General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Northam opponents will not like this New York Times article [View all]Eko
(7,282 posts)I never apologized for his actions at all. I never said slaves were slaves willingly. In fact, there were indentured servants who were not willing at all. "Contract labour has been based upon conditions of poverty and upon political and religious intolerance, and it is often expressed in penal codes. Historically, deception, kidnapping, and coercion have been used to obtain contract labourers, with contractual terms often reflecting the disadvantageous position of the labourer. Contract labour still carries implications of compulsion and unfairness, and conditions can approach slavery in their severity." https://www.britannica.com/topic/contract-labor#ref172919
"An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a signed or forced contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. The contract often lets the employer sell the labor of an indenturee to a third party. Indenturees usually enter into an indenture for a specific payment or other benefit, or to meet a legal obligation, such as debt bondage. On completion of the contract, indentured servants were given their freedom, and occasionally plots of land." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude
Your last three sentences have nothing to do with the conversation we are having. But they are kinda telling. History is history, no matter what you want to believe and its not always clear cut. Your clear cut problem is thinking that indentured servants were always willing when clearly it was not so.
Thanks,
Eko.