Sethbag wrote:How are we to know that ancestor was officially enslaved? I propose that the ownership of that human being by another was just that other person's fallible human opinion, influenced, no doubt, by the social mores of the time.
Exactly, context is everything. As an example, in Old Testament times God cared more about whether his chosen people ate pigs than if they owned slaves. As an example, in Israel you could beat your slaves senseless, but as long as you don't kill them then that's OK (Exodux 21:20). But hey, if you look at it in context, then at least the ancient Israelites were nicer to their slaves than surrounding civilizations. That makes it all OK right?
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Droopy wrote:Coming from someone as witlessly uninformed as you, and as philosophically autistic, the charge of insanity is going to have to be pretty sticky to stay on the refrigerator.
Droopy the only reason this sort of thing warrants any comment is because on infrequent occasions you don't do this. This sounds like you imagine the only purpose to discussion is to demonstrate you have the personal strength and integrity to insult anybody. Does the muscle at your temple bulge from the effort?
Sethbag wrote:How are we to know that ancestor was officially enslaved?
Actually the claim of Ancestry.com that John Punch was the first officially enslaved African is untrue. In 1640, the Virginia courts sentenced one black servant, John Punch, to slavery. The first enslaved Africans arrived in what is now the United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony (most likely located in the Winyah Bay area of present-day South Carolina), founded by Spanish explorer Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526. The nature of the slave status was very real to these slaves, even without documentation.