All non-africans part neanderthal, genetics confirm

https://news.discovery.com/human/gen...al-110718.html

ALL NON-AFRICANS PART NEANDERTHAL, GENETICS CONFIRM

Analysis by Jennifer Viegas
Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:25 AM ET

If your heritage is non-African, you are part Neanderthal, according to a new study in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. Discovery News has been reporting on human/Neanderthal interbreeding for some time now, so this latest research confirms earlier findings.

Damian Labuda of the University of Montreal's Department of Pediatrics and the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center conducted the study with his colleagues. They determined some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals, but only in people of non-African heritage.

"This confirms recent findings suggesting that the two populations interbred," Labuda was quoted as saying in a press release. His team believes most, if not all, of the interbreeding took place in the Middle East, while modern humans were migrating out of Africa and spreading to other regions.

The ancestors of Neanderthals left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago. They evolved over the millennia mostly in what are now France, Spain, Germany and Russia. They went extinct, or were simply absorbed into the modern human population, about 30,000 years ago.

Neanderthals possessed the gene for language and had sophisticated music, art and tool craftsmanship skills, so they must have not been all that unattractive to modern humans at the time.

"In addition, because our methods were totally independent of Neanderthal material, we can also conclude that previous results were not influenced by contaminating artifacts," Labuda said.

This work goes back to nearly a decade ago, when Labuda and his colleagues identified a piece of DNA, called a haplotype, in the human X chromosome that seemed different. They questioned its origins.

Fast forward to 2010, when the Neanderthal genome was sequenced. The researchers could then compare the haplotype to the Neanderthal genome as well as to the DNA of existing humans. The scientists found that the sequence was present in people across all continents, except for sub-Saharan Africa, and including Australia.

"There is little doubt that this haplotype is present because of mating with our ancestors and Neanderthals," said Nick Patterson of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University. Patterson did not participate in the latest research. He added, "This is a very nice result, and further analysis may help determine more details."

David Reich, a Harvard Medical School geneticist, added, "Dr. Labuda and his colleagues were the first to identify a genetic variation in non-Africans that was likely to have come from an archaic population. This was done entirely without the Neanderthal genome sequence, but in light of the Neanderthal sequence, it is now clear that they were absolutely right!"

The modern human/Neanderthal combo likely benefitted our species, enabling it to survive in harsh, cold regions that Neanderthals previously had adapted to.

"Variability is very important for long-term survival of a species," Labuda concluded. "Every addition to the genome can be enriching."

Cool article! White supremacists will spit up their grits when they see it! :xtrmlaugh:

Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter explained!

Notice that the piece of Neanderthal DNA was on the X chromosome. Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter have two copies of the X chromosome. These three women communicate by grunts and hand gestures. Higher cognitive thinking escapes them. Coulter in particular is a screamer. Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter exemplify women whose two X chromosomes both came from Neanderthals. Less crazy women probably have one Neanderthal X and one African X, and sane women have two African X chromosomes, no matter what the color of their skin.

How can we explain Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Glen Beck? They, like all men, have one copy of the X chromosome, not two, and they're just as crazy as Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter. Why aren't all men as crazy as these three women. How do we explain Ralph Nader, or Bernie Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich? The answer is in the origin of the X chromosome. The crazy men's X chromosome must have come from a Neanderthal ancestor, while the sane men's X chromosome must have come from an African ancestor.

I love molecular biology!

>>>Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter explained!
>>>Notice that the piece of Neanderthal DNA was on the X chromosome. Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter have two copies of the X chromosome. These three women communicate by grunts and hand gestures. Higher cognitive thinking escapes them. Coulter in particular is a screamer. Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter exemplify women whose two X chromosomes both came from Neanderthals....

I'm conflicted. I'd like to agree with your political orientation, but aren't you bad-mouthing my ancestors? The only evidence for Neanderthals being intellectually inferior is that (a) they looked a bit more like apes, (b) the location they're named after sounds kinda dumb-hillbilly, and (b) they lost. Given the historical evidence over the last 5,000 or so years against the innate intelligence of the Cro Magnon, I think the jury is still out.

ButI certainly agree with the sentiment, if not the genetics.

Cheers--
Conrad

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

>>>Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter explained!
>>>Notice that the piece of Neanderthal DNA was on the X chromosome. Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter have two copies of the X chromosome. These three women communicate by grunts and hand gestures. Higher cognitive thinking escapes them. Coulter in particular is a screamer. Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter exemplify women whose two X chromosomes both came from Neanderthals....

I'm conflicted. I'd like to agree with your political orientation, but aren't you bad-mouthing my ancestors? The only evidence for Neanderthals being intellectually inferior is that (a) they looked a bit more like apes, (b) the location they're named after sounds kinda dumb-hillbilly, and (b) they lost. Given the historical evidence over the last 5,000 or so years against the innate intelligence of the Cro Magnon, I think the jury is still out.

ButI certainly agree with the sentiment, if not the genetics.

Cheers--
Conrad

---

Conrad,

Hello! They Lost! The basis of evolutionary theory is Survival of the Fittest. If they lost, that means they were not the fittest in their environment.

Apparently the Neanderthals made no art, at least that's what Werner Herzog says, citing archeologists in his movie "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" about the 32,000 year old drawings in the Chauvet cave. That suggests they were intellectually inferior.

I hold little hope for the descendants of the Cro-Magnon, let me say, even though I am one. We humans, who were apparently fit enough to survive for the last 220,000 years, are also not intellectually superior enough to realize the stupidity of overpopulating our planet, overfishing its oceans, deforesting its land, polluting the air, water, and land, warming the planet, raising the sea levels, building nuclear plants and bombs, spreading depleted Uranium over much of the Middle East, and using 5 billion years worth of resources in 500 years. What we have done with our intellectual superiority is create energy-processors, the machines, that can live in the degraded environment we've produced with their help, that have out-reproduced us, and that are killing us. They began to kill us with smog and carcinogens and atomic bombs and automobile accidents and hand guns and Uzis, and now they are killing us from 30,000 feet with Hellfire missiles.

We were fit enough to survive where the Neanderthals were not. We are not going to prove to be fit enough to survive in the altered environment we've created. It is in this context that I am bad-mouthing Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter. These women, and the men who share their views, are as dumb as Neanderthals and just as unlikely to survive, and so are the Yahoos and Hillbillies and Republicans and Tea Partiers who agree with them.

Star Man

[QUOTE=geomancer;137658]https://news.discovery.com/human/gen...al-110718.html

ALL NON-AFRICANS PART NEANDERTHAL, GENETICS CONFIRM


The ancestors of Neanderthals left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago. They evolved over the millennia mostly in what are now France, Spain, Germany and Russia. They went extinct, or were simply absorbed into the modern human population, about 30,000 years ago.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The Neanderthals did not passively "go extinct" nor were they "simply absorbed into the modern human population." My understanding is that the ancestors of the modern human population hunted the Neanderthals down and destroyed them, just as we hunted down and destroyed all the large predator species, e.g., the grizzly bear, the cave bear, and the saber-tooth tiger.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

The Neanderthals did not passively "go extinct" nor were they "simply absorbed into the modern human population." My understanding is that the ancestors of the modern human population hunted the Neanderthals down and destroyed them, just as we hunted down and destroyed all the large predator species, e.g., the grizzly bear, the cave bear, and the saber-tooth tiger.

---

Star Man, I think that's the more "traditional" assumption about the demise of the Neanderthals, which has largely been supplanted. The very fact that most living humans have Neanderthal DNA suggests that relations between Cro-Magnons (early form of modern humans) and Neanderthals were friendlier than what you describe. It's possible you could attribute all of that to rape, but I believe I've read that there's evidence of Cro-Mags and Neanderthals living in proximity for extended periods of time, and possibly some cultural intercourse (*ahem*). The demise of the Neanderthals is now attributed largely to the decrease in large mammals such as mammoths, bison and woolly rhinos, which comprised virtually the Neanderthals' entire diet (in most areas). That decrease in their traditional prey is attributed, I think, to climate change, and maybe hunting by the modern humans. Sorry, though--I have no references at hand.

>>>Hello! They Lost! The basis of evolutionary theory is Survival of the Fittest. If they lost, that means they were not the fittest in their environment.

Not to dispute the tongue-in-cheek political point of the original post, but just to make a logical quibble. "Survival" of a species doesn't logically demonstrate their "superiority" to another species. Mass extinction could result from many things, most obviously from plague affecting one species (or subspecies without immunities) but not the other. Even supposing some sort of genocidal warfare (for which I believe there's scant evidence), a technologically superior culture doesn't automatically presuppose an innate genetic superiority, unless you adopt the logic of 19th Century white-supremicists. The likelihood of cockroaches surviving the human race may suggest that they were the "fittest," however you define that term, but by most measures we're superior to them. Of course that's a human being's opinion, but probably the roach's too, since he'll run if I try to squash him. But for all we know, the Neanderthals wiped themselves out by spending too much time on the computer and getting into email flame-wars — no evidence of their computer prowess because they developed an all-compostable technology.

>>>Apparently the Neanderthals made no art, at least that's what Werner Herzog says, citing archeologists in his movie "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" about the 32,000 year old drawings in the Chauvet cave. That suggests they were intellectually inferior.

As an artist it's nice to think that suggests intellectual superiority. But what we actually *know* is that we've not found any preserved *visual* art in conjunction with Neanderthal remains. What they did in the realm of classical ballet we can only imagine.

Cheers--
Conrad

Reaching archaeological conclusions about the lack of artistic culture in a paleolithic hominid society based on the claims of an artist who speculates that mutant albino crocodiles that have evolved in the runoff of nuclear power plant coolant might result in that species supplanting humans down the road in the distant future, strikes me as a bit tenuous. And if Caucasians are descended from both Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals, why are some of you bagging on our ancestors here? Unless unconscious race prejudice extends back into pre-history and up until today. An argument I have seen in internet flame wars in recent months.

It would seem that climate change and possibly being out-competed by the Cro-Mags is what did the Neaderthals in.

They were the most fit species and culture for the post-ice age era in what is now Europe. Then the climate changed and the forests that they hunted in gave way to more open grasslands that was not amenable to their 'grab and stab' hunting style. The new kids in town, the Cro-Mags or modern H. sapiens, had a more flexible hunting style and culture; in this sense they were more "fit" for the new environment than H. neanderthalensis.

The Neanderthals may not have had fixed representational art and they did seem to be, umm, disorganized and perhaps not so good with advance planning. That may well be cultural bias on our part, though. While they did not leave cave paintings that we know of, they did like to use body paint and to accessorize. They wove cloth and, for their time, were nattily attired. They also tended to be redheaded. They were cold adapted (the H. sapiens from the middle east were more adapted for warmer digs), and when things started to warm up after the Ice Age, they headed north. It sounds to me like they were proto-Scandinavians and the archetype Hunters!

Perhaps the Neanderthals were not adaptable enough and H. sapiens is too adaptable for its own good. It would seem that both those extremes in our genome are what vex us to this day.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Star Man, I think that's the more "traditional" assumption about the demise of the Neanderthals, which has largely been supplanted. The very fact that most living humans have Neanderthal DNA suggests that relations between Cro-Magnons (early form of modern humans) and Neanderthals were friendlier than what you describe. It's possible you could attribute all of that to rape, but I believe I've read that there's evidence of Cro-Mags and Neanderthals living in proximity for extended periods of time, and possibly some cultural intercourse (*ahem*). The demise of the Neanderthals is now attributed largely to the decrease in large mammals such as mammoths, bison and woolly rhinos, which comprised virtually the Neanderthals' entire diet (in most areas). That decrease in their traditional prey is attributed, I think, to climate change, and maybe hunting by the modern humans. Sorry, though--I have no references at hand.

---

[QUOTE=Star Man;137782]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

The Neanderthals did not passively "go extinct" nor were they "simply absorbed into the modern human population." My understanding is that the ancestors of the modern human population hunted the Neanderthals down and destroyed them, just as we hunted down and destroyed all the large predator species, e.g., the grizzly bear, the cave bear, and the saber-tooth tiger.

---

Where did that understanding come from? It's a plausible theory; so is the theory that large predators suffered in competition with early man. No more than that. The theory tying loss of large predators to humans is pretty well developed, though there are competing theories. But despite some findings that may indicate Neanderthals were butchered as food, it's quite a stretch to assert they were hunted down and destroyed as a species by modern humans. It fits our narrative of our ancestors as prototypical great white hunters, I suppose, but it's more likely that there's no such dramatic story of conflict behind their extinction.

[QUOTE=podfish;137856]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Where did that understanding come from? It's a plausible theory; so is the theory that large predators suffered in competition with early man. No more than that. The theory tying loss of large predators to humans is pretty well developed, though there are competing theories. But despite some findings that may indicate Neanderthals were butchered as food, it's quite a stretch to assert they were hunted down and destroyed as a species by modern humans. It fits our narrative of our ancestors as prototypical great white hunters, I suppose, but it's more likely that there's no such dramatic story of conflict behind their extinction.

---

Podfish,

I disagree that it's a stretch to assert that Neanderthals were hunted down and destroyed as a species. I offer as evidence the same behavior we humans demonstrated beginning with First Contact between Europeans and Native Americans, behavior that persisted through the first third of the 20th century. Europeans hunted down and destroyed most of an entire race of people, the Native Americans living in what is now the United States.

I disagree that the narrative in play is one that depicts our ancestors as "great white hunters." I believe the operative narrative is one of a species (H. sapiens) with the capacity for self-aware self-consciousness and utterly lacking the emotional regulation skills to tolerate the central concomitant of self-aware self-consciousness, the knowledge of our own mortality. (Ernest Becker brilliantly advanced this narrative in his 1973 Pulitzer winning book, "The Denial of Death.") In this narrative, those H. sapiens who lack the emotion regulation skills sufficient to tolerate awareness of their mortality are driven to eradicate all mortality reminders. The chief mortality reminder is the body itself and its connection to Nature, an integral part of which is the cycle of birth and death. The denial of death has motivated many of our cultural creations, for example religion, which denies death by fantasizing a life after death. Another of the death denying behaviors comprised destruction of the Neanderthals who were humanoids and whose natural deaths reminded our early ancestors of their own mortality. Terror at the prospect of death has motivated murderous behavior across the ages ever since humans came to self-conscious self-awareness, which appears to have been cotemporaneous with the beginnings of our annihilation of the Neanderthals.

Star Man

[QUOTE=Star Man;137859]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

... I offer as evidence the same behavior we humans demonstrated ... behavior that persisted through the first third of the 20th century. Europeans hunted down and destroyed most of an entire race of people, .... I believe the operative narrative is one of a species (H. sapiens) with the capacity for self-aware self-consciousness .... Another of the death denying behaviors comprised destruction of the Neanderthals who were humanoids and whose natural deaths reminded our early ancestors of their own mortality. Terror at the prospect of death has motivated murderous behavior across the ages ever since humans came to self-conscious self-awareness, which appears to have been cotemporaneous with the beginnings of our annihilation of the Neanderthals. Star Man

---

that "evidence" such as it is just confirms that it's plausible. There's a bit of time and place separation between those events, to say the least.
As far as the death-denier comments, I have no idea how to reply. I'll try one... Humans have an intrinsic need to find evidence of higher awareness, and nearness to the divine, in themselves. The Neanderthals, who challenged that vision with their brutish ways, had to be destroyed. Hey, that sounds about as reasonable!

Star Man, I think your argument is plausible and well-expressed (as is often true of your posts). It describes a plausible motivation for why modern humans might kill Neanderthals. But it doesn't follow that they actually did so. My understanding is that the current thinking in paleoanthropology is that eradication by modern humans is not the main factor (if even a factor at all) in the demise of our Neanderthal cousins/forbears.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

I disagree that it's a stretch to assert that Neanderthals were hunted down and destroyed as a species. I offer as evidence the same behavior we humans demonstrated beginning with First Contact between Europeans and Native Americans, behavior that persisted through the first third of the 20th century. Europeans hunted down and destroyed most of an entire race of people, the Native Americans living in what is now the United States.

I disagree that the narrative in play is one that depicts our ancestors as "great white hunters." I believe the operative narrative is one of a species (H. sapiens) with the capacity for self-aware self-consciousness and utterly lacking the emotional regulation skills to tolerate the central concomitant of self-aware self-consciousness, the knowledge of our own mortality. (Ernest Becker brilliantly advanced this narrative in his 1973 Pulitzer winning book, "The Denial of Death.") In this narrative, those H. sapiens who lack the emotion regulation skills sufficient to tolerate awareness of their mortality are driven to eradicate all mortality reminders. The chief mortality reminder is the body itself and its connection to Nature, an integral part of which is the cycle of birth and death. The denial of death has motivated many of our cultural creations, for example religion, which denies death by fantasizing a life after death. Another of the death denying behaviors comprised destruction of the Neanderthals who were humanoids and whose natural deaths reminded our early ancestors of their own mortality. Terror at the prospect of death has motivated murderous behavior across the ages ever since humans came to self-conscious self-awareness, which appears to have been cotemporaneous with the beginnings of our annihilation of the Neanderthals.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Star Man, I think your argument is plausible and well-expressed (as is often true of your posts). It describes a plausible motivation for why modern humans might kill Neanderthals. But it doesn't follow that they actually did so. My understanding is that the current thinking in paleoanthropology is that eradication by modern humans is not the main factor (if even a factor at all) in the demise of our Neanderthal cousins/forbears.

---

Citation, citation, citation. I have no idea whether the "current thinking in paleoanthropology" you speak of is your current thinking or is the current theoretical conception of published paleoanthropologists who have done field work. I cited Becker. He doesn't actually speak about the Neanderthals. For that you have to turn to Thom Hartmann who has spoken about the western sickness that has spread across the planet and corrupted every culture it has touched.

Thanks for the props for my well-expressed posts.

Star Man

But they didn't "lose." They simply interbred with so-called "modern humans" from Africa, in a sharing of traits that allowed both strains to survive as a new hybrid.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Star Man, I think that's the more "traditional" assumption about the demise of the Neanderthals, which has largely been supplanted. The very fact that most living humans have Neanderthal DNA suggests that relations between Cro-Magnons (early form of modern humans) and Neanderthals were friendlier than what you describe. It's possible you could attribute all of that to rape, but I believe I've read that there's evidence of Cro-Mags and Neanderthals living in proximity for extended periods of time, and possibly some cultural intercourse (*ahem*). The demise of the Neanderthals is now attributed largely to the decrease in large mammals such as mammoths, bison and woolly rhinos, which comprised virtually the Neanderthals' entire diet (in most areas). That decrease in their traditional prey is attributed, I think, to climate change, and maybe hunting by the modern humans. Sorry, though--I have no references at hand.

---

Your comments are valid. Natural climate change has caused major changes in human populations. For example, North America's Inuits were not always there. Various other groups, with different dietary preferences, lived in that area at different times according to the degree of coldness and changes in available food sources. The same is true of just about all life forms on this planet.

Would the haters posting all over this topic like to claim that the Woolly Mammoth was "inferior" because it did not survive the thawing from the last ice age?

By extension, would they like to claim the Polar Bear is "inferior" because it can't handle warmer climates as the Earth continues its 18,000 year thaw?

Really, people, some of this progressive "superiority" talk goes too far. Just ask Adolf.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

For that you have to turn to Thom Hartmann who has spoken about the western sickness that has spread across the planet and corrupted every culture it has touched.

Star Man

---

Umm... what "Western Sickness" is that? Is it the collectivism European Progressives inflicted, causing collapse of their economies and societies?

Is it the American notion that every individual should be free from oppression by others, should be free to prosper by their own efforts?

What exactly does one mean by that phrase?

>>>Would the haters posting all over this topic like to claim that the Woolly Mammoth was "inferior" because it did not survive the thawing from the last ice age?

Lessee, since I was one of the posters on this topic, I'm wondering to whom you're referring as "haters"? I've disagreed with some of the propositions here, but I never felt that any posters were imbued with hatred. In view of your anti-Muslim posts, are you perhaps catching a glimmer of your own reflection?

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

>>>Would the haters posting all over this topic like to claim that the Woolly Mammoth was "inferior" because it did not survive the thawing from the last ice age?

Lessee, since I was one of the posters on this topic, I'm wondering to whom you're referring as "haters"? I've disagreed with some of the propositions here, but I never felt that any posters were imbued with hatred. In view of your anti-Muslim posts, are you perhaps catching a glimmer of your own reflection?

Peace & joy--
Conrad

---

Maybe you missed it:

"Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter have two copies of the X chromosome. These three women communicate by grunts and hand gestures." - Star Man

"ButI certainly agree with the sentiment, if not the genetics." - theindependenteye

As for my posts - can you point out where I've substituted hatred for fact and reason? I believe I'm keeping to fact and reason. If I've slipped, let me know.

>>>"Bachmann, Palin, and Coulter have two copies of the X chromosome. These three women communicate by grunts and hand gestures." - Star Man
>>>"But I certainly agree with the sentiment, if not the genetics." - theindependenteye
>>>As for my posts - can you point out where I've substituted hatred for fact and reason? I believe I'm keeping to fact and reason. If I've slipped, let me know.

We have different definitions of "hate" speech. I would call Star Man's post a sarcastic political comment, and I agree with the political viewpoint implied, that these women make political comments that IMHO are extremely stupid. (I would disagree with his implication that they themselves are intrinsically stupid — I think they're quite calculating.) But neither he nor I are expecting that anyone will take that comment literally. Your posts about Moslems, etc., are quite different: you appear to be dead serious, literal, and suggesting that serious action be taken. Of course the difference is, in your mind, that your comments are based on "fact and reason," while anything to the contrary is just grunts and hand gestures. We differ, obviously, and you're welcome to the last word on the subject.

-Conrad

Quote:

---

Of course the difference is, in your mind, that your comments are based on "fact and reason," while anything to the contrary is just grunts and hand gestures.

---

Sorry, that just came from your own mind, not mine. I've never said such a thing. Why do you make false attribution to me like that?

If you believe anything I've been discussing has strayed from fact and reason, I've invited you to point it out. Instead, you made up the above claim and falsely pinned it on me.

That's neither reasonable nor factual. Rather, it seems calculated to be insulting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Sorry, that just came from your own mind, not mine. I've never said such a thing. Why do you make false attribution to me like that?

If you believe anything I've been discussing has strayed from fact and reason, I've invited you to point it out. Instead, you made up the above claim and falsely pinned it on me.

That's neither reasonable nor factual. Rather, it seems calculated to be insulting.

---

How about flagrant omission?

You posted:

“Umm... what "Western Sickness" is that? Is it the collectivism European Progressives inflicted, causing collapse of their economies and societies?

Is it the American notion that every individual should be free from oppression by others, should be free to prosper by their (sic) own efforts?

What exactly does one mean by that phrase?“

Since you mention “...the collectivism European Progressives inflicted, causing collapse of their economies and societies?“ I would say you have, for whatever reason, been negligent by not mentioning the American institution of race-based slavery that resulted in the Civil War and in which more inhabitants of America were killed than in any other conflict in modern history on this continent or on any other. That conflict was “settled,” except for occasional lynchings and systematic race-based measures excluding African Americans from a slew of ordinary civic institutions and procedures for well over a subsequent century.

That “episode” was followed in an overlapping manner by the fruits of “manifest destiny” in which white Americans decimated the Native American societies on the continent to the point of extinction.
You like to Speak 2 truth?
You like apples?
Well, in a word, we committed genocide.

How do like them apples? Maybe you should change your username to “strangefruit?“

/mhqc/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mhqc:

you have, for whatever reason, been negligent by not mentioning the American institution of race-based slavery

---

That's factually incorrect. It was the African institution of slavery that was imported and, in a tough legal fight, instituted in the British Colonies in North America. This was done by a black African man who was not satisfied with the European practice of indentured servitude to pay off debts. He wanted human property, African style.

Free blacks in the slave states owned plenty of slaves and ran plantations and businesses that competed very strongly against the white slave owners.

The American institution was to proclaim all men created equal and do away with the African practice of slavery, once the United States was created. Thomas Jefferson and the others were born into that system and Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence was crafted to eliminate it. That American agenda was not carried out until several decades later, after the war to establish and secure the United States was finished.

So, a well informed person cannot make the claim that the "Western Sickness" is slavery. That is STILL NORMAL in Africa. Today. Ongoing.

Quote:

---

that resulted in the Civil War and in which more inhabitants of America were killed than in any other conflict in modern history on this continent or on any other

---

So, you acknowledge how very important it was to the Southern Democrats to keep their human property and how important it was to those believing in America's founding principles to eliminate that practice. The Americanists won. Thank God. Shouldn't that be called "Western Liberty", a notion that does not exist in Africa?

Quote:

---

That conflict was “settled,” except for occasional lynchings and systematic race-based measures excluding African Americans from a slew of ordinary civic institutions and procedures for well over a subsequent century.

---

So, you're not talking about anything today. You should be praising the Americans who eradicated that African institution of slavery from the former British Colonies. Right?

Quote:

---

That “episode” was followed in an overlapping manner by the fruits of “manifest destiny” in which white Americans decimated the Native American societies on the continent to the point of extinction.

---

That has nothing to do with "Western Sickness". Humans have been doing this for their entire history. Animals do the same, they just don't put a label on it. You could call that the "Aztec Sickness". Or the "Socialist Sickness". Or the "Islamic Sickness". Or the "Hutu Sickness". Or the "Japanese Sickness". Or the "Chinese Sickness". Or the "Blackfeet Sickness". Remember, those Native Americans were happily doing the same to each other as well.

Aren't you GLAD that Americanism has put an end to that (as well as slavery, which continues elsewhere)?

I am.

Sorry, but that was not any sort of definition of "Western Sickness". That term does not distinguish any of the things you mentioned as uniquely "Western".

Slavery is an "African Sickness" or perhaps a "Socialist Sickness" - in which the worker is enslaved to a ruling bureaucracy with absolute power to seize and redistribute the product of his labor. It's certainly an ongoing "Islamic Sickness" as well, today.

[/QUOTE]Slavery is an "African Sickness" or perhaps a "Socialist Sickness" - in which the worker is enslaved to a ruling bureaucracy with absolute power to seize and redistribute the product of his labor. It's certainly an ongoing "Islamic Sickness" as well, today.[/QUOTE]

Okay! I get it! The U.S. Constitution and the 3/5 counting for slaves in determining representation and all the rest were ratified and implemented because real Americans were afflicted with a British-African disease. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Why didn’t I think of that? Thanks for straightening this all out. We white folks are not guilty -- by reason of an African “disease” that possessed our ancestors.
This is such a cool idea. Next time we need to eliminate (any human types“) we can blame it on the British and the Africans.

Thank you. It’s not easy to find this kind of truth and scholarship just anywhere. Wacco is the right word.

/mhqc/

Quote:

---

Okay! I get it! The U.S. Constitution and the 3/5 counting for slaves in determining representation and all the rest were ratified and implemented because real Americans were afflicted with a British-African disease. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

---

No, it's not. And speaking of scholarship - you ARE aware, I hope, that disallowing the Southern Democrats to count their non-voting slaves for full representation was a way of defeating those who wanted to perpetuate slavery in a nation whose core principle is that All Men are Created Equal.

That was a key stepping stone to eradicating slavery.

Quote:

---

Thanks for straightening this all out. We white folks are not guilty -- by reason of an African “disease” that possessed our ancestors.

---

Were your ancestors slave owners? Mine were not. Are you ascribing another person's guilt to me simply because of the color of my skin?

That would be horribly racist of you.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

That's factually incorrect. It was the African institution of slavery that was imported and, in a tough legal fight, instituted in the British Colonies in North America. .

---

is that an intentional parody of Bachman's recent historical lectures? how our ten-year-old founding father fought tirelessly to abolish slavery?
Somehow I find it hard to equate the "discovery" of the concept of slavery by the west with the discovery of the tomato - are they both serendipitous fruits of the age of exploration, gifts from the new world?

Back on the subject of Neanderthal genes.

Humanity flowed outward from Africa after the near extinction of the human species a mere 70,000 years ago. That's very recent.

https://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...species-n.html

Neanderthal goes back a lot longer than that. So, I'm a bit fuzzy on the timelines for mixing of genes between isolated human populations. And what did Neanderthal look like? Genetic examination indicates:



Source: https://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

And:





Okay, that last guy is a bit unwashed. Indications are that, like other humans, neanderthals did believe in grooming. Perhaps this guy just finished wrestling a giant rhinoceros to the ground.

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 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.

---

Geomancer, what I've been explaining is that Slavery was legally instituted in the British Colonies in North America by a black African because it was the practice he knew as an African. His name was Anthony Johnson and he acquired some black indentured servants from a Portuguese trading ship, then fought in the court system to make them legally his permanent property. He won. That's why I say it was the African practice that was legally instituted in the British Colonies, later to be abolished by the USA. I'm trying to be accurate with my words.

Anthony Johnson, African indentured servant in Virginia, established African-style slavery in American Colonies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(American_Colonial)

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


And I must object to claims that the practice has been abolished elsewhere. It is still practiced in Islamic culture and is highly advocated by Islamic leaders, even within the last couple of months.

Egyptian Muslim cleric: 'When I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and buy her'
https://truthbeknown.com/freethought...d-buy-her.html

According to Huwaini, after Muslims invade and conquer a non-Muslim nation—in the course of waging an offensive jihad—the properties and persons of those infidels who refuse to convert or pay jizya and live as subjugated dhimmis, are to be seized as ghanima or "spoils of war."

Huwaini cited the Koran as his authority—boasting that it has an entire chapter named "spoils"—and the sunna of Muhammad, specifically as recorded in the famous Sahih Muslim hadith wherein the prophet ordered the Muslim armies to offer non-Muslims three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death/enslavement.

Huwaini said that infidel captives, the "spoils of war," are to be distributed among the Muslim combatants (i.e., jihadists) and taken to "the slave market, where slave-girls and concubines are sold." He referred to these latter by their dehumanizing name in the Koran, ma malakat aymanukum—"what your right hands possess"—in this context, sex-slaves: "You go to the market and buy her, and she becomes like your legal mate—though without a contract, a guardian, or any of that stuff—and this is agreed upon by the ulema." [The ulema or ulama refers to "the educated class of Muslim legal scholars."]

"In other words," Huwaini concluded, "when I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her."...

It is still a common practice in Africa.

Modern Slavery in Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_modern_Africa

This is well stated:

"We must work for the Bantu masters. We cannot refuse to do so because we are likely to be beaten or be victims of insults and threats. Even though we agree to work all day in the fields, we are still asked to work even more, for example, to fetch firewood or go hunting. Most of the time, they pay us in kind, a worn loincloth for 10 workdays. We cannot refuse because we do not have a choice.”.

— Antislavery Society, Interview with an indigenous man in the Congo

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