@Duchess64
For the duration of their time what is the difference between that and actual slavery? Sure, what 10 years later you are free but the ten years? Sounds like slavery to me.
@Duchess64
In reality, black slaves were treated much worse than white indentured servants.
That's a reality that white racists love to deny or obscure.
-----------------
So tell me, just how are you able to think like a white racist enough for you to know what they love to deny or obscure? 🤔 🤔
I am curious.
@Duchess64
Like I said, just what is the difference DURING THE INDENTURED time, sounds a lot like slavery to me. They get out of it after some years but YOU tell me the difference during the indenture time.
It is your hyperbole speaking when you compare me with white nationalists.
You have your own monkey of bias on your shoulders.
@Duchess64
Yes, actual slavery is much worse than indentured servants like you said, white indentured servants did not have their children sold out from under them and probably less instances of rape too.
BTW, what I said was not an assertion, it was a question which you answered.
@sonhouse saidNobody is selling your children downriver for one.
@Duchess64
For the duration of their time what is the difference between that and actual slavery? Sure, what 10 years later you are free but the ten years? Sounds like slavery to me.
@Duchess64
Because you pointed out the problems and I understood what you were saying. Even when I admit I was wrong you jump on me.
@sonhouse saidOne of the main differences is the indentured servant knows the time and date of their freedom and can use the time of their indenturedness (if there's such a word)to plan for their future. In places like Australia that meant getting to know the lie of the land, making plans to travel to locations away from established farms and become squatters; farming land without title to it and eventually taking ownership of that land after a generation or two.
@Duchess64
Yes, actual slavery is much worse than indentured servants like you said, white indentured servants did not have their children sold out from under them and probably less instances of rape too.
BTW, what I said was not an assertion, it was a question which you answered.
Its remarkable the difference between having hope for a future against having none at all.
@kmax87 saidFrom the wikipedia article on Squatting(Australian History)
One of the main differences is the indentured servant knows the time and date of their freedom and can use the time of their indenturedness (if there's such a word)to plan for their future. In places like Australia that meant getting to know the lie of the land, making plans to travel to locations away from established farms and become squatters; farming land without title to ...[text shortened]... r two.
Its remarkable the difference between having hope for a future against having none at all.
The term 'squatter' derives from its English usage as a term of contempt for a person who had taken up residence at a place without having legal claim. The use of 'squatter' in the early years of British settlement of Australia had a similar connotation, referring primarily to a person who had 'squatted' on Aboriginal land for pastoral or other purposes. In its early derogatory context the term was often applied to the illegitimate occupation of land by ticket-of-leave convicts or ex-convicts (emancipists).
Also from the wiki on indentured servitude
Convicts transported to the Australian colonies before the 1840s often found themselves hired out in a form of indentured labor. Indentured servants also emigrated to New South Wales. The Van Diemen's Land Company used skilled indentured labor for periods of seven years or less. A similar scheme for the Swan River area of Western Australia existed between 1829 and 1832.