ESPN Drops Asian Announcer Named Robert Lee From UVa. Game

[IAMX 3,055]

8 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

I have read and re-read this comment, and I say this not to be flippant or rude, but I cannot fully follow your line of reasoning. I will try to address some of your points, however.

 

William I, often known as William the Conqueror, indeed predated William III. He was crowned King of England in 1066 after successfully leading the Norman Conquest of England, and established the House of Normandy. Before the Norman Conquest, the Anglo-Saxons had permitted slavery, but the Normans had abandoned the practice prior to their invasion of England. With Norman rule, slavery was abolished, along with the slave trade out of England. Wales' legal system did not become subsumed into that of England's in the mid-16th century, but prior to then William I had also abolished the practice of slavery in Wales. 

 

The issue is not whether a slave could be possessed as a chattel within England and Wales in the reign of William and Mary, some 625 years (give or take) later. That is legally impossible. Nor is the issue whether a slave could be exported from England, which was not the case with the transatlantic slave trade. Slaves were not being shipped out of England; England's role in the triangular trade was to ship out and receive goods to be used as payment for slaves. None of this is meant as an apology for slavery -- it's just that the movement of people was not happening from, to or through the country. 

 

While William I was not the first ruler of an independent England (Alfred the Great was the first, about 100-something years before), the Conqueror's succession to the throne marked a massive change in England, socially, legally, linguistically and economically (and many other -lys I'm not thinking of at the moment). So when we say "slavery was never legal in England," it is because the Norman Invasion marked this new beginning, and the abolition of slavery within England (and eventually Wales) in the late 1000's certainly predates the Slave Trade Act of 1807, and the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, by which all slavery in the Empire was abolished (with the exception of India, which was abolished a decade later).

 

Were there exceptions in practice? I'm going to say probably, because I went to law school and I find it difficult to deal in absolutes when it comes to practical application and interpretation of the law. The exception does not invalidate the rule; the specific does not invalidate the principle. Were there people being shipped through England? Probably. Were there people living in conditions that were identical to slavery in every regard except what they were called under law? Probably. None of those poor souls detract from the legal reality that by the time the man depicted in the bust was resident at Hampton Court and in the service of William III, slavery had been illegal in England and Wales for well over 600 years. If I seem overly clinical in this analysis, it is because the question, so many comments ago, was whether William III and Mary II could have owned a slave. And the answer is that no, under the laws of England and Wales, they could not.

 

Edit: I added an adverb to more fully express my thoughts.

People don't disregard slavery in the USA because slave owners were an extreme minority, lol.

 

So why does the UK get a pass on this? (Edit: Never mind, saw the profile)

 

Awful reasoning.

Edited August 24, 2017 by IAMX

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, IAMX said:

People don't disregard slavery in the USA because slave owners were an extreme minority, lol.

 

So why does the UK get a pass on this?

 

Awful reasoning.

 

  Nobody actually said that. Of course the reasoning is awful,  it's yours. 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

48 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Nobody actually said that. Of course the reasoning is awful,  it's yours. 

[Boiler 45,486]

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

People don't disregard slavery in the USA because slave owners were an extreme minority, lol.

 

So why does the UK get a pass on this? (Edit: Never mind, saw the profile)

 

Awful reasoning.

Think you mean England, what has Wales got to do with this.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

51 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Think you mean England, what has Wales got to do with this.

Only in the sense that the two legal systems were unitary. Otherwise, yeah, it's the English.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

2 hours ago, IAMX said:

People don't disregard slavery in the USA because slave owners were an extreme minority, lol.

 

So why does the UK get a pass on this? (Edit: Never mind, saw the profile)

 

Awful reasoning.

What in particular do you find awful about my reasoning? I do not disregard the role of the English in the slave trade. That they took any role is disgusting. I give them no "pass." I was simply answering the question: Did William III and Mary II own slaves? No, they could not have owned slaves. I have no problem with you taking issue with my reasoning, but I would like to understand why you believe it is faulty.

[CaliCat 3,957]

36 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

What in particular do you find awful about my reasoning? I do not disregard the role of the English in the slave trade. That they took any role is disgusting. I give them no "pass." I was simply answering the question: Did William III and Mary II own slaves? No, they could not have owned slaves. I have no problem with you taking issue with my reasoning, but I would like to understand why you believe it is faulty.

 

It seems that you have made your point far too clear, and your claim well supported, which is the part of the discussion where you would expect either a sensible response, or the introduction a the strawman argument. 

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

3 hours ago, Boiler said:

Think you mean England, what has Wales got to do with this.

I didn't know Tina Turner was Welsh. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I think we should level the Mayan ruins. They owned slaves and sacrificed them 

 

The bible speaks of how to treat slaves. Banning it for good measure.

 

Pyramids baaapfft , slave labor , tear them down. 

 

Native Americans, enslaved other tribes, banish them from history.

 

African blacks, slave traders and owners, banish them also.

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

I think we should level the Mayan ruins. They owned slaves and sacrificed them 

 

The bible speaks of how to treat slaves. Banning it for good measure.

 

Pyramids baaapfft , slave labor , tear them down. 

 

Native Americans, enslaved other tribes, banish them from history.

 

African blacks, slave traders and owners, banish them also.

 

 

But are any of them American? If not, they're irrelevant.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

13 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I think we should level the Mayan ruins. They owned slaves and sacrificed them 

 

The bible speaks of how to treat slaves. Banning it for good measure.

 

Pyramids baaapfft , slave labor , tear them down. 

 

Native Americans, enslaved other tribes, banish them from history.

 

African blacks, slave traders and owners, banish them also.

 

 

 

    Think again, because you missed the point. When a modern racist/supremacist hate movement tries to appropriate any of those historical symbols to further their cause, we can talk.

[CaliCat 3,957]

21 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I think we should level the Mayan ruins. They owned slaves and sacrificed them 

 

The bible speaks of how to treat slaves. Banning it for good measure.

 

Pyramids baaapfft , slave labor , tear them down. 

 

Native Americans, enslaved other tribes, banish them from history.

 

African blacks, slave traders and owners, banish them also.

 

 

 

Just make sure you keep your argument away from any live flame. Straw is very flammable.

 

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

27 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Think again, because you missed the point. When a modern racist/supremacist hate movement tries to appropriate any of those historical symbols to further their cause, we can talk.

And not one soul I know in my life , or on this board supports anything they or any of the other radical hate groups in this country or any other stand for 

24 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Just make sure you keep your argument away from any live flame. Straw is very flammable.

 

 

 

So you still got nothing huh 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

And not one soul I know in my life , or on this board supports anything they or any of the other radical hate groups in this country or any other stand for 

So you still got nothing huh 

We got something alright..

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

30 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

So you still got nothing huh 

 

Which is what the fake argument warranted.