Today I was watching a program on the History Channel about the slave trade. It was mostly about the role of black Africans in the slave trade and how they were considered in many (most?) cases equal partners in the business. They mentioned that many black African traders even sent their children to be educated in England and America.
A lot of what I heard was news to me. I knew that slave trading was possible in part thanks to the collaboration of other black Africans; I just didn’t know that they were so involved in the trade. I couldn’t finish watching the show because I had to go away, I couldn’t figure from what I had seen to what extent black Africans were to blame for this practice and whether it would have been possible without their collaboration.
How different was the treatment of slaves in the Spanish colonies as opposed to French colonies English colonies and America? Most local historians agree that Spaniards were a lot more lenient and saw no problem about intermixing.
And last, why is there a consensus that Native Americans were not suited for heavy work? In my country, a former Spanish colony the local Indian population disappeared in two generations, caused to some extent by western diseases, suicide and infanticide, but also because of (as told by many authors of the time, Las Casas, and Montesino, e.g.) having been subjected to heavy labor.
Although these 3 questions seem somewhat unrelated they all came up during that show and I don’t feel like opening 3 different threads about them. I underlined my question in case I din’t make it all too clear (not rare in me).
To blame? Well, Africans, like most people all over the world, had a long history of internal slavery. It was a fact of life. However for the most part it did not really resemble the kind of brutal agricultural chattel slavery one saw in the American colonies ( Spanish, Portuguese, and French, in addition to the English ). So I suppose one can assign “blame” for their participation in the market, but not necessarily ( or at all ) the conditions the slaves ( many of them ) were eventually subject to.
I would speculate that native African involvement was probably essential in efficiently supplying the large numbers exported during certain periods of history. But probably not essential to slave-trading, period ( slave-raiding by Europeans and particularly Arabs was not unknown and would probably have accelerated without native participation ).
Highly variable. The sugar plantations of the Caribbean ( French, English, and Spanish ) and Brazil ( Portuguese ) were all pretty horrendous, with high mortality rates. It’s true American slavery the Antebellum South was probably unique in the extremeness of racial separation and the institutionalization of that separation. However although the Spanish and Portuguese were all lot more willing to more openly ( American white slave-holders did it more on the sly ) to have sex with their slaves and raise them in their households ( partly a consequence of most of the Latin colonies being more economically exploitive in nature, with fewer entire families emigrating to the new world permanently compared to the English colonies - the Spanish in particular were more often young male entrepeneurs who hoped to make a fortune and return to Spain ), I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say they were easier on slave labor, especially in plantation conditions.
There was no such consensus or it was after the fact. The reason Africans were brought in, is because as you mentioned, the Amerindian population largely died off. Mostly due to disease, but also due to the harsh conditions. The Africans died from the labor conditions just as readily ( and died in droves ), but were replaceable with fresh supplies from Africa, plus they had the added benefit of disease immunities the native Amerindians lacked ( not having been exposed to them like the Africans, in direct and indirect contact with Europe and Asia for millenia, had been ). But they weren’t imported in large numbers until after the native population was already decimated.
Natives also had the advantage of home-ground. It was easier for them to escape “into the bush”. But I believe this was pretty secondary to the mass demographic collapse.
Though I am not a history buff like Tamerlane ( ), I do know this: Western Africans (who were obviously more exposed to Western [European] culture) went into interior Africa and kidnapped (or took prisoner after wars) members of the less exposed–and thus less knowledgeable about the contemporary technology and politics [in general, of Europeans and their activities]–tribes there.
Isn’t it possible that the black traders (some of whom had apparently returned themselves from slavery in America) did know the harsh conditions slaves in America lived in? I find it highly unlikely that black traders thought they were sending their fellow Africans to a Ramada resort. I think it would be disingenuous to believe that they had a higher moral caliber than their white counterparts. I, for one, believe that evil comes in all colours.
Is there a way I can find out the life expentancy of slaves in French, Spanish and English colonies? I have heard many times that of the three, incredibly (egalité, fraternité, and whatnot) the French were the most ruthless, cruel masters.
When the Spanish arrived here, and thanks to the clamor of men like Las Casas and Montesinos the Spanish crown accepted that once baptized indians should be treated like Christians. The writings of Columbus doesn’t give any hint of racism towards the indigenous population. Some early conquistadors took indian women as wives. As a whole it SEEMS that earlier conquistadors were more driven by greed and cruelty than racism, the same kind of greed and cruelty they would have shown had the indian population been caucasian. Am I correct?
What was the state of slavery in Europe before the discovery of America. Were slaves treated as badly as in America? Were blacks considered “below” native Americans?
I am sorry if I am asking too much of you guys, I VERY curious about these things. Most of these questions I believe to know the answer but my beliefs have never been challenged, that’s why I want feedback.
The majority of slaves were sold to Europeans by Africans. Maybe someone can confirm/correct my number but if memory serves, something like less than 20% of slaves were captured by Europeans. In some areas the Europeans never got more than a couple of miles inland - they stayed on their anchored ships and only went to shore to trade. The usual scenario (forgive me for generalizing) was that the chief of a tribe would get first rights to sell his slaves and then, in descending order, everyone else would get his turn. They sold the slaves for cowrie shells, cloth, liquor, metals, & European “artifacts” - but mostly for guns, with which to fight other tribes (and of course get more slaves). The slave trade was something that was normal in Africa. About 5% of the slaves being sold at a port would be locals, becase most slaves had been sold and moved many times over within Africa. But the Africans selling their slaves to the Europeans had no idea what awaited them. Slaves had a place in African societies. Yeah they were way down at the bottom, but they were still regarded as people and valued. In some places a slave could improve his status through marriage, work, money, or general politics. The Africans didn’t realize how differently the slaves would be treated and regarded. The worst thing that was thought to be possible was that the Europeans were buying slaves to eat them. Unfortunately, that fate would have been better.
So, basically both parties were exploiting the practice of slavery. But IMHO the Europeans were still dirtier bastards because they fully knew what was going on.
If you’re indicating that the African-side slavers thought the Europeans might be eating the merchandise, how does that jibe with your assertion that the African slavers “still regarded [them] as people and valued [them]”?
Oh, yes, all very lovely - and continues to this day. Take a peek at the diamod industry, particuarly the more recent conflict in, for instance, Angolo, Sierra Leone and DR of Congo.
Here’s a lovely overview of those three.
A Diamond is Forever. Life expectancy isn’t. And nothing changes.
Would the African slave trade have been possible with the collaboration of black Africans?
Possible but very difficult. Because of the threat of disease and unfriendly locals, the European slave traders in West Africa (Portuguese, English, Danish, etc.) preferred to stay on their boats or to build fortified camps on the beach and to trade for whatever the locals brought to them. Venturing inland was too dangerous for them.
“The Africans died from the labor conditions just as readily ( and died in droves ), but were replaceable with fresh supplies from Africa…”
Along the southern coast of British North America in the early 1600s, according to Alan Taylor, it was the indentured servants who were replaceable and slaves were too expensive to make economic sense. There, the life expectancy of newcomers was short and slaves were too expensive to buy if one wasn’t likely to get more than five years work out of them. Consequently, indentured servants were used. It was much cheaper to buy a five year contract with a new indentured servant every five years than to purchase a slave.
“Were blacks considered “below” native Americans?”
Alan Taylor makes the point that class, education, and wealth but not race were the important social distinctions in the early 1600 in Maryland. He gives the example of a freed African slave who went into business for himself, married a European, and bought his own slave. What Taylor finds remarkable is that when some neighbors lured his slave away, the slave owner sought restitution in the courts and got it. The courts, at that time, according to Taylor, tended to be run by the better off for the benefit off the better off so that this former slave’s success in the courts suggests that he was regarded very much as a solid citizen worthy of respect. According to Taylor, the whole concept of racism in the British North American colonies developed later (although not much later).
No one participates in slavery, except as a slave, and remains innocent.
But, who is more guilty, this one, or that one?
It defies rationality to suppose that the various tribes of seventeenth and eighteenth century Africa felt a strong sense of the humanity of their slaves. The people who became the slaves of Europeans, and Arabs were slaves already, before they were bought by the foreign slave trade. Wars were fought on an ongoing basis to obtain slaves. Those not useful for slavery were slaughtered.
Looking for the guilty in this morass of evil is stupid. Everyone was guilty, except for the slaves. Some of them would have been only too happy to become guilty, had the opportunity presented itself. Some, eventually, did exactly that.
Everyone wants a villain, a single bad guy. It is so much more palatable to suppose that your own ancestors were better than someone else’s ancestors were. So very few people in the period were opposed to slavery at all, much less vehemently enough to actually do anything about it that it became the primary factor in the economy of several dozen nations, all over the world. It wasn’t the aberrant behavior or ethics of a small group of people; it was the wholesale, and enthusiastic exploitation of the weak by anyone who was slightly less weak. It fed on xenophobia, racism, greed, and cruelty. It had no difficulty finding lots of all of those things, and the skin color of the victims and perpetrators was only a result of the outcomes of wars, not the inherent natures of the victims, or the perpetrators.
Everyone was being entirely true to the nature of their race. It’s the human race we are talking about, and a worse bunch of evil bastards you cannot find. If you could, we would have killed them all.
The Slave trade is complex because it went on for centuries within Africa before Europeans became involved, and continued in some area after abolition in the West. In the long view, Europeans tapped into an intra-African phenomenon for two or three centuries. This isn’t excusing what happened, after all African slavery was probably not as multigenerational, and didn’t involve as much long standing racism.
Also at one time Europe had its own slave trade, involving different tribal peoples at the periphery of Europe.
From what I have read (mainly from the history of colonial Mexico) there Spaniards were decidedly not lenient with African slaves, and could be horribly racist at times. Spanish punishments for insubordination and running away were downright medieval. However, large scale intermarriage took place (many people today don’t even acknowledge Mexico’s African past because the population became so blended). Part of the reason was there were often more black males than females imported, and these men took Indian “wives”.
Spanish slaveholding continued in Cuba even after the Civil War, and there are many accounts of life in Cuba during the 19th century as well.
In general “Latin” people (French and Portuguese as well as Spaniards) were more accepting of the idea of intermarriage for a variety of reasons (the Catholic Church had a huge influence), and furthermore, they made a distinction between people who were mostly African, and more mixed people - who were treated more as whites were than as “blacks”. When Louisiana became American territory, there were conflicts between the local French/Spanish traditions of slavery and “race” and the new Anglo-American attitudes. Louisiana’s “mixed” people of French and Spanish origin resented being treated as poorly as they were by Anglo-Americans.
Those who had returned I’m sure did, but I suspect the society at large did not fully comprehend the differences - However even if they had, it might well have made no difference at all…
Oh, I agree :). Certainly didn’t intended to exculpate African traders - Rather I was just pointing out that the slave systems in Africa and the European colonies were rather different in conception and practice. And I suppose you are correct that it doesn’t matter so much where they thought the slaves were going and like I said above, it’s quite probable they wouldn’t have cared anyway.
I have death rates handy for Brazil, but not for the others ( without digging some more, though I’ll look - my stuff on Spanish America seems mostly focuses on Indian slavery, with fewer numbers for the African experiance ). However insomuch as the Portuguese originated the whole plantation slavery model which was imitated by the other colonial powers ( originally on the island of Madeira, the first sugar boom colony ), I suspect the differences between them in those situations were mostly a matter of degree ( other slave applications, like mining, doubtless had different mortality rates and to the extent that slavery was utilized differently by different colonial powers this probably affected the totals, especially in the more economically diverse Spanish America - however the bulk of the African slave labor was imported by the Europeans was for plantation agriculture ). Certainly French Haiti had a pretty miserable reputation.
In general Brazil took 41.8% of inbound African slaves between 1601-1700, Spanish America 21.8%, English colonies took 19.7%, and the French 11.6%. Mortality rates for Brazil were estimated at 5-10% per annum, with the slave being able to produce enough sugar in 13-16 months to recover his cost, 1610-1700, and after 30 months 1700-1750. Since it was more expensive to raise children to maturity ( especially given a very high infant mortality rate, which made raising slaves a tricky investment ) and the demand for heavy labor favoured a importation heavily skewed towards male slaves, natural growth was negligible in this period. Hence demand remained steady.
Numbers courtesy of Colonial Brazil, edited by Leslie Bethell ( 1987, University of Cambridge Press ).
Over some local objections by the conquistadors, yes. However loopholes that allowed the forcing of labor for minmal wages were quickly introduced. The Portuguese crown made some similar moves on behalf of the Amerindians, though with even less effect.
To a large extent, yes. Though the “cultural racism” was certainly overt, despite the fact Spanish conquest culture, in both Mexico and Peru, was initially very parasitic on the native culture. Conquistadors married into local royalty and inserted themselves into the Amerindian imperial framework. However I’d say that early cultural exchange quickly began to peter out with the demographic collapse.
Well in Madeira they certainly were ( maybe even worse, as the labor needed to clear that island for plantations was apparently monumental ). The life of a galley slave was also not terribly pleasant.
However otherwise American colonial slavery was far more severe. There was no mass agricultural slavery in Europe ( not since the times of the Romans, anyway ) and except for the above exceptions, most slavery were more on the level of “household slaves” that may have worked in agriculture at times, but were to expensive to use up ( turnips not having the same market value as sugar or tobacco ).
Apparently so, if only because the crown protections ( however minimal ) extended to the Indian populations, did not apply to Africans. Under such circumstances they would inevitably and quickly become the lowest social strata.
Most of you seem to say that most of the blacks that came to America, did not come here by choice.
If there had never been an african slave trade in history to bring blacks to America, how many blacks would have immigrated here by choice? how many in the United States today, do you suppose, would be black?
Well, yes, this is a fact. Not a lot of African emigration before the mid-20th century :).
Well, that’s pretty impossible to say. You’re talking about a radical restructuring of history that is difficult to envision fully. Depends on just what the state of Africa had ended up if their had been no slave trade, I guess. It is likely given the enormous economic wealth of the U.S. there would be an eventual impulse to try to immigrate here. But Africa is hardly Europe or even East Asia, with extensive intercontinental ties to other powers - Even less so I’d imagine with no slave trade. You wouldn’t get anything like the mass European immigration of the late -19th and early 20th century from Europe. And imported labor would have been more easily had from China ( as it was ). The opportunity to emigrate from Africa to the U.S. would probably have been just as late a development ad it actually was and the numbers would probably be pretty small, compared to the number of blacks resident in the U.S. today.
Treatment: In Brazil at least, slaves could legally own property. This is very different from not owning anything, anything you accumulate belongs to your owner. They could build for their future, they could buy their own freedom. (Cite: memory of History of Brazil class.)
I remember some comment that a Brazilian owner would find it creepy that an American owner would use his own offspring as slaves, sell them, etc.
I suspect the Indian slaves died faster because they were cheaper as they were rounded up locally. After they were used up, more expensive ones were imported and probably less badly used.
That is, as to the heavy labor, exactly how heavy it is is determined by the owner. I could see them backing off a little with the expensive goods.
Sorry, but not that much. The main advance is that we feel guilty enough to avoid acknowledging horrible things and to make token gestures after the fact so we feel better about ourselves.
), I do know this: Western Africans (who were obviously more exposed to Western [European] culture) went into interior Africa and kidnapped (or took prisoner after wars) members of the less exposed–and thus less knowledgeable about the contemporary technology and politics [in general, of Europeans and their activities]–tribes there.
).