You continue to lie. You post the same thing as both an interview and a book review. You think that a book review is anything like a critical analysis by an historian. And most importantly, you absolutely continue to ignore the quotes from southern leaders who said it was about keeping black people in their place.

Great - you found a credulous interviewer. Try reading what historians have to say, or keep on lying. That’s what you’re going to do.

Wow - they agreed that the book claims to be about something. That’s impressive to back you up. I have quotes from historians - the one I posted was from an Oxford professor of history - you have book reviews.

I can explain what the book is about - you cannot. You have clearly not read it, because you think it supports your ideas, when in the end it does not. The authors admit that they are talking about indentured servants, and that there is a difference. These people did not have no hope of escape, but rather no hope of…

Yes, you are lying. And book reviewers are not experts at history. Here is an excerpt from an actual historians review:

They were not slaves. They were indentured servants. Most were released when their time was up, and their children did not become slaves. They did that to the black people they considered inferior.

Heck, just download a reader app for your phone and get a book on it to read. That way you don’t even have to carry anything extra.

Yes, they probably know the difference, but they still conflated them to write the book. I have absolutely read it, and you are absolutely wrong about it. Have you read it?

You’re lying. I’ve read that book, and it’s about indentured servants, which is not the same thing.

He is lying to you in his response, by throwing up a book that he is fairly certain people won’t actually read. That book conflates indenture and slavery in order to make its point. This is especially egregious when he says that if Britain had not banned slavery of all types the practice would have continued. After…

That book is talking about indentured servitude, not slavery. It is fatally flawed, and not written by historians. It relies heavily on secondary sources written hundreds of years after the fact. And it ignores for most of the book that the people referred to had terms of indenture, not lifetimes of slavery for them…

Racism. There were white indentured servants, but they were mostly released when their terms expired. Converting them to slaves instead would have been easy. But they were white, so they weren’t seen as inferior (or at least, not as inferior, there were still people who thought Irish and Italians were lesser, too).

Don’t give him “no doubt”. There were plenty of indentured servants from Europe - white people. Some were not let out of their terms, but most were, and they certainly didn’t see their children enslaved and sold off. The slave owners wanted to enslave what they saw as an inferior race.

No, it really doesn’t. It was absolutely about race, and there are several things to back that up.

I’d flip 1 and 2, and I’d flip 3 and 4. I’ve dealt with both three and four, and I promise you that the kid is worse. I think I’d also move 7 and 9 up to be 5 and 6 - relatives are going to hold a special place on this list no matter what.

For the record, it’s the cow burps that are the bigger deal, not the farts.

Is she wearing Quay sunglasses? They look way, way too big for her face.

Funny, but not really relevant. Jefferson most certainly did not put in something saying you couldn’t call someone racist - that’s a modern day interpretation of the rules of order from Jefferson (To be clear, I am not trying to defend Jefferson, just making sure we focus on some living people here.) That pretty much…

That’s something that is never going to happen. It’s too ingrained in the national psyche - most people attribute the economy to the current President, even though they rarely have that much to do with it. Trump actually has influenced it more than most, in that he is constantly trying to goose it to make himself look…

It helps him fire up the base. His base voters are racist. They don’t care that much about the economy, because frankly the economy isn’t that good for them. It’s great for investors, but working class people are not doing great - just because there are jobs, doesn’t mean they are good, and the jobs reports haven’t…