All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Saturday, November 27, 2021

America did not steal the land or enslave Africans

For the Thanksgiving weekend, the black nationalist communists at BLM trotted out the lie that white people stole the land from the Indians and stole slaves from Africa.

In both cases, the white settlers paid for them. The Indians sold the land. Africans sold the slaves. The African slave market in Ghana had been going on for a thousand years before Europeans began purchasing them to work in the New World.

But facts don't matter to propagandists and prevaricators.

The Daily Caller reported, "A major Black Lives Matter group tweeted a message to followers that Thanksgiving is a day of 'colonization' celebrated on 'stolen land.'

"'You are eating dry turkey and overcooked stuffing on stolen land,' the Twitter account of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation tweeted Thursday. 'Colonization never ended, it just became normalized.'"

BLM tweeted, "This Thanksgiving we send our deepest love to families whose loved ones were stolen by state-sanctioned violence and white-supremacy."

Allow the facts to enter the picture. 

Central Michigan University published a paper, "A Brief History of Land Transfers Between American Indians and the United States Government."

While explorers may have claimed the land, the fact is the people already living there owned it.

The problem with the owners is there were not many Indians here and the white settlers quickly outnumbered them.

The paper said, "Although Natives never doubted they owned the land, the English were not so sure. In British legal theory the settlers had a right to settle found in the charter granted to the colony by the King. The prevailing British legal view eventually became that Indians owned the land and had the right to be compensated if they surrendered control over it. This was just as any British land owner could expect when property changed hands. British settlers also came to the pragmatic conclusion that buying land was simpler and cheaper than trying to take it, an action that almost always led to war.

"The British did, however, place an important limitation on Indian land ownership. Unlike Europeans, who could sell their land to whomever they chose, Indians could sell land only to the government. The implications of this legal principle, as well as the need to develop a practical means to enforce it, was regularly evaded by colonial governments. Colonial governments quickly and freely granted licenses to buy land to private individuals.

"This legal device created a vibrant land market in the British colonies. Individual Indians sold land either directly to a colonial government or to individual settlers who, at least theoretically, had a license to make such a purchase. The land market, however, was rife with fraud, usually, but not always perpetrated by the settlers on Indians. The most blatant problem was squatters who simply occupied Indian land. Ignoring the law, settlers simply started clearing the forest.

"Other, more subtle swindles, invoked the form of the law, but rigged the process. The large number of stories, told by both sides, regarding the liberal use of free liquor by whites to promote ill-advised sales of land by Indians suggests that the practice was common. If liquor was not used, another frequent fraud was to exploit ambiguity over who had authority to sign a contract. Because land sales as Europeans implemented them had not taken place in tribal communities, where land was usually held in common and assigned to individuals for their use for so long as they could take advantage of the area, there was no clear rule for who could, or could not, sign a land contract. The situation could be maddening, even for a well-intentioned European trying to follow the letter of English law."

That's not stealing. That's dealing.

While white people were not above swindling, Indians were not dumb children. Anti-Americans like BLM want it both ways. They seek to portray Indians as wise stewards of the land, while at the same time holding them as too naïve to protect the land.

Which is it?

Neither and both.

Then there is the urban myth that British slavers went into deepest darkest Africa and enslaved people.

Nope.

The British are as lazy as anyone and left it to Ghana's slavers to capture slaves for re-sale to the Brits. It was more efficient and convenient.

The Tracing Center reported, "for almost 150 years, Ghana, on Africa’s west coast, was the center of the British slave trade. Western traders arrived in ships loaded with manufactured goods to barter or trade for slaves. Those who were sold had often been captured in tribal warfare; some had simply been kidnapped to sell to European slave traders.

"Slavery existed in Africa prior to the transatlantic trade, and in fact the earlier, trans-Saharan slave trade sent more enslaved Africans east to the Muslim world, over many centuries, than would be transported west to the Americas. However, the large-scale organization of European slave trading and the development of industry and massive plantations dependent on slave labor gave rise to a trade in humans that was staggering in its scale. Approximately 10 million enslaved people were transported in the transatlantic slave trade, at rates of up to 100,000 persons per year."

Slavery has been the history of man since the dawn of history. The irony is American and British ingenuity made slavery and feudalism obsolete. The industrial age mechanized and modernized agriculture, which was the chief user of slavery. Capitalism liberated man -- as did Union soldiers.

49 comments:

  1. Always blaming the slave buyer and never the (non-white) slave seller.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My memory, which is often faulty, says that most of the slave traders were muslim, for what it's worth. They pretty much always were slave owners and traders.

      Delete
    2. Want to know who the REAL devils are?

      https://christiansfortruth.com/jewish-dominance-of-the-african-slave-trade/

      Delete
    3. NONE are so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE. MOSTLY MORONS LiKE jizzem & drsdrivl.
      This story from MR SURBER is FACTUALLY true. So it upsets the little people an I do not speak of size.

      Delete
    4. Yup jizzbrain, one company out of many was owned by a Jew. Many more were owned by Dutch Belgian, French and English. Take your muslim hate and go away. Too bad your Christians for truth aren't really Christian. GOD says to Israel, I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.

      Delete
    5. This is hilarious. There were only 1300 Jews in the slave states, and almost all of them lived in Savanna GA or Charleston SC. None of them owned the plantations or had need for large amounts of slaves to farm crops, etc. At most, they might own 1 02 slaves for domestic functions like Butler, cook, carriage driver etc. And as is commonly known, domestic slaves had it fairly easy compared to field hands. There business was trading things like rice, cotton and other products.

      This is the sort of drivel people who worship liars and Jew haters like Lewis Farrakhan like to pedal....quite a reward for the Jewish people, who formed and financed the civil rights movement, financed and formed the traditional Black colleges like Grambling

      After all that, the Jews,people who benefited by this write garbage like the above.

      Delete
    6. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over KDi Your Shoulder... Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open...
      Find out how HERE.......

      >>>> http://www.EarnApp3.com

      Delete
    7. Please don't sanctify the Jews support of the civil rights movement as some sort of benefice. The Jews had their reasons for doing so and it wasn't all concern about the poor blacks being exploited and disenfranchised. Much of their aims were to divide and discomode the Whites who were also anti jewish and needed to be taken down a peg or two. They also dominated the Democrat party and the Jews did not like that at all. Thus they financed and supported legally the civil rights movements who's leaders were not of pure resolve themselves. And we are now reaping the negative reward of all that propaganda inflicted on both White and Black. Once these sort of things get let loose in a culture there's hardly any way to call them back when they inevitably get out of control and manage to harm those who instigated the whole mess.

      Delete
  2. I stick my turkey leg up BLM’s ass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their popularity is dwindling. Let us give thanks.

      Delete
    2. It was my Cherokee ancestors who held slaves.
      the direct 3x Gr. Grandfather heard a Scots Covenanter preacher preach against slavery.
      he sold the Plantation in North Carolina,
      and divided the money and family who were both for it and against it. Still divided to this day. The image of "trail of tears." never talks about the slaves taken to Indian territory.
      My family escaped the depopulation because they were outside of Andy Jackson's sphere of influence.

      Delete
    3. Douglas DC you packed a lot of deeply interesting history into a few short sentences there!

      Delete
  3. Ah for the simplisms of the BLM nincompoops. At one with the whole left...drinking the weak tea of Marx, and, like him, not understanding the human desire for personal liberty. Preferring the statist solution, which is "Over There...Not, you know...for me personally."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Logic and liberals don’t mix. Facts and liberals don’t mix.

    And sorry BLM Global Foundation, our Turkey was juicy and Smokey and delicious. Especially the white meat.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The British are as lazy as anyone and left it to Ghana's slavers "

    Caucasians were not immune to the diseases endemic in the interior of Africa. Africans were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Malaria was the big one. By the time quinine had been discovered that allowed Europeans to survive in the African interior, European slaving had ended.

      Delete
    2. No, Jeffery, they just had more resistance.

      Even later, the Euros ruled mostly through proxy. Not that many actually came.

      Delete
    3. How fortunate, edutcher, that you know everything and can correct all of us ignorati.

      J in StL’s point stands. Europeans could not survive much past the African coastline until medical advances in the 19th century. Even then, the survival rate wasn’t the best. Europeans depended on Africans to collect and deliver slaves to their coastal stations.

      Delete
    4. Jeffrey-boy caller is SO OBNOXIOUS !
      Ed the Douchebag.

      Delete
  6. Ok, you went talked about pre Revolutionary War.
    But how about the US government and army going to war with Indians and taking away their land by force and placing then on reservations after the Revolutionary War?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about Indians stealing anything they could off white settlers?

      How about Indians raiding white settlements, killing people and raping women?

      What you're trying to get the illegals to do (doesn't really seem to be working) was how the white man became the majority power, Jeffery.

      Also, the reservation system was intended to help assimilate Indians into the white man's world.

      Delete
  7. The cool part is that the indians had long been busy stealing the land from each other.

    It's fun trying to see where what tribe came from originally. Coronado, f'rinstance, first encountered the Apaches in Kansas. The Comanches originated in the Wind river country of WY.

    The Iroquois had exterminated several tribes before the white man hit upstate NY. During the French and Indian Wars, both sides had Indian allies making gruesome raids on the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree the local tribes here in NE Oregon, the Nez Peirce and their cosins the Walla walla cayuse and Umatilla were actually friendly to settlers. Chief Joseph
    had cattle and land and was acceptedby the White settlers . same way with Umapine and other leaders.
    Not the settlers for the most part but the Government.
    They took away their firearms, horses and cattle.
    no freedom. Mostly at the hands of democrat adminstrations. I'm lookin' at you Woody Wilson.
    his BIA frantically searched for off Rez Nez Pierce,
    Intermarried or not, and threw them off their own deeded land.
    If there is ever reparations, it's the Dem party that should pay. pay up, Donks.
    land. guilty of living while Indian.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The blacks who have slave ancestors should give thanks this Thanksgiving for their suffering, for the result of that misery enabled their future generations to grow up in America. But, for that, they'd be living in some African shithole. At least they'd have access to Ivermectin, which we Americans are forbidden to have in this day of modern medical miracles.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Abe Lincoln famously conjectured during his second inaugural speech that 'it might please the Creator that this great war should not end until all the gold accrued thru slavery should be sunk in the ocean, and every drop of blood drawn by the lash be redeemed on the battlefield". If so, He timed it almost perfectly. Steam power and the telegraph had revolutionized warfare, but the obsolete linear battle tactics guaranteed slaughter. Also, Slavery was a dead man walking; artificially spun cellulose was first developed in 1865. By 1868, five ton steam traction engines capable of being operated by one man were available, and steam would be replaced by gasoline engines within 20 years. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 just delayed the inevitable and raised the ultimate price paid for the evil that took root in the southern colonies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AH, wrong, wrong, wrong. The Missouri Compromise was wiped out in the 1850's by Douglas' maneuverings with the southern democrats in order to try and enhance the spread of slavery west. It had a bit more life than you might expect. Though I doubt it would have survived much longer than early 1900s.

      Delete
  11. There is another article out on how the Indians weren't even the first humans in North America. The other humans, before the Indians, did not cross from Russia either. The anthropologists evidently agree on this fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is evidence of the first americans arriving by boat from Polynesia. Eastern Woodland Indians have a nagging 3% of DNA that is old Northern European, Pre Columbian. Pre Viking for that matter.
      There is a lot out there we don't know.

      Delete
    2. Most people trace their roots back to a boat builder who got his ship stranded above the high tide mark, settled down, planted a vineyard and got drunk.
      He is famously blamed for the extinction of the unicorn.

      Delete
    3. Oh, and the ones who don't claim to be mutated pond scum.

      Delete
  12. What is not considered is the fact that when white causian influence is sufficienly neutralized, slavery will once again become a substancial percentage of the global business model.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good point!!
      Thus, this will not be allowed air or discussion.

      Delete
  13. If you have read much world history, most people know that the settling of America was no different than any other country ever. Those that were the stronger force took the territory or country. It's still that way today. Just ask Putin. It's never going to change either. Just wait until we start landing people on distant worlds. First people there are going to claim it as theirs. I'm getting tired of hearing about how white people stole America from the Indians or how we stole California from Mexico as well. Want it back? Then try to take it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Then try to take it."
      I appreciate your point. But note: they ARE taking it back. With the Democrats help & blessings.
      Bet you knew that.

      Delete
    2. They are "taking back" land we paid for. Do some research and you will find that we paid Mexico for the land we got. Then to settle any claims, we paid them a second time.
      Texas won their independence and then joined the Union. After fighting a war with Mexico, we forked over cash. Not very imperialistic.

      Delete
  14. If you have read much world history, most people know that the settling of America was no different than any other country ever. Those that were the stronger force took the territory or country. It's still that way today. Just ask Putin. It's never going to change either. Just wait until we start landing people on distant worlds. First people there are going to claim it as theirs. I'm getting tired of hearing about how white people stole America from the Indians or how we stole California from Mexico as well. Want it back? Then try to take it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bottom line: Our tribe conquered their tribe but instead of killing them all we said "Just join our tribe."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Aren't then the Canadians and the Mexicans and the South Americans and Cubans ALL on stolen land?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and what land do the BLM'ers live on? What makes them any better than the ones the accuse?

      Delete
  17. In addition, the massive ivory, spice, and black flesh trade out of Zanzibar was run by the Omani Arabs-- though leftist Connecticut loved to buy ivory for their piano trade...each tusk cost an average of five black lives and it continued long after our emancipation proclamation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I disagree with BLM's statement about dry turkey and overdone stuffing. My turkey was very moist, tender and tasty. And the stuffing was done perfectly.

    Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the best they could come up with. They aren't exactly MENSA material.

      Delete
  19. Whatever transaction transpired between all the parties involved, the bottom line is, these were still crimes against humanity, i.e., slavery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slavery has been a part of history since we began recording it. People foolishly call it a crime against humanity. It isn't. The quackcine is a crime against humanity. If the reports are true, it will kill many millions without regard for sex, race or religion.
      How many blacks would be in the United States without slavery? What would have happened to them had slavery not been an option?
      Yes, slavery was bad as done in this context. But many of those sold into slavery would have been killed instead because of the threat they posed to the people conquering Africa. Those who were taken to the Arab States suffered far worse. The boys and men were castrated or emasculated. The women used as sex slaves and their children suffered the same fate.
      The people who tell the horror stories about the slave trade do not differentiate between those brought to the United States and those sent to Brazil or who remained in the Caribbean.
      Bad, yes. A crime against humanity? Not quite.

      Delete
  20. Poor Don - you still think facts matter!

    The Cult of Marx disagrees....

    ReplyDelete