Slavery wasn't racial, just an economic model.

This is an interesting one , a rebellious Englishman backs the wrong horse by siding with the Duke of Monmouth, he gets deported as a slave to the West Indies. Manages to get his sister to buy him out, then imports slaves to run his plantations. Bristol was made on the Slave Trade, and is just recently remembering its past.www.youtube.com...

a reply to: anonentity

Terms like miscegenation were heavily used in the pro/anti-slavery debates to reconcile the inhumanity with religious beliefs. How can a God-fearing man place his fellow men in captivity and treat them barbarically? It's easy when they define them as closer to beasts and therefore part of God's plan of Manifest Destiny for stout Christian traders.

It was always an economic model, but it was defended and characterised by racial segregation.

It was a business model wrongly reconciled and legitimized by elitism and racism.

Ex:
(it's Ok for me to own this slave because he is poor gutter scum. I'm better than him.

It's Ok for me to own this slave because he's black/brown and not even a real person.)

Anything can be justified by those commiting the actions. Just look at the Nazis or Islamic extremists. It's the same mental gymnastics that enabled slavery.

a reply to: anonentity
Historically, slavery was "racial" only in the sense that communities would always look for slaves among outsiders.
The English word "slave" is derived from "Slav", because the Slavs were the most popular victims of the early Middle Ages.

a reply to: anonentity

Here are some excerpts from Texas's A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Nah, nothing to do with race. (eye roll*

Hopefully that's enough to disabuse you of this absurd notion but if not, let me know and I can provide more.

I always thought of race and slavery in terms of actions lead to thoughts, thoughts don't lead to action. That is, slavery wasn't in itself based on race, as there were many free black plantation owners who themselves owned slaves. But because most slaves were black, people just kinda started thinking of them that way. Then again, I could very well be wrong. Just how I've always thought of it...

a reply to: theantediluvian

It is recent history in which that thought process was quite common worldwide. In America, it was just an easily definable difference to see blacks and whites. The same people would say the same thing about Irish people or Jewish people or [insert anything here] people, and it'd be worded slightly differently. But it's all the same idea. The world wasn't always how it is now. If Africans were white, they'd say the same thing without referring to the "white race" and call it something else to distinguish that superiority over the "others."

I have to agree partially with you on this, initially slavery was really not race based it was simply a condition, but in the west it increasingly took on a racial aspect, especially since Black bondsmen and Whites were rebelling and escaping together.

Runaway slaves and indentured servants were a persistent problem for landowners in colonial Virginia. They fled from abusive masters, to take a break from work, or in search of family members from whom they had been separated. Some servants were lured away by neighbors attempting to steal labor. Early court cases reveal that whites and blacks sometimes ran off together but that punishments for the latter could be much harsher. As early as 1643, the General Assembly passed laws that established penalties for runaway slaves and servants, regulated their movement, identified multiple offenders (by branding them or cutting their hair), and provided rewards for their capture. In October 1669, the burgesses admitted that these laws "have hitherto in greate parte proved ineffectuall," as slaves and servants continued to brave wide rivers, often dangerous Indians, and the storm-tossed Chesapeake Bay. They fled mostly into Maryland but sometimes as far north as New Netherland and New England. In 1705 a sweeping new law allowed planters to discipline slaves to death or, in some cases, to kill runaways without penalty. Robert "King" Carter sought and received permission to dismember his runaways.
www.encyclopediavirginia.org...#

A critical point came for divide and conquer came after the Bacon Rebellion.

n 1676, Nathaniel Bacon led a rebellion against the colonial government that was fueled by fear and hatred of Indians. Although Bacon served on the governor's Council and was one of the richest men in the colony, his followers included large numbers of disaffected servants, both black and white. Not long after the rebellion, the number of white indentured servants began to drop and the number of enslaved Africans to increase greatly. At the same time, Virginia began to pass laws that instituted much more rigid distinctions between white and nonwhite, free and slave. Some scholars have argued that the rebellion forced Virginia's landowners to acknowledge the danger of a large population of restive servants in their midst, a danger they addressed by relying more on the labor of slaves, whom they considered to be safer. Slaves, after all, were less likely to become free and take up arms against the colony. Other scholars have suggested that the move to slave labor should be linked more to economic than to social causes, but either way, slaves continued attempting to win their freedom by running away. Virginia landowners found runaway slaves to be more manageable than servants. Because their condition came to be defined by the color of their skin, slaves were more easily identified and captured. For that reason, the law no longer found it necessary to threaten branding or to "enjoyn" offenders to keep their hair cropped short. In addition, slaves were much less likely than servants to find allies outside their masters' properties, especially in a society primed, as Virginia was, for racial animus. By this time, too, the socioeconomic gulf between rich planters and their servants had widened; by the beginning of the eighteenth century, Virginia was run by an elite planter class. Finally, when nearly all blacks were enslaved, few could do as "John Casor Negro" did in 1654 and attempt to pass for anything other than a slave.
www.encyclopediavirginia.org...

In Eastern and African societies slavery never took on a racial character, although a geographical area may mark individuals as having a probable slave origin, but anyone could be a slave however chattle slavery was rare and upward mobility was quite possible, it wasn't unusual for a former slave to be come king or head of the family or clan that once own you.

a reply to: Spider879when the fact remains it was really an economic one.


So it looks like being a Negro was a good excuse, to make slavery into a racial issue, when the white slaves were elevated to being the freemen. Bering in mind it was only after the Black death had decimated most of Europe, to cause a dire shortage of labour, which was in fact prior to its onslaught, surfs were owned by the landowner. Which was still the case in Russia until the time of the revolution. But the fact remains when the steam traction engine arrived Slavery became uneconomic. It has never taken off again since, whereas prior to the steam engine, slavery existed in every prior society, as an economic necessity. Not a racial one.

Typically slavery included dehumanising the victim. If slaves are less than human then they can be poorly treated.

In the recent history of Europe, the US and South America slavery was a racial thing, primarily people from Africa who were (basically) black, and therefore easily differentiated. However, slavery is not just a western because the Arabs traded in black people well before Europe got in the act.

Outside of the west slavery was rife in all other cultures and societies, and it stretched back through history. Slavery in China goes back centuries ans still persists today, even though it was outlawed in 1949. In China slaves came from as far afield as Africa and places nearer to home like Korea and Mongolia, so easily differentiated by ethnicity.

Um, HUH...


Goodbye Uncle Tom! "Warning Graphic Content"

originally posted by: anonentity
But the fact remains when the steam traction engine arrived Slavery became uneconomic. It has never taken off again since, whereas prior to the steam engine, slavery existed in every prior society, as an economic necessity. Not a racial one.

The invention of the printing press, which heralded the age of mass communications (which also just so happened to run along side this 'it wasnt economical' concept herein, might have also had some bearing on that narrative?!?!!?

It absolutely is a business model, if you look at emerging markets like China, Bangladesh etc they need it to be able to remain competitive. It was just easier to do it to blacks at that time because the people profiting from it and going along with it felt no emotional connection to them, same way we don't spend a great deal of time thinking about sweatshop workers and continue to prop up the companies that profit from them.

You'd be hard pressed to find any empire that wasnt almost totally reliant on it during the building phase.

Just think about it,were the slaves freed? no now the slaves are called taxpayers,they made laws against indentured servants,but if you don't pay your taxes you can be imprisoned and have your assets taken,we are now slaves with something to lose is all,our government is too big,you buy a home but the property is owned by the government,in essence lipstick on a pig,and we bought it

Slavery became racial due to the fact that both Native Americans (Caribs, Taino and Arawak people) and Whites were simply not hardy enough for the work on sugar plantations. The work literally killed them necessitating the importation of people more used to the hot climate and hard labor. This was when it became lucrative to take Black slaves from the African coast.

The video in the OP is excellent. it traces the slave trade to Bristol, England and shows how slavery grew due to their export business.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: anonentity

Terms like miscegenation were heavily used in the pro/anti-slavery debates to reconcile the inhumanity with religious beliefs. How can a God-fearing man place his fellow men in captivity and treat them barbarically? It's easy when they define them as closer to beasts and therefore part of God's plan of Manifest Destiny for stout Christian traders.

It was always an economic model, but it was defended and characterised by racial segregation.

They literally used the bible as justification.

a reply to: Oldtimer2

na, the taxpayers have always been around...
the slaves turned into employees. where weather the slave was stuck for life with one master, or if he was traded to another was up to the master, the employee, if he didn't like the treatment of his master, could take it upon himself to find another master. over time this forced the masters to be kinder... but at the other end of that, the master usually invested into the purchase of the slave, and had an interest in keeping the slave alive and productive. this was lost when it came to employees. unless the employee could develop a skill set that made him not so easy to be replaced, the employer really had no interest on weather he was fed or sheltered, weather he remained alive or not.

a reply to: sine.nomine

The Cherokee Indians (of which Im part)...had a form of government, social systems and language....and were into the slave trade as well. No matter the color....slavery comes in all colors...always had.

The Jews were slaves to Pharaoh

Every single race that has walked the planet has been a slave at one point or another. It's not just a black and white thing. It's the most recent of occurrences in the USA.

I find it quite odd that those that speak up against slavery don't realize that we are just as much slaves as humans were back then.

Before you put your panties in a wad. Hear me out.

We have to go to work to earn paper to trade for food and board. These green rectangles in your purse and wallet are completely and totally worthless. It's only value is what we place on it. Yet, somehow nothing is making every work.

We are a slave to money no more then being a slave for food and board. Just fewer beatings and more conformed to it.

Also. Please, you black, African Americans or however you want to word yourself. You were not a slave like your ancestors. So stop whining. In fact be grateful for it. It got you and your family from being massacred or becoming lion poop. Your here and not there. So silver lining folks.

I'm all for taking our degenerates and criminals to be making McD toys and lawn furniture. Or like the old days building our roads. We have to get them doing something. They get to sit around watch TV on our hard earned money.

a reply to: anonentity

Slavery was very much an economic model of the time.

My family is Choctaw and until the end of the Civil War were some of the largest slave owners in the South, both in Oklahoma and Mississippi.

The family has all the records going back to the early 1800's. Slaves were very important; most were placed in positions of oversight of operations and managing the migrant labor force.

They were treated very well there...without them operations and production would have taken a huge hit.

mg

a reply to: theantediluvian
Why all the emphasis on American slaves all the while. The amount of slaves transported to America were a pittance compared to the rest of America (Caribbean and South America).
Numbers banded about show 10.7 million African slaves were transported across the Atlantic, yet only 388,000 reached North America.