When people call you a coloniser because you’re English, but actually your ancestors were relocated from their subsistence village life to big cities to work for pennies in textiles mills to make the landowners wealthier than ever.
Owning slaves was like owning a tractor. Your ancestors werent rich they were just lazy. Like you and your dad, who’s a Wendy’s manager at 57.
deleted by creator
Least racist /b/tard.
You know, often in these green text posts I have a takeaway that at least attempts sympathy toward the anon.
Fuckin nope, not here.
I would say its so hilariously pathetic that its a bit, but I’ve met people that are unironically like this.
Anon, you only exist because Sherman didn’t finish the job.
He should have.
Here, a song for you before you meet your God:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me;
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
while God is marching on.
Oh, imagine a world where that describes current day ‘Republican Jesus’.
My idea of a ‘white man’s burden’ is that its our job to rid the planet of all these melanin deprived slavers and ‘ante bellum nostalgics’.
Its really the least we could do, at this point.
EDIT:
… you know who I can trace my lineage back to?
Father’s father’s father’s… etc, was a goddamn miscreant, some kind of petty criminal that got shipped out of I think somewhere in or near Wales, to Vrigina, in the 1720s.
His sons fought in the Revolutionary War, some died in it, some didn’t.
One of those sons had his own sons… one of them… a Reverend.
A Reverend that moved out of Vrigina, out to Kansas in the 1850s.
Where he founded an anti-slavery Baptist church.
Around which, he helped to build a small town.
A small town where an escaped slave from Missouri was able to purchase his own land, work his own land, and from the proceeds of it, buy the official freedom of himself and his family, before the Emancipation Proclamation and/or 13th Amendment would make that last step unnecessary.
Now I can’t say with 100% complete certainty that this Reverend ancestor of mine ever met John Brown… but uh, given a fairly small number of anti-slavery Reverends running around this particular part of Kansas, in the exact same time frame as John Brown… and that they were both part of the general Free-State movement…
… seems more likely than not.
I thought it was a joke. Rephrase it a bit and it would be a funny standup routine. I guess anon should have emphasized that they didn’t support slavery (if they did) but it is a funny concept to ask how they fumbled the bag so hard.
Well, if they’d actually made clear that they are, you know, ashamed of the family history, that they are lamenting having basically ‘fallen’ from… that’d be one thing.
But, I really have met people who are unironically this pissy about how their family used to be wealthier, slave owners.
… and that… … that brings out the fire and brimstone that apparently runs through my blood.
I’d done a massive mapping out of as much of my lineage as I could, maybe a month or so ago.
But I hadn’t actually looked too far into much of the details.
So ironically, I guess I have anon to thank for spurring me to look further into that, entirely to be able to make a heritage based rebuttal to slavery, out of spite.
But anyway, no.
No you do not joke about owning people, as a white person in the US.
That is vile, full stop.
Oh wait till you hear about my family.
My family was French Aristocracy that faked their deaths and moved to America to avoid the French Revolution
Then they owned slaves, but the deeds to their plantations and land and shit were burned in a slave revolt and they lost it all.
Then they helped found the Klan and became poor white trash…
We could have been rich and not lived in America. But no we had to become poor AND racist.
I don’t suppose you work on the AI tech field?
I do not, I’m a fucking janitor
Don’t think they weren’t racist before moving…
Any wealth inheritance has been divided amongst an unknown number of heirs for the last, what 5 generations? 7? That shit’s long gone.
Wealth has a way of multiplying, though. Assuming the family is above a certain threshold of wealth, second sons still receive an education and typically get lucrative jobs, expensive gifts etc. that should set them up well.
I hear that. My grandfather was descended of German nobility. Nothing major, but he was the son of a prince. To be clear: a complete nobody even when German nobility was still a thing pre-WW1. After the war, they pretty much abolished all that in a revolution.
But basically, if I go back four generations, we owned a ‘castle’ somewhere. Meanwhile, I’m solidly in the peasant class.
Good news, I hear you can probably get a castle for fairly cheap. Only problem is you have to maintain it.
From whom? Was it a little gnome peeking out from behind a mushroom?
Quite a few countries, Italy for example, will either sell you a castle for dirt cheap or just give it to you, as long as you promise to restore and maintain it.
Which is, to be clear, an absolute pain in the ass, since those castles have very strict restrictions about how to repair and upgrade them, materials and even companies you’re allowed to use, etc. Not to mention they’re a bitch to heat in the winter.
The cheapest castle in Italy I can see from a cursory glance is 1.3 million euros. You must be on that good gnome shit.
Edit: that’s an outside area of 732m² and an internal of 184m². It’s a literal tower on a tiny plot for 1.3 million dollars. Nothing about that seems remotely close to cheap.
It costs as much as normal house closer to the city. This makes it cheaper than one would expect for a giant historically important castle. If those were built today by modern standards they would cost much more.
So what you mean to say is castles are relatively cheap, not that they are actually cheap?
Everything that is cheap is relatively cheap. Nothing is cheap in absolute sense. Most of ut is based on my ginancial situation if I have zero € everything is expensive.
Or the other example how low number does bot make someyhing cheap. If 1 byte of mobile internet data costs only 0.01€ is that cheap or expensive? But it is only 1c.
To talk about cheap or expensive you are always talking about either how much similar items usually cost or how easily you specifically can afford it. But it is always relative.
Italy Giving Away More Than 100 Castles, Villas and Monasteries for Free https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/italy-giving-away-100-castles-villas-monasteries-free/
Anon sounds entitled AF. Has he tried not relying on nepotism for getting ahead?
Is probably one of those who screams DEI = Didn’t Earn It…but is also pisses he wasnt born into advantages
Yeah…
I was robbed of my white privilege
Uhh, I’m pretty sure you’re still white. Sounds like you don’t know what that actually means.
Has he tried pulling himself by the bootstraps?
Probably. Perhaps he’s realized that nepotism is a successful methodology for getting ahead in life. But maybe he should have tried being born into a more wealthy family, instead of blaming others.
I am inclined to believe that he didn’t choose to be born to this specific family.
No, poor people are poor because they did something to deserve it
- Average conservative
You may have valid justifications for your inclination in this regard
AFAIK, in 1860 about 20% of families in the slave states owned slaves. Lots of those were probably relatively poor farmers - slaves or no, small farmers in the 19th century weren’t that wealthy. Also, since when does the Christian god condemn entire family lines? Is slavery even forbidden by the bible?
Is slavery even forbidden by the bible?
No its encouraged, as is your daughter marrying her rapist
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations
In the US they do this with Mexicans now but not Canadians… yet.
Exodus 21:7. says its ok to sell your daughters into slavery
as examples, working on the Sabbath ??
Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
Punishing descendants is absolutely a part of the bible. Women experiencing pain during childbirth is supposedly a punishment for Eve eating the forbidden fruit.
Shit, if that’s the case, I’m surprised Christians haven’t tried to outlaw epidurals.
Yeah, she really shouldn’t have listen to the snake. Women could have been giving birth like a giraffe: Just standing there, muching on a snack while the baby just falls out.
For some biblical figures really far back, yes, but as a punishment for normal (real) people?
Women are normal (real) people, I believe.
According to the bible, Eva is the literal second human and first woman and IIRC lived for hundreds of years, so no, she’s not normal or real.
And she was made of rib
But the millions of women who suffer from pain during birth on her behalf are normal and real.
In the Jewish part of Bible there are passages about kinda inheriting sin as something you need to do something about (e.g. Cain and his lineage). But even there its not straightforward inheritance. With the New Testament in mind the post is even more bogus.
Sir, this is greentext. It’s supposed to be bogus, that’s the joke
It’s pretty fun to dissect the bogus, though.
With the New Testament in mind the post is even more bogus.
Not one jot or tiddle of the old law will be gotten rid of until Jesus comes back during end times. So said Jesus. Green text is on point.
Generally the sin inheritance thing goes to everyone.
Kinda mad that if you click on his links, he’s citing a very specific translation of the Bible, flip through them and it’s clearly talking about servants as a blessing. Not necessarily slaves. The words in question are עֶ֫בֶד and שִׁפְחָה. Basically every other translation I flipped through rendered this as servants, including the likes of culturally significant ones that Christians draw on for doctrine like the KJV and ESV.
Is he trying to convince Christians that slave owning is okay or something? 🤣
Kinda mad that if you click on his links, he’s citing a very specific translation of the Bible, flip through them and it’s clearly talking about servants as a blessing.
Can you elaborate? He links to the NRSVUE which is the translation academics use because it focuses on eliminating modern biases.
I think the fact that other versions use “servants” is a reflection of the fact that Christians are embarrassed that the bible endorses slavery, and will tie themselves in pretzels to minimize this fact.
Is he trying to convince Christians that slave owning is okay or something
No, I think he is just being honest about what the bible is saying. Christians should know that the interpretive lens they use has a big impact on what they’ll see the bible advocating.
The NRSVUE removed translation traditions. This is helpful, but the fact that both translations are correct, while for centuries if not millenia (in some cases the RSV versions ignored the Septuagint translations). While yeah, it’s still a valid translation, the word for “slavery” in our modern western lens typically conjures up images of chattel slavery where the slaves were enslaved for life as well as their offspring. Such imagery just isn’t really historically honest. Even throughout different time periods of the Bible’s writing, slaves ranged from bondservants to ones sold through debt.
the bible talks about chattel slavery and allows it.
Even throughout different time periods of the Bible’s writing, slaves ranged from bondservants to ones sold through debt.
…and chattel slaves like in Exodus 21:20-21
Or chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46
Leviticus 25:44-46 NRSVUE [44] As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. [45] You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. [46] You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
Yes, that’s Exodus. Jesus did underline this whole period as a time when Moses wrote compromises because people’s hearts were hard. Another example is divorce which is what Jesus used:
Mark 10:3-5
He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Jesus said divorce was bad, did he say slavery was bad? You seem to be in denial of how okay with slavery Christianity was. Christianity changed between the composition of the bible and today.
If all of the cited passages are actually talking about servants, they’re treating their servants so badly that the difference is merely semantic. Note that American (including both USA and other countries’ colonies in the Americas) chattle slavery was unusually depraved, in mediterranean antiquity slaves were generally treated better than that (or so the surviving accounts would have us believe).
Yeah, I don’t think it really matters what word is considered a better translation. It is talking about humans becoming property.
In Exodus 21:2-11, it says Hebrew men are restricted to being indentured servants for 6 years unless they volunteer for more. And Hebrew girls/women are sold forever, just not to foreign nations. And in Leviticus 25:44-46, it directly addresses that gentiles can be enslaved, sold, and inherited with no special restrictions.
A slave by another name is still a slave.
tbf, christian dogma supported slavery for hundreds of yesrs. almost like the religion isnt based on anything but vibes in the first place.
tbf, christian dogma supported slavery for hundreds of yesrs.
Source?
it wasnt until 1888 that the pope denounced slavery wholesale, until that point is was various manners of “fine long as they’re treated right”, then “fine long as they’re not (white) christians”, “fine long as they’re christians”, “fine long as it’s punishment for a crime”. etc.
Before Messianic times, the likes of Philo of Alexandria rejected slavery. And even in the early Messianic times (from a secular standpoint, this is when Christianity became a thing) there were abolitionists such as St Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth century bishop.
Protestants were denouncing slavery in the 1700s, such as John Wesley and the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade being formed in the late 1700s by Quakers - which was originally a Christian denomination.
There’s a 40~ minute documentary on the subject available here: https://youtu.be/kA0-21H1TtU
All of these claims could be true, but even so, it does not mean that the Bible rejects slavery or that the church has rejected slavery historically. Many of the churches in the American south explicitly endorse slavery before the civil war. Not only due to biblical scripture but in order to preserve their hierarchical society.
There are a number of lgbtq affirming churches today in America. Some are splitting up over this issue. I can point to verses in the Bible such as when Jesus tells people to become eunuchs or when Paul says “there is is neither Jew nor gentile nor male nor female” and say that the Bible allows lgbtq people to live normally. But if in 50 years, lgbtq people are accepted by the church, and I said that it was always that way, that would be intellectually dishonest. The tradition of eunuchs that people would point out in history was condemned by the council of Nicaea around 500 AD and marginalization would continue and has continued today. I’d be intellectually dishonest if I said that the church had always respected lgbtq people.
Likewise, it’s the same with slavery. It wasn’t condemned and it was supported by scriptures and the people who practice Christianity. Christian countries would conquer land and take slaves. It’s intellectually dishonest to say that the church has always condemned slavery or that it was the majority position until recently.
History? Tf do you mean?
The support of slavery has never been Christian dogma.
Christians already have to convince themselves of that. At least once it’s brought to their attention. It’s not exactly something that gets brought up during your typical Sunday School session.
This type of thing is exactly what’s brought up during Sunday school
Most of the Sunday School I remeber was just making like, paper Jesus puppets and shit.
In Sunday school I learned what a prostitute was (from the story of Jericho) about King Solomon suggesting cutting a baby in half, that dude that sacrificed his daughter because she was the first to come out of her house, how scripture has been misused to justify slavery, how it’s been misused to justify violence, Noah’s nakedness, the left handed dude who used his left handedness to assassinate a king, Asherah poles being destroyed, David cutting Saul’s robe while he was peeing, to name a few
who said anon is a Christian?
Anon lost everything in the mameluk uprising
What non-Christian believes in hell?
anon!
Be family
Need Slaves
No money
Remeber slaves are literally slaves and cost nothing
Get slaves
I don’t think you have to be rich to own slaves.
Edit: Some of ya’ll don’t understand what shitposting is.
A lot of people in this thread are the must be fun at parties types. Some are also afflicted with whoosh syndrome and somehow they try to make it everybody else’s problem.
If you’re talking about the US, you are incredibly misinformed. Selling slaves for money was an insanely lucrative business. It’s not called “The Transatlantic Slave Here You Can Just Have Some”
Bruh… this is a shitposting sub
The revolution will not be posted to the greentext community
Dawg my whole ass comment was just for that last line tbh I was tired as shit but still giggled writing it
RamenJunkie used Schrodinger’s Asshole!
It wasn’t very effective…
You do have to feed, keep them healthy, clothe and shelter them along with you and your family - plus they did cost money to buy, they don’t spontaneously appear. You’d need a modicum of wealth to afford and keep one. Not much, but some.
slaves were a one time purchase, workers were subscriptions
Are you actually shitposting if you don’t get downvoted?
Its a shitpost sub though, its oppositr day for votes.
Well, I’m related to Steve Kerr and apparently Robert S. Kerr helped expand Social Security… so I guess the Kerr’s are ok people? Idk man, I haven’t seen shit from Steve Kerr lol.
Edit: I guess a Joseph Kerr died in the Alamo which… idk if that’s a point for or against the name.
‘Curse you Eli Whitney!’
- Anon maybe idk
