Slashdot Mirror


Remains of First African Slaves Found

An anonymous reader writes to tell us LiveScience is reporting that Archaeologists may have found the oldest remains of slaves brought from Africa to the New World. From the article: "The African origin of the slaves was determined by studying a chemical in their tooth enamel that reveals plant and rock types of their native land. The chemical enters the body through the food chain as nutrients pass from bedrock through soil and water to plants and animals. It is an indelible signature of birthplace, the researchers said, because it can be directly linked to the bedrock of specific locales."

38 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. Oldest by imoou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But possibly not the first.

    1. Re:Oldest by farangfrog · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a record of an African slave in Hispaniola as early as 1502, brought by the Sevillian trader Juan de Córdoba.

    2. Re:Oldest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd say that "I, for one, welcome our new slave-trading overlords.", but it would be in poor taste.

  2. So they know they were African... by Max+Threshold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do they know they were slaves?

    1. Re:So they know they were African... by RexRhino · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because 99% (at least) of immigration from Africa to the New World at the time was slavery. It is possibly they weren't slaves, but not very likely.

    2. Re:So they know they were African... by xXBondsXx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because 99% (at least) of immigration from Africa to the New World at the time was slavery. It is possibly they weren't slaves, but not very likely.

      Almost. That figure might be true once the slave trade boomed, but at first most Africans imported to the Americas were indentured servants.

      link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Slavery_in_No rth_America

      to quote the article: The first imported Africans were brought as indentured servants, not slaves. They were required, as white indentured servants were, to serve seven years.

      It is possible/relatively likely that these skeletons they examined were not slaves, but skip ahead 100 years, and that percentage shrinks to (almost) zero.

      --
      The voice of the next generation. "In this tower, in my mind..." Babble - Tower
    3. Re:So they know they were African... by Green+Salad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      White man says white man in strange place = "adventurous explorer"
      White man says black man in strange place = "slave"

      Um, is this the scientific reasoning?

      I know. I know. It's a cheap shot at acadamia. However, I just *had* to say it because the irony of it amuses me. Trust me, I won't be the last to point this out!

    4. Re:So they know they were African... by iocat · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Not necessarily. One of the reasons the US economy has boomed and others (Mexico, say) haven't, is because of the strong middle class in the US. The North, where slavery was never a major factor in the economy, drove the economic boom of the 19th century (and the nascent middle class and urbanization were all factors in that economic boom), while the slave owning South was mired in a stagnant agrarian (sp?) economy that wasn't growing at nearly the rate of that in the North.

      Cribbing liberally from "bonecrusher's" post on this topic at metafilter , According to many economists, slave-owning is an example of "rent" "a market distortion that reduces the overall productive capacity of the economy. A functioning labor market should do a better job of directing labor to where it is most productive than guys with whips and dogs." (previous text in quotes is by bonecrusher, who explained it much more concisely than I could).

      Basically, when you have oligarchs or slave-owners running things, you may end up with a situation which is better for them, personally, but it hurts the economy overall. In the slave-owning scenario, it hurts the slaves most of all (duh!), but it also wrecks things for what would be the middle class, if the oligarchs weren't hogging everything for themselves. So a few people are better off, but the vast majority are either totally fscked, or partially fscked. So, slave owners totally ruined the South's economy and made it unable to grow well.

      Whether or not the US profited by exploiting other people and countries is beyond the scope of this post, which is just about how retarded slavery is from an economic standpoint (to say *nothing* of how retarded it is from a moral, social, or ethical standpoint!).

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    5. Re:So they know they were African... by Grab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's pretty scientific, yes. Think of sailing technology at the time. Columbus and his pals just about had the technology needed to get directly from Africa to America. No West African nation had the same technology. Most coastal areas had sailors (the Meditterranean had some particularly good ones), but they didn't have ocean-going ability. Even the Vikings couldn't do that - the most they managed was island-hopping. And to get from Africa to Central America in any realistic time requires the direct route, otherwise we have to postulate an African expedition (in open boats) that went from Africa to Mexico via Spain/Portugal, France, Britain/Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada and the entire eastern US seaboard. It's not unreasonable to assume that an expedition like that would have been noticed by someone in Europe who would have written it down.

      Anyway, we're talking an African found in a graveyard in an area known to have been a centre of slaving, at a time when slaving was at a peak. He might not have been a slave, in the same way as the guy you find sat in your car fiddling with the ignition might be the superhero Captain Car-Rescue instead of a car thief. But don't bet on it... ;-)

      Grab.

    6. Re:So they know they were African... by cortana · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other news, Nazi scientists report discovering artifacts and human remains indicating that the human race did not originate in Africa, as previously believed, but in Germany instead. :)origin of the human race was not Africa,

  3. Or about 50 years after the Spanish started coming by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The city was founded in 1540 by Spanish conquistadores as San Francisco de Campeche atop the preexisting Maya city of Canpech or Kimpech.

    Now we know that the Cortes expedition had some African slaves in it. Here is a question on the subject, while research is done on the many aspects of European Slavery, how much research is done on inter-African slavery or Islamic slavery in regards to Africa? I know we hear a bunch about slavery in the United States, but how about the United Kingdom or French slavery?

    Heck, what about trans-tribal slavery in the Americas? While working on a paper about the Cortes expedition there were references in many texts and documents about the Aztecs having slaves, but much more time and space devoted to the few slaves the expedition had with them.

  4. Not... by djupedal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    'It is an indelible signature of birthplace, the researchers said, because it can be directly linked to the bedrock of specific locales.'

    Unless, of course, you fill your water barrels at that location, and then everyone on board drinks from that 'unique' source for a given period of time, in which case you'd easily detect false-positives and mistakenly believe the entire crew was borne in one location.

    Reminds me of when some researchers found WWII supply caches buried in the Sahara by Rommel's forces...the first thing they did was to release a study claiming they could better define modern pollution, as Rommel's water had been carefully sealed, buried and protected. That study I can buy...this one, on slave origins, I'm less inclined, sorry.

    1. Re:Not... by EMeta · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sounds like a flaw, except that this tooth enamel is deposited early in childhood. Especially in the early days of the slave trade, children were a rarity to export since you could get much more value per space from a fully grown person.

  5. Re:interesting fact by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The slave trade has always been blamed on Europeans and African slavetraders as well. One of the reasons America gets the lion's share of the blame is because we took so long to actually abolish it.

  6. in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's odd.

    I always assumed the first African Slaves were in Africa.

    But, maybe that's because they were.

  7. I wonder.. by fadeaway · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The chemical enters the body through the food chain as nutrients pass from bedrock through soil and water to plants and animals. It is an indelible signature of birthplace, the researchers said, because it can be directly linked to the bedrock of specific locales."

    That said, I wonder what the results of the same testing would show on individuals that reside in current industrialized first world nations. It occurs to me that a good portion of the food we eat is produced abroad.

    I pity the anthropologists of tommorow.

  8. Re:Or about 50 years after the Spanish started com by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's a large body of knowledge on the Islamic slave trade and intra-African trading.

    http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa1 01101a.htm

    Just about everyone was guilty when it came to the slave trade. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and most everyone in between.

    That's just the (unfortunate) way things were

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  9. Re:Or about 50 years after the Spanish started com by aktzin · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...the Aztecs *mysteriously* disappeared...

    Did they? My understanding was that Hernán Cortés had the ruling family and other people with power tortured and/or killed. Of the general population, those who didn't die in the violence of the Spanish invasion were forced to flee and probably ended up mixing with other tribes.

    And then there was the smallpox epidemic (and other diseases) that the Spanish brought from Europe and for which the native population had no defenses. In fact, Cuitláhuac died of smallpox and his nephew Cuauhtémoc then became the last Aztec emperor. The Spanish captured him, tortured him, kept him prisoner a few years and then hanged him.

    But even though the Aztec population was significantly reduced and scattered, their descendants are still around. There's been just a bit of foreign immigration to Mexico the last 484 years, mostly from Spain. Want to guess why modern Mexicans look a bit different than Aztecs and other locals did? : ) And finally, their language (Náhuatl) is still spoken in several states in central Mexico.

    Full disclosure: most of my ancestry comes from the Totonacs. This was one of many tribes enslaved by the Aztecs and all too glad to help the Spanish overthrow the evil overlords. Talk about the devil you know, huh?

    --
    Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
  10. Maafa - The American Holocaust by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It took the "middle passage" and other horrors to really turn large-scale African slavery into the worst atrocity of the past two-thousand years.

    Stalin? The Nazis and Khmer Rouge? Small potatoes to these horrors, which continued for almost two-hundred years. The Arab and interneccine slavery of Africans was unjust - but seldom so relentlessly brutal, with human beings reduced to a level of treatment beneath that of animals.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Maafa - The American Holocaust by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Arab and interneccine slavery of Africans was unjust - but seldom so relentlessly brutal,

      Guess again.

      When the British were hunting down slave ships in the 1800's, Arab slave traders routinely slit slaves' throats and tossed them overboard if they caught sight of a British flag. Plausible deniability, you know. Also, slaves were often marched across the sahara to sell on the coast of libya, with well over half dying of thirst along the way. Not to mention, the number of men who were castrated, to provide eunuchs for Arab buyers.

      Pick up a copy of Thomas Sowell's essay "The real history of slavery", which goes into considerably more detail.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  11. Aztec colonies by drgonzo59 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It is interesting you mentioned the Aztecs. My friend, who lived in New Mexico for a while and mingled with the anthropology crowd at the NMU, told me that the Navajo around that region have detailed stories about how they were colonized and taken into slavery by the Aztecs. A particularly interesting story was how the Aztecs would run this celestial observatory in the canyons. Most of the stuff in their stories about the Aztecs though is about their cruelty and human sacrifice.

    This stuff is fascinating because like every ingorant Joe out there I thought stuff (good and bad) started happening on the North American continent mostly after the Europeans settled. And such things as colonies, slavery and celestial observations would not have existed here before.

    1. Re:Aztec colonies by j_f_chamblee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This post may seem a little off-topic, but so does its parent, and I feel the insert a few hard facts.

      I have worked as an archaeologist in the Desert Southwest and southern Mexico for eight years and I am aware of no firm evidence whatsoever for Aztecs encroaching directly into the traditional lands of the Navajo. There is some evidence that people living at the site of Paquime traded copper and exotic birds with groups from Mesoamerica, but these folks probably lived on or near the Pacific Coast, in what are now the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit. A chronology of Navajo settlement in the Southwest mentions the Aztec, but under a separate timeline. Finally, a curriculum guide from a comparative civilizations class designed to be taught in Navajo schools makes no mention of these alleged Aztec slavers.

      From all I have read (and I apologize for not having time to re-create the bibliography here), there were forms of slavery among many Native American groups in North America, including the Aztecs. However, slavery, as conceived by Native Americans, was very different from that imposed by Europeans. Most of the time, war captives were involved. In some cases, as was observed among the 18th century Creek of present-day Georgia, slaves ended up being treated more as outcasts than outright slaves. Some were even adopted into the families of the men who captured them. A similar observation was made regarding indigenous Afreican slavery.

      As for celestial observation towers, etc., yes, they were everywhere, among many cultures. But again turning to archaeological evidence, it seems that most were developed indepently by different groups for different purposes.

      While there is nothing wrong with being impressed by the accomplishments of Native Americans prior to European colonization for their own sake, don't make the mistake of superimposing models of European civilizational development on these societies. Prehistoric native groups in North America followed very different paths and we owe it to their descendents to appreciate their history on its own terms. We sell everyone short if we have to impose false parallels with European history in order to be impressed.

      --
      The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
  12. Re:*cough* by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are many kinds of nerds ok? This is interesting to our anthropological nerd brethren. Nerds need to learn to respect each other.

    --
    No Sigs!
  13. I don't think so. by Descalzo · · Score: 4, Informative
    As horrific as the slave trade was, those articles of yours estimate there were 15 million African slaves brought to the US over the Atlantic.

    Check out http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm.

    While I agree that the slave trade was bad, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao far outstrip it.

    That page is kinda freaky.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    1. Re:I don't think so. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, slavery went on for thousands of years. It predated written history, and continued until western civilization decided that slavery was repugnant and stamped it out, over the objections of nearly every other society. Driving slavery almost out of existence was probably the greatest achievement of the British empire.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  14. Wow by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

    This guy had a website in 1502? That's pretty advanced, at least for a slave.

  15. Re:interesting fact by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the reasons America gets the lion's share of the blame is because we took so long to actually abolish it.

    The USA abolished slavery well ahead of most of the rest of the world. Saudi Arabia, for example, only abolished slavery (officially) in the 1960s.

    Actually, the main reason America gets blamed so much for slavery, is that it serves current political agendas to do so. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton call for slavery reparations from the US government, but have never lifted a finger to free a single living slave today, in the Sudan, or any of the other places where slavery continues.

    Likewise, they don't call for any of the Africans whose ancestors participated in slave-catching raids to pay those people whose ancestors were herded onto slave ships or marched across the continent to be sold in Arab lands. Nor do they demand reparations to Europe for the million or so Europeans who were captured by slave traders, and sold in North Africa and the middle east.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  16. Re:Or about 50 years after the Spanish started com by glwtta · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Did they? My understanding was that Hernán Cortés had the ruling family and other people with power tortured and/or killed. Of the general population, those who didn't die in the violence of the Spanish invasion were forced to flee and probably ended up mixing with other tribes.

    All true, but the fact remains that the indigenous American civilizations went into a sharp (relatively speaking) decline 100-200 years before the Spanish got there. The area was significantly depopulated by Cortes' time; I believe there are several examples of cities whose population size wouldn't be matched again until early 19th century, being virtually deserted, long before any invaders looking for a "New World".

    As far as I know, the reasons for this are still unknown - doesn't necessarily make it "mysterious", we just don't have the info.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  17. It was the first by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    They know because they found the words "First slave!" etched into their tooth enamel.

  18. Re:"not long after Columbus..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    What is it with Americans?

    The house I live in is 200 years old. The school I went to was over 400. And the pub at the end of our road is nearly 700 years old.

    Why do you think a lifetime is a long time? Most mature cultures go back thousands of years. Incidentally, though many people would quote the Mansfield ruling of 1779 as marking a legal end of slavery in England, this actually marked a legal rejection of the condition of slavery, a statement that foreigners could not expect to enforce this state in England.

    If you are considering when slavery ceased to be an accepted part of life in the countries which later became the UK, this would have been in the early Middle Ages, around 1100 (not long after the Romans left and the Danes settled, around 800. The Vikings would have been the last group living in England who accepted slavery as a normal condition. Habeas Corpus, though codified in the Magna Carta (1215), was part of the common law well before this date, and indicates that freedom is the presumed state for any individual who has not been found guilty of a crime. While slavery was formally abolished in the US around 1865, the acceptance of slavery seems to have persisted in the southern states until around 1960.

    Individual English and European businessmen were still free to run enterprises in other countries where the slave laws were different. But the reason why the US is considered so culpable on this question is that it maintained a hypocritical stance of freedom from commercial taxes but slavery for people, which the rest of the Anglo-Saxon community had rejected about 800 years earlier.

  19. The problem with the third world generally by Flying+pig · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This post is more than interesting, it is insightful. Why is Africa such a mess? Because, basically, it has few middle class educated people. Why is India progressing so rapidly? Because it has a large and growing middle class fueled by the high status of education. Why does China want Taiwan so badly? Because China is (relatively speaking) a backward oligarchy and it would benefit from quickly acquiring a large educated middle class and its vast intellectual productive resources.

    So why is the American (and British) system currently so geared to benefiting oligarchs and making things using cheap labor? Why are our education systems increasingly failing? Is it because our leaders are becoming like the backwards oligarchs of the South, interested solely in lining their own pockets to the detriment of our long term prospects?

    What makes this especially interesting is the rise in prominence of people like McKain in the US and now Cameron in the UK, who are emphasising traditional middle class values against the corporatism of the respective governments. Time for an educated middle class backlash, perhaps.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  20. Wait a minute ... by tbone1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I thought that there were African slaves in America before Columbus arrived. Certainly the Spaniards didn't introduce the practice to these continents. Many local tribes (like, say, the Aztecs and Incans) practiced it. Also, the Norse were in the New World centuries before, and they were known to have practiced slavery, though to what extent they had it in Greenland I don't know.

    There is a gerat book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" (I cannot remember the name of the author) that talks about certain documented facts that are never taught in history classes. One is that Columbus knew that there was a new world to the west. He had been to Iceland a few times, and there were still Norsemen in Greenland (who would visit Canada for timber, etc, and had had dealings with the "natives"). On top of this, Columbus had been to "the Gold Coast" of Africa (aka The Slave Coast aka The Ivory Coast) and had met the representatives of the king of Mauritania, if not the king himself, at the time probably the wealthiest man in the world. They had had a few colonies "a few days to the west" in a new land, but they had abandoned them year before, because the locals kept attacking them. So Columbus knew he was sailing to new lands, not India, because he had data from the Norse and the Mauritanians about western lands over the sea.

    Fast forward a decade or three. The Aztecs were found to have carvings of men, some of the carvings having definite African facial features. (The book has pictures of these carvings, and yep, they do, whatever the politically correct police might say.) The Aztecs were also growing cotton that was the same type grown in Egypt. On top of this, when Spaniards first landed in South America, near what is now Venezuala, they were talking to a local chieftain and noticed a bunch of African-descended slaves being led through a coastal village. The Spaniards were surprised at this, and asked where the slaves had come from. The chieftain said that they had raided their village a few generations ago and had enslaved them.

    So the first African slaves weren't brought here by the Spaniards. Hell, they may well have been brought here by other Africans (the Mauritanians).

    Just putting in my $.05 (inflation, taxes, and all that).

    --

    The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
  21. First in the New World, that is by Frodo420024 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sometimes it looks as if the colonist of the New World invented the slave trade. That was not at all the case. It had been running for centuries on the coasts of Africa, with Arab traders dealing with the local rulers, buying prisoners of war and other potential slaves.

    But they sure did get a boost in business when Europeans joined the trade!

    --
    I'm in a Unix state of mind.
  22. Re:"not long after Columbus..." by Mistress.Erin · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The difference between the Americans and the English is that the English think a mile is a long way and Americans think 100 years is a long time."

    - Erin

    --
    The imminent collapse of space and time is just the Universe's way of hugging you.
  23. My, but you're disingenuous. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most mature cultures go back thousands of years.

    In intelligible form? Sorry, but no European culture goes back "thousands of years". If you go back two thousand, you're at the dawn of Christianity, which bore only a passing resemblance to today's versions. The Romans had switched over to imperial rule. While I can understand how Western culture takes a lot from Romans and Greeks, to imply that we're all part of the same culture is plainly bullshit--we don't do human sacrifice, giant statues of our gods in the town square, gladiator fights, Legions forbidden from coming home, or the divine right of kings. Or humping little boys.

    You'd have as much luck fitting into Roman society as you would into a Bantu empire of the same period. Living in Europe may mean you live near some old buildings, but it doesn't mean you live in the same culture that built them.

    If you are considering when slavery ceased to be an accepted part of life in the countries which later became the UK, this would have been in the early Middle Ages, around 1100 (not long after the Romans left and the Danes settled, around 800. The Vikings would have been the last group living in England who accepted slavery as a normal condition.

    No, those are the dates when enslaving white people became unacceptable. The British were quite involved with African slavery from 1562 until 1803, when they started discouraging it, and 1833, when it was actually abolished by the Brits.

    Habeas Corpus, though codified in the Magna Carta (1215), was part of the common law well before this date, and indicates that freedom is the presumed state for any individual who has not been found guilty of a crime. While slavery was formally abolished in the US around 1865, the acceptance of slavery seems to have persisted in the southern states until around 1960.

    It's disingenuous for you to compare the time when Brits stopped enslaving fellow whites to the time when Americans ended legal discrimination against blacks.

    And also, what persisted in the South until the Civil Rights era wasn't slavery so much as it was Jim Crow--segregation, much like the Apartheid that South Africa had until relatively recently. Racist, certainly--but comparing it to the end of whites-as-slaves in Viking culture? Give me a break.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  24. Sympathy for the white devil by Loquax · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Hold on a second there. I in no way want to defend slavery or genocide, but Columbus was a man acting in his time with his time's morality and ethics. First, the "genocide" that you refer to happend as a result primarily of diseases and their effects that Columbus could not have been aware of. Second, at that time in the world, all of the world, slavery was the norm not the exception. Owning a slave and using his or her body for labor however you wished was no more "immoral" than you or I owning a car or eating meat. Would you want someone 100+ years from now who lives in a society of pedestrian vegitarians judging you on the basis of your driving a car or eating meat. I wouldn't. What happend to the slaves and the American Indians was a tragedy in hind sight. But don't kid yourself. If the poor African slave had guns and the upperhand, they would have (and in many cases did) enslaved other peoples. If the Indians had developed technology permitting them to take over Europe and had the need to go on conquest, they would have done so as well. The history of the Native Americans is littered with bloody battles between the various tribes.

    My point is that "man is a bad animal" wherever and whenever he is. We'll kill our own kind, crap where we eat, and take more than we need and then use our wonderful rational mind to justify it all.

  25. Re:not so, my friend, not so... by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First of all, one must understand that slaves are capital, not labour.

    The difficulty with this assertion is that human beings cannot be owned, and therefore cannot be property and therefore cannot be capital. This is true regardless of what the law says. The law can say pi is equal to three. But that does not make it so.

    I will grant you that slaves can serve in the economic role of capital, just as 3 can serve in the mathematical role of pi. But economies (and circles) built on the basis of such falsehoods will be grossly distorted, and for much the same reaasons.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  26. I myself worked as a slave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know if folks are aware of it, but I'd like to point out that slavery is alive and well today in the New World.

    Particularly here in Georgia, the deep south and heart of the confederacy.

    While Lincoln may have freed the slaves for private ownership, he didn't go far enough. Slavery is still legal by the state, in just every state, in the form of the use of prisoners.

    I went to prison for 2 years in 2002 of a 12 year sentence on a crime I didn't commit. Basically someone made an accusation about me, and then hysteria and greed set in, and then the slander game began. It was a witchhunt and I was the witch. I estimate in the end they made about $120,000 off of me in billing the taxpayer; myself losing another $60,000 in lawyer fees and lost wages other damages. I don't know about you, but thats a whole hell of a lot of money in a recession. If I would of served the full 12 years, they would of probably made almost a half a million dollars off of me, billing you the taxpayer $35,000 a year. Let me tell you, I'm about the most harmless guy in the world, I don't bother anybody, and I don't break any laws. The justice system isn't about justice. Its all a scam and a slander game. Its about greed and profit.

    For two years I was kept in the most heinous of conditions, and was forced to work for which I received no compensation.

    I won my appeal by fighting back. Which was very hard to do, because I was mentally and physically exhausted, being kept in the most inhumane of conditions, lacking of nutrition, and my situation was grossly exacerbated because I was hypoglycemic and yet receiving no treatment whatsoever. A hypoglycemic, if not eating something every 2 hours, suffers and appauling roster of symptoms, the most painful and difficult being being confused all the time, unable to concentrate, unable to focus.

    So for those two years, basically, I was a slave.

    Since I tested out with a slashdot level IQ and actually hit a bit of precious luck, I was put to work in the library, just like Andy in the movie Shawshank Redemption. For prison and someone smart, it was a good job because you had access to books in a way the general population didn't at all. Let me say it was luck I got this job, most people had nighmarish jobs. Laundry, caffeteria work, swinging a bush ax, etc.

    Even though I worked in the library, I fought back. I wrote slogans throughout the books and anarchy symbols on the inside, slamming the system.

    When nobody was looking, I wrote slogans from Animal Farm on the prison walls outside. Nobody understood them but me, since the average grade level in prison is about sixth grade (I tested out 13th, the highest the tests go). Prison is a big sensory deprivation chamber. The constant noise, the inhuman conditions, the constant stupidity, the poor food, it will wear your mind down. Prison doesn't do anything but make people stupid and vilent and insane.

    Once some 'robocop' as I called him saw my slogans, and wrote them down on his little notepad. I'm sure he took them straight back to the warden. If I would of been caught, I would of surely been beaten to death out of site for defacing state property. I've been out a year now but still I chuckle, I wonder what they made of "Four legs good, two legs bad!". I'm not joking. For real.

    I wrote some notes of what I would post to slashdot if I ever got out. I still have them somewhere, they are in a tired and exhausted script that looks a lot to me like chicken scratch now, I was so fading away then. It doesn't matter. My mind is full of things to say now. Totally.

    One seredipitious thing did happen. Four doors down from my cell they put an RFDI engineer in. An old guy, in his 50's. I nicknamed him "Marconi".

    You can check him out here (punch in 1141126 in the GDC field on the page and NEXT your way through):

    http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/O