifically for loading slaving ships with their human cargo. It is still in existence today as a tourist attraction. It was not until close to the end of the trans-atlantic human trafficking era that slavers needed to go kidnap Africans (as illustrated in Alex Haley's Roots) to get their "product."

Of course this does not make slavery in any form any less horrible, unacceptable and corrosive to the society that practices it. Obviously Africans were not the only people practicing slavery and/or human trafficking. I look forward to the day when the principles of the Enlightenment are applied with equal success to end another horrible, corrosive African cultural custom that has unfortunately infected North America: genital cutting on children (regardless of gender).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

I've been a bit out of the loop what with my spotty internet connections over here in England. I have something to say on the subject of slavery. Contrary to what was asserted, slavery is no more an "African" institution than is hunting or any other human activity.

With minor short lived exceptions, slavery was the human cultural norm until 1777 when Vermont became the first nation to outlaw the practice, followed by Massachusetts in 1783 and France in 1794. Slave trading was abolished in the British Empire in 1807 and British navy began to suppress the Atlantic slave trade that same year; slavery was finally abolished in the British Empire in 1833-38, a considerable part of the globe. Other nations followed, with the Islamic world completing the process in the mid- to late-20th century. The Chinese ended slavery in Tibet. And please, spare us all the Neo-Confederate historical revisionism on this issue.

The impetus to abolish slavery came from European civilization infused by the humanist values of the Enlightenment, one of our greatest gifts to humankind. A lot of yahoos are fond of bashing the Enlightenment, but they reveal more about their own ignorance than they do of our intellectual history.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 2Bwacco:

Regarding the pictures of the unkempt ancestors ... take away your knowledge and ability to clothe yourself, clean yourself, accumulate enough water to bathe in, no grocery stores, no soft bed to sleep on, and you may come to understand what it is like to be ungroomed, don't you think? Today we have it sooooooo easy; we can't begin to imagine what their lives must have been like!

---

Even apes groom one another and clean themselves. I think it's an innate behavior.

I was thinking that studies of feral children might shed more light on this but they tend to be solitary, away from other humans. Mutual grooming and cleanliness seems to have something to do with social groups and is practiced, to some extent, by all human groups I know of. Apes as well.

Hey, have you seen "Baraka"? This just reminded me of the opening scene.

If you have not seen "Baraka" then RUN, don't walk, RUN to the video store and get it! Or Netflix it. OMG. It'll bring you to tears of joy and anguish. It's an amazing look at humanity.

Ah, yes, we do have it tremendously easy!

One documentary revealed that Neanderthals had an unusually high rate of broken and healed bones in the manner one sees today in rodeo clowns. That is, people who get tossed around and pummeled by large animals. This gives some clues as to how they went about procuring their food, which was primarily large animals with bad tempers.

It also indicates they cared for their wounded. They were very Human in that regard.

I've been wanting to go boar hunting with a spear. I don't think I would tackle a giant Mammoth with anything less than a 45-70 or a .50 cal...

Yeah, they had it rough!

Hm... what's in the fridge. Snack time.

Glia,

Your account of African slavery is only partial. The way slavery was practiced in Africa, prior to European colonialism (the Portuguese were the first Europeans to sail to the Western coast of Africa, that is if you don't count the Vikings, Phoenicians and others who came before them, and I'm only referring to Europeans here) was similar to the way slavery was practiced in many ancient societies around the globe. War captives, criminals, debtors, intertribal raiding, involved varying forms of enslavement.

Amerindians, Africans, Europeans, Near/Mid and Far Easterners (South Asians, Asians) practiced similar forms of slavery. Sometimes slaves were incorporated into the community, able to win or buy their freedom, sometimes they were traded back to their own people in hostage exchanges. Details vary.

But Chattel Slavery, as productive labor for an international market economy, as practiced by European colonialists and brought to the "New" World, was a different phenomenon. The closest thing to it before was the Roman Empire.

Yes, African rulers, kings and chiefs, potentates participated, but they were meeting market demand from Europeans. Arabs were some of the earliest slave traders in the prehistory of the Atlantic Slave Trade.

So, to miss those details, which are only a broad part of the true and complex history, to reduce "New World" slavery to an "African" institution, is inaccurate, slanderous, outrageous and odious. I'm not saying you did that, but S2T has done so here repeatedly.

And your generalized account, lends support to his thesis, by locating the enslavement of Black Africans transported to The Americas, as having its primary origin in Africa and in African culture. The known and well documented history is far more complex, interesting and important. Not to mention tragic and horrific.

I'm not trying to let the Africans who participated in it off the hook here. But your account downplays the roles of Europeans.

And S2T's claim practically absolves Europeans and European Americans from responsibility for initiating it in the Americas. That version is false, libelous and completely Racist. As any cursory examination of the record, easily available online, in wikipedia most accessibly, shows.


P.S. Glia, I pretty much disagree with you about Western circumcision, but it's clear to me that you're pretty fervent in your claims, so I haven't bothered to argue the point with you here. I weighed into the debate a few years ago here, with others. My only brother, happens to agree with you, and I wouldn't bother arguing about it with him, either.

Peace Out!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Your account of African slavery is only partial. The way slavery was practiced in Africa, prior to European colonialism (the Portuguese were the first Europeans to sail to the Western coast of Africa, that is if you don't count the Vikings, Phoenicians and others who came before them, and I'm only referring to Europeans here) was similar to the way slavery was practiced in many ancient societies around the globe. War captives, criminals, debtors, intertribal raiding, involved varying forms of enslavement.

---

My account was not intended to be comprehensive, as your reply so clearly is. It was intended to point out one aspect of the transatlantic slavery trade that tends to be ignored. Suffice to say that everyone who was involved in it has metaphorical dirty hands.

Quote:

---

Amerindians, Africans, Europeans, Near/Mid and Far Easterners (South Asians, Asians) practiced similar forms of slavery. Sometimes slaves were incorporated into the community, able to win or buy their freedom, sometimes they were traded back to their own people in hostage exchanges. Details vary.

But Chattel Slavery, as productive labor for an international market economy, as practiced by European colonialists and brought to the "New" World, was a different phenomenon. The closest thing to it before was the Roman Empire.

Yes, African rulers, kings and chiefs, potentates participated, but they were meeting market demand from Europeans. Arabs were some of the earliest slave traders in the prehistory of the Atlantic Slave Trade.

---

Europeans did not get the idea of buying enslaved Africans out of the clear blue sky. They bought them because they were for sale.

Quote:

---

So, to miss those details, which are only a broad part of the true and complex history, to reduce "New World" slavery to an "African" institution, is inaccurate, slanderous, outrageous and odious. I'm not saying you did that, but S2T has done so here repeatedly.

And your generalized account, lends support to his thesis, by locating the enslavement of Black Africans transported to The Americas, as having its primary origin in Africa and in African culture. The known and well documented history is far more complex, interesting and important. Not to mention tragic and horrific.

I'm not trying to let the Africans who participated in it off the hook here. But your account downplays the roles of Europeans.

---

The role of Europeans is well known and did not need to be repeated. I'm not letting them off the hook, nor do I buy in to the "the Africans did it" theory. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango.

Quote:

---

And S2T's claim practically absolves Europeans and European Americans from responsibility for initiating it in the Americas. That version is false, libelous and completely Racist. As any cursory examination of the record, easily available online, in wikipedia most accessibly, shows.

---

Can't argue with you there. Thank you for establishing your extensive online research skills.

Quote:

---

P.S. Glia, I pretty much disagree with you about Western circumcision, but it's clear to me that you're pretty fervent in your claims, so I haven't bothered to argue the point with you here. I weighed into the debate a few years ago here, with others. My only brother, happens to agree with you, and I wouldn't bother arguing about it with him, either.
Peace Out!

---

Great! Kindly keep it that way, because I seriously do not give a rat's ass about your opinion on the issue -- or anything else for that matter.

Europeans were buying and selling slaves long before they got to the West coast of Africa by ship in the 16th C.. The onus lies with them as the initiators.

Thanks for being clear on your opinion of my opinions. Although it merely confirms what I was already fairly sure of.

Let us not forget the Spanish who had established an economic empire in the New World a century before Jamestown. African slaves were used in great numbers in the sugar industry in Cuba and Hispaniola after the native populations were exterminated.

Slavery as a significant economic institution in the present day US was started by aristocratic English settlers who migrated from Barbados (were slaves were used on large sugar plantations) and founded the Province of Carolina in 1663. The slaves were used primarily in rice farming, which could not be done by European indentured servants (they died of malaria). Africans with prior knowledge of rice farming were highly prized in the Charleston slave market.

Slavery as an economic force was relatively minor in the other colonies at this point, and never amounted to much in the area north of Maryland.

The Wikipedia timeline of slavery abolition is a fascinating read on this subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolit...avery_timeline

Thanks Geomancer,

I've focused on the question of who was "first" to introduce chattel slavery of Black Africans in the English colonies, because that is the central fact in S2T repeated specious assertion that it was a Black man. Secondarily, his slander that that form of slavery was an "African" institution, with the implication that somehow Europeans have secondary responsibility for it. A completely absurd claim based on some wingnut's book, which has no other academic confirmation or support.

I haven't asked a professional historian whose field this is. Partly because one of my fields of study and inquiry, has been in this very subject and related subjects.

Like most of S2T's outrageous claims, it's so absurd as to not really require a response or refutation. Except, in these frenetic and hysterical times we're living in, such calumnies are bandied about willy nilly, and somebody has to call him and others like him on his bullshit, or the naive, uninformed and miseducated, might also become the misinformed and spread these vile lies.

It's really on him to prove his fringe assertions, just making the claim is not sufficient proof and all he can do is refer us to the narrow range of marginal sources from whence he gained his "knowledge".

And I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he really believes the tripe he spouts here. He's certainly passionate enough about disseminating it. Perhaps he's just seeking our outraged reactions, literally trolling. Perhaps he's just doing as he says he is, sharing ideas and seeking answers. Perhaps he has too much time on his hands like a few of the rest of us.

I can't speak for him. I can refute inaccurate, overreaching, specious and ugly historical and political claims when I see them glaring out at me from this screen. At least I can if I make the effort. And I thank the others such as yourself who also make that effort.

Ultimately, if the world economy tanks next week, will any of this really matter?

[QUOTE="Mad" Miles;138307][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]
I've focused on the question of who was "first" to introduce chattel slavery of Black Africans in the English colonies, because that is the central fact in S2T repeated specious assertion that it was a Black man. Secondarily, his slander that that form of slavery was an "African" institution, with the implication that somehow Europeans have secondary responsibility for it. A completely absurd claim based on some wingnut's book, which has no other academic confirmation or support.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

This would have been Soooo easy for you to confirm, had you demonstrated any of the research skills another poster mistakenly attributed to you.

Step 1: Go to Wikipedia. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_%28American_Colonial"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(American_Colonial[/URL])

Step 2: Read what it says.

Anthony Johnson was an Angolan African held as an indentured servant by a merchant in the Colony of Virginia in 1620, but later freed to become a successful tobacco farmer and owner of an African slave of his own.

Early in 1620, Johnson was captured by slave traders in his native land of Angola and sold to a merchant belonging to the Virginia Company.[1] He arrived in Virginia in 1621 aboard the James. At this time he was known in the records as "Antonio, a Negro".[2] Johnson was sold to a white planter named Bennet to work on his Virginia tobacco farm.

During this time in the Virginia colony, the Africans were held in indentured servitude and were often released after a set period.[3] Many of the more fortunate slaves even received land and equipment after their contracts for work expired. Bennet allowed Johnson to own his own plot of land to be used for farming.[4]

Slavery was officially established in Virginia in 1654, when Anthony Johnson convinced a court that his servant (also a black man), John Casor, was his for life.

Glia, I have to laugh at you for praising his rather nonexistent research skills. This one was too easy. All his sneering at me was for naught.

Miles, you can thank me for providing you with a bit of education. That would be appropriate. ;-)

S2T,

Your claim is just as specious as when you first spouted it here on waccobb.net a few months ago. Just cause a Black African won a court case in Virginia to hold another Black African as a slave, and that case "established by law" chattel slavery of Black Africans, in that colony, does not mean he "instituted" it. Coincidence is not causation. And the court had something to say about the matter.

What about the other English colonies? What about the English colonies in the Caribbean? What about the earlier practices of the Portuguese and Spanish? Was this court case the first legal decision regarding chattel slavery of Black Africans? What were the laws in England?

One court case does not an economic structure make. No renowned scholar in this field makes anything of this. And no one has ever claimed that no Black people owned other Black people in the Americas, that's a well known fact among those who study the history.

(Just as Glia's claim elsewhere, that the Black African participation in the Atlantic Slave Trade is little known and/or ignored, is completely false. It's well acknowledged, documented and researched in both the scholarly and popular literature. It was portrayed in "Roots" for F's sake!)

Only racially frustrated White guys in a marginal, but dangerously growing, social and political movement seeking redress for past wrongs done against them by .... whoever, even mention it. Funny that, seems to indicate what ax y'all are grinding.

I'm not going to take the time to check that particular wikipedia articles sources and supporting documents. I did so months ago. I don't doubt that it happened. The issue is its historical significance. My previous reply with a link to an extensive discussion about the claims you and the author make in this regard suffices. Did you ever read it? Because at no point have you acknowledged or indicated you have.

Keep in mind as I originally stated months ago, I looked for discussions of this book you cite. Other than White Supremacist and allied websites, and repeated copies of it online, there was little or no discussion. That tells me something very important, it is not taken seriously by professional scholars. I can't recall its publication date, but I believe it was in the late seventies, maybe the late nineties. Either way, long enough to have been commented upon, it's a pretty outrageous claim. That for the most part it hasn't been is very significant.

Ideologues choose facts to fit the cloth they're weaving. Scholars propose a thesis, then research and arrange facts to support it, and consider counterarguments, contradictory facts and theories.

I've seen no scholarly work on this matter. And I looked for some when you first regurgitated it here on waccobb. Just one lone wolf fringe writer who's gotten play in your little pond. Until you can find several, competing sources, with the debates about this "theory" to show that it is taken seriously by anyone other than the coterie you represent, I'm not about to invest time and energy in discussing it with you in any serious or extensive way.

Playing "gotcha" with the same information I responded to last spring or late winter, is the tactic of a child, not a historian. Nor does it indicate serious thought of any kind.

Veteran waccoons have seen this tactic in debate after debate here. A is true! It isn't? Prove it. At every turn, evidence that disproves the absurd, dubious, fringe and specious, is demanded, and if not provided, chest trumping triumph at having shown the critics to be wrong. The old, "when did you stop beating your wife?", is the classic illustration of this canard.

You are the one who has the obligation to establish the truths you claim, particularly if they come from outlier sources, and contradict generally accepted ideas that are accepted across ideological and political boundaries.

Repeated assertion of the outlandish, is not an argument. I have no obligation to disprove your claims. If I choose to, showing their origin, their marginality and the accepted accounts that contradict your claims, are sufficient reason to doubt them, to treat them skeptically. And if they are being used to support odious goals, just pointing that out is sufficient to debunk them.

Unless you fall into the True Believer camp that embraces them. Then nothing anyone says will make any difference in your thinking. I know, I've been a True Believer, briefly. And I've debated many others from different camps of delusion, off and on for many years.

Most choose to ignore you, consider my attention a form of respect. (For what I consider to be true, at least, if not for you.) I know it doesn't feel that way to you, but that's part of being a True Believer, that emotional commitment to the cause, standing in the face of all opposition.

A court case and a consequent "law", is not a theory. It is an incident. What else was going on at the time in regard to slavery? We call this form of specious fact demonstration, "cherry picking", which is generally acknowledged as a the basis of bunk history, bad journalism and fallacious argument. Who else was involved? Could some, if not many of them, have been Caucasian European immigrants from England. Just maybe?

Cracker!!! Please!!!!

Miles, I invite you to show some respect to this forum topic's creator by continuing the discussion of slavery in the topic we created especially for it.

Others have, so can you.

I'll meet you there.

I propose anyone following along with this thread read up on the latest research on the topic of how our ancestors behaved. There is a currently popular book called: Sex at Dawn, by Christopher Rya and Calcida Jethá. It's a fascinating read.

-Jeff