this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
146 points (96.8% liked)
Greentext
8413 readers
514 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are correct that is what that means, but my mention of that was about slavery before the US colonies existed. "Indentured Servitude" was a term that first appeared in the 1700s and was basically "non-imported people becoming laborers until their debt is paid," which then naturally altered the term slaves to be "imported captives that become permanent laborers." Before that, it was all just called slavery and had the first definition. Obviously that didn't always go like that, as you know.
In the US colonies and states, I think the safe assumption is that probably almost all of them were racist, or were at least some level of bad. I don't know if any would have cared enough to specifically not buy non-black slaves, if that is what you were asking. As I said, I never really cared enough about slavery to look for that kind of thing. My curiosity in it never really went beyond historical context.
It was possibly easier to stomach slavery if the person you are buying is black and visibly different, as it could help differentiate it from your own kin. However, some people are just cruel and wouldn't have a problem exploiting a family member if they had the chance. I think because of my former point though, racism was a factor.