I just cited you the very author you yourself claimed was brilliant and even HIS POST proves you’re ignorant of what you claim you know so much about.

The convicts the Britons exiled to the US to work as slave labor were not “indentured servants” and, for what it’s worth, many of those that signed up for indentured servitude got a lot more than that and were often worked to death well before their time was up as explained in the book.

LMAO - From Stephen Mullen (note the correct spelling), who you quote:

Yes, the fact that the NYT Book Review and NPR reviewed the book and agree with me, I’ll take that over you.

I don’t care if you say it or not.  I’ve explained that to you repeatedly.  You think it’s a winner?  Good for you!  Knock yourself out!  Make it your Number One Issue.  I can’t wait, son.

But your initial premise is not accurate. Africans weren’t enslaved simply because they were black, or viewed as sub-human, or anything that happened much later. They were imported as slaves because they were readily available, cheap, and importing them was profitable.

Given that Britain was importing slaves from African no later than 1450, I’d say your understanding of historical fact is wrong.

Uh, no.

Well, here’s a link to an NPR interview with the author that proves you’re making stuff up.

Well, NPR also reviewed it and agrees with me that white slavery is discussed in the book.

But the book sold because it talked about white slaves, and if you don’t read it and get to the parts where they say that these people were indentured servants and that isn’t the same, you can draw the incorrect conclusions from the title.

But the book sold because it talked about white slaves, and if you don’t read it and get to the parts where they say that these people were indentured servants and that isn’t the same, you can draw the incorrect conclusions from the title.

*Yawn* You demanded that they be called concentration camps and I’ve accomodated you in that regard. Your understanding of that term is severely limited and you apparently believe that every concentration camp is Auschwitz. That’s a problem with your education that you should fix.

To the contrary, I’ve said I’m fully in support of the concentration camps.  I only said I didn’t care whether you called them a concentration camp.  That was the word that scared you, not me.

Again, from the New York Times Book Review:

Given that Britain began importing slaves from Africa no later than 1440, I’d say your take on this subject could use some work.

I’m lying? Then I guess the New York Times Book Review is also lying when it wrote:

Given that it is historical fact - easily Googled in other places besides the Jordan/Walsh work - that Britain exported well over 40,000 convicts to the US as slaves I’d say that you haven’t read the book (or anything else, apparently) and are just trying to defend your ignorant opinion by wholesale fabrication.

LOL - it’s published a collegiate publishing house. The authors know the difference between slavery and indentured servitude. One of the authors, Walsh, specializes in historical documentaries.

Again: It’s not a quiet conspiracy. The US is openly operating the concentration camps and has been doing so for some time. Similarly to how the US operated Black Sites after 9/11, and Guantanomo as well.