Sir Francis Drake: Swashbuckling Hero Or Vile Villain?

[N_igma]

Hang on a second, this is not true. Where do you get this?

They weren't sold at auction until the slave trade was abolished.

Johnny-all your sources are pre-1865.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

They weren't sold at auction until the slave trade was abolished.

Johnny-all your sources are pre-1865.

Yes. It was illegal to teach a slave to read and write.

After 1865, there weren't slaves anymore.

This was your comment.

There were no laws against blacks to read...ever.

 

[N_igma]

In all honesty, I think he's making some of this stuff up.

Oooooooooookkkkkkkk, you go ahead and google all you want cos you're the expert.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oooooooooookkkkkkkk, you go ahead and google all you want cos you're the expert.

No, just maybe more of an expert than you.

 

[N_igma]

After 1865, there weren't slaves anymore.

Really? They were still slaves, believe you me. In name, they weren't slaves but they were still held in slavery.

 

[N_igma]

No, just maybe more of an expert than you.

Find that hard to believe, you haven't got a clue about that era except your mate google.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Find that hard to believe, you haven't got a clue about that era except your mate google.

I guess when you were around for those drinks, I neglected to show you the bookcase in the hallway. My mistake.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Really? They were still slaves, believe you me. In name, they weren't slaves but they were still held in slavery.

And before 1865, it was illegal to teach them to read.

 

[N_igma]

And before 1865, it was illegal to teach them to read.

Well my bad for saying they weren't allowed to read pre-Reconstruction but the thrust of my argument was after that period. Still...what the fuck are you on and wasn't making none of this shit up as I was going along, so I suggest you take your books out and read them again. BANG!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well my bad for saying they weren't allowed to read pre-Reconstruction but the thrust of my argument was after that period. Still...what the fuck are you on and wasn't making none of this shit up as I was going along, so I suggest you take your books out and read them again. BANG!

Sorry. It got my back up when you said this.

There were no laws against blacks to read...ever.

 

[N_igma]

Sorry. It got my back up when you said this.

Best black man ever to have lived:

 

[phildwyer]

They weren't sold at auction until the slave trade was abolished.

Completely untrue.

Do you want to bet?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Best black man ever to have lived:

Best white man

 

[Jonti]

Dr Livingstone, I presume?
(sorry about that, couldn't resist!)

That's quite a controversial choice in some ways, JC2. Admittedly no-one's perfect, we're all products of our time etc etc. But in this context, most people would plump for Wilberforce.

What is about Livingstone that you rate so highly, may I ask?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Dr Livingstone, I presume?
(sorry about that, couldn't resist!)

That's quite a controversial choice in some ways, JC2. Admittedly no-one's perfect, we're all products of our time etc etc. But in this context, most people would plump for Wilberforce.

What is about Livingstone that you rate so highly, may I ask?

I just figured if enigma could go with du bois, I could go with livingston. There's as much rhyme and reason.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry but there's little comparison between indentured slaves and actual slaves in 16th Century America. Family, law and custom didn't matter a bit to European colonists. It was an ends to a means for the profiteers, the only difference was that indentured European slaves could work their way to freedom.

The comparison by Spion was made with European serfs.

There are some very confused posts on this thread. As I said before, the African slaves were robbed of their culture, their language, their families, their name. Creoles developed in the Americas precisely because the first generation of slaves found themselves chained up next to others who spoke a different language. They had little choice but to communicate in a pidgin version of their masters' language, which their children duly creolised. Remnants of African culture, such as are found in sincretic religious practices in Haiti, Cuba and Brazil, are not found where the English were the slave-masters, which suggests strongly that they had even less regard to keeping ethnic groups together, let alone family groups.

 

[N_igma]

which suggests strongly that they had even less regard to keeping ethnic groups together, let alone family groups.

Yep. Even in America it took a few generations for slaves to turn to Christianity.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The comparison by Spion was made with European serfs.

There are some very confused posts on this thread. As I said before, the African slaves were robbed of their culture, their language, their families, their name. Creoles developed in the Americas precisely because the first generation of slaves found themselves chained up next to others who spoke a different language. They had little choice but to communicate in a pidgin version of their masters' language, which their children duly creolised. Remnants of African culture, such as are found in sincretic religious practices in Haiti, Cuba and Brazil, are not found where the English were the slave-masters, which suggests strongly that they had even less regard to keeping ethnic groups together, let alone family groups.

Arguably, rastafarianism is a syncretic religion.