How was slavery introduced into America

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by arauca, Feb 21, 2013.

  1. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Bringing slaves is a business , and it follows the law of supply and demand.

    So there must have been a supplier in Africa a middle man purchaser , a transportation means , a warehousing place, then delivery to the market , and final the buyer of the slave .

    In short who is the responsible of the human misery .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Are you familiar with the concept of vertical integration? A single company can provide the entire chain.

    In any case, slavery in the US was just spun-off from slavery in Europe. It wasn't so much "started" as expanded.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    African tribes captured their rivals and sold them to slavers. But that doesn't necessarily make them responsible. The demand for any product is what drives the business. Try google.com for more info.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    The early blacks introduced into North America were not slaves but serfs same as white poor.
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    which is also a kind of slavery. What's your point?
     
  9. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    A serf can walk away a slave cannot , you are a serf at your job but then you can quit or run away, but not a slave
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    The major difference was that an indentured servant knows their slavery would end eventually. But they were still not free. They could not legally run away or quit.
     
  11. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    an Indian or white serf could easily run away. They would blend in with the indigenous and/or local population. How does an early black serf run away? Where are they gonna blend?
     
    Waiter_2001 likes this.
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I think the Portuguese were the primary slave middlemen. Portugal was noted for sailing and their country was situated for easy access to Africa. They would sail to Africa and pay local African traders to capture other Africans. These cultures made it possible.

    The African gatherers, of the African slaves, were brutal as they gathered unwilling product for market. The boat trip was tough and often subject to disease and inhumane conditions that would also result in attrition. There was a concentration effect. The owners had to pay good money and were the most likely to maintain the health of the slaves, since it was an investment. Yet revisionist history blames the owners the most since this is deep pockets. More slaves were killed by blacks during gathering sessions.

    Another consideration is which is better off today, the descendants of 19th century slaves or the descendants of those left behind in Africa? One can answer this by looking at the net direction of migration and immigration today. That are not many well off blacks in slave countries migrating back to Africa, even if that is so much better in the sales pitch.

    The great-great slave grandparents sacrificed to make it better for the future generations of blacks who now want retribution for something they never personally experienced. They also wish those who never owned slaves, who ancestors may have been serfs in Europe, to feel guilty and pay for something they never did; thieves exploiting empathic people.
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,133
    Oh yeah, those poor misunderstood slave owners.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Many of your post are just so odd......
     
  14. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    In Brazil there were many runaway, were they penetrated into the rain forests and established their community called "quilombo" some of this community were found int 1960 whan the government resided to explore natural resources deep in the Amazon .
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    my opinion is that a group of americans went to the Caribbean, seen how the blacks were being used there, then decided to have some shipped to america.
    BTW, about 15% went to the american mainland.
    the lions share went to the caribbean.

    the tragedy of that scenario boggles the mind.
    the slave shps, being separated from your family, treated as an animal.
     
  16. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564


    You might be right .

    The Spaniard introduced black slave worker into Cuba . Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, and other islands for sugar plantation and so did the Brits. but it is interesting how the French got into Haiti since the Spanish got the other side of the island .
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    There was no single group that dominated the supply side of the slave trade. Other posters have named several groups who played a major role, including Africans themselves. Arabs have not yet been mentioned and they also had a large stake in African side of the slave trade.

    The slaveowners in Brazil have been called the cruelest in the hemisphere.

    Haiti and the United States are the only two countries in the Western Hemisphere that ended slavery by violence. In the rest of the Americas it faded away through attrition. The new industrial model of producing goods--everything from crops to textiles to machinery--demanded workers who took a personal interest in their work, had motiviation, were reasonably well-educated (by the standards of the day) and could be counted on to work well and hard without intrusive supervision. These are not the characteristics of involuntary employees or "slaves." These are the hallmarks of paid workers who go home to their own families at night and can be reliably expected to come back in the morning.

    Even before the American Civil War, German immigrants in Texas demonstrated the fact that paid, free farmhands outproduced slaves in the cotton fields--then the American South's most important crop. One of the major reasons for the continuation of slavery is that the weather was so horrible that it was not easy to recruit free men to live and work there. It still is horrible, but air conditioning has resulted in a lot of migration of free people from the North in recent decades. So has the mechanization of farming, which no longer requires millions of humans to spend all day, every day, in the fields under the hot sun.

    In Latin America slavery continued without military intervention, but the slaveowners kept finding that slavery was not the most profitable way to produce food or other products. They slowly let their slaves walk away and make their own lives--or simply rehire as employees.

    This method of ending slavery took a generation longer than in the USA, but 150 years later the side-effects have proven to be much less dire. Here in the USA there is still tremendous animosity between Southerners and the rest of us, we still have separate populations of "black" and "white" Americans, each with their own dialect, music and other culture, and there's still an enormous disparity in both income and freedom between the two peoples. It would be an exaggeration to say that there is no vestige of racism in Latin America, but it is a faint shadow of what it is here, with a population that comes in the whole spectrum of "brown," rather than being either "black" or "white." (Yes there is tremendous racism toward Native Americans down there, but that is a topic for another discussion.)

    So economics played a key role in the history of slavery, but so did weather and politics.

    Slavery ended in Brazil in 1888, the last nation in the Western Hemisphere to close the book on that shameful chapter in the history of the New World.
     
  18. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    486
    origin, wellwisher's post was not in support of slave owners or slave suppliers.
     
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Apart from who was historical responsible for slaves, modern humans had nothing to do with that time in history, anymore than modern humans should claim responsibility or credit for the Revolutionary War. There is a natural flow and sequence of time, based on cause and effect.

    In revisionists history, time sequence can be distorted. If this mind game is the new fad, why not extend it to personal customization? I would like to accept credit for the Roman Empire. According to the schema of revisionists history, I only have to show a superficial connection, but I can ignore the cause and effect and sequence of time. It is not important that I prove I was there doing anything at that time. That is not how the game works I only have to make any parallel. Caesar was male and I am male therefore I started the pinnacle Roman empire according to rules of revisionist history. The Museums who have my Roman artifacts should pay me since they are responsible for looting me, since time sequence is not important.

    In a more rational world, we would look at history in the context of the cause and effect of a given time. Things are specific to that given time. This means people of that time did not think in the context of the future with 20/20 hindsight, but within the understanding of their own time. Priorities were different in different areas of time. This also means there is nobody in the present, who is still alive, who had anything directly to do with that time, since there is nobody who is 150 plus years old.

    Atheism should speak up about the sequence of time, since they have a connection to science and science backs what I say. Religion has concepts that can transcend time. As such, I would infer that revisionist history is based on a type of religion that can bend time and merge past and present in an irrational way; violation of separation of church and state.
     
  20. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    In the slavery time I assume the small slave owner ( generally ) was be more benevolent then the merchant who is selling the slave . The slave owner had an investment and if the investment is productive it will be treated well for a longer time and if the slave reproduce themselves it will perpetuate a labor force . And as time passes on normally there will be established a relation between the slave and the owner , and the slave and the owner will have a relationship like a family.
     
  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Awww... isn't that sweet?
     
  22. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I would call it condescending racist quackery, but hey.
     
  23. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    If you never had a live in maid then you would understand, otherwise you can not undrstand how such bonds are formed.
     

Share This Page