Why Did Native Americans Practice Slavery? (greatest, Mayan, country, ancestors)

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by stremba

This was what happened; whether I happen to believe that they were justified or not is irrelevant. .

We all already know what happened, and we all already know what the southern reasons for secession were. The only thing of interest here would be whether or not you thought that they were justified, the very thing you declare irrelevant.

So, do you think that they were justified?

[stremba]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

We all already know what happened, and we all already know what the southern reasons for secession were. The only thing of interest here would be whether or not you thought that they were justified, the very thing you declare irrelevant.

So, do you think that they were justified?

For the record I don't, but this is NOT a political forum. It's a history forum where we discuss historical events as they happened. My thoughts on the ethics of Southern plantation owners means nothing in terms of the discussion of the rationalizations that they used to justify slavery, nor with the reasons why they made such rationalizations. I was simply discussing historical events (hence the name of the forum). Obviously, we cannot know with certainty all the motivations of antebellum Southern plantations owners -- they are dead. That's why I was speculating about why they made the claims that they did to justify the practice of slavery.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by stremba

For the record I don't, but this is NOT a political forum. It's a history forum where we discuss historical events as they happened. My thoughts on the ethics of Southern plantation owners means nothing in terms of the discussion of the rationalizations that they used to justify slavery, nor with the reasons why they made such rationalizations. I was simply discussing historical events (hence the name of the forum). Obviously, we cannot know with certainty all the motivations of antebellum Southern plantations owners -- they are dead. That's why I was speculating about why they made the claims that they did to justify the practice of slavery.

The origins and justification for slavery certainly is a history topic, we have had many threads here where it has been discussed.

[kovert]

The coastal Atlantic Aboriginals were considered "civilized" if they assimilated into the Nordic centered plantation civilization.

So yes they aped massah (often his most disgusting & despicable habits), just like the rest of massahs' wards & dependents did (and quite frankly continue to do so to this day).

Even before they were deported from the plantation Atlantic coast, many of the leadership, especially, were descendants of massah & his colored concubines.

When they were pushed into Indian Country from down in Oklahoma up to Nebraska, & as well along the Aboriginals of the Gulf Coast, the area was opened up to WASP settlers too, even though technically they were not yet U.S.citiizens & supposed to be under their own jurisdiction with self support & gubbernance.

Of course before the plantationists moved into the Americas I doubt there was a utopia, so I guess the debate is about scale.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by stremba

The African slave trade started long before slavery became widespread in the American South, and indeed before the even WAS an American South.

Indeed. Muslim Arabs initiated the African slave trade 700 years before Europeans became involved.

The Muslim Arabs transported African slaves through the Muslim Arab Empire, to the east coast of Africa, to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, and then to Malaysia and Indonesia.

It was, in fact, Muslim Arabs who introduced slavery to the Spanish and Portuguese.

Originally Posted by grouse789

Hmm sort of like the modern world buying goods manufactured in sweat shops across the globe.

Spoken like someone who has zero understanding of the history of Economics and economic development.

The 194 countries of Earth are in various stages of economic development. Many countries are still Zero Level Economies, meaning 90% of the population is engaged in agriculture. Agricultural economies are labor intensive and children in those economies work, because if children don't work, then people die of starvation.

Eventually, countries advance into the 1st Level Economy, where they develop natural resources, like timber, oil, coal, natural gas, all manner of metallic ores like iron, bauxite, lead, gold, silver, copper, tin, zinc, nickel etc and non-metallic minerals like phosphorus and various salts.

Initially, they will only harvest or mine the resources for export, but later they will start processing the resources. For example, they'll export bauxite, then later start exporting aluminum ingots instead of bauxite, and then aluminum sheet metal and eventually extruded aluminum tubing and the like.

Then they'll transition into the 2nd Level Economy, where they produce goods for industries, like machinery, construction vehicles and farming implements, and then consumer goods like cars, washers, dryers, hot-water heaters and dishwashers.

Eventually, they will transition into the 3rd Level Economy of technology, and then into the 4th Level of consumer services, which is where the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Western Europe are currently.

Wages are flat in a 0 Level Economy, but start to rise in the 1st Level. Over the course of the 2nd Level, wages will double about every 10 years. That is due to the extraordinary demand for labor. Children will work through the 0 and 1st Level Economies and into the first phase of the 2nd Level Economy, then children drop out of the work-force.

The reason children leave the work-force is the same reason wages double about every 10 years.

At the start of the transition into the 2nd Level Economy, there's an extraordinary demand for labor. Any warm body will do, but eventually, it requires workers to have some level of education in elementary school, then it requires workers who have completed at least one or two years of high school, then workers who have completed high school, and then workers who have finished a trade school, technical school or university.

To make the transition into the 3rd Level Economy requires at least 25% of the work-force have university or technical education.

Something else happens to Society as it transitions through the phases of the 2nd Level Economy, and that is the birth-rate drops dramatically.

That is due to Affluence.

The 2nd Level Economy demands educated people, and as people attain education, they delay marriage and child-bearing. There is also a shift of focus from family to self, and the acquisition of material things and achievement of personal and professional goals.

By the end of this Century, every country should have reached the 2nd Level Economy, so those who think the Earth will be over-populated have fears that are seriously misplaced.

The average Romanian makes $320/month, which works out to $1.85/hour.

You don't seem to be too concerned about that.

Romania, like Russia and the other East Bloc States, is still stuck in the 2nd Level Economy, thanks to 50 years of socialism and the use of command economic practices.

It's going to take 40-60 years to climb out of the mess that was made.

Romania economically is on a par with the US in 1948, and in 1948, what did American workers make?

These people you think are making "slave wages" are being paid exactly what Americans were paid at the exact same level of economic development.

And that is exactly what those people should be paid, no more and no less, and contrary to what you believe, those people aren't living homeless on the streets; they all have housing.

At 98%, Romania has the highest home-ownership rate of any country in the World.

Would you rather earn $15/hour, be barely able to afford an apartment and have zero chance of owning a home, or would you rather earn $1.85/hour and own your own home?

Who is actually the "slave" here?

[Rocko20]

Originally Posted by Motion

It's that the majority of the people enslaving Blacks in the U.S were whites.

Those blacks were slaves before they even arrived to the U.S.

[maf763]

Originally Posted by Rocko20

Those blacks were slaves before they even arrived to the U.S.

Fewer than 400,000 enslaved Africans made it to North America, including the colonial era, yet there were almost 4,000,000 American slaves just in the 1860 census. The last legal African slaves came to the US in 1808.

American slavery was exactly that - American. Absolving Americans of their role in the enslavement of African-Americans because somebody 'over there' started it is simply feeble 'whataboutism'.

[theoldnorthstate]

Originally Posted by Motion

How much did these tribes Cherokee were a nation and clans; they were not migrant tribes becoming mixed with whites lead to them adopting slavery and other parts of white culture of that time? No, slavery had long existed in Cherokee culture before Englishmen had their influence In other words,were some of the Native American slave masters part white? Cherokee women did marry traders and their children were therefore partly white So did they inherit slaves from their white side?Unlikely. Most traders were Scots who were themselves indentured or scrabbling for a living themselves and would have to become prosperous themselves to be encumbered with the responsibility of slave ownership. They went west to trade for goods and came east to sell the Cherokee goods. Travel light with a mule and cart maybe. Eventually the ever pragmatic Cherokee and Scotsman/Irish trader saw the practicality of cementing trade relations by intermarriage and their children remained with the clan

starting off, the Cherokee and other nations practiced slavery long before exposure to whites. Slaves were simply commodities and served as economic utiles (work units) to make one entity stronger or more economically prosperous than another one could without additional work units to accomplish the multitude of tasks required to survive and barter.


Let's see, it started about the time of family 1 living in Cave A gets into a fight with family 2 living in Cave B and drags home a few healthy survivors to be slaves in Cave A. Go get buckets of water, firewood, skin elk, things like that. It was a long established practice of raiding and capturing outsiders.

The Cherokee were all about trade and survival. They even had a separate clan of "the others": slaves, captives, prisoners. Slavery was an established practice long before any Europeans had influence. 'Others' could be admitted to other clans or not if they were adopted into a clan. Woman A lost a child to war, husband A goes out on a raid and brings a replacement child. If Woman A likes replacement child, then said child is adopted. If not the child may be killed or remain an outsider.

Somewhere along the way, at least the Cherokee, a civilized tribe had a very astute observation of the ever growing English presence and dominance. If they raided family 2 in Cave B or even later in log cabin B, then the slave could run away (that is a lot of trouble to go take your time from more productive efforts) or friends and relatives of family 2 would get angry and come after you (raid or all out war). They saw that trading to buy the Englishmen's slaves was more more efficient and no one cared that you had them. No one came after them. Did not take from your productive work time.

A fascinating thing to me about the Cherokee is their sophistication, intelligence, observation, and strategical sense and although I made the example simplistic; what they did as the English encroached was by design to ensure their survival and prosperity.

The Cherokee freedmen and slaves have a point. They were slaves or prisoners of the Cherokee and a part of the nation in some way. When forced westward these people were required to relocate with their Cherokee brethren as part of the Cherokee Nation, or what remained of it. Therefore they should be entitled to acknowledgement as part of the Nation and entitled to whatever that may hold.

Some people in recent times apparently on the Cherokee Nation council decided that these people were not genetically Cherokee and should not be considered part of the nation. Hence the issue.

I skipped over some things to stick to your question historically since this is the history forum but hopefully this answers at the high level and encourages you to research further if it interests you.

[madison999]

Originally Posted by Motion

How much did these tribes becoming mixed with whites lead to them adopting slavery and other parts of white culture of that time? In other words,were some of the Native American slave masters part white? So did they inherit slaves from their white side?

Jeez really?

[ben young]

Only blacks could and can be slaves .All other races only wish they could have been slaves.
Only white America bought and used slaves and they were all black .Irish need not apply .Australian transport prisoners who were moved and split from their families and payed nothing for their work were were just tourist's on holiday .
............Please folks get with the program..