Something doesn't quite make sense to me /his/
If slaves were beaten and treated like shit, they'll just become unsuitable for work and die of their injuries, which was essentially a loss to a slave owner's investment as they would need to buy a new slave now.
So how come when the number of slaves far exceed the number of slave owners, they didn't just rise up? Why did it take hundreds of years to abolish slavery?
>>945064
they did but it usually didn't work because they lacked organization and concentration of power. Also slavery is such a broad term it refer to many things. The worst type of slavery came from societies that would have large influxes of slave regularly like late roman republic because the slaves were so cheap you really didn't need to keep them alive or healthy
>>945064
Carrot and the stick.
Some slaves were allowed to save money to buy their freedom and it is conceivable that, although slaves and slave owners were unequal, they had some sort of understanding. Or Stockholm syndrome
Better question is why the proletariat isn't rising up.
>>945064
there were slave revolts though. course they weren't successful and all got shot. in order to have success you'd need to be able to get a hold of a substantial number of guns, ammo, powder. no reason to revolt if you can't defend yourself and all of you are just going to get mowed down
>>945064
>If slaves were beaten and treated like shit, they'll just become unsuitable for work and die of their injuries, which was essentially a loss to a slave owner's investment as they would need to buy a new slave now.
Familia you only have to hurt one (not tear him apart) to set an example for the rest of the slaves
>>945141
Because the proletariat is awfully lazy.
>>945064
Most of them were almost completely illiterate, unless they happened to be particularly lucky house negroes who's owners saw fit to teach them some letters.
See Frederick Douglass.
>>945064
Most slaves weren't beaten and treated terribly. That's not to say they had great lives or weren't worked hard but they weren't beaten up.
>So how come when the number of slaves far exceed the number of slave owners, they didn't just rise up?
Because they were unarmed and divided. When they got their shit together, like Spartacus, they could be deadly.
>>945603
gladiators were slaves alright but well fed and fit as fuck
>>945632
Spartacus's rebellion wasn't entirely made up of gladiators, only a minority were. There was like 70,000 of them, most were just regular slaves.
>>945141
Because the proletariat wants to get rich, not "equal".
>>945064
Had a post-colonialism class on this. Basically, in the USA/13colonies, whenever a slave died, it was a loss for the slaveowner. This meant that they invested more in housing & basic needs for the slaves. I think 0.5M slaves were imported here.
In Carribean, especially Haiti, a new slave was less expensive than providing housing, food & basic needs for the ones they had. This meant that they were treated as shit & that there was a constant supply of slaves. Think there were around 5M slaves imported in carib.
So yeah, the numbers speak for themselves. Basic income maximization tbqh. I'm simplifying things though.
>>945673
>post-colonialism class
... a what
>>945655
Thats a clever line. Nice one, i agree.
>>945689
ye it was compulsory course for my European Studies degree (don't judge)
>>945141
>Better question is why the proletariat isn't rising up.
Marx pls
>>945644
Don't forget that the core of his forces were gallic mercenaries they hired with some of the initial plunder, not the gladiator slaves.
Americans managed to ruin slavery.
Restricted it to one race.
Hereditary.
Kept when it was no longer economical.
Fought a war against blacks who took whites as slaves.
Fought a war against whites who stopped Slavs ships.
Fought each other over slaves.
Created a country for freed slaves and did not deport them to it.
Fought three other countries for having slaves.
>>945064
they did revolt many times in fact a alot went south to Florida and joined the Seminoles for the the second Seminole war
resulting in people like john horse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Horse
>>945603
>Most slaves weren't beaten and treated terribly.
What is most interesting is that the white owners (talking about America), didn't beat the slaves up, or usually managed them.
Other blacks did that for them, and if they didn't behave, the supervising black beat them up. The reason the higher blacks did it was because they wanted to feel as if they were higher than the ordinary slaves.
I love to see the revision of slavery on /his/ such creative minds
>>945141
>proletariat
I bet your work in an office.
>>948764
one of the first free towns for slaves was in the Spanish owned Florida who had a law that escaped slaves could live their if they defended the land for the Spanish crown
>>945064
>So how come when the number of slaves far exceed the number of slave owners, they didn't just rise up?
It's very simple.
They gave some(smarter) slaves better living conditions and gave others(more cruel) a whip. Divide and conquer motherfucker.
>>948886
This isn't necessarily true, for the most part they gave loyal slaves somewhat better treatment. Those who were smart were smart enough to know how to escape bondage.
>>948802
In which direction is the revisionism you are complaining about?
