Why didn't the settlers enslave native americans instead of getting slaves all the way from Africa?
>>383871
Natives fought back, ran away, and rebelled a lot more frequently than Africans, who were more "docile"
Who would slave them? You?
>>383871
Spanish settlers did use natives as slaves, for example in California.
It was easier to keep people in submission when they're transplanted far, far away from their homeland and housed with a bunch of people they don't know ad have no connection to.
Settlers DID try to enslave natives, but between most of them dying to disease and warfare, the few that were enslaved were more likely to make a break for it since they knew the land (usually much better than the settlers themselves) and knew people around the area who could help them. With African slaves they were as much a foreigner to the continent as the settlers were.
>>383871
'Cause the black slaves had generally already been caught by their fellow Africans and conveniently transported to a slave market for Europeans to purchase.
The Natives were armed to the teeth and prepared to fight you to the death. so in other words, someone had already done the hard work with the Africans
>>383871
Less resistant to Eurasian diseases and African slaves were sold to traders for some cash.
Why go through all the trouble of capturing and enslaving people when they're sold?
>>383900
This. African slaves had nowhere to run to and didn't know the terrain like Indians did.
They still took some Indians as slaves (especially in the Massachusetts colony) but they weren't as hardy and were more likely to successfully escape.
Because their was not moral loophole for it. The blacks they bought were already slaves. Also natives tended to die of disease more.
The only natives that were used as slaves were the former Incans. The Spanish used the Incan mita to get people to work silver and mercury mines.
Natives were dying of disease and their lands were depopulated.
They actually were used, since they were cheaper than Africans, but they died to fast to be of much use.
Plus, in the case of Latin America the Spanish crown actually considered the natives to be its subjects and generally tried (though often failed) to restrain the abuses of Spanish settlers. Also I think it probably seemed less morally unjust; invading someone's land and preaching Christianity isn't justifiable if you enslave the natives, but there's nothing wrong (as far as colonists were concerned) with buying slaves from Africans who're willing to sell them.
>>383871
The market
It's always the market
>>383959
>kingz n shit
The longer this shit goes on the more convinced I am this is just some sort of /pol/ boogeyman.
>>383912
If I remember right there was a lot of backlash to the native slavery based on the writings of a catholic monk but they had no such qualms using blacks for the same work. Go figure.
>>383970
Did you used to think otherwise?
>>383995
American stupidity (regardless of race) knows no boundaries.
So yes, I did.
>>383986
The American natives were seen as civilized, subject to the Crown, and eager to accept the Catholic faith, which is why even contemporary Spaniards were outraged at the conquistadores. Africans were not seen as capable of a civilization, and had different baggage with the whole being descendants of Ham and shit.
>>383871
I cannot comprehend how so many natives were killed. how europeans thought they were stupid and savage when they were such clever clever people
>>384019
I honestly believe, had the native american's had more animals capable of rearing, like sheep or pigs or cows native to North America then there would be billions of native american people on earth right now
>>384019
>I cannot comprehend how so many natives were killed.
How? It's because of disease. It's not that hard to comprehend. Disease has historically killed a LOT of humans.
>>384019
They were killed by a pretty efficient conqueror which killed about 50 million people in half a century.
>>384027
Sure they died that way, they werent purposefully killed. Other than the ones who died via disease, who thought it was a sensible idea to kill these magnificent creatures who found a way to survive ALMOST EVERYTHING
>>383871
Si ple, it was illegal to capture people and enslave them, you had to buy slave from places where there was an existing slave trade, e.g. Africa.
>>384027
"because" doesnt answer "how", "by" answers "how"
pls get off the cgpgrey hype
>>384052
No one thinks that. Humans kill humans. But the incomparable dying of Amerindians was soley due to disease. Europeans aren't guilty of anything other than run of the mill human conflict and imperial domination and exploitation.
>>383986
Yeah some spanish catholic dude saw how those natives were treated and fought against enslaving them. So they had to bring slaves from africa instead.
>>384019
Historically bad luck that just built upon itself for the next few centuries.
Before the Europeans even arrived, they experienced a major drought, a previous plague, multiple wars, and in some cases societal breakdown.
After the Europeans came, they warred against both each other and the new arrivals, they were systematically starved on occasion, occasionally enslaved and massacred, and most importantly were exposed to numerous plagues, some of which halved the Old world population, in the span of a couple of decades.
They really stood no chance, it was the perfect storm that lead to the collective slaughter of 95% of the population within a couple centuries.
To blame it all on one factor is disingenuous and doesn't give us a good picture of just how devastated these populations have become.
>>384066
Do you not understand HOW disease epidemics work?
>>384019
What I can't comprehend is how early europeans thought they were "civilising" savages when they were pretty much just savages with shinier tools. Humans are pretty fucked up.
>>384055
I feel like you aren't actually stating your opinion, that you are playing a role of some sort.
>>384079
>we dindu nuffin
>>384093
I'm pretty sure the idea of White Man's Burden didn't really exist until the 19th century.
Before that, their justifications were more along the lines of Manifest Destiny.
>>384084
butthurt on /his/
please children
this is a house of learned doctors
>>383912
>>383986
>>384077
It was illegal to enslave natives because, while inferior to europeans, they were subjects of the king. Enslaving blacks was fair game.
Brutalizing natives abusing neo-faudalism, native customs and right of conquest was kinda fair game too since the state was de facto powerless. Though it was frowned upon at least by those spaniards that were not in charge.
>>383930
This mostly. Natives were very delicate to disease and had a low population, making them a horrible target to exploit, in N. America at least.
>>384093
>when they were pretty much just savages with shinier tools
Except they weren't. They had buildings, literacy, etc.
Killing other people isn't the definition of "savage".
>>384119
>>384096
I didn't say that anywhere.
But the more we look into the history of Precolombian civilization, we see more and more that there had been a long period of decline a couple of hundred years before Columbus, sort of a Precolombian Dark Age.
The European arrival made it much worse.
Native slaves were shit workers and they kept dying of overwork and disease.
Because people made alot of money getting them there, in America
>>384130
Savagery is literally defined as excessively and needlessly violent/cruel
You could definitely call the colonists savages
>>384121
There was also little need to enslave them, at least in some parts of Mexico, since the natives had a type of labour tax, where natives would have to work for free for certain amount of time.
I think you all are missing the moral issue. Europeans didn't enslave anyone. They only bought slaves who were enslaved by someone else. They had no system for enslaving free people.
why didnt they just enslave your great grandmum, OP? what was she gonna do about it?
>>383871
Lots of reasons. The minor reasons were political. It was frowned upon by the church, who had the opportunity to convert them. Many of them were also under the legal jurisdiction of the white governments they inhabited. Others had treaties with the white governments. Eventually they were sparsely populated and fairly scrappy, making it a pain in the ass to actually get any sizable healthy population fit for work.
Which leads into the major reason, supply and demand. Africans were financing their wars by selling their more primitive neighbors en masse to foreign slave traders. This was a huge business that touched a ton of countries, particularly in North Africa and Arabia. In short, the cheapest way to get a lot of fit slaves was to use the existing infrastructure that made it relatively cheap. Even if you do have to march them 1000 miles and put them on a boat, it's still cheaper than doing it piecemeal and dealing with the blowback locally.
A slave-based economy is very difficult to run unless a society is perpetually at war. Sub-Saharan Africa was perpetually at war, and the result was that every group that wasn't among the toughest groups in that region became part of a massive race of slaves.
>>383900
/thread. Sorry, OP.
>>384052
Nobody is saying they didn't. But are you also claiming that natives did not senselessly slaughter European settlers for no good reason?
Indians killed each other all the time. When the settlers got here, they just found someone else to hate, and the Europeans were more than happy to reciprocate.
In all honesty though I don't feel too bad about a group of people being nearly wiped out who had never discovered the wheel. The natives in Central and South America were alright but Native North Americans were caveman tier for the most part.
Natives were harder to make slaves
All the natives died of disease.
Spain had a lot of them though.
Indians were more political. They hand leaders and shit and you wanted to piss them off in an order most practical for genocide.
>>384395
Europians maybe. Americans would find a random tribe of Africans and use guns on them and then enslave.
>>384096
That guy was like the opposite of your implication which I take to be:
>sympathizing with non-white people
>>384722
There's no point in making wheels when there aren't any pack animals to pull them.
>>383871
They tried but the natives kept dying from western diseases (or being weakened beyond usefulness).
>>384722
They were that way because diseases and warfare basically dissolved their advanced societies before Europeans ever arrived.
>>383986
>>384014
When Conquistadores first arrived, they toppled the existing regimes and placed themselves on top. This was easy because there wasn't a single soul in the continent who liked the Azteks, and the Incans had just gone through a civil war (caused by their King suddenly dying to what is believed to be flu, quickly transported from merchants from the Caribbean, that had already fallen to the Conquistadores).
The Conquistadores then went on power trips torturing natives for fun, raping women and similar shit. This outraged some priests like Bartolomé De Las Casas, who fought for native rights. The Crown accepted, but didn't free the natives. Merely placed them under its "protection". Instead, since Spaniards still needed people to work on plantations, African slaves were imported.
Bartolomé and other Catholic priests also attempted to fight for black people's rights later on, but it wasn't of much use, since somebody HAD to work in the dangerous plantations.
Protections from the Spanish Crown to the Native Americans technically guaranteed their well being, but the Spanish expats were smart and easily found a loophole by abusing/reviving an existing tradition of the Inca empire.
>>383949
Except that unlike what this anon said, the Mita was applied everywhere in the colonies. The Mita in the Inca tradition was basically periodic forced public works for all peasants, and involved mostly superficial mining and expanding the Inca road system.
The brutality of the new Mita system for the Indians generally varied depending on the corruption and greed of the local administrators and priests. In some places and time periods, Mita could mean helping in construction and infrastructure works or manufacturing textiles for some Indians, which would presumably not be very brutal. But the Indians who ended up as miners probably had it just as bad as the black slaves in the plantations.
>>384812
Stop acting like you are stupid.
>>384722
>Native North Americans were caveman tier for the most part.
I don't think that's 100% accurate.
Pic related was in Missouri.
>>384130
>They had buildings, literacy, etc.
So did the natives
Capturing people and making them slaves is hard.
It's a lot easier to buy people who were already enslaved by some African warlord.
Plus they didn't know the territory or speak local languages so it was harder for them to escape.
>>385506
....dude Maroon settlements were fairly common all over the Americas.
>>383871
they were more prone to die of diseases brought by europeans
>>385061
could any of the natives into metallurgy
we define ages by metallurgical knowledge right
technically wouldnt all the natives still be in the stone age by 1492
>>385563
They worked with gold, silver, iron and copper, and I think might have been some cases of bronze
>>385563
Plenty of Copper was used in pre-Columbian North America
>>385563
>Everyone, everywhere, develops civilizations the same way.
>>385563
Yeah, but aside for some jewelry in the Andes so were the Amerindians to the south. I've never heard of a pre-metalurgy culture in Afro-Eurasia that did shit half as crazy as what the Aztec, Maya, and the Inca were doing.
>>383871
Lands in the current united states and canada didn't really have substantial populations of natives to enslave in the first place. Most of them were also fiercely independent, and would often die from disease given direct contact, aside from a given resistance to being taken.
On the other hand, down in mexico and the rest of modern latin america, dagos made good use of the natives and had them work on plantations, in silver, gold mines and the like. Turned out as before, disease made their long term use nigh impossible.
Some Indians owned African slaves, and allied with the Confederacy.
>>383871
Natives had shown the europeans some sort of civilization in the forms of the Aztec, Maya and Inca empire, and while being seen as nothing but savages by most colonizers they had the status of king's subjects, slaves were always thought as beasts not that much smarter than pack animals.
>>385612
Mostly because they existed a lot longer ago and there's not nearly as much remains left of them to study. Imagine if the wooden cities of the Amazon or Cahokia existed 6,000 years ago instead of just a few centuries. No evidence for them would be left.
>>383900
That and natives also died really easily the moment somebody brought along smallpox.
>>385751
or the flu, or measles, etc.
>>385737
I'm taking that into account and I'm still sticking with my assessment.
>>385737
Though we still have stuff pointing to how cool they were. Whoever built Newgrange was up to a lot of stuff, we just don't have any of it.
>>383871
They did but they keep dying many natives were sold under the term negro before. It was used to referred to blacks
>>385627
Yeah but looking at the Americas as a whole Africans were most likely to take over and conquer native Americans then incorporate them into their group.
Africans already being sold were bred to be superior workers, more docile, and could stand the heat and UV rays due to their dark skin. As mentioned before, it's a pain in the ass to enslave a people when they fight back, much less raise the next generation of said capturees rather than buy submissive Africans already being sold
>>385669
>slaves were always thought as beasts not that much smarter than pack animals
This is false, it's because they were much smarter than beasts that African slaves were so valueable a commodity. They were still viewed as people with souls and sapient, it's why they were converted by Catholic priests so that they could be saved. The view that Africans were simply subhuman was a few centuries away.
African slaves were much easier to manage, train, and didn't die in as great numbers as the enslaved natives did. They were the perfect labor force to perform on plantations in dangerous conditions. There's a reason why only a couple of slave revolts ever succeeded, the system in effect made sure they stayed demoralized while also kept them alive long enough to get the most out of their usefulness. It was barely tolerable for said slaves, and when times were tough the weak would be culled but life would go on. They entertained view ideas of escape, where would they go? They knew they'd never see Africa again.
>>385913
>bred
lol, no.
>>385913
There's no reliable records that slaves were ever forcefully bred, or that if they were it was pseudoscience at best and happened for maybe a generation or two.
>>385952
>>385944
Not him but maybe bred is the wrong word
Who's to say that the conditions experienced by slaves, from their capture, transport over the ocean in terrible conditions, and then arduous work, wasn't culling in its own right? I'd assume the weakest would die off for various reasons first, to some degree.
It's definitely a population stressor.
>>385965
That would make individuals more hardy, not their descendants.
There was only a couple of slaves out of the bunch that survived that you'd call exceptional workers with above average resilience. Slavery was awful, but it wasn't so lethal that it would be a cause for rapid adaption. The sample size we're talking about is enormous here.
>>383871
cuz like Bartolomé de las Casas was like stop and then he said use africans instead
>>383871
if a native slave escapes, he can always blend in the native population and they would protect him from any search parties.
If a nigger slave escapes, he will stick out like a sore thumb wherever he goes.
There are many reasons and it depends on the colonial power, I mostly know what the Spaniards did and their reasons so here they go.
- Spaniards didn't really believe on slavery, and the initial treatment of the Natives while harsh wasnt really different than how the Spaniards treated the low classes in Spain.
- Bartolome de las Casas simply presented to Spain the real treatment of the Natives in America, illegal treatment according to the Spaniard law. What people fail to understand is that the Spanish Crown and the Catholic Church had little control of what actually happened in America, they ignored how badly the Natives were treated.
- There were many slavery systems in America before the Europeans, mostly in Andino America. One of the problems the Spaniards had was convincing the Natives of not using slaves, some of the first Amerindians revolts on different territories were caused after the New Laws freed most of the Amerindian slaves used by the allies of the Spaniards.
- The Spaniards didnt want slaves, they needed workers. The regions of what used to be Spanish America with a lot of Black people today were the ones with little Native population, so they needed to get workers somehow, so they bought Black slaves from the British, the Dutch or the Portuguese. Slavery under the Spaniards wasnt as harsh as under the other colonial powers, nor as massive. Most slaves ended being freed, all over Hispanic America there are towns called "Los Pueblos" or "Pueblas", towns made by free Blacks (originally called "Puebla de Pardos").
- The Amerindians usually were concentrated on towns of their own, ruled by them, they only had to pay tax to the crow, of course Im talking about the ones who allied themselves to the Spaniards. And yes, they were on paper equal to American born Spaniards, even allowed to held high positions, again, on paper.
>>386081
He literally never said that.
>>383871
It was easier and cheaper.
When the African tribes would war with one another it was tradition to take warriors from the losing side as slaves, and then they'd sell 'em to Atlantic traders. Much better deal than trying to break the Native Americans into being slaves.
This is kind of like asking why we don't make all of our products ourselves instead of outsourcing it to SE Asia.
>>383871
Black people died from disease less.
>>384130
>They had buildings, literacy, etc.
yeah stupid natives didn't have any of that
