US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Nickiow


Well im sorry to say that the state of VA outlawed international and interstate slave trade several years before the Uk did and they are the first nation to do so, so i understand his point, Its very instructive that YOU DONT.

Could we see your evidence for Virginia outlawing slavery before the United Kingdom, please ?


Just curious.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
"Morocco for instance, the DNA (Human G -Gnome)studies show that modern Morrocans have 13% Scandanavian DNA"

Hey, I don't live in Sweden or Norway. Or Denmark.

Get it?

Got it you dont know and want to know more about the subject, right?

In medieval times there was avasst interregional slave trade that took women from scandanvia to the medd, who in turn interbreeed with the popultaion there and thsi shows up in the DNA of current medd populations.

Got it yet?.

[Pekka]

no you freaking idiot. Talk all you want about Scandinavia. I'm not from Scandinavia!!!!!

GET IT? Your racism is quit clear here.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Could we see your evidence for Virginia outlawing slavery before the United Kingdom, please ?


Just curious.

Its from memory but is in J Grahem "Constitional history of seccesion" iirc, ill find it later tonight and provide full cite for you, might even be online.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
no you freaking idiot. Talk all you want about Scandinavia. I'm not from Scandinavia!!!!!

GET IT? Your racism is quit clear here.

Im sorry you think me racist, perhaps you can point out where i gave this impresion?.

Or where i said, implied you were from Scandanavia?.

[Pekka]

Well I never talked about Scandinavia in sense of not slaving people now did I. You have taken these bold accusations to me because you are jealous, and one doesn't have to be history scholar to know that vikings stole, raped and pillaged around many places.

Your racism makes this very clear.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well I never talked about Scandinavia in sense of not slaving people now did I.

Is this not you?, talking about Scandanavians inslaving others, your ancestors?.

Originally posted by Pekka
i thought that one of the big targets in a Scanda-hoovian viking raid was 'thralls' so that they could spend the rest of the year drinking mead?"

Hey, I don't live in Sweden or Norway. Or Denmark. We always were the 'slave people'.

Originally posted by Pekka
You have taken these bold accusations to me

I simply asked where i gave you the impresion i was a racist.

Originally posted by Pekka
because you are jealous, and one doesn't have to be history scholar to know that vikings stole, raped and pillaged around many places.

So now im jealous of you?, agin this is something i have no idea how i have given such an impresion.

Your racism makes this very clear. [/QUOTE]

Support your claim, as i dont know where i give this impression.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Nickiow


Got it you dont know and want to know more about the subject, right?

In medieval times there was avasst interregional slave trade that took women from scandanvia to the medd, who in turn interbreeed with the popultaion there and thsi shows up in the DNA of current medd populations.

Got it yet?.

You'll find there was a more direct route- Moorish slavers raiding Ireland and Great Britain, and Viking raiders raiding North Africa. There were reports of four or five captive Moors in Viking Dublin.

Having been to Morocco, I can indeed attest to the fact that you can walk through a medina or kasbah and see a dark eyed dark skinned blond with African features, or a blue eyed freckled dark haired 'Moor'.

In fact the Sallee Rovers were still raiding parts of Ireland and Great Britain up until the 17th Century.

[Pekka]

"Is this not you?, talking about Scandanavians inslaving others, your ancestors?"

No.

And it is easy to just say, well I'm not a racist, when you clearly are. Your words are showing it, it is you who must prove you are not, but I think this task is quite impossible for you, being racist.

[Dr Strangelove]

The US Constitution was written in such a manner as to allow the banning of slave importation after 1808, and the US Congress did indeed pass legislation banning the importation of slaves. That means that it was legal to import slaves into the United States only from 1783 to 1808, a period of time during which international trade was often disrupted by wars in Europe. Consequently I think you'd find that most African - Americans are descended from people brought into North America by the British.


Oh, and one reason that there may be Germanic genes in Morocco is that large parts of Roman North Africa were given to Germanic tribes in the 5th and 6th centuries CE. It's also true that Muslim raiders took slaves from the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts of Europe during a period which stretched from the 8th century CE until the 1830s.

[Barnabas]

I agree with Strangelove, probably the scandinavean genes are because of the German Vandals who had a kingdom in north africa, the only europeans who were made slaves often to be sold to the muslims if I recall correctly, were slavs and people from the caucasus, not scandinavians.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom



You'll find there was a more direct route- Moorish slavers raiding Ireland and Great Britain, and Viking raiders raiding North Africa. There were reports of four or five captive Moors in Viking Dublin.

Having been to Morocco, I can indeed attest to the fact that you can walk through a medina or kasbah and see a dark eyed dark skinned blond with African features, or a blue eyed freckled dark haired 'Moor'.

In fact the Sallee Rovers were still raiding parts of Ireland and Great Britain up until the 17th Century.

Could be one line of the imports, i should add that this is from the female line only that the DNA comes, what the particular Sforza study was the line from Scananavia down the river system to the Crimea and from there westwards of female slaves and how this is supported in the current population, there is of course ample textual evidence in the Medic trade records of the order of magnitude of gross numbers traded before the Turks closed that route, several being married and freed therby by Medici family members.

Second to that is the "Power and profit" a study of itialian trade records that show quantity of slaves traded and adds breadth to the above study.


As for your inquiry re Va, Patrick Henry entered and passed a motion in 1778 to outlaw the interstate and inter nation trade in slaves, VA had pettioned the Uk throne in 74, 75 to do this and was ignored, one of the principle Vaa reasons for seperation from the crown was the slavery issue. When the DOI was being crafted, it contained "George III has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty, in the persons of distant people who never offended him, captivating them and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere." "This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative by suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."

This clause in the Declaration of Independence was omitted from the draft adopted by Congress. Jefferson declares in his autobiography that it "was struck out in compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures, for though their people had very few slaves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them, to others."

In October, 1778, the General Assembly of Virginia, then freed from the control of the British King, passed an act forever prohibiting the further importation of slaves into her Commonwealth. When she ceded to the Union the great northwest territory, granted by the UK to Va and other sperate Sov states, in the treaty of Paris, Va gave its land title to the NWT on the condition that slavery would not be permitted in it, others RI for instance gave up title for pecunary aid, ie it wrote of its RW debt to Congress, VA first article of its state constition was to afirm that Mansfields natural law rul;ing that slavery was against natuaral law and write it into law and the states constition, the problem then was how to solve the problem, VA had huge numbers of them, 1790 it had 35% of the entire countrys slaves and Mason, Marshal, Jeffersons grandson and others, Particulry G Tucker who wrote US fundamental law) wanted to move them into the NWT after freeing them, this followed the paratcice of indentures moving west and opening up new states and then admitanhce into the Union, but this ran into, funnily enough Northern oposistion in the 1830s.

I can recomend "A constitional history of secesion" John Remington Graham btw, re read portions (Southern aboliotion)of it last night.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1589800664/qid=1131881359/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-3949721-3425217

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
"Is this not you?, talking about Scandanavians inslaving others, your ancestors?"

No.

Really?, on page 4 of this thread is the following under your name .

"
i thought that one of the big targets in a Scanda-hoovian viking raid was 'thralls' so that they could spend the rest of the year drinking mead?"

Hey, I don't live in Sweden or Norway. Or Denmark. We always were the 'slave people'. I say it in quotations marks because it can't be compared to what Africans went through. But we were second rate folks for a long time so .. it's not like we had people working for us .

Now you deny that is your reply?. Now if you want to support either your claim that vikings raped , please do so, if you want to support where specificly you gather from anything i ahve posted, that leads you to believe i am a racist, please do so, but dont just keep making the claim as it tends to lead to the conclusion your a drolling idiot.

Originally posted by Pekka
And it is easy to just say, well I'm not a racist, when you clearly are. Your words are showing it, it is you who must prove you are not, but I think this task is quite impossible for you, being racist.

I did not say i was not a racist either, i simply asked where in my posts you gathered that impresion so as to addresse that issue. is this a langauge problem?, you know, your against what i have posted but lack either the education or the langauge skills to contribute anything except usported baseless claims of racism


Now ill argue on what point you show me that indictes ima racist, but untill you do i cant now can i?, like i say, langauge problem, yours in case your in any doubt, and your logic is even harder to follow, you say im jealous of you? where did i indicate such!, you have gained the impresion im a racist but twice asked and still your unwilling to say just what exactly or even in general what it is in the posts that leads to your claim.

You do know what unsuported claims are dont you?.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The US Constitution was written in such a manner as to allow the banning of slave importation after 1808, and the US Congress did indeed pass legislation banning the importation of slaves. That means that it was legal to import slaves into the United States only from 1783 to 1808, a period of time during which international trade was often disrupted by wars in Europe. Consequently I think you'd find that most African - Americans are descended from people brought into North America by the British.

True but incomplete, Vermont state constition forbid slavery in 1777, 1780 Mass followed UK, All men free and equal rulling and salvery is against naturaol law, by having a judicial ruling, in 83 after appeals and such that made slavery unlawfull in Mass.

The 1808 clause was a comprimise, it obtained a further 25 year extension later as the slave states did not want, on economic grounds to lose this population base.


Yes exactly only 6% of the slaves in the trans Atalantic slave trade come to the US, but once there the population expoloded while the larger population elshere declined dramticly, and many US co0linies objected to the import of slves, however ther crown argued that the flow of indentured servants was insuffiecent and salvery was the only way to provide the manpower, some states agreed others did not, on economic grounds, moral grounds is a different matter.

On top of that is the slaves already in states incorporated into the Union, ie LA and Floroida who had slaves from Spain and France brought into them.

The peak importing of slaves to the US was oddly enough is 1790 to 1810, as amny negros were came in as had done in the prior 160 years.
Negros imports from old world to new world
1451-1600====275,000
1601-1700====1,362,000
1701-1810====6,200,000
1811-1870====1,898,000

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Oh, and one reason that there may be Germanic genes in Morocco is that large parts of Roman North Africa were given to Germanic tribes in the 5th and 6th centuries CE. It's also true that Muslim raiders took slaves from the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts of Europe during a period which stretched from the 8th century CE until the 1830s.

Again true, but the specific genitic markers identified in that study allow us to be more specific in tempral frame work, so as to rule out the earlier influx and narrow the time frame much more narrowly.

[Pekka]

Yeah that was my reply. And you attacked that 'uuh but Vikins did enslave people!""2 wphri jq23r+9u with drool dripping from your mouth. I never claimed anything else. I'm not from Viking country. OK? You just started talking about crap, that I wasn't even discussing about, as if that was to counter something I said. Listen, your racism is clear here.

Hey, a person can say 'I wish all of race x was dead!' and then go on about their lives and then someone points out 'hey that's racist. You are racist.'... then you go 'uuh how did you get that impression?'. You as so racist you don't even see it. Thus it is YOUR job to show otherwise, or I'll just regard you as racist person. That's the way it is, either accept the facts or don't.