NationStates Jolt Archive

...or white, or some colour in between, would there be slavery? Would the various conquerors of the world have accepted other people because of a shared racial identity, or would they find some other excuse to subjugate people?


(I believe so, but that's just me).

Sure. There was always same-race slavery.. Ancient Greece and Rome, medieval Europe, among African tribes, among Native Americans, etc.

Slavery is not dependent upon racial differences...indeed, modern slavery lacks such a distinction in most countries.

Sure. There was always same-race slavery.. Ancient Greece and Rome, medieval Europe, among African tribes, among Native Americans, etc.

Damn! I guess it was a dumber question than I thought.



Lay off the idiocy, TC!

...or white, or some colour in between, would there have been slavery? Would the various conquerors of the world have accepted other people because of a shared racial identity, or would they find some other excuse to subjugate people?


(I believe so, but that's just me).

Well, others have already brought up same race slavery. So my question is, is everyone the same SHADE of black, white, green, whatever? If not that may be enough for some people.

Damn! I guess it was a dumber question than I thought.



Lay off the idiocy, TC!

No question is a stupid question, Cakes. Some just have simpler answers than others. As for this question, it was a good one, because it reminds us that issues such as racism are deeper than we realize.

You might want to have a look at this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/world/slavery/default.stm

special BBC report on modern-day slavery.

Slavery is not based on race. The reason America had slaves is that it was economically profitable for the landowners to have slaves on their plantation than paid workers.

Slavery is not based on race. The reason America had slaves is that it was economically profitable for the landowners to have slaves on their plantation than paid workers.

Slavery in America WAS based on race, if it wasn't then why couldn't you buy a white slave?

Slavery is not based on race. The reason America had slaves is that it was economically profitable for the landowners to have slaves on their plantation than paid workers.
Racism was used to justify and enforce the system.

You might want to have a look at this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/world/slavery/default.stm

special BBC report on modern-day slavery.

Oops! Okay, I changed the OP to reflect the fact that there still is slavery. God, I'm on a roll with the idiocy tonight.

Slavery in America WAS based on race, if it wasn't then why couldn't you buy a white slave?

Because the white people weren't willing to work for free. Of course the plantation owner did take advantage of the fact that blacks weren't educated on the fact that they could be paid for their work.

Of course the plantation owner did take advantage of the fact that blacks weren't educated on the fact that they could be paid for their work.

You can't be serious.

It was not a matter of education. It was a matter of blacks being, legally, property.

That's why when they ran away, they were forcibly re-captured and brought back.

Because the white people weren't willing to work for free. Of course the plantation owner did take advantage of the fact that blacks weren't educated on the fact that they could be paid for their work.

!!!

You can't be serious.

It was not a matter of education. It was a matter of blacks being, legally, property.

That's why when they ran away, they were forcibly re-captured and brought back.

Actually it is, there was a reason the blacks were depraved of an education, and they were considered property, but the original reason for the slave trade was economic based.

Because the white people weren't willing to work for free. Of course the plantation owner did take advantage of the fact that blacks weren't educated on the fact that they could be paid for their work.

Yes, the black slaves were so "willing" to work for free that they had to be kidnapped from Africa and kept in line with whips. Are you stupid, racist, or both?

there was a reason the blacks were depraved of an education,

Yes, but not so that they couldn't learn that they could demand to be paid like white workers ... because they couldn't demand that.

and they were considered property,

And property can demand wages?

but the original reason for the slave trade was economic based.

What does that have to do with anything?

Yes, the black slaves were so "willing" to work for free that they had to be kidnapped from Africa and kept in line with whips. Are you stupid, racist, or both?

I don't know, you tell me, are you someone who just like to insult everyone who disagree with him? I never said they were willing you idiot.

What does that have to do with anything?

Ok, let me try to explain this one time, and one time only.

A. Plantation owners need workers.

B. White workers want money that the owners won't pay

C. So the slave trade was started so that they can have free labors (immorally wrong)

D. They wanted free labors so that they can keep on getting richer and richer.

Ok, let me try to explain this one time, and one time only.

Of course the plantation owner did take advantage of the fact that blacks weren't educated on the fact that they could be paid for their work.

Explain that instead, please - how exactly slavery was simply a matter of blacks being too stupid to realize that they could be paid for their labor.

I don't know, you tell me, are you someone who just like to insult everyone who disagree with him? I never said they were willing you idiot.

It was strongly implied by your assertion that the reason they didn't use whites as slaves is because the whites were NOT willing. If that's not actually what you meant then I will apologize but you really need to think through the implications of your phrasing if you don't want to be misunderstood on such delicate subjects.

...or white, or some colour in between, would there be slavery? Would the various conquerors of the world have accepted other people because of a shared racial identity, or would they find some other excuse to subjugate people?


(I believe so, but that's just me).

Well, there was serfdom for hundreds, if not thousands of years.... prisoners of war, too, would often become slaves, irrelvant of any racial factors...

So... yes. There would've still been slavery.

Wilgrove =/= tact.

Explain that instead, please - how exactly slavery was simply a matter of blacks being too stupid to realize that they could be paid for their labor.

I never said that was the sole cause. Slavery in America happened because A. the economics of the plantation demanding basically free labors. B. Slaves and blacks were considered property. C. As as result of it, they were deemed not to deserve an education.

Wilgrove =/= tact.

and what's that susspose to mean?

Because the white people weren't willing to work for free. Of course the plantation owner did take advantage of the fact that blacks weren't educated on the fact that they could be paid for their work.

QFunT

I never said that was the sole cause. Slavery in America happened because A. the economics of the plantation demanding basically free labors. B. Slaves and blacks were considered property. C. As as result of it, they were deemed not to deserve an education.

Ah, back-pedaling.

Enough of this. Your statements stand sufficiently on their own.

and what's that susspose to mean?

You know what tact is right? You lack it utterly, as far as I can tell.

Ah, back-pedaling.

Enough of this. Your statements stand sufficiently on their own.

Yea, but you do realize that if they did have an education, then they could demand a wage, and the plantation wouldn't have any incentives to have slaves over a proper paid working force.

I guess some people need it spelled out for them.

You know what tact is right? You lack it utterly, as far as I can tell.

Eh, who needs tacts? :D

I guess some people need it spelled out for them.

Indeed. You do.

Let's say they decided to demand a wage. Why on earth would their OWNERS give it to their property?

Wilgrove =/= tact.

The question is if Wilgrove = racist or not. As I said if he misspoke himself with the statement that they didn't use whites as slaves because they (strong unwritten implication of unlike black individuals of the time appeared to be here to my eyes) were unwilling to work for free then I am willing to apologize for implying that he is stupid and or racist and simply regard him as lacking in tact.

Yea, but you do realize that if they did have an education, then they could demand a wage, and the plantation wouldn't have any incentives to have slaves over a proper paid working force.

I guess some people need it spelled out for them.

the stupid, it burns

Indeed. You do.

Let's say they decided to demand a wage. Why on earth would their OWNERS give it to their property?

Nope, not at all, but blacks could also stop working, and if they stop working, then the plantation lose money. If blacks demand the same wage as whites want, then what incentives do the owners have to have slaves instead of a proper working force?

the stupid, it burns

The insults, they are weak.

Nope, not at all, but blacks could also stop working

And be beaten, whipped, and starved until they submitted.

Nope, not at all, but blacks could also stop working, and if they stop working, then the plantation lose money. If blacks demand the same wage as whites want, then what incentives do the owners have to have slaves instead of a proper working force?

you do know what slavery is, right?

And be beaten, whipped, and starved until they submitted.

True, and like many blacks did, they could also run away with the underground railroad.

I'm not saying that this wasn't wrong, or that the treatment of the slaves wasn't racially motivated, I'm just saying that the reason the slave trade was even started was for economic reason. What do you actually believes that whites were sitting around one day saying "Well, let's go to Africa and get us some blacks (not the exact wording but don't need anyone accusing me of being racist), and we'll force them to work on our farm, beat the living crap out of them and have sex with their women for the hell of it!"?

you do know what slavery is, right?

Why no daddy, why don't you tell me?! I mean it can't be that people are held against their will at a place where they work for nothing, and mistreated can it?

Yea, but you do realize that if they did have an education, then they could demand a wage, and the plantation wouldn't have any incentives to have slaves over a proper paid working force.

I guess some people need it spelled out that you don't need an education to realize that you and your labor has value.

I mean Jesus, even if that weren't true, some Black slaves were brought to help assist at market, some worked alongside white indentured servants and the poorer slave owners, and others worked in their master's manor. They would have been exposed to the idea of being paid for work.

I guess some people need it spelled out that you don't need an education to realize that you and your labor has value.

I mean Jesus, even if that weren't true, some Black slaves were brought to help assist at market, some worked alongside white indentured servants and the poorer slave owners, and others worked in their master's manor. They would have been exposed to the idea of being paid for work.

Once again.

'm not saying that this wasn't wrong, or that the treatment of the slaves wasn't racially motivated, I'm just saying that the reason the slave trade was even started was for economic reason. What do you actually believes that whites were sitting around one day saying "Well, let's go to Africa and get us some blacks (not the exact wording but don't need anyone accusing me of being racist), and we'll force them to work on our farm, beat the living crap out of them and have sex with their women for the hell of it!"?

What do you actually believes that whites were sitting around one day saying "Well, let's go to Africa and get us some blacks (not the exact wording but don't need anyone accusing me of being racist), and we'll force them to work on our farm, beat the living crap out of them and have sex with their women for the hell of it!"?
Some of them, not at the beginning but eventually, yes.

I'm just saying that the reason the slave trade was even started was for economic reason.

And I'm not saying you're wrong.

I'm saying that your contention that the ignorance of Blacks was the key factor that started and perpetuated slavery is utter nonsense.

...or white, or some colour in between, would there be slavery?

Racism isn't the cause of slavery. It has been used as excuse.

Nope, not at all, but blacks could also stop working, and if they stop working, then the plantation lose money.

The slaves, being property, would then get treated the same way people treat any piece of their property which stops working.

Come on, you raised a fair point about lack of education being part of this particular system of slavery, but you're trying to give it too much significance.

And I'm not saying you're wrong.

I'm saying that your contention that the ignorance of Blacks was the key factor that started and perpetuated slavery is utter nonsense.

Fair enough.

Because the white people weren't willing to work for free. Of course the plantation owner did take advantage of the fact that blacks weren't educated on the fact that they could be paid for their work.

Originally there was an institution in the U.S.(though it was colonies then, and the institution existed in Australia, New Zealand and Canada as well) called indentured servitude. It was applied whites and blacks and was justified as a means of paying the passage and expenses of people who were too poor to pay their own way, but wanted (or needed, because they were being transported for crimes) to come to the New World. The difference was that, because white indentured servants "fit in" and the African ones didn't "fit in," it was considered expedient to continue holding the blacks in servitude (under the guise of kindness) even after they had paid off their indenture. After indentured servitude lost credence, the trade in black "servants" continued - the slave owners in the south, incidentally, never referred to them as slaves.

The white indentured servants, who were, generally illiterate, could be considered slaves, thoug of limited duration. There were also many native Americans who were slaves.

Well, others have already brought up same race slavery. So my question is, is everyone the same SHADE of black, white, green, whatever? If not that may be enough for some people.

i think the real answer here is that the divide and concour mentality will always find some sort of differences to exploit, and if it can't find them, manufacture them themselves.

so the real problem here isn't that differences exist, but rather that there are those who would seek to exploit differences to get one over on the rest of us.

=^^=
.../\...

Nope, not at all, but blacks could also stop working, and if they stop working, then the plantation lose money.

Have you never heard of the first human invention to break the sound barrier?

Originally there was an institution in the U.S.(though it was colonies then, and the institution existed in Australia, New Zealand and Canada as well) called indentured servitude. It was applied whites and blacks and was justified as a means of paying the passage and expenses of people who were too poor to pay their own way, but wanted (or needed, because they were being transported for crimes) to come to the New World. The difference was that, because white indentured servants "fit in" and the African ones didn't "fit in," it was considered expedient to continue holding the blacks in servitude (under the guise of kindness) even after they had paid off their indenture. After indentured servitude lost credence, the trade in black "servants" continued - the slave owners in the south, incidentally, never referred to them as slaves.

The white indentured servants, who were, generally illiterate, could be considered slaves, thoug of limited duration. There were also many native Americans who were slaves.

for a while, in colonial times, the justification for keeping black slaves was not that they were black but that they were HEATHENS. if a black slave became a christian you had to set him free. it didnt take them long to close that loophole but then they needed a new justification for not having to free these people they way they had to free indentured servants when their time was up.

to some extent i think its the difference between europeans who understood the system and africans who didnt. not that the system was the same, but it was difficult for africans to exert their natural human rights when they were thrust into a completely foreign culture.

and since they could be seen as completely different from white indentured servants (who were also treated rather badly and kept in service longer than their contracts called for if any justification could be found) it became easier for the owners to justify laws that kept them in slavery.

in the end i think it was slavery that caused racism rather than racism causing slavery. (given that we are naturally somewhat racist in any case)

Slavery in America WAS based on race, if it wasn't then why couldn't you buy a white slave?

there were many slaves who were so white that the only way you knew they were slaves was by being told. it was the legacy of white masters sexually abusing their female slaves.

...or white, or some colour in between, would there be slavery? Would the various conquerors of the world have accepted other people because of a shared racial identity, or would they find some other excuse to subjugate people?
Somebody needs to take Patriarchy 101.

Somebody needs to take Patriarchy 101.

EO: There you go, bringing gender into it again...
Bottle: But I'm telling you, that's what it's all about...

EO: There you go, bringing gender into it again...
Bottle: But I'm telling you, that's what it's all about...
*shrug*

Just pointing out the obvious.

*shrug*

Just pointing out the obvious.

ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the behind
you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!

People have always found excuses for slavery, as many other posters have pointed out. Race as an justification for slavery was largely an American peculiarity.

In classical times, slavery was actually considered a merciful way to treat a conquered enemy, the theory being that it was far more merciful to enslave your captives than to execute them en masse. Later, some time after the advent of Christianity, religion became an excuse - it was considered "wrong" to enslave fellow Christians (though it happened anyway), but OK to enslave non-Christians, who were condemned to Hell anyway.

Race started to enter the equation after the discovery of the New World. Some of the conquistadors actually questioned whether or not the peoples of the New World had souls at all. It was greatly to the benefit of the conquerors if the conquered native peoples didn't have souls, because then they were not human and had no more rights than animals. The Pope (forget which one at the moment) ruled that yes, they did have souls, and therefore every effort should be made to convert the natives, who were not to be enslaved. Of course, the New World conquerors largely ignored the Church's ruling on this, but it undermined the legitimacy of their mistreatment of the natives.

But slavery really took off after the extremely labor-intensive plantation system took hold in the New World. The native populations, by this time, were greatly reduced in numbers due to disease, so there just weren't enough of them. And it wasn't right (or profitable) to enslave Europeans, who were Christian. But due to conditions in Africa at the time, there were a large number of African slaves available for a relatively low price, who also had the advantage (from the plantation owners' point of view) of not being Christian. And so the trans-Atlantic slave trade took off. Another advantage, again from the plantation owners' POV, was that the African slaves were easy to distinguish from the free population by coloration. And so black skin came to be seen as a mark of servitude. It was only afterwards that slaveowners started to equate black skin with the "mark of Cain" and began using it as the justification for slavery. They also resurrected the old canard that non-Europeans had no souls.

And so a system was put in place that was so pervasive that it still utterly warps American society nearly a century and a half after it was finally abolished. It may only take another two or three centuries to completely recover from it.

ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the behind
you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!

My respect for you just increased enormously. :p

When I saw this thread title, I thought it was about the NZ rugby team.

I feel this big right now

Sure. There was always same-race slavery.. Ancient Greece and Rome, medieval Europe, among African tribes, among Native Americans, etc.


Just to expand on that, it was not unknown for Blacks and American Indians to own black slaves in early America.

Nor was Slavery of the time seen as a social practice. It was an economic practice imposed by the level of technology.

Read on for completely unwanted information...

Mass production spelled the end of slavery, not the rising morality of the north. Yet when Eli Whitney invented mass production, with the cotton gin, it caused a sudden surge in slave ownership due to the sudden ability to process tons of cotton quickly, and the increase in productivity per person. Cotton plantation owners were suddenly able to process fields of cotton in days instead of weeks, and therefor expanded their operations because slaves productivity shot through the roof.

It is undoubtable that the practice of slavery would have died out as soon as tractors became redily available, as can be proven by looking closely at the northern states and manufacturing's effect on ending slavery in those states.

A close study of this situation, which no body wants to read here, suggests that Slavery is a nessecary tool of developing nations with limited technology, and that slavery, unless it is continued in a limited form for social reasons, ends as soon as a society reaches a given technological threshold.

People have always found excuses for slavery, as many other posters have pointed out. Race as an justification for slavery was largely an American peculiarity.

In classical times, slavery was actually considered a merciful way to treat a conquered enemy, the theory being that it was far more merciful to enslave your captives than to execute them en masse. Later, some time after the advent of Christianity, religion became an excuse - it was considered "wrong" to enslave fellow Christians (though it happened anyway), but OK to enslave non-Christians, who were condemned to Hell anyway.

Race started to enter the equation after the discovery of the New World. Some of the conquistadors actually questioned whether or not the peoples of the New World had souls at all. It was greatly to the benefit of the conquerors if the conquered native peoples didn't have souls, because then they were not human and had no more rights than animals. The Pope (forget which one at the moment) ruled that yes, they did have souls, and therefore every effort should be made to convert the natives, who were not to be enslaved. Of course, the New World conquerors largely ignored the Church's ruling on this, but it undermined the legitimacy of their mistreatment of the natives.

But slavery really took off after the extremely labor-intensive plantation system took hold in the New World. The native populations, by this time, were greatly reduced in numbers due to disease, so there just weren't enough of them. And it wasn't right (or profitable) to enslave Europeans, who were Christian. But due to conditions in Africa at the time, there were a large number of African slaves available for a relatively low price, who also had the advantage (from the plantation owners' point of view) of not being Christian. And so the trans-Atlantic slave trade took off. Another advantage, again from the plantation owners' POV, was that the African slaves were easy to distinguish from the free population by coloration. And so black skin came to be seen as a mark of servitude. It was only afterwards that slaveowners started to equate black skin with the "mark of Cain" and began using it as the justification for slavery. They also resurrected the old canard that non-Europeans had no souls.

And so a system was put in place that was so pervasive that it still utterly warps American society nearly a century and a half after it was finally abolished. It may only take another two or three centuries to completely recover from it.

You might also want to point out that Black Slaves were so cheap because in large part they were the equivilant of that time's political prisoners being sold off by the rulers in africa. A practice still in effect to this day. It is also interesting to note that those same rulers would have put the people so enslaved to death had they not found a market for them.

Another related interesting misconception is that the term indian is not an insult or misapplied. It in fact has nothing to do with India, but relates instead to Columbus's first description of the people he found here "Indio con dios" or translated, "The People of God"

It was strongly implied by your assertion that the reason they didn't use whites as slaves is because the whites were NOT willing. If that's not actually what you meant then I will apologize but you really need to think through the implications of your phrasing if you don't want to be misunderstood on such delicate subjects.


Actually, white slaves in America were not unknown, in fact they were fairly common in some parts of our history.

There are solid arguments that Slavery without respect to race, is carried out today in America, and is allowed by the constitution.

I find it funny that the history of race and slavery in America is written by people who have a financial intrest in never putting this sordid past behind us.

Because the white people weren't willing to work for free. Of course the plantation owner did take advantage of the fact that blacks weren't educated on the fact that they could be paid for their work.

.....what?

No it wasn't that "blacks weren't educated on the fact that they could be paid for their work."

They COULD NOT be paid for their work. Read Dredd Scott. Black people didn't work for free because they didn't know any better, Black people worked for free because they weren't, under law, PEOPLE. They were property.

When I saw this thread title, I thought it was about the NZ rugby team.

I feel this big right now
That would have made a much more interesting thread...

Actually, white slaves in America were not unknown, in fact they were fairly common in some parts of our history.

Considering that approximately 51% of the white population was essentially viewed as property for the first several centuries of the USA, I'd say that's a massive understatement.

Nope, not at all, but blacks could also stop working, and if they stop working, then the plantation lose money. If blacks demand the same wage as whites want, then what incentives do the owners have to have slaves instead of a proper working force?

Do you think the slaves didn't stop working because they didn't think they could?

I suggest you actually READ the history of the slave revolts. I also suggest you read what happened to the slaves who instigated the revolts. Slaves didn't stop working because they didn't know any better. Slaves didn't stop working because if they did one of them would get whipped to death.

I'm sorry but this betrays a SERIOUS lack of understaing of American History. Go watch Roots or something.

Considering that approximately 51% of the white population was essentially viewed as property for the first several centuries of the USA, I'd say that's a massive understatement.

It is not accurate to say that women were ever truly treated as chattel in this country (other than female slaves, of course). In law school I had a property professor, a very modern feminist, who would get her hackles up whenever someone said that.

It is not true, simply not, that women in general were treated as property. They were treated as inferiors, yes. But not property. SLAVES were treated as property, and while women have suffered a great deal, to call their treatment comparable to slaves is vastly minimizing the slave experience.

Women were treated as inferior, this is true, but it is untrue to say that under law or society they were ever truly treated as property. While it's rather stereotypical to say "women were property" it is not true, not under any literal sense of property. Slaves were PROPERTY, you OWNED them. Women, while treated as inferior, were not ever generally socially or legally on a large scale treated as owned.

It is not accurate to say that women were ever truly treated as chattel in this country (other than female slaves, of course). In law school I had a property professor, a very modern feminist, who would get her hackles up whenever someone said that.

It is not true, simply not, that women in general were treated as property. They were treated as inferiors, yes. But not property. SLAVES were treated as property, and while women have suffered a great deal, to call their treatment comparable to slaves is vastly minimizing the slave experience.

Women were treated as inferior, this is true, but it is untrue to say that under law or society they were ever truly treated as property. While it's rather stereotypical to say "women were property" it is not true, not under any literal sense of property. Slaves were PROPERTY, you OWNED them. Women, while treated as inferior, were not ever generally socially or legally on a large scale treated as owned.
You property prof needs to do some more reading about the legal history in our country. Women were legally property of their husbands in many of the first colonies, and the laws regarding the legal status of women in the States after the formation of the Union very often specifically treated women as property.

For even longer, women were treated as essentially having the same legal status as minors. If you familiarize yourself with a lot of the laws, you'll find that legal minors have been essentially regarded as the "property" of their guardians, though the wording is usually designed to soften the way this sounds (because most people aren't comfortable with the notion of kids being property).

I absolutely agree that the status of women was not the same as "THE slaves," when we're talking about the non-white slaves we all think of from the pre-Civil War era. However, I think there is ample evidence to support the claim that women were slaves, albeit of a different type. Indeed, women had to wait LONGER for liberation than black men did.

And to say that it is unreasonable to compare the experience of women to the experience of slaves...well, I just find that deeply funny. I think there are piles and piles and piles of very valid comparisons between the two. Just because they are not IDENTICAL doesn't mean they cannot be compared.

I guess some people need it spelled out that you don't need an education to realize that you and your labor has value.

I mean Jesus, even if that weren't true, some Black slaves were brought to help assist at market, some worked alongside white indentured servants and the poorer slave owners, and others worked in their master's manor. They would have been exposed to the idea of being paid for work.

Yes you do. Wilgrove is correct on this count.

The African slaves were coming from a completely alien culture, with no knowledge of English and with a set of experiences of an economic system absolutely different to the Western model.

In Africa at the time, paid labour was rare, most of the continent still had a pre-monetary society. People worked in subsistance farming because a) that was where their food came from, and b) because all existing cultural norms told them to.

Upon being transported across the Atlantic, the slaves found themselves in a situation that they were completely unable to understand. They had no experience of any of the economic activities that were going on here. They were uneducated in the sense that no-one had ever educated them in anything like this, not the sense that they were stupid. Coming from a situation where one was expected to work without pay anyway, its completely rational to assume that, (until they learnt otherwise), they did not understand that were entitled pay.

Apparently slavery was only outlawed in Saudi Arabia in 1962. Such a forward looking country with such a deep love of freedom and human rights.

Considering that approximately 51% of the white population was essentially viewed as property for the first several centuries of the USA, I'd say that's a massive understatement.


Well, ya...

I never actually researched the numbers, but I felt the fact that whites were slaves in America should actually be given some consideration.

It is not accurate to say that women were ever truly treated as chattel in this country (other than female slaves, of course). In law school I had a property professor, a very modern feminist, who would get her hackles up whenever someone said that.

It is not true, simply not, that women in general were treated as property. They were treated as inferiors, yes. But not property. SLAVES were treated as property, and while women have suffered a great deal, to call their treatment comparable to slaves is vastly minimizing the slave experience.

Women were treated as inferior, this is true, but it is untrue to say that under law or society they were ever truly treated as property. While it's rather stereotypical to say "women were property" it is not true, not under any literal sense of property. Slaves were PROPERTY, you OWNED them. Women, while treated as inferior, were not ever generally socially or legally on a large scale treated as owned.

I thought he was refering to the extension of the fudal system in the new world and the practice of endentured servitude...

My bad.

Yes you do. Wilgrove is correct on this count.

The African slaves were coming from a completely alien culture, with no knowledge of English and with a set of experiences of an economic system absolutely different to the Western model.

In Africa at the time, paid labour was rare, most of the continent still had a pre-monetary society. People worked in subsistance farming because a) that was where their food came from, and b) because all existing cultural norms told them to.

Upon being transported across the Atlantic, the slaves found themselves in a situation that they were completely unable to understand. They had no experience of any of the economic activities that were going on here. They were uneducated in the sense that no-one had ever educated them in anything like this, not the sense that they were stupid. Coming from a situation where one was expected to work without pay anyway, its completely rational to assume that, (until they learnt otherwise), they did not understand that were entitled pay.

yeah but that ignorance did not follow to the generations born into slavery in the united states. in some instances slaves were allowed to work for money in their "spare" time.

no one can be kept so ignorant that they dont learn about wages

Yes you do. Wilgrove is correct on this count.

The African slaves were coming from a completely alien culture, with no knowledge of English and with a set of experiences of an economic system absolutely different to the Western model.

In Africa at the time, paid labour was rare, most of the continent still had a pre-monetary society. People worked in subsistance farming because a) that was where their food came from, and b) because all existing cultural norms told them to.


You are not talking about a lack of education here, you are talking about coming from a different culture. Two entirely seperate things.

The most uneducated person who is socially conditioned in a capitalist system will still have a basic understanding of labor for value. Little children who mow grass for their allowance understand this.

Conversly, even the wisest person who comes from a pre industrialized tribal Africa that you describe would find the idea completely foreign.

This is not about education, this is about culture. Now, fine, it's true that CULTURAL differences aided the enslavement of Africans. However to presume that the slaves just kept chugging along because they never "got" that they could ask for wages is ludicrus.

To whit:

New York Revolt of 1712
Stono Rebellion (1739)
New York Slave Insurrection of 1741
Gabriel's Rebellion (1800)
Chatham Manor Rebellion (1805)
Louisiana Territory Slave Rebellion, led by Charles Deslandes (1811)
George Boxley Rebellion (1815)
Fort Blount Revolt (1816)
Denmark Vesey's Uprising (1822)
Nat Turner's slave rebellion (1831)
Black Seminole Slave Rebellion (1835-1838)
Amistad Seizure (1839)
John Brown raids Harpers Ferry, Virginia (1859)

Actually it is, there was a reason the blacks were depraved of an education, and they were considered property, but the original reason for the slave trade was economic based.
That's bollocks that is. Really.

200 years ago, the average poor white person would have been about as well educated as the average poor black person. If it was truly about economics and education - and not race - then the Plantation owners would have used poor white people as slaves.
It makes much more economic sense shanghaing people from nearby slums than risking paying, sight unseen, for a ship to go 1/2 way round the world kidnapping a bunch of blacks and shipping them back.
Around 1/3 of the slaves never made it to the New World - they died in transit. Also ships were often lost at sea, along (of course) with all the slaves. Estimates are up to 4 million died before ever setting foot in the New World.
This cost would have been born by the Plantation owners.
So again, if it was just about economics and not race, surely the Plantation owners would have enslaved the local poor, dumb uneducated white folk - thus saving them a lot from their lost 'shipments'.


Religion had a lot to do with the justification of the slave trade. Black Africans were viewed as having descended from Ham's son, Canaan. Ham was the son of Noah who "saw the nakedness of his father (Noah)" (Genesis 9:22) and as a result Canaan was cursed by Noah, "and he (Noah) said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren" (Book of Genesis 9:26).
This was interpreted that all descendants of Canaan (ie. Black Africans) were to be slaves to the White Man.
It was a very common belief/justification around the time of slavery in the Americas. Soothed the conscience of many God-fearing plantation owners no doubt. And it explains why it was Blacks - and only Blacks - who were enslaved, and not equally dumb uneducated Whites.


btw bit of a Freudian slip there. True, one can become depraved from an education but methinks you doth mean 'deprived'.

I thought he was refering to the extension of the fudal system in the new world and the practice of endentured servitude...

My bad.

Bottle is a she. The 51% figure she mentioned meant women, not indentured servants.

Apparently slavery was only outlawed in Saudi Arabia in 1962. Such a forward looking country with such a deep love of freedom and human rights.

However, the Court of the as-Sauds has a notoriously weak control of its country. And slavery continues unperturbed in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, largely due to the considerable financial support of Westerners.

However, the Court of the as-Sauds has a notoriously weak control of its country. And slavery continues unperturbed in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, largely due to the considerable financial support of Westerners.

Would you like to prove the direct relationship between western nations and modern slavery, or are you comfortable on your highhorse?

Bottle is a she. The 51% figure she mentioned meant women, not indentured servants.


1. Ok, in my defense I grew up in a time when He was considered a generic pronoun...

And...

2. Oh jeez, you mean next she's gonna be spouting about how marriage is a form of legalized institutionalized rape??? Send in Calipso Louie, At least he has some points I can argue about instead of the femmenist crap that has no basis in reality.

I mean come on, through out time women have maintained control of men, and even forcably stopped wars. They've always been in control, and now that they've messed that up for themselves, they won't ever be happy.

yeah but that ignorance did not follow to the generations born into slavery in the united states. in some instances slaves were allowed to work for money in their "spare" time.

no one can be kept so ignorant that they dont learn about wages

You are not talking about a lack of education here, you are talking about coming from a different culture. Two entirely seperate things.

The most uneducated person who is socially conditioned in a capitalist system will still have a basic understanding of labor for value. Little children who mow grass for their allowance understand this.

Conversly, even the wisest person who comes from a pre industrialized tribal Africa that you describe would find the idea completely foreign.

This is not about education, this is about culture. Now, fine, it's true that CULTURAL differences aided the enslavement of Africans. However to presume that the slaves just kept chugging along because they never "got" that they could ask for wages is ludicrus.

To whit:

New York Revolt of 1712
Stono Rebellion (1739)
New York Slave Insurrection of 1741
Gabriel's Rebellion (1800)
Chatham Manor Rebellion (1805)
Louisiana Territory Slave Rebellion, led by Charles Deslandes (1811)
George Boxley Rebellion (1815)
Fort Blount Revolt (1816)
Denmark Vesey's Uprising (1822)
Nat Turner's slave rebellion (1831)
Black Seminole Slave Rebellion (1835-1838)
Amistad Seizure (1839)
John Brown raids Harpers Ferry, Virginia (1859)

Of course, what I was referring to was the experiences of the first generation slaves. I am certain that the next generations soon grasped that there was something... amiss with their situation. Therein lies the creulty.

And Arthais, education is essential in understanding another culture. Without being told what was going on, the slaves would have to rely on guesswork. Of course, the word 'uneducated' has a reputation for being a guarded way of saying 'stupid' - rest assured I was using the word in its most technical sense. However, generational experience would soon be enough of an education for the slaves to understand their situation.

Furthermore, thanks for the list, I may look some of those events up.

There was slavery far before diferent racial groups.

Anyway, if we were all black, none of us would be black.

There was slavery far before diferent racial groups.

Anyway, if we were all black, none of us would be black.

But we'd all be better dancers and athletes. /stereotype

Absolutely.

History shows that the vast bulk of slavery has not been on any particular racial basis, save for the slavery of the Americas.

That's bollocks that is. Really.

200 years ago, the average poor white person would have been about as well educated as the average poor black person. If it was truly about economics and education - and not race - then the Plantation owners would have used poor white people as slaves.
It makes much more economic sense shanghaing people from nearby slums than risking paying, sight unseen, for a ship to go 1/2 way round the world kidnapping a bunch of blacks and shipping them back.
Around 1/3 of the slaves never made it to the New World - they died in transit. Also ships were often lost at sea, along (of course) with all the slaves. Estimates are up to 4 million died before ever setting foot in the New World.
This cost would have been born by the Plantation owners.
So again, if it was just about economics and not race, surely the Plantation owners would have enslaved the local poor, dumb uneducated white folk - thus saving them a lot from their lost 'shipments'.


Religion had a lot to do with the justification of the slave trade. Black Africans were viewed as having descended from Ham's son, Canaan. Ham was the son of Noah who "saw the nakedness of his father (Noah)" (Genesis 9:22) and as a result Canaan was cursed by Noah, "and he (Noah) said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren" (Book of Genesis 9:26).
This was interpreted that all descendants of Canaan (ie. Black Africans) were to be slaves to the White Man.
It was a very common belief/justification around the time of slavery in the Americas. Soothed the conscience of many God-fearing plantation owners no doubt. And it explains why it was Blacks - and only Blacks - who were enslaved, and not equally dumb uneducated Whites.


btw bit of a Freudian slip there. True, one can become depraved from an education but methinks you doth mean 'deprived'.


they couldnt steal people from nearby because it was against the law. they could buy the contracts of indentured servants from europe and keep them as long as possible by manipulating the law--but the supply of indentured servants dried up after a while--or you could buy a an african slave outright.

the economics of the slave trade was no different from the economics of the sugar trade. boats sink; cargoes are lost. all that matters is whether or not the moneymen make a profit. they packed those ships as full of people as they could. well past humane levels. a ship that made it to the colonies with most of its human cargo made a splendid profit.

of course it was about economics. you dont stuff a ship over full of people and make a dangerous voyage across the sea for anything but money. if there hadnt been an african slave market selling people for cheap, no one would have bothered with it.

Absolutely.

History shows that the vast bulk of slavery has not been on any particular racial basis, save for the slavery of the Americas.


Ignorance and arrogance reigns immortal.

But we'd all be better dancers and athletes. /stereotype
There'd still be the 'white guy' equivalent of lousy dancer though. There always is and always will be.
He'd be better than us of course, but still not as good as the other black guys - and they'd let him know through condescending smirks etc.

Of course, what I was referring to was the experiences of the first generation slaves. I am certain that the next generations soon grasped that there was something... amiss with their situation. Therein lies the creulty.

And Arthais, education is essential in understanding another culture. Without being told what was going on, the slaves would have to rely on guesswork. Of course, the word 'uneducated' has a reputation for being a guarded way of saying 'stupid' - rest assured I was using the word in its most technical sense. However, generational experience would soon be enough of an education for the slaves to understand their situation.

Furthermore, thanks for the list, I may look some of those events up.


start with the louisiana slave rebellion.

...or white, or some colour in between, would there be slavery? Would the various conquerors of the world have accepted other people because of a shared racial identity, or would they find some other excuse to subjugate people?


(I believe so, but that's just me).

Well, there are always other differences on which people can base their ignorant hatred, such as which idol "the other guys" worship, politics, which guys cut bits of their penises...etc

Would you like to prove the direct relationship between western nations and modern slavery, or are you comfortable on your highhorse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Dubai

One amongst many buildings on the Arab peninsula built by workers who receive a net loss for their labour, almost entirely for the benefit of Westerners. As long as people in the West keep expressing an interest in living in these 'paradises', then the Arabs continue to con workers from around the world to work in conditions where they face unacceptably hazardous conditions (the mortality rate in UAE construction projects is worse than some war-zones), with no ability to leave.

So if opposing modern-day slavery, especially when it is backed by my own countrymen, means that I am on a high horse, then all I have to say is 'giddy-up'.

Italians, Irish, Poles and Germans are all 'white', aren't they?

Well my grandparents still tell stories about how much these people hated one another, and the sorts of stereotypes they openly expressed about people from different 'white' groups.

Even countries with fairly homogenous populations in terms of skin colour find ways to look down on one another, either on a rural/urban divide, or a class divide.

Skin colour is just one of many excuses to treat other human beings like shit in order to boost one's own ego.

Ignorance and arrogance reigns immortal.

Really?

I think its very wise to have a slave. He takes care of all the work while you just chill.

Hell, people done it until 50 years ago. If there is one thing that I know about humans is that if it works, it is used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Dubai

One amongst many buildings on the Arab peninsula built by workers who receive a net loss for their labour, almost entirely for the benefit of Westerners. As long as people in the West keep expressing an interest in living in these 'paradises', then the Arabs continue to con workers from around the world to work in conditions where they face unacceptably hazardous conditions (the mortality rate in UAE construction projects is worse than some war-zones), with no ability to leave.

So if opposing modern-day slavery, especially when it is backed by my own countrymen, means that I am on a high horse, then all I have to say is 'giddy-up'.

You gave me a picture of a building with no evidence that anything you say is true.

Oh my Stars and Garters, they hired an architect from Chicago!!!!

What other western involvement in that project is there?

Could it be that you are desperately trying to find a way to blame the actions of what you consided ignorant savages on the people around you?

I would call that racism.

Really?

I think its very wise to have a slave. He takes care of all the work while you just chill.

Hell, people done it until 50 years ago. If there is one thing that I know about humans is that if it works, it is used.

its better to hire an illegal immigrant mexican woman to come in a few times a week and pay her under the table. she'll do all the work that needs doing and you have no more responsibility to her if she gets sick or into legal trouble.

Reading this thread and decided to post a little anecdote from my time down south.
I lived in Tobacco Country in North Carolina..no seriously thats what they call it down there.

The tobacco farmers down there may pay their Mexican and black workers now but racism and slave mentality is alive and well.
On more than one ocassion I heard more than one farmer refer to his workers like this
"Oh him, thats my (n word)." And this in reference not only to black men but mexicans as well.

In reference to mexicans I was told "them are just light skinned (n word)."

Racism is alive and well down south. Usually in hushed tones. "So as not to rile up"them uppity northern (n word). Our (n word)'s know their place."

My thought on the posted questions some scientists say wait 50-100 years and we'll all be brown skinned. *shrugs*

Of course, what I was referring to was the experiences of the first generation slaves. I am certain that the next generations soon grasped that there was something... amiss with their situation. Therein lies the creulty.


I think there was a great deal of cruelty even in the first generation. And while you might be right that the first generation of slaves didn't consider asking for a wage, that doesn't mean they considered their situation normal either.

OK yeah they didn't come from a capitalist system so the idea of labor for value was foreign to them. But being sealed in a boat, packed to the gills with others, chained, bound, delivered on to land, inspected, beatten then worked partially to death was still not in their typical frame of reference. I'm sure the very first slaves, even if they had no concept of "wage" were quite aware something was amiss.

I think there was a great deal of cruelty even in the first generation. And while you might be right that the first generation of slaves didn't consider asking for a wage, that doesn't mean they considered their situation normal either.

OK yeah they didn't come from a capitalist system so the idea of labor for value was foreign to them. But being sealed in a boat, packed to the gills with others, chained, bound, delivered on to land, inspected, beatten then worked partially to death was still not in their typical frame of reference. I'm sure the very first slaves, even if they had no concept of "wage" were quite aware something was amiss.

You realy don't have a clue as to the conditions they came from, do you?

They only thing different was the boat and the chains.

You realy don't have a clue as to the conditions they came from, do you?

They only thing different was the boat and the chains.

.......you do realize that's like saying that the only difference between me and beethoven is that he could play piano and I can't, right?

In other words, that's a HUGE FREAKING DIFFERENCE. The cramped into a boat, chained, and shipped to foreign lands bit? Yeah, big difference from the norm.

Now seriously, whose puppet are you? You're too over the top to be real.

Another related interesting misconception is that the term indian is not an insult or misapplied. It in fact has nothing to do with India, but relates instead to Columbus's first description of the people he found here "Indio con dios" or translated, "The People of God"

I've never before heard this. I was always taught that it was the fact Columbus was actually searching for India when he found the Americas that gave the native people that name.....

You property prof needs to do some more reading about the legal history in our country. Women were legally property of their husbands in many of the first colonies, and the laws regarding the legal status of women in the States after the formation of the Union very often specifically treated women as property.

For even longer, women were treated as essentially having the same legal status as minors. If you familiarize yourself with a lot of the laws, you'll find that legal minors have been essentially regarded as the "property" of their guardians, though the wording is usually designed to soften the way this sounds (because most people aren't comfortable with the notion of kids being property).


Minors are not property at all, and calling them such shows a misunderstanding of the word property.

Property has two defining legal characteristics. It can be legally conveyed, and it can be legally destroyed.

My house, if I had one, could be sold or given away. I could also bulldoze it to the ground.

Cattle can be sold, and turned into beef.

My cat can be given away, and put down.

A slave could be sold, and killed, without legal penalty.

At no point could one fully legally kill his own wife. At no point could one fully legally kill his own child. Likewise you could not sell your wife.

The defining characteristic of property is that one is granted certain legal rights over his or her property. Some of those rights have never extended to women. Because no person could ever claim rights over a woman to the extent that that person could claim rights over his posessions, it is improper to ever call them treated as property.

Treated as inferior certainly. But not property. Property, as I said, means that the property holder has certain legal rights. That wasn't fully the case.

Reading this thread and decided to post a little anecdote from my time down south.
I lived in Tobacco Country in North Carolina..no seriously thats what they call it down there.

The tobacco farmers down there may pay their Mexican and black workers now but racism and slave mentality is alive and well.
On more than one ocassion I heard more than one farmer refer to his workers like this
"Oh him, thats my (n word)." And this in reference not only to black men but mexicans as well.

In reference to mexicans I was told "them are just light skinned (n word)."

Racism is alive and well down south. Usually in hushed tones. "So as not to rile up"them uppity northern (n word). Our (n word)'s know their place."

My thought on the posted questions some scientists say wait 50-100 years and we'll all be brown skinned. *shrugs*

Well, yes, there are places and people that are racist. They exist everywhere, not just in the south, but in the north, and all over the world.

However, here, in the United States, you cannot legislate racism. Furthermore, if someone tries to hurt somone for their race or any other reason, they can and often are punished.

If you go out in the world, particularly in a place wher you are in the minority, then you will find that racism is alive and well, and in most places, you, being the minority, will have no defense against it.

As for us all turning brown, more likely it will be closer to 1000 years, but, yes it is comming.

You realy don't have a clue as to the conditions they came from, do you?

They only thing different was the boat and the chains.

what do you mean by the conditions they came from?

what do you mean by the conditions they came from?

Well, they lived under despotic monarchies that practiced an active slave trade throughout europe.

The people were considered universally to be slaves underthe ownership of the king to greater and lesser extents.

Rape and murder and torture by members of the royal family were often considered entertainment, study gladiators for examples.

The idea of being whipped to force work was not at all alien to them. If anything the Americans we far less violent because of the expense of purchasing and training slaves. African royalty could just grab another one off the streets, if one died, there were pleanty more.

So, in reality, as opposed to revisionist history, Africa was not the idealist paradise everyone wants to pretend it was. And though slavery was and is a cruel in human practice, it did not quite live up to the hype.

Modern slavery is a whole different ball of wax.

Please note, the OP has the intellect and historical awareness of a bathrobe. Skin colour is no more relevant in xenophobia and antipathy than any other discernable, or fabricated, difference.

In any case, was slavery prosecuted simply because we sought to subjugate and oppress Africans? Of course not, it was an economic expediant, as was the deportation of WHITE British convicts to Australia.

Well, they lived under despotic monarchies that practiced an active slave trade throughout europe.

The people were considered universally to be slaves underthe ownership of the king to greater and lesser extents.

Rape and murder and torture by members of the royal family were often considered entertainment, study gladiators for examples.

The idea of being whipped to force work was not at all alien to them. If anything the Americans we far less violent because of the expense of purchasing and training slaves. African royalty could just grab another one off the streets, if one died, there were pleanty more.

So, in reality, as opposed to revisionist history, Africa was not the idealist paradise everyone wants to pretend it was. And though slavery was and is a cruel in human practice, it did not quite live up to the hype.

Modern slavery is a whole different ball of wax.

oh thats just stupid.

its NOT better to be in chains in the united states being whipped into submission than it is to be living under a despotic king while living in the bosom of your family.

oh thats just stupid.

its NOT better to be in chains in the united states being whipped into submission than it is to be living under a despotic king while living in the bosom of your family.

Thank you so much. In any case, I rather think the poster you quoted might have failed to appreciate that, at the zenith of early modern slavery, the term "despotism" could hardly be applied to any European state except for sensationalist ends.