It seems odd to fetch slaves from a different continent over thousands of miles of ocean when a ready supply was available much nearer at hand. Were any attempts made to utilize the American natives as slaves?
Apparently, they died too easily. They needed people who could tolerate heavy sun exposure (out in cotton and sugar cane fields, there isn’t any shade) for decades. They also needed people able to tolerate heavy labor all day and poor conditions.
The black color of the skin is actually from armor proteins protecting the skin cell nuclei. It isn’t just cosmetic. Presumably there’s also a connection here to how black men tend to be larger and more muscular, and they even have traits for resisting certain tropical diseases.
It’s not politically correct to talk about the obvious any more because if there are *any *physical differences between races, there might be a grain of truth in the various discriminatory stereotypes that racists use.
Some were.
Why would anyone want a small, skinny, weak slave?
Many were enslaved.
I just read that in South Carolina there were 800 Indian salves in 1703.
It’s generally accepted that 85% to 90% of the population of the Americas just before the arrival of Columbus died from the diseases that were brought by the Europeans. The Europeans had already acquired immunity from those diseases because of many plagues during the Middle Ages and before. The Europeans did enslave many Indians. Most of them died. Many others fled or let themselves be killed by the Europeans because they had a civilization there before the Europeans arrived and they refused to submit to them. The Europeans were stuck with land ready for use that they had insufficient labor for, so they acquired slaves in Africa. The African slaves weren’t as organized as the Indians, so they found it harder to rebel or to escape, although many of them did anyway.
Similarly, the Africans must have had sufficient resistance to those same diseases so that 85% of them didn’t die.
Yes. The diseases had spread around the entire Old World (i.e., everything except the Americas) during the Middle Ages and before. Many people died and the remaining people became resistant. Many recent histories of the conquest of the Americas will tell you about the extent to which the native inhabitants died from disease after Columbus.
In the highland areas of Latin America (highland Mexico and Peru/Bolivia) survival for native peoples was somewhat better, and as one would expect, in those areas the Spanish relied heavily on enserfed indigenous people for an agricultural labour force, rather than imported slaves. (I think they did import slaves to work in the silver mines, but not on plantations and so forth).
They were, but they had a bad habit of dying quickly and/or running off.
Sadly Native American were used as slaves
I’ve heard this. If it’s true, why is it true?
Obviously. Native Americans are all weak and feeble . That’s why they were supplanted by the physically superior Europeans.
Absolutely. That’s why in the entire history of the world there have never been any non-black slaves.
And there’s just *got *to be a connection to how they have natural rhythm and love fried chicken too, right? An I am sure that there must be a connection between the amount of melanin in the skin and how you can’t trust them around white women because they are driven by their animal instincts, have really high sex drives and are exceptionally well hung.
Absolutely. But I’ve forgotten the details, Can you remind me again what these traits are that allow these burly black men to resist certain tropical diseases?
Absolutely. It’s hard to find anyone even willing to listen to the evident truths of blood heredity which were scientific consensus until political correctness swept it under the rug. Madness isn’t it?
Yes, it’s a rather poorly disguised liberal plot.
They *have *to hide the fact that black men are all burly with large penises and small braincases. Because once people realise that these physical stereotypes are correct, then they will also realise that its obviously true that black men are stupid,lazy, violent and oversexed.
That was a good part of it. An escaped African slave doesn’t have anywhere to go and is obviously an African guy wandering around. An escaped Indian slave potentially can get back ‘home’ or towards another friendly tribe or otherwise find a support network and ability to hide. You could even invite reprisals from area tribes. Easier to stick with the Africans.
It’s worth noting that Africans has plenty of civilization during this period, they were just systematically separated from it.
I agree, that must be the case.
The Africans had some sort of resistance, linked somehow to the number of pigment cells in their skin. Europeans and Asians, OTOH, had no such resistance. They were protected from those same diseases by their civilised habits and the grace of God. Or at least the Europeans were. The Asians were protected by some sort of resistance linked to their slitty eyes.
Habeed writes:
> . . . there’s also a connection here to how black men tend to be larger and more
> muscular . . .
Really? According to the charts linked to from the following webpage, black American males are both lighter and shorter on average than white American males. Do you have any scientific surveys that say differently? No, your personal observations don’t count:
How do you think the California Missions were built?
The Franciscan priests weren’t doing any heavy lifting.
The local native population was “convinced” to help build the Missions. Woe to any of them that decided to leave (escape).
In 1493, Charles Mann says that at first, colonial plantations relied on whatever combination of European indentured servants, impressed/enslaved Native Americans, and/or West African slaves they could get. But malaria (imported from England, oddly enough) killed so many of the first two sorts of laborers that soon the plantations with West African slaves were the only ones able to function without ruinous losses. Not because the slaves were black, but because they came from West Africa, where endemic malaria had selected them for resistance.
Fascinatingly, he goes on to describe how temperature affects the development of the malarial parasite…if I recall correctly, below a certain average temperature, the parasite doesn’t mature before the mosquito dies. Average temperature varies from year to year, but if that temp line (where malaria existed) is plotted on a map, it lies roughly where the Mason-Dixon line lies: the political division between slave and free states.
Or they had been exposed to them in the past, just as Europeans had? Smallpox, for example, wasn’t new to Africa, like it was to the Americas.
While I agree most of this is bullshit, isn’t sickel cell anemia more common among Africans, and doesn’t it make one more resistant to malaria?
The rest – not so much.
(Incidentally, syphilis was unknown to Europe until Columbus and co. brought it back to Europe.)