400 Years of African Slavery in America

[Ken]

Slavery, genocide and "stolen land" are different matters and should be treated separately.
As for the "stolen land", both sides are wrong. The colonial side mostly recurs to the idea that nobody can claim a property without a "title" given by a government, so the natives had no property at all. (Btw It is till now the principle of socialist parties that there are no rights without a state who creates them.) The native side mostly recurs to the idea that the whole of the American territory was their "property".

This is egregiously wrong. You should familiarize yourself more with American history and law.

From 1778 to 1871, the United States government entered into more than 500 treaties with the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated in some way or outright broken by the US. I hope I need not provide you with a list.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws, including any state or county-issued property titles.

In effect, and in reality, every Indian treaty entered into by the US government legally supersedes any property title issued by a state or local government as each individual tribe was (and is) considered a sovereign nation. Nearly every single American participating in this forum is living on land that was, at one time ceded by treaty to an Indian tribe and then stolen back when that treaty was broken. Usually by white settlers illegally infringing on sovereign Indian lands and then demanding the protection of the US military when challenged.

This is most certainly not a "both sides are wrong" issue.

As for slavery, the most urging problem is imho the decay of the legal branch. If a merchant was offered "slaves" in Africa, it is understandable that he took their status at face value. But in the colonies, the only precedent was indented labour and indeed a lot of slaves appealed to courts, which led to a continuous downsizing of their legal status, far under the status of an indented labourer. This did not happen without some refinement and sophistication in legal thinking - and if we do not want that it happens again we ought to look at how it happened before.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Yes, the legal status of slavery evolved over time as slave owners and slave owning societies constructed increasingly complex legal edifices in support of slavery based on religion, science, and economics. All of it specious. And all of it rendered moot by the passage of the 13 Amendment which abolished slavery in the United States and provides that:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.".

[barnhart]

... But in the colonies, the only precedent was indented labour and indeed a lot of slaves appealed to courts, which led to a continuous downsizing of their legal status, far under the status of an indented labourer. This did not happen without some refinement and sophistication in legal thinking - and if we do not want that it happens again we ought to look at how it happened before.

I generally agree with Ken, but I find this intriguing. I agree that fancy laws and courts will not insulate from evil. All human institutions can and likely will be corrupted and turned to evil purposes. It might be wise to investigate how it has happened in the past.

[Joy]

And how it is happening to millions in the present.

[temporal1]

... But in the colonies, the only precedent was indented labour and indeed a lot of slaves appealed to courts, which led to a continuous downsizing of their legal status, far under the status of an indented labourer. This did not happen without some refinement and sophistication in legal thinking - and if we do not want that it happens again we ought to look at how it happened before.

.. I find this intriguing. I agree that fancy laws and courts will not insulate from evil.

All human institutions can and likely will be corrupted and turned to evil purposes.
It might be wise to investigate how it has happened in the past.

PetrC brings intriguing perspective, fascinating to try to grasp across language and cultural borders.
Much pain could be sidestepped with increased awareness of past experiences. This is known, too much ignored.

And how it is happening to millions in the present.

[Bootstrap]

I have been listening to podcasts, reading articles, and reading a book by Esau McCaulley lately. He is a theologically conservative professor at Wheaton. He wrote about this controversy in a blog post called Two Boats, One Gospel.

Before there was an “America,” before the slave ships arrived on the shores of West Africa, we were­–all of us– profoundly loved by the one who gave his life in order to welcome us to his father’s home. In the midst of my anger, Jesus has come and spoken words of peace. I now see that our destinies (black, white, Asian, Hispanic) are united, caught up in the one story of God’s people. America’s story is only important as a witness to the gospel’s power to bring beauty out of pain and estrangement. We are penultimate.

To speak plainly, no history will make me hate my brother because God nailed his sins next to mine on the cross. This is not to say that the sins of the slave master and the slave are equal. On that score, the descendants of the Mayflower carry the greater burden. Hard truths need to be owned or we will forever look askance at one another hindered by mutual distrust. It may be that the last tear that Jesus wipes away will be our shared weeping over what we have done to one another on the basis of the color of our skin. I grant the final reconciliation of the nations is eschatological (Rev 7:9-12), but I would not mind a foretaste.

I have reason to hope because God has already paid the price for our reconciliation in the blood of his Son. There were two boats, but there is one gospel. The church of all nations is the hope of the world. Can the descendants of the Mayflower and the middle passage inhabit one church and, in so doing, function as witness to a world that seems intent on tearing itself apart? Can the church be a symbol of reconciliation when for so much of our history we have failed in that task? Yes we can! Why do I believe this? Check the tombs in and around Jerusalem for the bones of a certain Nazarene. You will not find them; he is risen. Now tell me once more, what is impossible for our God?

[PetrChelcicky]

Ken,
I admit that I didn't know about the 50 treaties (I knew there were some treaties). Of course, where treaties existed, the government had no right to simply step away from them
More generally, I have a middle-of-the-road concept of property rights. Peasants have property rights to the ground they work on. But hunters have no property rights to the ground they hunt in. Big deer hunting as a lifestyle was only possible for a short time, after the Amerindians were provided with European horses and Europeans guns. This lifestyle consumed huge spaces of land in a way that was not sustainable. So, Amerindian big deer hunters tended to claim more property rights than can be justified.

[PetrChelcicky]

Sorry, 500 treaties. No misunderstanding, simple error in typing.

[temporal1]

Sorry, 500 treaties. No misunderstanding, simple error in typing.

i continue to enjoy reading your views, trying to understand them, from outside the small, youthful, navel-gazing, U.S. PC box that screams domination of all. screaming is a trait of youth.

i was learning a bit about the Battle of Hastings last night. and the few hundred years leading to it.
i’ve long suspected Europeans receive quite a lot more history education than we do in the U.S.
(if it were once true, it may no longer be the case. i don’t know.)

[Neto]

Ken,
I admit that I didn't know about the 50 treaties (I knew there were some treaties). Of course, where treaties existed, the government had no right to simply step away from them
More generally, I have a middle-of-the-road concept of property rights. Peasants have property rights to the ground they work on. But hunters have no property rights to the ground they hunt in. Big deer hunting as a lifestyle was only possible for a short time, after the Amerindians were provided with European horses and Europeans guns. This lifestyle consumed huge spaces of land in a way that was not sustainable. So, Amerindian big deer hunters tended to claim more property rights than can be justified.

I'm curious how you would regard land rights for nomadic groups. Do they have no property rights at all, since they are generally hunters-gathers, or may engage in minimal horticulture. (The tribe we lived w/ in the Amazon had settled down into semi-permanent village life, but they were traditionally nomadic. There are other tribes in the area that are still nomadic. (These tribes generally fall into the category of isolated uncontacted tribes.) The tribe we were with numbered 59 people when we moved there, and had typically lived in several villages, with a bit over half in one village (where we settled). They also generally moved to a new area every 12 to 15 years. (Previously they might stay in one place for a month or so, then move on.) Building an airstrip in their village largely brought them together, although several family units still maintain a second location elsewhere, and two single brothers have never moved into the main village. They have now occupied that village for around 45 years, probably the longest in their history, unless they were more settled prior to the invasion of that area of the Amazon during the rubber boom. They now number a bit over 100, and the Brazilian government granted them "surface rights" to nearly all of their ancestral village areas, which amounts to a huge land area. (I cannot remember the exact figure right now.)

[joshuabgood]

Ken,
I admit that I didn't know about the 50 treaties (I knew there were some treaties). Of course, where treaties existed, the government had no right to simply step away from them
More generally, I have a middle-of-the-road concept of property rights. Peasants have property rights to the ground they work on. But hunters have no property rights to the ground they hunt in. Big deer hunting as a lifestyle was only possible for a short time, after the Amerindians were provided with European horses and Europeans guns. This lifestyle consumed huge spaces of land in a way that was not sustainable. So, Amerindian big deer hunters tended to claim more property rights than can be justified.

I'm curious how you would regard land rights for nomadic groups. Do they have no property rights at all, since they are generally hunters-gathers, or may engage in minimal horticulture. (The tribe we lived w/ in the Amazon had settled down into semi-permanent village life, but they were traditionally nomadic. There are other tribes in the area that are still nomadic. (These tribes generally fall into the category of isolated uncontacted tribes.) The tribe we were with numbered 59 people when we moved there, and had typically lived in several villages, with a bit over half in one village (where we settled). They also generally moved to a new area every 12 to 15 years. (Previously they might stay in one place for a month or so, then move on.) Building an airstrip in their village largely brought them together, although several family units still maintain a second location elsewhere, and two single brothers have never moved into the main village. They have now occupied that village for around 45 years, probably the longest in their history, unless they were more settled prior to the invasion of that area of the Amazon during the rubber boom. They now number a bit over 100, and the Brazilian government granted them "surface rights" to nearly all of their ancestral village areas, which amounts to a huge land area. (I cannot remember the exact figure right now.)

There are many large landholding people in the USA that never work/till the ground they "own." In fact, they are never on it at all in many cases.