As I showed, pre-Adamite thought precedes that by 500 years
No, you did not and haven't. All you have done was bickering over that it's not that old. I showed you that it is and on top of that, with sources that showed the dehumanization based on this Hamitic doctrine.
This is what you posted, in the following order:
https://www.thecoli.com/posts/38626749/
No, I don't since institutional racism can be traced back directly to Virginia in 1691.......
They believe tons of other nonsense and post it on anonymous message boards.
That's about it.
The post above was obviously rooted in another lie by you.
'Hamitic Doctrine' doesn't play any part in systemic racism other than as a justification for
race-based slavery in the 19th Century which, ultimately, backfired.....
Where you claimed that imaginatively something backfired.
https://www.thecoli.com/posts/38626970/
It proved everything, but like a preteen you kept on insisting that you are right.
https://www.thecoli.com/posts/38637925/
Couldn't be as it wasn't even articulated until 1930. The 'Curse of Ham/Mark of Cain' thing, on the other hand, was an argument used by pro-slavery apologists in the 18th Century as a justification to continue the practice. The dehumanization precedes both by a thousand years......
Pre-Adamite - Wikipedia.
This was your last response.
https://www.thecoli.com/posts/38648335/
Not sure what all that's for.
This was the part where you were cornered, so you started to act corny.
This is what your "Pre-Adamite - Wikipedia" source says:
The Irish lawyer
Dominick McCausland, a Biblical literalist and anti-Darwinian polemicist, maintained the theory to uphold the Mosaic timescale. He held that the
Chinese were descended from Cain and that the "Caucasian" race would eventually exterminate all others. He maintained that only the "Caucasian" descendants of Adam were capable of creating civilisation, and he tried to explain away the numerous non-"Caucasian" civilisations by attributing them all to a vanished "Caucasian" race, the
Hamites.
Now, is the above pseudo or not?
Sure, they were, they just abandoned them as they fell out of favor. Some, indeed, were forced to, some converted to gain freedom, but after 1667, conversion no longer changed their status.
You are no literally making up shyt as you go along. It's documented all over the Americas that maroon populations kept it alive in isolated settlements, it was no different in the 13 colonies. In fact it was even worse. Black Americans lost more about their heritage, culture and languages.
And I posted a reputable source along for your to see (read).
"Property" didn't have freedom to do anything in America. "Free" people did. All Africans weren't enslaved.
The first Africans weren't slaves, the came as free people, from there they became indentured servitude and after that Africans were enslaved with no rights.
I have a thread on it:
Irish Chattel Slaves - The Myth, by Kofi Khepera
The reason for the enslavement of Africans is they weren't protected by European laws.
You are now uttering nonsense again, as you do so often. I provided primary documentation for the beginning of the enslavement of Africans.
Papal Bull Dum Diversas was issued 18 June, 1452. It can't get deeper than that. Anyway, here is more:
Exploration and trade were the most significant reasons for people to move around the world during the 15th and early 16th centuries. The French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch sent their merchant seamen to Asia, Africa and the Americas, where trade developed rapidly. The English, anxious not to miss out on this bounty, became experts in shipping, finance and insurance and thus major players in overseas commerce.
[…]
In 1562, John Hawkins set out on a voyage that would mark the beginning of the English slave trade. Documents reveal that he left Plymouth with the purpose of capturing Africans along the Guinea Coast. The travel writer Richard Hakluyt (c.1552-1616) says that Hawkins 'got into his possession partly by the sworde and partly by other meanes to the number of 300 negroes'. In Sierra Leone, he took a ship laden with ivory, wax and 500 Africans.
Hawkins, commanding the ship Salomon, then made the voyage from the Guinea coast to the West Indies. He arrived at the port of Monte Christi, in what is now the Dominican Republic, where they 'did deposit 125 slaves at 100 ducats each' (about £25-30 in present-day terms). The Africans were offered for sale to estate owners in the Americas, who required a constant supply of cheap labour for their sugar and tobacco plantations.
The National Archives | Exhibitions & Learning online | Black presence | Early times
"This letter illustrates how Elizabeth I attempted to divert attention from social problems by blaming Black people. It was sent to the lord mayor and aldermen of London and to mayors and sheriffs throughout the country.
The queen asserts that England has a growing population of its own and does not need the 'divers blackmoores brought into this realme'. This was followed by a declaration that 10 Black people would be deported. This was only the opening salvo in Elizabeth's campaign to remove 'blackmoores' from England."
[…]
Black Scapegoats
But while Elizabeth may have enjoyed being entertained by Black people, in the 1590s she also issued proclamations against them. In 1596 she wrote to the lord mayors of major cities noting that there were 'of late divers blackmoores brought into this realm, of which kind of people there are already here to manie...'. She ordered that 'those kinde of people should be sente forth of the land'.
Elizabeth made an arrangement for a merchant, Casper van Senden, to deport Black people from England in 1596. The aim seems to have been to exchange them for (or perhaps to sell them to obtain funds to buy) English prisoners held by England’s Catholic enemies Spain and Portugal.
The National Archives | Exhibitions & Learning online | Black presence | Early times
But let's play along. So based on what reasoning where Africans allowed the same laws in the 13 colonies?
Doesn't change the fact that it's pseudoscience.
How does bickering over it being pseudoscience make the facts go away that Black people are being victimized by it?
Those taking that position are endorsing pseudoscience.
So if Black people aren't endorsing it make the dehumanization of Black people go away?
Actual recorded events based on pseudoscientific beliefs doesn't make those beliefs science.
But it does make the events have real effects on Black lives. And it's based in the believe that Blacks are inferior. Telling yourself constantly that it's just pseudoscientific beliefs, doesn't make it less horrible, or even let it go away.
Perhaps you can explain from where that thinking came into existence?
So mentioning these historical events and record facts is adhering to pseudoscientific beliefs? It's not actually contradicting it?
No what and why misconstrue my post by deleting the most imported parts?
That is what I suspected. So you aren't going to explain the "racial wealth gap", false imprisonment or the funding gap between Black and white schools? The things that go directly into that racist thinking I have been addressing. Racist pseudo science or not, that affects are real.
So from where does that racist pseudo science came?
I know it's from Gregor Mendel, that is what I posted from the beginning. Mendelian law of inheritance.
What I am asking you is, on the basis of what did he start to observe the dominant and recessive traits and inheritance? How did he start with his first observations and conclusion?
Don't skip
Cotton Mather - Wikipedia. Let's address it all.
Abstract
There were Africans in New England before there were Puritans there, and by 1700 they numbered about 1,000 out of a total population of 90,000. Roughly half of them lived in Massachusetts, and were concentrated in Boston and the coastal towns. Puritans actively participated in the trafficking of enslaved persons, importing Africans from the West Indies and sometimes selling native American prisoners overseas.
Cotton Mather’s household contained enslaved Negro servants, and his congregation at the Second (or North) Church included both merchants of slavery and persons of African descent. The pamphlet reprinted here appeared in 1706 without his name, but his authorship of it was generally known. It calls on those who held people in slavery to educate their “servants” in the Christian religion, to treat them justly and kindly, and to accept them as spiritual brethren. It includes two catechisms and other instructional materials. It advances both spiritual and pragmatic arguments: the Christian has a moral responsibility for the souls of those in danger, and the Christianized servant is more profitable to his master.
Mather’s style in this work is (for him) unusually plain-spoken and direct. He quotes only one church father (Chrysostom), one classical philosopher (Cato), and one modern historian (Acosta). Moreover, his language seems particularly fresh, almost contemporary: “Man, Thy Negro is thy Neighbour. … Yea, if thou dost grant, That God hath made of one Blood, all Nations of men, he is thy Brother too.”—and, at another point, “… say of it, as it is.”
The Negro Christianized. An Essay to Excite and Assist that Good Work, the Instruction of Negro-Servants in Christianity (1706)
JUNTO: One particularly fascinating part of your book, was your analysis of European scholarly pamphlets defending the slave trade. In particular, you discuss how many argued that Africans were “cursed.” Many of our readers will be familiar with the scriptural debates around Curse of Ham, and the idea of “hereditary heathenism” but your discussion developed a bit further, into Europeans seeing Africans as “biologically cursed?” Can you explain what that means, and how the terms differ?
KENDI: Proceeding and overlapping and always complicating the debate between monogenesis and polygenesis was the first and possibly the longest debate between racists. Since the origins of racist ideas in fifteenth century Portugal, climate theorists and curse theorists had been trying to explain the cause of inferior Blackness. [...]
Q&A: Ibram Kendi, Stamped From the Beginning
Not just one k. It's triple that amount in CAPITAL LETTERS.
The one thing a white supremacist will do is try to convince that the dehumanization of Black people isn't as bad, it's just not that bad, it's all perceived as bad, but it's actually not.
