Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< September 10 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 12 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


September 11[edit]

Age of the Earth according to some Muslims?[edit]

Some Jews and some Christians, especially those who interpret the Bible literally, believe that God created everything in 6 literal days between 6,000-10,000 years ago, the latter based on a literal reading of the genealogies in the Bible, in complete contradiction to what science teaches, that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I read that Islamic cosmology is different from the Judeo-Christian cosmology. If so, what do some Muslims believe the age of the Earth and the universe is and from what or where do they base their calculation from? In other words, if I were to ask a Muslim, let’s say in Saudi Arabia, who has never heard about Evolution, the Big Bang, and the established ages of the Earth and the universe; how many years ago would he/she say that God created everything? How old did Muhammad and his followers believe creation was? Willminator (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned contradiction disappears when one takes into consideration the pious patristic tradition according to which time only began to be counted from man's expulsion from Paradise, since his stay in Eden implies eternity, due to God's presence there. Similarly, in Judaism, the reckoning of time begins with the creation of man, the previous five days being part of a so-called year of emptiness (molad tohu). — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and? Not everyone holds those beliefs. Most Young Earth creationists believe that the universe is about six to ten thousand calendar years old, and that all evidence to the contrary is either faked or misinterpreted. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and? Ultimately, Christians and Jews are bound to the traditional teachings of Christianity and Judaism, not to `young` earth creationism. If it can be shown that the former are not incompatible with the current scientific measurements, then the existence of alternate ideas is ultimately irrelevant. — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does your reply have to do with the question posed? This is not a place for debating our interpretations of religious doctrine. Some members of those religions disagree with you, and the beliefs of said people are an aspect of the question. We don't care what you think about their beliefs. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possible. I guess it ultimately depends on how one interprets the question's first paragraph. My point was that, even if one were to take Biblical chronology very literally, it would still not necessarily follow that creation itself is less than ten thousand years old. — 79.113.228.117 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Willminator -- I don't know the answer to this, but one difference between the Bible and the Qur'an is that the text of the Hebrew Bible contains tantalizingly almost enough information to add various numbers together to get the ostensible number of years from the creation down to the Persian Empire period, and then you can use your knowledge of history to add to this the number of years from the Persian Empire period down to the present. However there are actually some gaps that have to be extrapolated, in order to do this, and some of the numbers differ between the Greek Septuagint biblical text and the Hebrew Masoretic biblical text.
By contrast, the Qur'an doesn't really contain any detailed internal chronology for events beyond Muhammad's father or grandfather's time; there are no long lists of kings with associated lengths of reigns to add up etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To add detail: the Ussher chronology is the "extrapolation" most commonly followed by Christian young Earth creationists. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ussher chronology is the one most well-known among English-speaking Protestants, but I'm not sure there's much else to be said for it... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the Jewish and Christian scriptures also have sacred status in Islam, though second to the Quran and other sayings attributed to Mohammed. There are Muslim young Earth creationists, though—as in Christianity and Judaism—they're a minority. …if I were to ask a Muslim, let’s say in Saudi Arabia, who has never heard about Evolution, the Big Bang, and the established ages of the Earth and the universe; how many years ago would he/she say that God created everything? Most likely they would say, "I don't know. That is a matter for the religious authorities and scholars." Most Christians and Jews before the modern period would probably have said the same. Plenty of people are fine with not knowing things. After all, "reason is the greatest enemy that faith has." --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary of Jewish or Christian scriptures having "sacred status in Islam" could be rather misleading -- the traditional orthodox view is that if anything in Jewish or Christian scriptures contradicts anything in the Qur'an, then the Jewish or Christian scriptures are ipso facto automatically "corrupted", and that Muslim writings contain everything a Muslim needs to know to attain salvation. AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for the exposition. My point was that a doctrinaire Muslim may still read some of the Jewish scriptures, particularly the written Torah, which contains the genealogies cited by many Christian and Jewish Young Earth creationists. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no historical theory of a specific age of the Earth that ever gained wide acceptance in Islam in the same way that the ~6,000 year old Earth was widely adopted in parts of Christianity. Perhaps influenced by Christian teachings, some Muslims have reported a similar age, but many others believe it is simply not known. The Quran and associated teachings do indicate that the universe, the Earth, and humanity had a beginning, but when and how that happened is fairly vague. In analogy to the Christian story of Genesis, the Quran tells that the Earth was created in six "days". However, the Quran also directly states that a "day" for God may be far, far longer than a day for man. Furthermore, the Quran also indicates that an act of creation for God need not require constructing a physical object, but could also mean creating conditions that will lead to the object coming into existence at a later time. (In other words, God deserves credit for "creating" television merely by structuring the world in a way that eventually leads to television.) Given these issues, Islam is pretty ambiguous about when and how the Earth was formed. Though not universal, there is a long history in Islam of using observations of the physical world to help inform and interpret religious teachings. In its modern form, many adherents believe that science should be used to understand and interpret questions like "How old is the Earth?" where the Islamic texts do not appear to provide a specific answer. As such, it is pretty common for modern Muslims to accept a timeline for the history of the universe and Earth that is consistent (or very similar) to traditional scientific teachings. Dragons flight (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are stuff like The Atlas of Creation by Adnan Oktar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recently read that Muslims believe that there were jinns and other beings on Earth before Adam’s creation. Willminator (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Nephilim in the bible is something similar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On Muslims reading the Bible — remember that Islam holds that the Bible's been corrupted from its original form (see Islamic view of the Christian Bible), so Muslims have to read the Bible with a grain of salt if they're not considering conversion. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote that explains this well:

The Qur'an states that "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54). While on the surface this might seem similar to the account related in the Bible, there are some important distinctions.
The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Qur'an, each denoting a different measurement of time. In one case, the measure of a day is equated with 50,000 years (70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like 1,000 years of your reckoning" (22:47). The word "youm" is thus understood, within the Qur'an, to be a long period of time -- an era or eon. Therefore, Muslims interpret the description of a "six day" creation as six distinct periods or eons. The length of these periods is not precisely defined, nor are the specific developments that took place during each period.
After completing the Creation, the Qur'an describes that Allah "settled Himself upon the Throne" (57:4) to oversee His work. A distinct point is made to counter the Biblical idea of a day of rest: "We created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us" (50:38).
Allah is never "done" with His work, because the process of creation is ongoing. Each new child who is born, every seed that sprouts into a sapling, every new species that appears on earth, is part of the ongoing process of Allah's creation. "He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then established Himself on the Throne. He knows what enters within the heart of the earth, and what comes forth out of it, what comes down from heaven, and what mounts up to it. And He is with you wherever you may be. And Allah sees well all that you do" (57:4).
The Qur'anic account of creation is in line with modern scientific thought about the development of the universe and life on earth. Muslims acknowledge that life developed over a long period of time, but see Allah's power behind it all. Descriptions of creation in the Qur'an are set in context to remind the readers of Allah's majesty and wisdom. "What is the matter with you, that you are not conscious of Allah's majesty, seeing that it is He Who has created you in diverse stages? See you not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (glorious) lamp? And Allah has produced you from the earth, growing (gradually)" (71:13-17).


— Islam Creation Story — Northern Arizona University

– Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 04:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do those Suras in the Quran have the same or different meanings as 2 Peter 3:8 in the Bible? “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” Willminator (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of roads passing through a single point[edit]

  • 12 roads passing through same point (with allowance for a rotary since you can't have 12-roads literally continue all the way to the center all on ground level in the car era): Arc de Triomphe, Paris
  • 10 roads: Dupont Circle, Washington
  • 8 roads: rotary at the center of Indianapolis Rotunda da Boavista mentioned by Warofdreams
  • 6: Times Square (but 2 roads are 45th Street, not 42nd)
  • 5: Five Pointses
  • 4: ubiquitous
  • 3: ubiquitous
  • 2: L-shaped intersections
  • 1: lack of intersection
  • 0: lack of road

Does anyone have a proof of existence of other numbers? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about multiple numbered highways occupying the same actual roadway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will count physical roadways. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as a road? What if one road changes names at the intersection? Is that two roads or one?
Any of the azimuths from the center (even though we usually think of + shaped intersections as 2 roads when they don't change names) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So each roadway that exits an intersection counts as a "road". How are you handling divided highways? Two roadways or one? Do you want simple intersections, or do you also want to count interchanges and roundabouts? --Jayron32 16:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The centerline of parallel(ish) divided highways are counted as one roadway unless there are two(ish) street canyons/tree canyons/etc. canyons or the median is disproportionately wide. Roundabouts are okay, preferably no interchanges but if it's hard to find 9 or 10 etc. without counting roads off ground level then sure. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's Hampton Roads, which is the "intersection" of a number of rivers and streams. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Intersection (road) led to Seven Dials in London and Brighton and this article mentions another 7-way in Seattle: [1]. Rmhermen (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One note on the initial list: Indianapolis' Monument Circle only has 4 roads leading in/out; the diagonal roads all terminate multiple blocks away (the farthest is sufficiently distant that there's not a regular road-grid square about the circle at its endpoint). — Lomn 21:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting, I learned of it 15 years ago from a pre-1990s magazine and probably remembered wrong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to two 7-ways myself. One is the Seven Dials traffic circle in London, mentioned above. The other was on rural roads somewhere on the South Island of New Zealand. It was just a plain intersection with straight roads meeting from 7 directions. On Google Maps if you zoom in on the area around Ashburton you will see a lot of straight roads at arbitrary angles, some of them meeting in 5- and 6-way intersections (or intersections that look as if they used to be 5- or 6-ways and were later reengineered into multiple intersections). I think the 7-way was vaguely around there; but that was in 1983, I can't find it on Google Maps now, and I don't remember the exact location. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Rotunda da Boavista in Porto has eight roads leading off it. Warofdreams talk 02:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rynek Główny in Kraków has 11 streets, one smaller square and one covered passageway leading to/out of it. — Kpalion(talk) 10:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can do this for the railway as well. Pre-Beeching Cambridge had tracks leading to
  • Bishop's Stortford and London
  • Ely
  • Hitchin
  • Mildenhall
  • Newmarket
  • St Ives
  • Sandy and Oxford
  • Sudbury

a total of eight. Was this the highest number? 62.49.80.34 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Square train station has lines on Broadway, 7th Avenue, 42nd Street, 41st Street and 8th Avenue (9 ways) but they never quite meet at the same point (~550 foot radius, 200 for 7 out of 9, also some lines pass under others). Maybe Tokyo or Moscow or something has the record? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
King's Cross St Pancras in London has fourteen interchanges:
  • Eurostar to Stratford and Paris
  • Thameslink to Finsbury Park
  • Thameslink to West Hampstead
  • Thameslink to Elephant and Castle
  • Great Northern to Finsbury Park
  • Overground to Kilburn
  • Sub-surface to Baker Street
  • Sub-surface to Liverpool Street
  • Northern line tube to Euston
  • Northern line tube to Bank
  • Piccadilly line tube to Finsbury Park
  • Piccadilly line tube to Piccadilly Circus
  • Victoria line to Brixton
  • Victoria line to Finsbury Park

The first stop out of the London terminals often has a rural-sounding name:

  • Bethnal Green (out of Liverpool Street)
  • Westbourne Park (out of Paddington)
  • Finsbury Park (out of King's Cross)
  • Battersea Park (out of Victoria)

Only the last two live up to their promise. 62.49.80.34 (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

220.253.213.181 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try the articles on roads at Magic_Roundabout. I've driven two of them and they were both terrifying. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try it as an American. I based myself in Swindon for several days on my British visit last year and going through the one there several times was ... interesting. I am not sure I improved with practice.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first time I drove to Hemel, I was an inexperienced driver, it was rush hour, I was late for a meeting, and needed the loo. When I first saw the sign at the top of Magic Roundabout (Hemel Hempstead), I nearly had two types of accident simultaneously. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with roundabouts and mini-roundabouts, but "magic roundabouts" are a new one on me. In Roman Britain, of course, all roads led to the junction just north of the ford over the River Thames. Bank junction has nine entrances and exits:
  • Princes Street
  • Threadneedle Street
  • Cornhill
  • Lombard Street
  • King William Street
  • Mansion House Street
  • Mansion House Place
  • Queen Victoria Street
  • Poultry

(there are no roads in the City of London). The junction has a rather peculiar daytime traffic management scheme: drivers are not allowed to cross it. When they enter they must take the first exit on the left. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White (European) Slavery not mentioned in your "Jamestown, Virginia" Article.[edit]

With the mention of African Slavery in Jamestown (the 1st English Virginia Colony), why isn't there any mention of White (European) Slavery that also occurred there before 1619 AD? I would be happy to contribute to your article(s) within Wikipedia that should reflect this fact with overwhelming evidence. Such evidence will only help to provide more facts for all readers to absorb what really occurred, especially for our younger generation(s).

My compliments to your Wikipedia Projects for providing an open door to only facts/truths and not opinions.Nubianpageants (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery (African or otherwise) is only mentioned once in Jamestown, Virginia, and then once again in History of Jamestown, Virginia (1607–99). In both cases these mentions are accompanied by links to much more thorough articles on the subject. The subject is simply so big that the main article is mostly an overview. But sure, everyone is welcome to edit. A good start would be letting people know on the article's talk page what you intend to add, and what sources you intend to cite. Prior approval is not necessary, but prior discussion sometimes prevents misunderstandings. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that your own books, being self published, would not be permitted as sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nubianpageants -- a formal legal framework for slavery in Virginia didn't exist until decades after 1619. See http://www.history.org/history/teaching/slavelaw.cfm -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This may have been mixed up with Debt bondage-cases and Indentured servitude where (white) people without property signed a labor contract to work off their debt to someone or finance their passage from Europe to the American colonies, which was a common practice. --Kharon (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "white slavery" is not a thing. The structure of Slavery in the United States (and in the Americas in general during the 17th-19th century) is built solely on the racist philosophy that everyone except white people is subhuman, and therefore subject to being owned as property by white people; and furthermore that a state of slavery is incurred because someone is non-white, and that state exists in-perpetuity for all time, even including children born to such people. This is also called chattel slavery, because it treats non-white people as livestock, where the owners of those slaves had the same rights as the owners of livestock. This form of slavery does not exist against white people, it did not then, and it never has. What existed for white people at the time was a form of contract labor, where a service (such as transport to the New World) was paid off not with cash, but with future work from the contracted laborer. This is in no way the same thing, it's a contract of legal equals which is enforced like any contract. White indentured servants had the same rights under the law as any free white person, their state of servitude was only covered by civil contract law, which would be enforced only in the case that they broke the terms of the contract. The idea that this sort of mutually-agreed contract is "white slavery" or is somehow equivalent to the brutal, racist, policies of actual slavery is basically bullshit invented by modern racists like the alt-right movement to justify their historical revisionism, and make their racism seem less problematic. --Jayron32 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is true enough, but the main difference was that the white person would eventually be free. Many people especially boys were taken off the street and sold into bondage in America, they never chose to go. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than just that, though. It isn't like the white servants and black slaves lived under the same set of laws and principles during their times in servitude. White people still always had access to legal systems and social systems that protected them and their legal rights. Black slaves had no such rights. I'm also not saying conditions were egalitarian for white servitude. Under modern standards, it may have been a fairly shitty life. But it was orders of magnitude less shitty than that of a black slave. --Jayron32 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If you killed any white person, even if they were your indentured servant, you'd face murder charges. Killed someone else's black slave? Property damage, unless you could argue they were being "uppity." Killed your own black slave? No consequences whatsoever. About the only legal charges that would have applied for slowly torturing a slave to death in the middle of Main Street would have "disturbing the peace" and "littering."
If someone raped a white person, they had to actually to make some kind of legal defense. Raped a slave? Almost encouraged because the slave's owner would get to keep the kids, too. Hell, it was more of a crime to rape animals than it was to rape slaves.
The whole "white slavery" claim is nothing more than a racist canard rooted in a misquotation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please take time to actually read the slave codes. They were put in place in 1740 in South Carolina. They became the basis for slave codes throughout the entire United States. Also see slavery in the 21st century. This is not an issue of the distant past that belonged to one race of people. It is a modern problem that affects millions of people throughout the world. 216.59.42.36 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
White people (whatever your definition of white may be) have been enslaved throughout history, sure, but in the specific context mentioned by the OP, it's just alt-right trolling. I doubt they actually believe it themselves, since their only real position is "owning the libs", and, well, look how big this section is already. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The context matters here. Has a white person, ever in history, even today, ever been enslaved. Yes, absolutely. That fact does not itself abrogate the existence of institutional, racist, slavery that was done upon the entire race of black people by white people, with the justification thereof based on racist philosophies that treated black people as non-people. That really still happened, and the implication, used by the OP and others, that the existence of a white slave would somehow mean all of that racist history didn't happen, or somehow wasn't that bad, or whatever, is what is going on. More to the point, the existence of an unrelated lesser evil does not excuse, erase, or ameliorate a greater evil. --Jayron32 17:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I see is one side claiming that whites were legally enslaved in the United States, which is not true. However, the rebuttal is that all slaves were black and all slave owners where white, which is not true. Then, I am concerned with the belief that slavery is a thing of the past. It isn't. It is very active and growing. 216.59.42.36 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The rebuttal is not that. The rebuttal is that, as a historical institution, the concept of White Slavery (that White People were enslaved because they were white) is NOT A THING. That is not saying that white people, as individuals, have not been subject to slavery. Also, slavery is a BIG concept. When one says that slavery still exists, that's broadly true, but not helpful towards understanding and responding to the different types of involuntary servitude, and understanding their context, and the appropriate response to it, varies. --Jayron32 18:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, during the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, the phrase "white slavery" meant what nowadays would be called trafficking of women and children (see the International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic etc). It's reasonably clear that no significant number of white people (as defined by the one-drop rule) were enslaved in the United States -- even though George Fitzhugh advocated for it, and some abolitionists feared that it was imminently about to happen -- but there was a scattering of individual cases, such as Sally Miller... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but just to counter Jayron32 white slavery could technically be termed as extant in the Ottoman Empire and the barbary states - (https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm) as the desirability (often sexual) of white slaves was explicitly linked to their white skin and was therefore racial in character - Circassian women in the Ottoman Empire fetched the most due to this - so it's wrong to say 'white' slavery (people being enslaved due to their white skin) never existed anywhere. However, obviously indentured servitude in the new world isn't this. VeritasVox (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

===

My reply to this talk group, which was posted on September 20th as seen below via its timestamp, was deleted by, unfortunately, someone who seems to have a problem with the impending facts that are bound, but for the benefit of others who have expressed themselves about this subject matter, I have again provided what I submitted on September 20th, as noted...

"From the above comments, I understand that we share similar interest and energy to express our knowledge about the Virginia Colony, but the comments evolved towards other discussions about White Slavery; however, my question, again, specifically pointed to: Why isn’t there any mention of White (European) Slavery, (which occurred within the Virginia Colony before 1619 AD according to the survivors of their enslavement that is provided below), yet there is mention of African Slavery—perhaps because this fact is not well known? I can vouch for that notion, because I didn’t know this fact due to it not being taught in our school systems in the U.S.

However, I would be happy to contribute towards Wikipedia’s effort to promoting such facts/truth; therefore, I’ve provided, for your convenience, my proposed contributions towards this hidden fact along with its respective cited sources.

As historians, we like nothing more than to understand documentary sources via the Cause and its eventual Effects … well, here, this order prevails as you will read that actual events occurred between 1607 to 1624 AD.


Let’s start off with the following for substance:

THE CAUSE WITH DATES - (the 400 Survivors’/Ancient Farmers’ Testimonial Document)[1]


1. This document (13 pages), with a 1624 AD date, influenced by acts taken below by King James and public officials, is truly the smoking gun because it overwhelmingly describes in detail:

  • A. How and to what extent the Virginia Colony’s Settlers, during its 1st 12-year period (1607 to 1619 AD), were TREATED -- atrocities described by those who survived their conditions of enslavement -- by several of its elected governors sent by the Virginia Company of London (VCL) from London (several governors were military men who implemented Martial Law to discipline the colony);
  • B. How badly the 1st Nations were treated; and
  • C. That there were 400 Survivors out of a total of less than 2,000 Settlers.


PLEASE NOTE: This 13-page document and its entire contents warrant its own Wikipedia article, regardless.


ITS EFFECTS WITH DATES


1. Perhaps you are familiar with “The Great Charter” of 1619 AD (aka “Instructions to George Yeardley”)[2] that is associated with the Virginia Colony, which influenced the start of the Virginia House of Burgesses[3] from its General Assembly during the same year. This 10-page document noted as “Instructions to George Yeardley” (who was the newly elected governor for the Virginia Colony at the time) also contained:

  • A. Instructions to convey to the survivors that the atrocities (such as oppression, corruption, former difficulties and dangers) that occurred during the 1st 12-year period, 1607 to 1619 AD, were overcome, viz., by granting absolute freedom from enslavement conditions throughout the colony;
  • B. Instructions to issue each Ancient Farmer (survivor) a certain amount of acreage depending upon the conditions of: 1) whether he paid his transportation or paid by the VCL to the colony, 2) and whether he arrived before or after Governor Dale’s departure, which was April 1616 AD; and
  • C. Instructions to set up local government agencies to govern the colony.


2. What steps King James and public officials took to document such atrocities:

  • A. Alderman Robert Johnson, former Deputy Treasurer of VCL for the Virginia Colony, who lived in the colony, came forward submitting a humble request, in 1623 AD, to King James to have an investigation performed;[4]
  • B. In 1623 King James’s Privy Council created a Royal Commission to investigate the VCL and to assess those who survived said atrocities before King James put in motion steps to revoke the VCL’s Charter to further govern the Virginia Colony;[5] and
  • C. Another document with the names of 30 designated individuals,[6] written in 1624 AD, gave their unanimous declaration/testament, from their perspective, about the conditions the said survivors endured because of what they witnessed while living in the Colony during this 12-year period, 1607 to 1619 AD.


3. A professional critical analysis rendered by a parapsychologist (Dr. Walter Prince) about the exclusive control exercised by Governor Dale over the Virginia colony for “the political order, moral and religious discipline and laws designed for the military discipline of the soldiery”[7]


So … with this set of documents at hand and trust that they will serve as evidence, I challenge all who have added to this talk (group) to take a moment and verify these facts via their sources, for your benefit and for us all to be on the same page about this point of fact, which will only help to know more about these HIDDEN FACTS for 400 years, more or less. This is why I asked the noted question to start this discussion.


Looking forward to contributing and all the best to you all… Nubianpageants (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)"[reply]


Nubianpageants (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ The Project Gutenberg eBook, Colonial Records of Virginia, September 13, 2007, “A BREIFE DECLARATION of the Plantation of Virginia duringe the first Twelve Yeares, when Sir Thomas Smith was Governor of the Companie, & downe to this present tyme. By the Ancient Planters nowe remaining alive in Virginia,” pp. 69-81
  2. ^ Encyclopedia Virginia - “Instructions to George Yeardley”
  3. ^ Wikipedia - House of Burgesses
  4. ^ The Records of The Virginia Company of London, “THE COURT BOOK, FROM THE MANUSCRIPT IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,” Kingsbury, Dr. Susan, Washington Government Printing Office, 1906, Vol. II pp. 373-374
  5. ^ Encyclopedia Virginia – Virginia Company of London
  6. ^ American Journeys Collection The Tragical Relation of Virginia Assembly, 1624 AD
  7. ^ Scarboro, Dewey, “The Establisher: The Story of Sir Thomas Dale,” Old Mountain Press, 2014, Kindle Edition, location 139, or Dr. Prince, Walter “The First Criminal Code of Virginia”, American Historical Association Annual Report, 1899, Vol I, Article IX, pp. 309-363.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2018_September_11&oldid=861376625"