You seem eager to take my attempt to explain the arguments, and turn this into polemics (using cherry picked examples and 400 year old tired religious debates). With that, I’m out. Have at it.

It was far too integral to the economy of a colonial territory at that point and would be to important to paying off the credit we fought the war on. We could acknowledge it’s immorality and lament it’s necessity, we just couldn’t afford to ditch it at that point. England could easily “abolish” it as the majority of their territories had permanent exploitable labor class and they didn’t necessarily rely on importing slaves. I think Jefferson was right to indict the crown with burdening their colonies with the practice but he was overruled by Continental Congress and forced to strike the indictment.

Rape was certainly common in the conquest of the Incas, and while I don't think Cortez raped (he also didn't like the encomendero system but ended up resorting to it), he certainly accepted female slaves.

With respect to Crown policy, it is import to realize the Spanish Crown had absolute authority (in theory) in Spanish colonies, but the same was not true for the English crown in English colonies, which had their own legislature and created its own laws, and the English colonies tended to be treated with "benign neglect" by the English kings, to borrow one historian's take on the matter.

Is there a difference?  Putting it in “context” is a form of justifying it.  No?

Originally, lateen rigged.
The ones the Africans first saw were probably the square rigged versions, which were larger and used by the Portugese for the Brazil and African trade.

I understand their arguments, and was explaining why they were wrong. The English did not intermix because of their religion, not because of race.

I didn't "cherry pick" my example, I used the earliest example of an Englishman marrying a native American woman I'm aware of, in part because of the useful information of the actual transcript of the letter that explains the reasoning.

nothing about that meme rings true?  even just a little bit?

They'll fuck him up toot sweet.

It's always interesting to see a 3rd party perspective.

No. It’s pretty much the ultimate example of cherry picking to make an invalid point.

What did northern Germany look like 2000 years ago? 1) Most of the race obsessed types tend to lean toward the Northern European = superior to southern European trope, but that doesn’t work for that meme. 2) You are comparing a massive government project in a capital city to a rural residence. 3) You are ignoring things like this,

Is this fair?

Africa today:



The American South today:



Apples and Orangutans.

How not?

It reminds me of the time my brother got caught shooting the windows out of the neighbor’s shed with his BB gun.

He “put it in context” for my dad, saying, “all the boys were doing it, I only shot once and they shot many times.”

Putting it in context didn’t impress my dad or save him from punishment.

I'll add in that you seem to want to discuss an administrative period that came later, while I was discussing the initial contact period, which was conquest in the Spanish case.

The rape and forced conversion occurs around the time of conquest, that's the nature of things.

The English didn't come in conquest. I consider that morally superior. But the result was an attempt to live side by side with another culture that was quit different.

In Jamestown, the result was a surprise Indian attack in 1622 that was essentially ethnic cleansing. It failed and the English responded with total war. Incidently, the 1622 attack fully wiped out a town that had set up a school to teach native Americans and English children at the same time. Such racists. Although I can understand the Indians not appreciating that.

In the New England colonies they had 50 years of peace, which eventually led to war for reasons I already discussed.

The bottom line of the English system, the path of live side by side in peace just led to eventual war. Many wars in fact. Diverse cultures don't tend to play well together. But I think it is wrong to compare the later English wars with the natives with post-conquest colonial administration without considering why each ended up where they did.

In a sense, the English approach was rather modern and typically Western. You can see in it the "let's let in the refugees and we can all live well together" type of thinking of more modern periods.

The first pic is not Sub Saharan Africa.

If the question is, “Why do some people claim that Spanish colonialism was superior to English colonialism in the New World?”

The answer is, “Due to the policies enacted for colonial administration after the crown was appalled by the abuses of and after the initial period of conquest.”

We don’t need to fight them, they manage to kill each other off without our help.

Justifying what?

It isn't put into context to justify slavery.

It is put into context to show that European and Americans were engaging in acts typical of the era, and are not the source of evil the left want to claim. That in a sense is justifying, it is justifying not considering them the instigators or creators of that great evil.

Well, as I pointed out, there was a huge difference in the relationship between the English colonists and their kings, and the Spanish and theirs. English kings didn't have the same level of authority in the New World, king James didn't even want their to be a Jamestown settlement (it interfered with his foreign policy vis-à-vis Spain).

There is also the fact that the initial Spanish abuses were much more significant, at least in theory. In practice, the English attempt at coexist likely just prolonged conflict, but the English did attempt coexist. They also tried socialist food distribution, that worked worse than coexist did. But that's a different discussion.

this thread is educational... thanks fellas

TL;DR.

White guilt is a tool manufactured by the Marxist-Globalists to destroy Western Culture.

Very simple.

TC

It's unnecessary to cast our ancestors as heroes (as the right often claims) or villains (as the left often claims).  The left's current narrative seems to be a reaction to the "history is always written by the winners" that we all learned in elementary school.  As pendulums typically swing, it's predictably going too far.

The last living American slave died in 1971.  Any slaveholders are also long dead.  Rather than argue that it was typical and therefore implicitly ok, I'd say that it is irrelevant.

History is more interesting when we accept human fallibility and learn from it rather than coloring it to drive some emotive agenda.  Either side can be written as the antagonist/protagonist, but then it becomes like the fake news that we all complain about.

Edit: As an aside, I love hearing stories about my ancestors that were criminals, etc.  Those are the most interesting.  They don't make me feel bad in the least as I am not them.

So im not the only one interested... also, you paper sounds interesting too.

Yes.  Sure.That would've worked.

That's the thinking of a dying culture.

Did they mention the ethnicity/religion of many of the biggest “white” oppressors profiting from slave trade?

Further evidence to support your claim.  This is a rabbit hole:

Top: Very rare clip of Soviet antizionist propaganda

Bottom: @RT_com segment by @AbbyMartin

We know the Soviets used antisemitic ideas about world domination, “Greater Israel”, and Jews being “cancerous” to attack Israel. This antisemitic propaganda is now used by the far left pic.twitter.com/9cwVqVC3xH

The Conspiracy Libel  (@ConspiracyLibel) February 3, 2020