re: OK there he said it: Republican state Rep. Werner Horn related

Can be said for the Irish as well.

Except there was a whole racist culture of subjugation that developed around slavery where characteristics and assumptions were ASSIGNED to slaves because of their race . One just has to read any contemporary 18th 19th Century account to see all the deep philosophical musings on “ the negro character “. So I’m going to stand by that they were “ available “ AND there was racism against them.

quote:

---

So, you are saying the slaves were brought here because they were black?

---

quote:

---

No

---

Thanks for agreeing.

I read another poster on TD very accurately state that “blacks don’t own slavery and jews don’t own genocide”.

quote:

---

New Hampshire lawmaker says American slavery had nothing to do with racism, just 'business decision'

---

This should create a few great memes

quote:

---

state Rep.

---

Zero fricks

quote:

---

OK. Well, I mean. Damn. Come on dude. I mean sure, it was definitely a business decision...........having slaves was "good" business.............but WHO one chose to enslave was quite obviously driven by one's view of that particular group of humans. Sheesh

---

Actually not.

All the colonies Spanish, English, Portuguese, Swedish, Dutch, and French. Had man power shortages. Their first go to labor pool, had remarkably poor immunity to Old World diseases. The Native Americans on both continents died by the millions. Dead men make a poor labor pool. Also when they escaped the serfdom of the European overlords, they blended in well with the unsubjugated surrounding people.

Obviously labor had to be imported.

First most colonial organizations attempted marketing solutions and advertised the wonders and opportunities of the New World. This was not sufficient since most who could afford to relocate actually had more economic reasons not to.

Second, the colonizers resorted to indentured servitude, where they paid for passage, training, and equipping laborers, for guaranteed labor contracts, for most of the laborer’s productive life. This worked well in the areas that resembled the European environment. But in hot/humid areas of the New World from the Southern English Colonies, through the Spanish Main, to Portuguese Brazil, Europeans tended to die off at rates that made indentured servitude economically not sustainable. Too many died before profit was realized. The solution of extending the servitude of the seasoned survivors was not competitive with the less lethal areas.

Third, the colonizers finally hit upon a viable solution. Obtain laborers from areas that resembled the deadly climates and diseases that were proving problematic. And keep them and eventually their offspring in perpetual slavery. This was totally accidental. At this time the number one consumers of human slaves were the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle East. Their three main sources, in order of importance, were sub Sahara Africans, Slavics from Eastern Europe, and European Mediterranean Christians captured by North African Corsairs from piracy/raids. The booming sub Saharan slave trade had the advantages of already existing, an extremely large scale, and sourced from the required type of environment. All they had to do was pay competitive prices and suddenly the slaves flowed west to the Atlantic Coast as well as north to Muslim lands. They produced economic profits, and escaped Blacks were easily recognized from colonials and natives.

As an aside, more sub Saharan slaves were shipped to Muslim lands than Christian lands and for longer periods of time. (Actually still happening today!) Where are the Black descendants of these slaves in North Africa and the Middle East? Blacks are vibrant communities in North America, South American, Central America, and the Caribbean.

While both started as labor slavery with 2-1 male to female importation, Muslim labor slavery declined with the Zanj Rebellion (869-883 AD) near Basra. This was a vicious uprising with much bloodshed on both sides. It was ruthlessly suppressed, and large concentrations of blacks were never again allowed to occur. Sub Saharan slavery changed from labor slavery to sex slavery where the 2-1 ratio changed to female to male. Both sexes had difficulty adapting to their new climates, diseases, and maltreatment. Females had an extremely low birth rate because of early death and low fertility. Most males were turned into eunuchs with beans and franks removed. No fertility and an extremely high death rate.

If I were a newly captured sub Saharan slave in the 1600s, I would first pray for freedom, then to be sold west to the Christians, and finally to be sold to the English in North America. Most of the ones shipped north to the Muslims would cruelly die. I would not be surprised if the second most common prayer of these unfortunates was for death after freedom.

Racism against the Black slaves was an after the fact development that was used to soothe the rightfully guilty consciences of the Christian slave owners. I mean, if my slave is not fully human, I’m doing him a favor and not being inhuman or anti Christian. Now Muslims were racist from the start of the religion.

“When Allah created Adam He hit his right shoulder from which his descendants who are as white as pearls came out, then He hit his left shoulder from which his descendants who are as black as charcoal came out; then He said to the one’s on his right enter the Paradise and that would not diminish from My dominion to the least and He said to the one’s on his left enter Hellfire and that would not increase anything in My dominion” (Al-Haythami & Abul-Wazir Al-Yamani)

quote:

---

So...are you ignoring the role of Arabs?

---

No, but I'm thinking about the west Africa area. Arabia is far away from there.

How about the Three-Fifths Compromise?

Anything to do with race or just more savvy business?