Sign in to follow this  
Fweethawt

Anthony Johnson A Civil Rights activist

Recommended Posts

uc3vjhqr61y01.png

 

Meme not completely true...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

Anthony Johnson (b. c. 1600 – d. 1670) was a black Angolan who achieved freedom in the early 17th-century Colony of Virginia after serving his term of indenture. He became a property owner that owned slaves, and was one of the first people in Virginia to have his right to own a slave legally recognized.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



26 minutes ago, Fweethawt said:

uc3vjhqr61y01.png

 

Meme not completely true...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

Anthony Johnson (b. c. 1600 – d. 1670) was a black Angolan who achieved freedom in the early 17th-century Colony of Virginia after serving his term of indenture. He became a property owner that owned slaves, and was one of the first people in Virginia to have his right to own a slave legally recognized.

 

 

Meme wildly inaccurate.  How could a former slave be the first slave owner in America?  The first slaves in America were introduced in 1619 by the Dutch.  Johnson was a slave before the period of the permanent racial caste of slaves began to take shape, which emerged in the mid 17th Century.  It would be in the next Century, the 18th in which Cotton cultivation drove up the demand for labor caused a dramatic increase in the transatlantic slave trade.  This slave trade of course was going on for sometime, beginning in 1526 with the Portuguese transporting African slaves to Brazil.  Much of the racism involved though developed gradually, and was not an immediate factor in slavery as both whites and blacks could be indentured servants, but by the end of Johnson's life that racial caste would have developed quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would we even care about Johnson?  It strikes me as one of those shameful race baiting trolls.  Oh look, a black guy did something bad.  Okay so what?  Unless you are implying that all black people are bad it's irrelevant.  If he was doing it today we could toss him in prison but he's been dead for three centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mymistake said:

Why would we even care about Johnson?  It strikes me as one of those shameful race baiting trolls.  Oh look, a black guy did something bad.  Okay so what?  Unless you are implying that all black people are bad it's irrelevant.  If he was doing it today we could toss him in prison but he's been dead for three centuries.

Most of Fwee's threads are race baiting.  Notice the pattern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Anthony Johnson was an indentured servant.  He worked to pay off his debts and was released.  This was the pretty standard situation unless you were a criminal and then you could be sentenced to life as an indentured servant.  However, Johnson had an indentured servant that he failed to release.  A neighbor intervened and gained this man's freedom (I believe making him his own indentured servant to be released later but I'm not sure on this) only to have Johnson appeal and the courts reversed the decision making a non-criminal the first person in the U.S. to be enslaved for life.  This would make him the first slave owner in the "modern" sense as he essentially took a free, non-criminal, and enslaved them for life against their will with the full legal support of the government.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Anthony Johnson was an indentured servant.  He worked to pay off his debts and was released.  This was the pretty standard situation unless you were a criminal and then you could be sentenced to life as an indentured servant.  However, Johnson had an indentured servant that he failed to release.  A neighbor intervened and gained this man's freedom (I believe making him his own indentured servant to be released later but I'm not sure on this) only to have Johnson appeal and the courts reversed the decision making a non-criminal the first person in the U.S. to be enslaved for life.  This would make him the first slave owner in the "modern" sense as he essentially took a free, non-criminal, and enslaved them for life against their will with the full legal support of the government.

 

          mwc

 

John Punch in 1640 was the first life time slave, an indentured servant who fled with two other indentured servants.  The two Europeans had their term extended, Punch was sentenced to a lifetime of slavery.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

John Punch in 1640 was the first life time slave, an indentured servant who fled with two other indentured servants.  The two Europeans had their term extended, Punch was sentenced to a lifetime of slavery.  

     As I recall (I'd have to look) he was sentenced as a criminal (because he fled).  The point I made above is the person (I don't recall his name offhand) was not a criminal.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people blame whites for the slave trade, and act as if they created it, but conveniently ignore that the heart of the trade was run by other Africans. They sold off prisoners of war and raided villages to provide for their markets.

 

Very little of the slave trade actually involved Europeans capturing slaves themselves, they bought them from existing markets run by locals, mostly along the coast of Northern and Central Africa. The European traders also provided a technological advantage to slavers, so they are far from blameless, but weren't really the root of the problem.

 

Slave markets are a practice that still hasn't ended in some parts of Africa and the Middle East, they just don't export as much as they used to because the rest of the civilized world has moved past that.

 

Europe and America just exploited existing markets. A shitty practice to be sure, but white Europe didn't create the problem, they just widened the market by providing trade routes thanks to their naval technology. America was just one of the last to do away with the practice, and it was inevitable anyway for economic reasons. Industrialization was already making slave labor as it existed in America obsolete. Even if the Civil War hadn't happened, slavery would have likely ended within a generation anyway.

 

African slavery predates recorded history, and Arab markets were the first big human trafficking importers, with Europe providing another bump later on. It's still a really big problem in some parts of Africa, and even some of the Arab markets still exist to this day.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mwc said:

     As I recall (I'd have to look) he was sentenced as a criminal (because he fled).  The point I made above is the person (I don't recall his name offhand) was not a criminal.

 

          mwc

 

Yet he fled with two white indentured servants who did not get such a sentence, and from a modern perspective we think it is totally rational and not the least bit immoral to run for coerced labor.  Discrimination against blacks and their transformation into a permanent slave caste was well on the way by 1655 when Anthony Johnson possessed another black man for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

A lot of people blame whites for the slave trade, and act as if they created it, but conveniently ignore that the heart of the trade was run by other Africans. They sold off prisoners of war and raided villages to provide for their markets.

 

Very little of the slave trade actually involved Europeans capturing slaves themselves, they bought them from existing markets run by locals, mostly along the coast of Northern and Central Africa. The European traders also provided a technological advantage to slavers, so they are far from blameless, but weren't really the root of the problem.

 

Slave markets are a practice that still hasn't ended in some parts of Africa and the Middle East, they just don't export as much as they used to because the rest of the civilized world has moved past that.

 

Europe and America just exploited existing markets. A shitty practice to be sure, but white Europe didn't create the problem, they just widened the market by providing trade routes thanks to their naval technology. America was just one of the last to do away with the practice, and it was inevitable anyway for economic reasons. Industrialization was already making slave labor as it existed in America obsolete. Even if the Civil War hadn't happened, slavery would have likely ended within a generation anyway.

 

African slavery predates recorded history, and Arab markets were the first big human trafficking importers, with Europe providing another bump later on. It's still a really big problem in some parts of Africa, and even some of the Arab markets still exist to this day.

Muslims in North Africa had certainly been running slave trades for a long time, however, the scale and coordination of the 12 million slaves sent across the Atlantic by Europeans to produce their goods is in a league of its own and should receive its due consideration.  It was not inevitable for economic reasons either, the South could easily have won and slavery would have continued on for who knows how long.  Cotton production which funded the industrial revolution throughout Europe was achieved by the plantations of the South and the thousands of factories in Lancaster.  There had been a lot of recent economic scholarship done recently by Harvard Professor Sven Beckert to dispel that myth in his book (and associated scholarly articles) Empire of Cotton: A Global History.  Where he clearly indcates the centrality of slavery to the industrial revolution and dawn of Capitalism and indeed the wage labor system, innovated in Lancaster by former plantation managers.  The largest market for Cotton, Asia had been expanded to by the European Empires, and the trade routes and cheapness and quality of Cotton goods produced by this system resulted in the domination of all global markets by European and American Cotton goods.  If the Confederates did just a little bit better, the British or maybe even French would have intervened to lift the blockade and perhaps even assist on land.  There was considerable economic incentives involved, the British had a terrible time trying to match the production in India, and the depressed Indian demand after the Civil War even led to a massive famine that killed over a million.  Cotton Production was too Capital intensive, but when you had human beings count as Capital and also provide high levels of labor for life for no wage, you could invest a lot more in the kind of experimental farming you needed in order to establish the sophistication and production levels seen.  Just go look at some of the ships coming into the ports in England during this period to see how much Cotton was being plucked by the hands of slaves in America.  Stacked up like modern container ships.

 

Slavery goes on in Africa today, the Middle East and in Southeast Asia, including all of the human trafficking which goes on in every country in the world.  This is not a distinctly European phenomenon or practice, but the particular slave caste system in terms of scale and economic impact knows no equal to the Atlantic Slave trade and Southern Plantation System.  Which is why it receives a lot of attention and focus, not just so we can feel guilty about it or bitter.  This was the real world people lived in that created the nation we inhabit today, and the events since can be traced directly to this institution and has had profound impacts since.  All slavery is terrible and all its practices in history should be learned about, as I have spent the time doing, but slavery in the Americas should certainly not be minimized in its significance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Muslims in North Africa had certainly been running slave trades for a long time, however, the scale and coordination of the 12 million slaves sent across the Atlantic by Europeans to produce their goods is in a league of its own and should receive its due consideration.  It was not inevitable for economic reasons either, the South could easily have won and slavery would have continued on for who knows how long.  Cotton production which funded the industrial revolution throughout Europe was achieved by the plantations of the South and the thousands of factories in Lancaster.  There had been a lot of recent economic scholarship done recently by Harvard Professor Sven Beckert to dispel that myth in his book (and associated scholarly articles) Empire of Cotton: A Global History.  Where he clearly indcates the centrality of slavery to the industrial revolution and dawn of Capitalism and indeed the wage labor system, innovated in Lancaster by former plantation managers.  The largest market for Cotton, Asia had been expanded to by the European Empires, and the trade routes and cheapness and quality of Cotton goods produced by this system resulted in the domination of all global markets by European and American Cotton goods.  If the Confederates did just a little bit better, the British or maybe even French would have intervened to lift the blockade and perhaps even assist on land.  There was considerable economic incentives involved, the British had a terrible time trying to match the production in India, and the depressed Indian demand after the Civil War even led to a massive famine that killed over a million.  Cotton Production was too Capital intensive, but when you had human beings count as Capital and also provide high levels of labor for life for no wage, you could invest a lot more in the kind of experimental farming you needed in order to establish the sophistication and production levels seen.  Just go look at some of the ships coming into the ports in England during this period to see how much Cotton was being plucked by the hands of slaves in America.  Stacked up like modern container ships.

 

Slavery goes on in Africa today, the Middle East and in Southeast Asia, including all of the human trafficking which goes on in every country in the world.  This is not a distinctly European phenomenon or practice, but the particular slave caste system in terms of scale and economic impact knows no equal to the Atlantic Slave trade and Southern Plantation System.  Which is why it receives a lot of attention and focus, not just so we can feel guilty about it or bitter.  This was the real world people lived in that created the nation we inhabit today, and the events since can be traced directly to this institution and has had profound impacts since.  All slavery is terrible and all its practices in history should be learned about, as I have spent the time doing, but slavery in the Americas should certainly not be minimized in its significance.

 

Learn to paragraph. There's no need for that a wall of unbroken text, it's an eyesore and hard to read.

 

You're also missing the point.

 

Yes, Europeans and America exploited the market, but it was already there, and largely run by Africans.

 

No one is saying it wasn't shitty, but Europe merely participated in a system that already existed. Yes, they exasperated things, but they didn't create the situation. They really didn't raid African villages and take people from their homes to sell into slavery. The Africans did it for them, and they just showed up and bid on what they were selling.

 

A lot of people like to act like it was all Europe and America's idea, and that they were sailing over there like Vikings and kidnapping people from their homes while burning and pillaging what was left. That really didn't happen.

 

White Europe and America are often painted as the sole perpetrators in a system that still exists in some parts of Africa and the Middle East to this day.

 

People are blind to the fact that other Africans had as much to do with the system as America and Europe did. They want to blame white people for being historically shitty, but the fact is that most of the world was shitty at the time, and that the markets they were using were run by other Africans that were profiting just as much by exploiting other human beings as their customers were.

 

You could bring up European Imperialism, and what happened to the Native Americans, but I can just as easily point out that many other cultures did things that were just as bad. The Mongols, the Romans, the Turks, the Persians, etc...

 

It's easy to put things through the lens of modern morality, but if we're going to do that we should do it for everyone, and no one really comes out of that looking any better. Even the Native Americans were prone to doing shitty things to each other when the opportunity arose, just like most other ancient cultures.

 

It wasn't a "European" problem or a "White" problem, it was a human problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

Yet he fled with two white indentured servants who did not get such a sentence, and from a modern perspective we think it is totally rational and not the least bit immoral to run for coerced labor.  Discrimination against blacks and their transformation into a permanent slave caste was well on the way by 1655 when Anthony Johnson possessed another black man for life.

     And?  I'm not arguing any point about race.  I'm simply stating the facts as I know them about the situation.  I don't even know if I mentioned anyone's race in anything that I mentioned (I'd have to go back and read it all but I don't think I did).  If I had not seen the OP and the picture I would not have even thought to assume a particular race for that specific period of time.  I haven't even checked to see if the picture is actually Anthony Johnson or not.  I really don't care about that aspect of things since I find it irrelevant here.  Race is important in other aspects of our slave history but it's not something I'm trying to concern myself with in these posts.  I find it unimportant in the same sense as I find it unimportant as the meme trying to discount all slavery by saying the first "proper" slavery in the U.S. was black on black or later apologists saying that some very small percentage of slave owners were black.

 

     But what I did say is true.  Anthony Johnson (regardless of race) was the first person in the U.S. to have a non-criminal (again, regardless of race) indentured as a slave.  I don't believe I should have to undercut these statements with those caveats but it seems I'm forced to do so for no real good reason.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody aware of history thinks that only whites causes slavery.  Why even bring that up?  Nobody is trying to make anybody feel guilty about things that happened before we were born.  This is just silly.  The reason to remember (and not lie about) history is to learn from it.

 

Slavery existed for a long time under the Romans and went back much further than that.  It had no racial component but was tribally motivated.  Racism entered slavery much later on.  Christians needed a spiritual motivation to continue the practice even though it was against the supposed tenants of their religion.  So Christians invented connections in the old Testament between Africans and Noah's decedents.  They took an old curse the Hebrews used against their tribal rivals and twisted it into a racist curse.  Presto-chango - now God was against black people so it was okay to enslave them for life.  That is when racism became engrained into the culture.  The Christian culture had to find a way to justify all that was going on; how an entire group was being systematically mistreated.

 

Yes over in Africa the warlords had a supply of slaves for sale.  The African warlords were still on a tribal mentality.  They didn't see black people as all being one race.  They saw them as being a thousand different tribes and war was the mechanism that kept power where it was.  There had been no single religion like Christianity to sweep over all of Africa and make the entire population see each other as one culture the way Christianity had ended tribalism in Europe.  So the constant conflict in Africa led to a steady supply of war prisoners for sale.  In time selling, war prisoners became a driving motive for war in Africa.

 

Doesn't mean any of us has to feel guilty about it but let's not sugar coat or rewrite any of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

 

Learn to paragraph. There's no need for that a wall of unbroken text, it's an eyesore and hard to read.

 

You're also missing the point.

 

Yes, Europeans and America exploited the market, but it was already there, and largely run by Africans.

 

No one is saying it wasn't shitty, but Europe merely participated in a system that already existed. Yes, they exasperated things, but they didn't create the situation. They really didn't raid African villages and take people from their homes to sell into slavery. The Africans did it for them, and they just showed up and bid on what they were selling.

 

A lot of people like to act like it was all Europe and America's idea, and that they were sailing over there like Vikings and kidnapping people from their homes while burning and pillaging what was left. That really didn't happen.

 

White Europe and America are often painted as the sole perpetrators in a system that still exists in some parts of Africa and the Middle East to this day.

 

People are blind to the fact that other Africans had as much to do with the system as America and Europe did. They want to blame white people for being historically shitty, but the fact is that most of the world was shitty at the time, and that the markets they were using were run by other Africans that were profiting just as much by exploiting other human beings as their customers were.

 

You could bring up European Imperialism, and what happened to the Native Americans, but I can just as easily point out that many other cultures did things that were just as bad. The Mongols, the Romans, the Turks, the Persians, etc...

 

It's easy to put things through the lens of modern morality, but if we're going to do that we should do it for everyone, and no one really comes out of that looking any better. Even the Native Americans were prone to doing shitty things to each other when the opportunity arose, just like most other ancient cultures.

 

It wasn't a "European" problem or a "White" problem, it was a human problem.

What you're saying was only true at first, during the 17th Century, Europeans were not as well established on the Continent of Africa.  However, by the 18th and 19th Century, they dominated the Continent and extracted the vast majority of slaves themselves from places like the Gold Coast in West Africa and Angola in the Southern portion of Africa.

 

Europeans did in fact end up controlling every bit of land in Africa except Libya and Ethiopia.  They then used these colonies as the means for extracting new slaves, as they no longer had to trade with Muslims, nor were there any Muslim powers really left on the Continent as the Europeans conquered the whole thing.

 

I don't care about how they are painted, I care about the truth, which seems to be continually minimized by those on a particular side of the aisle for some reason.  Even though there were Africans collaborating in the Atlantic Slave trade, all the demand and design for it was indeed implemented by Europeans.  And the scale and exploitation that Europeans achieved was unparalled and needs to be taken into account.

 

Yes, but the Europeans of the modern period created the world we now live in.  The Romans did their conquering two thousand years ago about.  The Mongols seven hundred or so years ago.  The Ottomans in the modern world had a large empire, but they did not nearly achieve what an Empire like the British did.  Europeans pretty much controlled a majority of every Continent in the planet, and after the two opium wars dominated China as if it were a colony as they split all the major ports among the West.  I don't get how you can possibly minimize the scale of exploitation perpetrated in the last few hundred years, its proximity and impact is hugely important to understand.

 

Slavery and war was always a part of human history, and indeed European history.  But the scale of what the Europeans pulled off in terms of their exploitation has far reaching impacts in the world that exists today.  The demographic impacts of abducting 12 million people from Africa is still felt, the gains from that Capital accumulation was a major factor for building Capitalist economies and our dominance in the 20th and 21st Centuries.  The British merely turned over much of the strategic ports in their Empire to us, during WW2 in trading for Battleships, so the legacy of Empire lives on indirectly.  And the 4 million slaves at the end of slavery in 1865 still faced a culture of racism and oppression, the likes of which not seems with previous systems of slavery and exploitation.  

 

Human nature throughout much of history has indeed been quite shitty, but the work of men who created the modern European world just might tske the cake in terms of the damage done to the people's of this world.  I've simply seen too much to go about minimizing those actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mwc said:

     And?  I'm not arguing any point about race.  I'm simply stating the facts as I know them about the situation.  I don't even know if I mentioned anyone's race in anything that I mentioned (I'd have to go back and read it all but I don't think I did).  If I had not seen the OP and the picture I would not have even thought to assume a particular race for that specific period of time.  I haven't even checked to see if the picture is actually Anthony Johnson or not.  I really don't care about that aspect of things since I find it irrelevant here.  Race is important in other aspects of our slave history but it's not something I'm trying to concern myself with in these posts.  I find it unimportant in the same sense as I find it unimportant as the meme trying to discount all slavery by saying the first "proper" slavery in the U.S. was black on black or later apologists saying that some very small percentage of slave owners were black.

 

     But what I did say is true.  Anthony Johnson (regardless of race) was the first person in the U.S. to have a non-criminal (again, regardless of race) indentured as a slave.  I don't believe I should have to undercut these statements with those caveats but it seems I'm forced to do so for no real good reason.

 

          mwc

 

You need to be more clear in this thread I'm afraid, or do you not understand the purpose of an OP like this?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

You need to be more clear in this thread I'm afraid, or do you not understand the purpose of an OP like this?  

     I do understand.  I usually just say my piece about whatever interests me.  I tend to not care to get dragged into whatever everyone is going on about most of the time.  Had that meme contained a quote I would probably would have been all over it (that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine but even then at the rate they get posted around here there's only so many fucks to give).

 

     Unfortunately, memes such as this aren't generally meant to truly educate.  Because this is actually an interesting historical fact that people should know.  Presented in a different way this would be more helpful than it is here. 

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this