The Spanish had to stop enslaving native Americans after Bartolome de las Casas made the case before the Church that they had souls. It still happened in a limited manner after that, but only at the very serious risk of excommunication.
The United States is singularly unique in, however, recognizing and ending slavery because it was incompatible with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.I mean, sure. Britain didn't end slavery because it was incompatible with the US Constitution. That would be weird.
That's correct, but the Portuguese had earlier sent African slaves to Madeira (which had no indigenous people). Coerced labor of many types was the norm in those days.
Correct. Also, in Europe and in Africa,rulers in need of slaves created crimes for which enslavement was the punishment. Obviously there could be no racial element when you were enslaving your own. The desire to live off other peoplr's labor is universal. That's what drives Wall Street.
It bears mentioning that slavery was NEVER outlawed in this country. Read the Thirteenth Amendment. All it did was switch the victims from "black people" to "anyone we can railroad through the courts."
This bloviating jerk does have influence. Comments echoing these points, some of them word for word, were hurled in the NYT comment section about the upcoming publication of 1619, the book. Thank you for letting us know where the "citations needed" bloviations came from!
The Spanish had to stop enslaving native Americans after Bartolome de las Casas made the case before the Church that they had souls. It still happened in a limited manner after that, but only at the very serious risk of excommunication.
The United States is singularly unique in, however, recognizing and ending slavery because it was incompatible with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.I mean, sure. Britain didn't end slavery because it was incompatible with the US Constitution. That would be weird.
You are still incorrect. The arguments about Ham and mudsill races developed late; after 1829 for the most part. The early situation was more fluid.
That's correct, but the Portuguese had earlier sent African slaves to Madeira (which had no indigenous people). Coerced labor of many types was the norm in those days.
Correct. Also, in Europe and in Africa,rulers in need of slaves created crimes for which enslavement was the punishment. Obviously there could be no racial element when you were enslaving your own. The desire to live off other peoplr's labor is universal. That's what drives Wall Street.
I want to know why he's packing a pistol. Is he afraid of his cameraman shooting him?
You think anyone else is in the room with him? I'll bet the camera doesn't even want to be there.
Looked at the Media Matters page and found this linked stoiy about this turdbucket...
Steven Crowder’s horrifically sexist YouTube show
https://www.mediamatters.or...
Can you say quelle surprise?
Performative assclown. Shoulder holster too, muzzle sweeping the world wherever he goes. What a disingenuous wet end.
Yes, that and an ocean of blood in the Civil War. And it is still not all the way over. What a liar this clown is.
Crowder is just one big slab of stupid, isn't he?
It bears mentioning that slavery was NEVER outlawed in this country. Read the Thirteenth Amendment. All it did was switch the victims from "black people" to "anyone we can railroad through the courts."
And STILL we didn't end slavery. We just shoved it off on prisoners.
Which ones would those be? The Thirteenth Amendment clearly lists prisoners as Fair Game to be enslaved.
He claims he macho yet he a sacred boy when went to H3H3 channel and Sam Seder appear.
This bloviating jerk does have influence. Comments echoing these points, some of them word for word, were hurled in the NYT comment section about the upcoming publication of 1619, the book. Thank you for letting us know where the "citations needed" bloviations came from!