Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm sort of like the modern world buying goods manufactured in sweat shops across the globe. Doesn't happen here in the good ole' USA, but in those heathen Asian countries.
Some things never change.
Working in a "sweat shop" fits your definition of slavery? Are not these "slaves" free to relinquish their jobs any time they wish to the others lining up for them?
Those captives were also put to work on unpleasant tasks like tanning buffalo hides, according to accounts by those captured by the Comanche.
Another common task performed by native american held slaves was fetching water.
Water is not only heavy, but needed daily. Though natives tried to live close to it, that was not always possible. When it needed to be hauled dominant tribes considered the task beneath them. Native held slaves brought it using pots.
As a side note the Apaches had a Spartan like slave system where slaves could be promoted to honorary Apaches providing they had Apache like traits. Those that did not meet the grade were held in bondage. When informed about emancipation of US slaves after the civil war, an Apache chief in Arizona stated that the Apaches would free their slaves only of the Mexicans freed enslaved Apaches first.
Not sure how common it was for Kings to sell members of their own tribe into slavery. That would have depopulated their tribe. Instead Africans were selling people from rival/enemy tribes into slavery.
African kings were selling members of both their tribe and rivals. You were either a prisoner of war, had unpaid debts, or sold by your own family to the tribal chief.
Quote:
African states played a role in the slave trade, and slavery was a common practice among Sub Saharan Africans before the involvement of the Arabs, Berbers and Europeans. There were three types: those who were slaves through conquest, those who were slaves due to unpaid debts, or those whose parents gave them as slaves to tribal chiefs. Chieftains would barter their slaves to Arab, Berber, Ottoman or European buyers for rum, spices, cloth or other goods.[44] Selling captives or prisoners was commonly practiced among Africans, Turks, Berbers and Arabs during that era.
Let's get over the "whites had slaves, Indians were pure" etc.
ALL RACES ALL CULTURES practiced slavery.
Bingo. As already pointed out, the biggest slave owners on this side of the world were Brazilians. People of color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
Here in the good ole United States, we just erected some Good Ole Jim Crow laws to keep those slaves in their place.
You allow a certain group of people to not assimilate, not to buy homes in certain Neighborhoods as to create Generational Wealth then sit and wonder why they have yet to Assimilate.
But that's for another thread
Name one 1st world country where the minority have more wealth than the majority.
You have some outrageous idea where you believe 13% of the population is ever going to have as much as 77% population. The math doesn't work.
As a black man, generational wealth starts at home. And we have a lot of issues to worry about before we even think about wealth. i.e. fatherless homes, crimes, education, health, etc. It's kind of hard to be rich when you're shooting eachother and going to jail.
While believing what you read on the Web should be taken with a grain of salt at times, especially on a web forum, SJW liberals could learn somethings with the info provided on this thread. I don't deny that a good amount of the American tragedies in the past and even present were probably brought on by the White people. However, other races/ethnicities had many members who did similar atrocities. However, that didn't justify what they did.
What led to the Five Civilized tribes to adopt slavery?
This is from a few years back when some Cherokee Freedmen(Black slave descendants of the Cherokee)were trying to get recognized as members of the Cherokee.
Those are Cherokees who were part white or mostly white. They adopted the practice of the European colonists and intermarried with them very frequently. Hence, the Confederates had Cherokee soldiers - many part white or mostly white.
Keep in mind that the tribes in that area are now mostly extinct - meaning the "full-blooded" members who spoke the language. The part-white Cherokee Confederates who managed to stay in the southern states like GA and AL were often descended from a white father and Cherokee mother. This patrilineal union through a white father gave them "rights" to stay in Georgia while others were forced to leave on the "Trail of Tears".
The Seminoles actually joined with escaped African slaves who left the southern plantations. The African slaves often became tribal members - Chief Osceola himself was said to be part black as many Seminoles are. This is obvious if you ever see them in person - they are often mixed with African and European ancestry.
By the mid 1800s most true full-blooded, 4/4 Native American tribes of the southeastern USA were extinct. Those slave owners you speak of were typically part white and adopted the tradition from the English settlers because many were part English through marriage - typically a white English father.
You do realize, right, that white people who settled the Southern US did NOT invent slavery.
Of course not, but what the southern whites did develop was race based slavery, eventually morphing into a doctrine of black slavery being the natural and proper condition for negro men and women because of their obvious and inherent inferiority. Before the 1830's slavery was marketed as a necessary evil, after it was sold as a positive good, as in the slaves being extremely fortunate to have a white master race to guide and control them.
Of course not, but what the southern whites did develop was race based slavery, eventually morphing into a doctrine of black slavery being the natural and proper condition for negro men and women because of their obvious and inherent inferiority. Before the 1830's slavery was marketed as a necessary evil, after it was sold as a positive good, as in the slaves being extremely fortunate to have a white master race to guide and control them.
The African slave trade started long before slavery became widespread in the American South, and indeed before the even WAS an American South. By 1550, the Portuguese were bringing slaves to Brazil in numbers much larger than was ever done in the US. Much like would later be the case in the US South, slavery became the basis of the Brazilian economy. Far from a "necessary evil", the elites in Brazil certainly considered it a positive good.
I am certainly not excusing what the Southern plantation owners did. Their use of slavery was certainly reprehensible, and many in the South actually did know this. However, slavery formed the entire basis of their wealth and the economy as a whole. The elimination of slavery following the war (in combination with the destruction caused by the war itself) did in fact lead to an economic collapse in the American South. The plantation owners were proven correct in that regard.
Now, knowing that what you are doing is ethically wrong, but realizing that you cannot stop doing it without completely collapsing your economy and plunging yourself into poverty, what do you do? You do exactly what those Southerners did; you rationalize. You make up reasons to believe that what you know deep down to be a reprehensible practice is actually beneficial to the people that you're harming. You make up stories about how what you're doing is "natural and proper". Of course, these Southerners may not have realized that this is what they were doing. The notions of racial inequality were baked into Southern society and were largely unquestioned. But you mentioned the 1830's as the time when these justifications started to occur. Think about the history of the antebellum US. What was happening in the 1830's? That was the time when the abolition movement was gaining traction in the North. Faced with the perceived threat of Northerners trying to end the practice that formed the very foundation of the Southern economy, the slave owners fought back with these justifications. It was an ethically reprehensible thing to do (especially by today's standards), but it was also something that was a perfectly natural thing to do.
You wrote this and followed it with a list of excuses for the south.
No, it's the rationalizations that the Southern plantation owners themselves used. I am not saying that these justify what they did. This is a history forum, not the "let's judge others by our own moral standards" forum. This was what happened; whether I happen to believe that they were justified or not is irrelevant. These were the arguments put forth by the Southern leaders; I have given my opinion about WHY they put those arguments out there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
