Republican group doubles down on racism... and slavery?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Her father, and his lineage that told him where he came from. Are they all lying?

From your link:

Reflections of a Jamaican Father
By
Donald J. Harris
.........
.........

My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town)

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

This doesn't have anything to do with the Trump family. This is all about right wing Marxists, wanting to create lower classes of US citizens, who have less rights than other "True" Americans, based on a parent's birthplace and citizenship.

These are same extreme right-wing Marxists that want to elevate the class status of a fertilized egg over the status of a girl/woman, giving the contents of her uterus more rights than her.

You must hate the Constitution.

a reply to: LSU2018

I do not.
The Constitution says Barrack Obama was an eligible POTUS, and that Kamala Harris is eligible to run for POTUS too. If any of the Trump Children wish to seek higher public office, they are also eligible, much to the chagrin of many MAGA posters here that think only Americans whose parents were both US Citizens, born on US soil are eligible.

a reply to: frogs453

Why you would think a slave would have to lie about being pregnant by another slave is not likely. Slave owners loved getting more free property through child birth. If the claim is true, then it is likely as Sookie stated. Not a love match but rape. Again, not a good "gotcha" point.

it is true that slaves giving birth enriched owner in some way or the other, it is also true that they wanted to improve their stock, and labor force. so if she became pregnant by someone that wasn't the healthiest slave as others it could cause the child to be all but useless. many slave owners let the slaves pair up on their own others used for lack of a better term stock studs of their own or another owner, some even turned to medicine.

if owner had plans for his female slave or slaves to be bred with stock studs and she came up pregnant by someone that the owner didn't intend, and he was also raping her, it would make sense for the woman to lie to keep from being beaten or treated in some other inhuman way.

then again some female slaves refused to play the game and would wind up being beaten time and time again for not having childern until she or the owner gave in.

here is a excerpt from Slate Magazine that describes all that i stated, but this is about the southern U.S. slave holders. the british may have been different, but i find that a little hard to believe seeing how they were just as brutal if not more so on their slaves. that's not saying all british were but you know they were the second leading importer of the slave next to the portuguese. and had no problem tossing enslaved africans overboard.

Miscalculations such as these explain in part the efforts undertaken by some slaveholders to intervene directly in sexual relationships among slaves. They tried to orchestrate courting by insisting that couples obtain an owner’s approval before seeing each other. Some masters and mistresses went so far as to write love letters on behalf of slaves.8
Forced pairings were uncommon, but slaveholders attempted them from time to time. Some former slaves charged that owners forcefully bred slaves not only to enlarge their workforces but also to “improve” their “stock.” Henry H. Buttler claimed that his former masters would not approve matches unless they “considered it a proper mating,” and the only men and women who received permission were those the owner expected to produce offspring with “perfect physiques.”9 Other informants spoke of “stockmen” assigned the role of stud. One former slave testified that a stockman would be locked in a room with women of childbearing age overnight. In the morning, he would be quizzed about what had happened. If he did not engage in sex (the women might resist him), his owner would not be paid for his services. Emma Barr of Arkansas reported her mother’s allegation that one of her owners kept a “fine man” whose duty it was to impregnate the house women. The man performed no difficult labor, and the other slaves—both men and women—“hated him,” an indication that any man who cooperated with such a scheme was despised by other slaves. One Louisiana planter with sizable slaveholdings, William Maddox, allowed the majority of slaves to choose spouses to their liking, except for about 10 women, whom he bred with a large man. His goal was physically fit children who might be sold for a good price.10

and were the slave refused and the owner gave in,

Although slaveholders intervened with human reproduction in the slave quarter in a variety of ways, they did not always find the results satisfactory. Time and again, their efforts were foiled by the determination of slaves to keep reproductive matters under their own control. Nancy and Tip managed to thwart their Louisiana master’s plan to pair them. When the master first decided that the two should mate, Tip was willing to go along. Nancy resisted, however, and received a whipping as a result. Feeling sorry for Nancy, Tip suggested that they live together without establishing a sexual relationship. After several months the master, frustrated at the lack of a visible pregnancy, agreed to let Nancy remarry, this time to a man of her own choosing.13

“Good Breeders”

so yeah she might have had a reason to lie.