SirTripAlot said:

To say a document has flaws (or, please provide an institution of mankind that doesn't) and therefore all aspects of said document are dribble, is bullshit to me.

---

Quote:

We have managed to be on top, for along time....this by happenstance?

---

koods said:

great Scot, did you grow up in the south where they purposefully spin the the issue of slavery and the civil war to make it sound much less evil than it was?

---

Great Scott said:

Indentured servitude is held together by the bonds of contractual obligation. And there's always some form of reprisal for breaking contract with the master. Slavery by a different name, only separated by degrees of severity.

---

Quote:

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

---

SirTripAlot said:

To say a document has flaws (or, please provide an institution of mankind that doesn't) and therefore all aspects of said document are dribble, is bullshit to me.

We(USA) have managed to be on top, for along time....this by happenstance?

---

SirTripAlot said:

Dude, throughout human history the military is used to remain on top. Not arguing whats right, but.... it's a  reality. It's not by chance, that wars are waged for economic purposes.


We agree there are cracks in the pillars of our society.

---

koods said:

SirTripAlot said:

To say a document has flaws (or, please provide an institution of mankind that doesn't) and therefore all aspects of said document are dribble, is bullshit to me.

We(USA) have managed to be on top, for along time....this by happenstance?

---

We haven’t been on top that long, as early as the beginning of the Second World War, we lagged other countries in many respects. My father had to learn German as part of his chemistry training because much of the most important scientific papers were written in German. Almost every modern discovery in physics was made elsewhere and the stuff that happened in the US was made by immigrants. There’s nothing particularly special about the US except its very large population.

---

koods said:

SirTripAlot said:

To say a document has flaws (or, please provide an institution of mankind that doesn't) and therefore all aspects of said document are dribble, is bullshit to me.

We(USA) have managed to be on top, for along time....this by happenstance?

---

We haven’t been on top that long, as early as the beginning of the Second World War, we lagged other countries in many respects. My father had to learn German as part of his chemistry training because much of the most important scientific papers were written in German. Almost every modern discovery in physics was made elsewhere and the stuff that happened in the US was made by immigrants. There’s nothing particularly special about the US except its very large population.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Great Scott said:

Indentured servitude is held together by the bonds of contractual obligation. And there's always some form of reprisal for breaking contract with the master. Slavery by a different name, only separated by degrees of severity.

---

Indentured servitude was also a means to an end, and a lot of times people ended up as indentured servants to escape imprisonment or execution anyways. That is not a great situation by any means, but indentured servants still owned their own children, and they eventually earned their freedom.

Quote:

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

---

This is not the same thing as slavery.

---

Great Scott said:

Like I said... there's degrees of severity.

Contractual servitude is only moral from the perspective that there's a voluntary element to it. If the contract is agreed upon under coercive circumstances, it's hard for me to see what makes it all that fundamentally different from slavery, aside from being a lesser degree of severity.

Is indentured servitude still legal today?

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Great Scott said:

Way to change the subject. You don't fundamentally agree with America's founding principles if you're still hung up on the white male landowner thing. Maybe we could agree on simple facts like the Brooklyn Dodgers moving to L.A.

---

I don't fundamentally agree with America's founding principles, because they were racist and sexist. The vast majority of America doesn't agree with them. Here in America, women can vote, hold public office, and own property. Black men can do the same.

These are simple facts, that I hope we can agree on.

---

koods said:

SirTripAlot said:

To say a document has flaws (or, please provide an institution of mankind that doesn't) and therefore all aspects of said document are dribble, is bullshit to me.

We(USA) have managed to be on top, for along time....this by happenstance?

---

We haven’t been on top that long, as early as the beginning of the Second World War, we lagged other countries in many respects. My father had to learn German as part of his chemistry training because much of the most important scientific papers were written in German. Almost every modern discovery in physics was made elsewhere and the stuff that happened in the US was made by immigrants. There’s nothing particularly special about the US except its very large population.

---

qman said:

You're using 2019 standards and that's an unfair comparison. You won't mind someone judging your way of life 300 years from now, will you?

Just stop with the racism and sexism nonsense from the past, you're comparing apples and oranges and it doesn't serve any meaningful purpose today.

---