A reason why reparations, while just, may not be owed to all alleged freedmen descendants

Can we please not make this thread about whether there should be reparations except as regards the theory I am posting about?

Some background information is necessary.

First, the word "gulag" is a Soviet acronym from 1919, but it could be a backronym.

There was a Lithuanian presence in the early American colonies.

"Gulet" is their word for "to be lying down." "Lageris" is a German loan word for a prison. "Gulejimo lageris" would mean the prison in which one lies down. Perhaps it was a term for a slave prison and perhaps it was abbreviated to "gulag." Perhaps the Soviets who created the labor camp system wanted to jokingly name them after obscure slang for a slave prison.

Wooden sailing ships would wear out. These hulk ships could be used to warehouse cargo even when no longer safe to sail across oceans. The British definitely used hulk ships to store American rebel POWs during the Revolution. Perhaps the slave trading companies which imported the slaves used hulk ships to warehouse the slaves. It is well known that slave trading ships had only enough room for the slaves to lie down, alternately facing opposite directions. Perhaps the slave companies' hulk ships, then, were the "gulejimo lageris" or gulag.

Now, the point:

If you wanted to say "the people of the gulag, the gulagites, the gulagians," you would say............gulagiečiai. Gulag is pronounced like gulag, the -ie- sound is pronounced like "yeah" without the y, and "čiai" is pronounced like "chase" without the -se. Emphasis on -ie. GulagIEčiai. Gulag-EAH-tchay.

But who were those "people of the gulag?" Were they the people who spent a few weeks there waiting to be sold? Or could they have been the staff who were there all the time?

Staff makes more sense. Why aren't all slave descendants called gulagiečiai?

The slave trading companies which were often Portuguese could have created African slave-trading auxiliaries by having their personnel take African wives, in order to raise children who would be trustworthy to run the family business. To my eye, very many American blacks look Portuguese. They would have provided fiercely loyal security because there would be no place for them anywhere if the slave trading company broke down, because they'd be too Portuguese for Africa and too African for Portugal. They could also travel deep inland to buy up condemned prisoners because they would be more used to tropical diseases than white Europeans. They would also be less of a kidnapping risk on their voyages of procurement.

What did the black slave trading company staff do when the US Civil War put an end to slave smuggling into the US? What did they do when the Brazilian planters voluntarily ended slavery in 1868? Where did they go?

When Sherman signed his famous General Field Order #15 which mandated that freedmen recieve 40 acres,what land did the South give him to be given to freedmen? The coasts of Georgia, Northern Florida and parts of the Carolinas. Perhaps they were trafficked out by sea while still disorganized and uneducated? That area is now the Gullah homeland. I had heard a gentleman from Africa say once that Americans shouldn't judge them by our Blacks because the people they sent us were "good only for eating." Since most US Blacks aren't so useless, it strongly implies they could have been replaced after the Civil War. The South had been impoverished by the war and parts had been wrecked by Sherman's march so maybe it was possible to pay people off to look the other way.
edit on 24-1-2023 by Solvedit because: clarity

Deja Vu. Could have sworn this exact same topic was posted a day or two ago.

a reply to: Solvedit

There is a deep rabbit hole surrounding this entire topic.

Some aspects of it that I’ve heard….
The original native Americans were black.
The original slave were not brought here, but were already here…

originally posted by: oddscreenname
Deja Vu. Could have sworn this exact same topic was posted a day or two ago.

I put it in "social issues" and they just wanted to talk about whether there should be reparations.

Actually they just wanted to boast about the fact that they are dead sure there should not be reparations.

I wanted to discuss the history of it.

As I said in the other thread. Reparations for chattel slavery dating back to the Civil War era were banned by the Congress of the Day. They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

a reply to: ntechWhat do you think of the point?

a reply to: JAGStorm
It's obvious what they're doing there, though. They are trying to say blacks are the owners of this continent.

This page is necessary to get the point.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Solvedit

There is a deep rabbit hole surrounding this entire topic.

Some aspects of it that I’ve heard….
The original native Americans were black.
The original slave were not brought here, but were already here…

100% BS

Black are nothing like Mayas, Azteks or other North American natives

a reply to: M5xaz

100% BS Black are nothing like Mayas, Azteks or other North American natives

i think what she is hearing may have something to do with the olmec. claims that their ancestors sailed to the americas.

it is fairly well established and believed by most scholars that native americans in both or all three americas ( which ever you subscribe to) came from asia and if memory serves it was three different time periods and that at was a two way crossing across the bering strait land bridge.

i've also read that there is dna evidence that points to south american natives having australian aboriginal dna. that is thought to be because they migrated to asia and integrated there and formed family units and came across the bering strait land bridge.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: M5xaz
i think what she is hearing may have something to do with the olmec. claims that their ancestors sailed to the americas.

There are signs suggesting possible Old World contact here and there in the ancient archaeological record of the Americas.

There could have been a little trading or a ship full of Africans could have blown off course and wound up in America.

People keep redirecting my thread. I wish you would all read the OP completely and not surmise where you think it must be going.

traders

originally posted by: Solvedit
But who were those "people of the gulag?" Were they the people who spent a few weeks there waiting to be sold? Or could they have been the staff who were there all the time?

Staff makes more sense. Why aren't all slave descendants called gulagiečiai?

My original post presents evidence some African-Americans may be descended from slave traders who somehow made their way here just after the Civil War.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Solvedit

There is a deep rabbit hole surrounding this entire topic.

Some aspects of it that I’ve heard….
The original native Americans were black.
The original slave were not brought here, but were already here…

100% BS

Black are nothing like Mayas, Azteks or other North American natives

Yeah but Al Sharpton and his racist minions love to spread false info that blacks were the first humans and therefore are the reason behind mankind.

Slaves, in fact, were already here though. They weren't Africans, however, they were Irish.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

"Genetically, Native Americans are most closely related to East Asians and Ancient North Eurasian. Native American genomes contain genetic signals from Western Eurasia due in part to their descent from a common Siberian population during the Upper Paleolithic period."

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=Genetically%2C%20Native%20Americans%20are%20most,during%20the%20Upper%20Paleolithic%20p eriod.

Genetic and immunological studies over the past two decades have failed to yield evidence of precolumbian African contributions to the indigenous populations of the Americas

"According to an autosomal genetic study from 2012,[24] Native Americans descend from at least three main migrant waves from East Asia. Most of it is traced back to a single ancestral population, called 'First Americans'. However, those who speak Inuit languages from the Arctic inherited almost half of their ancestry from a second East Asian migrant wave. And those who speak Na-dene, on the other hand, inherited a tenth of their ancestry from a third migrant wave. The initial settling of the Americas was followed by a rapid expansion southwards along the west coast, with little gene flow later, especially in South America. One exception to this are the Chibcha speakers of Colombia, whose ancestry comes from both North and South America.[24]

In 2014, the autosomal DNA of a 12,500+-year-old infant from Montana was sequenced.[25] The DNA was taken from a skeleton referred to as Anzick-1, found in close association with several Clovis artifacts. Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out that particular individual had any close affinity with European sources (the "Solutrean hypothesis"). The DNA also showed strong affinities with all existing Amerindian populations, which indicated that all of them derive from an ancient population that lived in or near Siberia "

en.wikipedia.org...



There is NO possibility that American blacks were native to North America, anymore than Senator Fauxcahantas Warren being native American.
Period.
Promotion of such unfounded theories is a form of ethnocentric racism at the expense of indigenous Americans.



Revisionist garbage, like the 1619 project

a reply to: LSU2018

They weren't Africans, however, they were Irish.

There have never been " Irish Slaves " in The US. Total myth.

originally posted by: LSU2018

Slaves, in fact, were already here though. They weren't Africans, however, they were Irish.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Solvedit
I didn't know we gave reparations to holocaust survivors.... Oh what, Europe is denying the existence of the Holocaust. Pssssh Clown World

Remember, these are the people who are all over YouTube also claiming that the Jews/Hebrews of the Bible are sub Saharan Africans, that the Tudors were black (Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Mary I, Edward VI, and so on as was Anne Boleyn), Mozart and Beethoven were black, the Giaconda is a black woman, Thomas Edison, Issac Newton, the list goes on and on and no, I am not exaggerating. You can find sites and YouTube videos all over showing how black people ruled Europe exclusively and they invented everything that the mutant DNA mistakes from the caucus mountains just rewrote history in the last century and had paintings repainted with the skin being made white and so much more. We whites get together every Thursday night in a basement or run down Chucky Cheeses and we make sure we take credit for everything when we never did anything of note ourselves. Oh crap, black people please do me a favor and ignore that last part. If I blow it for everyone I’m in big trouble.

What reparations ?

What the north didn't destroy carpetbaggers stole.

As if the rivers of blood of the white man wasn't enough to fill their wallets today.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Solvedit

There is a deep rabbit hole surrounding this entire topic.

Some aspects of it that I’ve heard….
The original native Americans were black.
The original slave were not brought here, but were already here…

never heard about any black natives, but i do recall hearing about some possibly white natives down in south america. which i always thought was interesting, since there are also tales of white people in Asia, such as china. or Egyptians in Australia. personally i suspect people were traveling a lot more, and a lot further than we give them credit for before the days of European colonizing.

on the other hand the talk about original slaves already being in North America before the Europeans. that is true. when the french came to North America, in what became Canada, they were given slaves from the natives. which were in turn captured enemy natives of those that gave the saves to the French. because guess what, the natives practiced slavery before the Europeans arrived (and played their own part in owning slaves, just like anyone else, black or white did at the time. another reason why reparations are so insane in the first place, since first off who was an actual slave and who was a slave owner in family trees, not to mention who's families were even IN the country at the time for both those who would receive it, as well as those who would pay it ). because unlike we, especially due to historical whitewashing, are led to believe about natives being some sort of peaceful, nature gods, is completely false. the natives were just, as, if not more warlike than the Europeans. with different groups of natives allying with different European powers, to use against their native enemies. heck even the Norse, those greatly feared vikings in Europe, seem to have left because of the natives thievery and attacks against them (with the Norse being a lot closer technologically to the natives, and not having the technical superiority that the later Europeans did).