Why were blacks made the slave race?
Could some other race have been enslaved en masse? Like native Americans, Asians, Arabs? And how would American society turn out different if that was the case?
Bartolome de Las Casas
Look him up
Although Europeans were enslaved en masse as well
>>350443
>Although Europeans were enslaved en masse as well
By Europeans?
Forced to work on plantations?
Put into breeding programs?
>>350434
Native Americans were enslaved, but because they knew the land so well they took peoples shit and ran off
They were in the best position with the triangle trade etc
IIRC the native americans were to weak and slim to be slaves
>>350452
>IIRC the native americans were to weak and slim to be slaves
So were the west Africans
>>350448
*cough cough* Rome *cough cough*
>>350434
Well Africans were selling themselves en mass so that made it pretty convenient
Native Americans were enslaved, mostly in Latin America due to their large numbers. Asians were exploited as incredibly cheap labor. Arabs enslaved blacks just like Europeans. Yay slaves!
Slavs are sex slaves even today
>>350434
>Why were blacks made the slave race?
All races were the slave race at one point, unless you meant why blacks in particular were subject to chattel slavery which is very complicated and involves both economic and religious reasons.
There are about 30 million slaves currently, most of them Asian/SE Asian, so we could be asking why are asians the slave race at this point in time.
>>350457
Didn't happen to them
Rome didn't even have chattel slavery
>>350477
Top kek senpai
>>350478
Well yeah I mean chattel slavery, plantation slavery, breeding slavery, all that jazz.
>>350434
Other races were enslaved though or forced to do labour through out history.
Also indentured/forced labour was a common thing when slavery was abolished.
>>350456
But The Natives could easily escape since they know the lay of the land. West Africans couldn't because they had no idea of the land they were shipped to.
In Africa with Indian indentured laborers the British brought were meant to make up for the shortfall of African labour since on top of an already low population the natives laborer escaped often.
>>350434
>go to Africa
>see vast riches and tribal warfare
>support one of the tribes so they can grant you access to vast riches
>don't have enough men to transport, harvest, etc.)
>winning tribe captures losing tribe and takes the people as slaves
>come back to do bussiness again for manpower, african slave masters trade slave en masse
It's really not hard to see why a lot of blacks were taken as slaves when you consider the fact that africa had a shit ton of tribal warfare and slavery going on already. All the europeans had to do is trade power for people and goods and if they needed more people, they would just instigate more warfare by deliberately giving one tribe a lot of weapons.
>>350481
laugh all you want but ukrainian, russian, belarussian, serbian, etc. girls are bring traded around and fucked. You can fuck slavs in SEA. In Saudi Arabia too
>>350518
Why is this happening?
>>350502
Also economic takeover.
Flooding African markets with inferior but really cheap goods and products fucked shit up because the local textile, metal working could not counter it especially if the threat of force was in effect.
>>350531
Cause they're god damn sex machines (also poverty and societal breakdown caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union).
>>350477
>being a whore to escape poverty is slavery
Oh Lord
>>350560
>these women have a choice of where they're going and who they're having sex with
I mean have you seen Taken?
>>350531
Slavic women are the most beautiful in the world. Why not?
>>350434
Europeans were enslaved. See Romans.
Asians were enslaved. See Japan.
Native Americans were just slaughtered.
The negro sold other negros and they were sold to us as farm equipment. Industrial revolution, no more economic need for slave labor, end of slavery.
Many other societies have dealt with it, but the USA likes its welfare state.
>>350448
There's no real evidence of any sort of breeding program.
Just think about it for a second. it's one thing to selectively breed a cow or an animal that reaches maturity within a year, but a human?
>>350434
Because africans were cheap and sturdy
>>350578
Not only that, it's not like the other "inferior" slaves were slaughtered wholesale so only the "best" slaves could breed.
People have this idea Africans were just blank slate muscle. That isn't the case, Africans were cotton domesticating, growing weaving; rice domesticating, growing, harvesting; metal mining, producing processing; cattle domesticating, herding, miking, leather making; indigo domesticating and processing peoples
We had a skill set with commodities Europeans honestly envied because so much money could be made and it was fully used intentionally by them.
We had resistance to diseases because we had such long contact with animals native americans did not have and quite frankly because of the Portuguese and later groups who gave us weapons we re forced in a tight spot. If we did not enslave others we would be enslaved.
My people are from St. Louis in Senegal, we have the longest sustained contact with Europeans and were among the fee to have been actual citizens of France and not mere subjects. For a long time it was assumed the slave systems in America were just like ours but eventually the horrors of Chattel Slavery became apparent and that made those of us who knew even more unwilling to be made slaves.
Native Americans were made slaves, they were even moved around the Americas like Pequot from New England were sent to Bermuda and the Caribbean and vice versa but it's important to recognize that by the time they were really being enslaved Native American crops were already being grown by us in Senegal and West Africa and so Native skill sets weren't all that important.
>>350567
Oh dear yes, dont come to europe, 95% of visitors in paris get kidnapped before they leave the airport. And then, they get taken to BULGARIA
>>350578
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States
>>350597
Yeah, every slave had value unless they were at death's door.
People like to believe the breeding program myth because it adds this ironic twist to slavery, and resulted in African Americans literally becoming stronger because of what they experienced.
>>350602
There was also a religious aspect
>>350602
>We
knew it.
>>350613
No there wasn't.
>>350450
Plus they died of diseases too easily.
A lot of the diseases in europe also existed in africa so they were more resistant.
>>350606
>Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman reject the idea that systematic slave breeding was a major economic concern in their 1974 book Time on the Cross.[12] They argue that there is very meager evidence for the systematic breeding of slaves for sale in the market in the Upper South during the 19th century
It's a meme, the article exists because the meme exists.
>>350623
>I'm from Senegal, what's the matter?
I don't want to be rude, but your post is mostly fantasy.
>>350608
It just adds to the irony that a reason blacks couldn't play professional sports was because "they were genetically inferior to the white man" and when they could play and they were on par or better than whites was because "they had been selectively bred to be athletic".
>>350626
How so?
>>350630
You overestimate the state of development of africans and you completely misrepresent the opinions of europeans.
>>350434
>slave race
Thy are dumb and primitive, hence why the ayrap has put them to purpose since the 7th century, they even enslave one another FOR you... so it is easy mode. The black notion that islam is their true faith comes from right of possession, which moslems have had for many centuries before Europeans got involved
>>350618
>died of disease too easily
they were isolated from the continent unlike Europeans hence they could not fight off the likes of the black death and other shit shared between the many peoples on earths largest land mass
>>350642
>. The black notion that islam is their true faith comes from right of possession,
WE
WUZ
KALIFS
N
SHEET
>>350617
My post got cut off. Part of the reason Amerindians were only enslaved for a short period was because Europeans deemed them worthy of becoming Christian. Also disease
>>350638
But it's quite clear that we were in fact utilized for our skillsets
There is a reason why those from Senegambia were specifically asked for in prime Rice growing bottom lands, we had domesticated rice and used a ride based system that was the backbone of Rice growing in the United States for just one example.
The earliest records of the Portuguese back home talks at length our ability, abundance and goods.
Icycalm actually answers this.
Why did the whites use the blacks as slaves, instead of say, the yellows or the browns? Slavery was not racist in the ancient world: most of the Greeks' slaves were whites, so it was not on racist grounds that the whites picked the blacks. They didn't go, "You blacks are racially inferior, so we'll use you as our slaves"; the blacks were simply THE EASIEST ONES TO USE (and hence, the most racially inferior). It was one thing for the Japanese to capitulate to Perry's demand and open up their borders, for example, and another to agree to be bound in chains and shipped off across the world as his slaves. If the whites had tried to pull off that stunt in Japan, they'd have no doubt succeeded to an extent, but with a lot more casualties and losses, a great deal more of trouble. Also, this sort of treatment doesn't seem proper when you see up close the culture of the Japanese, their literature, architecture, and so on; but the blacks were basically begging to become slaves, living in huts or in the dirt, with no proper clothes or tools, etc., no literature or even writing. The greater the distance between you and your inferiors, the easier it is — even from a moral standpoint — to simply impose your will on them, and monkeys live in cages and no one cares.
>>350664
>>350653
Why do they claim to be literally everything?
Islam is as alien to Africa as Christianity.
>>350567
Have you seen Transformers? It's a clear evidence that giant flying sentient robots exist and shit.
>>350659
You were utilised because a well established slave trade already existed in Africa and Europe simply bought into it.
>>350434
this is
a) bait
b) ignorance
>>350671
I mean it depends on what part of Africa.
Islam is very old in Somalia and Christianity/Judaism is very old in Ethiopia and Nubia
>>350664
Too bad you're wrong. Justification for slavery everywhere in the world is because the slaves are deemed inferior in any aspect.
>>350681
That doesn't take into account the fact that initial European desire was to merely enslave natives however they failed at mining, could not produce enough cotton and did not have the skills of livestock raising or immunities deriving from them.
To assume that it was just by chance ignore the early history of Portuguese in my country and the Islands around it.
>>350434
>And how would American society turn out different if that was the case?
If Asians were enslaved there would be no DINDUs today.
>>350687
To be honest Africa is a big place. Egyptians and North Africans who claim Islam as their true Religion is sensible.
But Sub-Sahran descended African Americans claiming that "we the real Muslims and shit" is just dumb. Sure Islam extends into parts of Sub-Saharan Africa but it was never based their or anything. So how it can be their true one and only Religion makes no sense to me.
>>350700
I didn't say it was by chance. I said they used Africans because a slave trade already existed there.
I'm sure the Portuguese thought the Africans would be great as slaves, however you are Romanticising it quite a bit I feel.
The way you tell it makes it seem like they looked at the Africans with awe when really they probably just though "Wow they're good at farm work."
>>350725
About a third of the slaves sent to the US were Muslim and desu I'd argue more were influenced by Islam.
It's recognizing that it's a faith that was different from their masters and it's influenced rural black American folk culture in a way that animistic belief didn't. Ring Shouts and Grisgris for example.
Also you have to remember NOI influence, even then it's not like nation of islam was started by a black american haha
>>350733
I have to ask, have you ever read the early accounts of Europeans in Africa from the 15th through 18th century? All they ever did was note our various forms of production, expertise and skills by group mostly to better understand and utilize slave markets that wanted different people's.
>>350774
>have you ever read the early accounts of Europeans in Africa from the 15th through 18th century? All they ever did was note our various forms of production, expertise and skills by group mostly to better understand and utilize slave markets that wanted different people's.
So, "They were good at farm work" then?
>>350434
The Ottomans and their vassals were prolific enslavers of white people until the early 19th century. In particular, they used to harvest the Caucasus, the Balkans, Poland, and Lithuania for white women to be sold as sex slaves in their slave markets.
They used to enslave Christians from the Middle East and Africans too but the most valuable slaves were white.
>>350434
Africa was right there and already had an established practice of slavery. Europeans were able to get them on the cheap by selling guns to Africans.
>>350774
To be honest most of the African American Muslims I've come across on the internet and such have been NOI members.
Therefore not really Muslim at all. How many actual Sunni African American Muslims are there? From what I gather most seem to be generic "Christian" or have no Religion at all.
>>350434
>native americans
Too vulnerable to disease. Fragile constitution.
>Asians
They were enslaved en masse
>Arabs
They actually were the ones doing the slave trade. Blacks, Europeans, causasian people.
>>350787
Did Europe ever do the same to the Muslims? Like did they go out raiding for Turkish or Arab sex slaves? Because if we did I could comprehend why this is never discussed. We both fucked each other other so there's no way to really throw any blame around.
But If not then I really don't know why it's not more of a big deal that Arabs and Turks raped Europe for a good 1500 years.
>>350807
*Other over
>>350787
Don't forget the entire Mediterranean. Especially during the 16th century.
>>350807
It is though, at least to the peoples that had this happen to them. But everyone else just laughs at them for being rapebabies :^)
>>350807
>Did Europe ever do the same to the Muslims? Like did they go out raiding for Turkish or Arab sex slaves?
Not that I know of. At least not to anywhere near the same extent.
>But If not then I really don't know why it's not more of a big deal that Arabs and Turks raped Europe for a good 1500 years.
It was quite a big deal at the time and is still a source of resentment in many of the affected areas. But you're right that it's a largely ignored area of history. According to this academic, up to a million women were enslaved between 1500-1800 from France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Great Britain, the Americas, and even Iceland:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christian-Slaves-Muslim-Masters-Mediterranean/dp/1403945519
>>350434
>Why were blacks made the slave race?
Only race close enough to both Europe and America and also willing to sell their "kinsmen" to strangers (by this I mean black selling black).
>>350479
The Romans invented the plantations and the encomienda system. Europeans slaves were used as the work force on those places, no different than how the Portuguese and Brits used Blacks.
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/whic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=6fae6d8fdf9d15a41cc6febe529b8a4e&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|BT2350051324&userGroupName=lith7757&jsid=25f368963f5c91938e51a396aec21fb2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latifundium
>>350807
>But If not then I really don't know why it's not more of a big deal that Arabs and Turks raped Europe for a good 1500 years.
STOP BEING SO ISLAMPHOBIC OMG
LIKE THE EUROPEANS WAGED THE CRUSADES ON ARABS
THE POOR ARABS DINDU NUFFIN
*actual arguments I've seen being used multiple times by people on Facebook
>>350807
>Did Europe ever do the same to the Muslims?
Yes in Spain, even at the times where the muslim part was way bigger.
>Like did they go out raiding for Turkish or Arab sex slaves?
No, sex slaves are worthless. You put them to work the fields or in home if they're trustworthy.
>>350443
The encomienda system was just feudalism in the new world. Also the indian chieftains decided who was sent to work for the spaniards and who didn't.
Nothing to be compared with black or roman slavery. Which doesn't mean that there weren't native slaves either, but they were weak and not valued and the places that tried to give them a proper role in economy ended up killing them all. But that was not the common model, it was mainly a Caribean thing.
>>350944
What you are saying about the encomienda system is correct but you are implying companies and those granted the right to be encomenderos gave a shit about the law. Even after the New Laws in 1542 there were "revolutions" all over the Hispanic territory because of the power they lost over the Amerindians.
Like they used to say "the King and the Pope are way to far". Then again, Im not comparing the encomienda system to slavery but it could be pretty brutal some times, it was particularly hell in Peru.
>>350908
Portugal and Britain were the powers that actually dominated and monopolized the slave trade because they cut out the middle man.
It also helped that few knew what was going on in the new world until returnee accounts came and that most African powers simply got too weak over time since their economies were in ruined in many ways.
>>350963
Yes, like feudalism and serfdom, that was also hell often.
Though it had the integrated racial contempt to be added to the typical "class" contempt.
>>350976
Portugal and Britain limited their actions to the coast and they only rarely took the slaves by themselves. What was common was to buy it from coast nations like Benin or the Yoruba who didn't do most of the slave capture either, but bought the slaves mostly from inland where predatory states dedicated a lot of their manpower to the capture of other peoples.
>>350807
>Did Europe ever do the same to the Muslims?
Yes.
>>350872
>Not that I know of. At least not to anywhere near the same extent.
Davis in his introduction mentions that it did happen and to a large extent. What's unknown is exactly how much as there hasn't been a comparable study on it and our available sources aren't as complete.
>>351006
What are you talking about of course they did, the lançados and especially the tangomaos were instrumental Europeans who went native and actively subverted the economic systems of West Africa through marriage with matrifocal groups.
Europeans did not sit ideally by the coast, that is Western revisionism when we have the records by them that showed otherwise.
>>350560
>pimping out hoes isn't modern slavery
>>350872
>According to this academic
>robert c. davis jr.
Who?
>>350434
Because they where immune to disease and on the market.
African tribes sold slaves to us for a long time till we got tired of dealing with the middle man and raped the entire continent.
Americans were dying en masse by disease and also see>>350450
Middle eastern where still considered on par with European powers at the colonial times and were still a threat.
Asians as well, but you could say Indians were essentially (and sometimes literally) slaves during the Raj, as well as some Chinese during its fall.
I dont get how some anons itt are surprised women are still in slavery today.
Did you think slavery just became unfashionable and was stopped following abolishion in the US or something? Pretty fuckin naive.
>>350448
Can't forget the Turks lad.
They real question is why the treatment of Black slaves was that terrible.
At least slavery in the time of Antiquity wasn't that bad, you could at least earn your freedom if you had the chance.
>>353175
A labourer is treated a lot worse than a maid
>>350434
One thing people tend to forget or not under stand altogether is that at the height of the African slave trade the single greatest slave owners were Africans.
They enslaved each other then sold them to Europeans once they showed up.
>>350434
Slavery has always been around. It started with people enslaving their primitive neighbors and defeated populations in war. It eventually became an international business when Mediterranean trade picked up. Sub-Saharan Africans weren't the first or the most-traded group, they were just the last group traded before the abolition of slavery by the European powers. They reason they were traded so much was because there were so many groups in Africa willing to sell to the Arab and Black slave traders. They would ship them up to ports in North Africa, money would change hands, and they would go wherever, usually Arabia until the cash crop fad in the new world kicked up. At that point most of the slaves went to the Caribbean and South America. A small minority ended up in North America, but America was so sparsely populated that they ended up being a significant minority.
>>350434
If you can read french, go for Petre-Grenouilleau's Book : "Les traites négrières" dunno if its translated. Today its the best synthesis about this subject.
If tl.dr : africa's society has been based on slavery for thousands of years. There is no land ownership, so owning slaves means welth, which create a surplus of slaves when one become too rich to control them. So africans, after enslaving themselves, starded esporting slaves. First the muslims bought them, because with Islam you couldnt enslave msulims anymore and people were converting en masse. Those slaves worked in the new territory conquered (like tunisia, thats why you still have blacks there).
While the arab decline lowered the need of slaves, europeans discovered the americas and thus starting needing new workers, just like muslims. The problem is slavery has been inexistent in europe at this time and people werent eager to go in america to settle at first, while the natives were diyng and werent keen at all to work in the fields, and because they knew the land they could run away easily from the fields. So europeans started to suck up the massive amount of slaves coming from africa to use them in those new lands. However with their technological advance and habit of making money on everthing they did it on a wider scale, whle the ottomans continued to import slaves at a lower rate.
And thats why we enslaved the blacks !
About the racism, be careful : at first they were no specific racism against the blacks, but when you see people as slaves everyday, you start thinking they really are only good at this, and thus racism is born, not the other way around : we did NOT enslave them because of their skin color.
To be noted that the word "slave" actually comes from... "slav" ! Because the only slaves left in europes before blacks were the slavs and greeks imported by Venise, so slavs they were, slaves they become in the language.
Hope it was usefull !
>>350434
they could work in tropical weather extensive plantations
>>354132
The way I see it was that the whites in America only ever knew black people as slaves, and due to the strong religious beliefs at the time they saw the reason for their slavery was their inferiority due to bible stories, either blacks being the cursed descendants of Ham who were forced to bear the yoke for all time, or either the descendants of Cain whose mark for their sins was black skin and being one of the "low people".
After the reconquista remaining north africans were in fact slaves, slaves were made of Moriscos and it's clearly stated in their history.
Then earliest records of European slave activities actively in Africa differentiate between Moors who were white or black and Gentiles who were blacks and Pagan. Slavery was a way of converting them and the Portuguese actively seeing the viability of the slave trade used Christendom as an excuse to penetrate the continent
Yes is absolutely true, slaves did exist in West Africa, what is false is to claim those slaves lived any sort of life similar to slaves in the Americas. That ignores they had rights, actively pursued their own economic pursuits, could not be sold at random, had families or married into the family of their master and may have had slaves doing the same thing themselves.
It was indentured servitude, not chattel slavery and what our ancestors did has no excuse.
Also the the blacks sent to the New World is the #1 largest forced migration in human history.
>>352070
It isn't.
>>350569
>Slavic women are the most beautiful in the world
until they hit their 30's
Africa was the right thing, in the right place at the right time.
It had a high population and it had plenty of willing sellers during European colonialism
>>350569
>Slavic women are the most beautiful in the world
This is pure horseshit.
>>350448
>By Europeans?
And why is this relevant at all? Slavery sucks ass even if your oppressor is the same skin colour as you. That question only tells me that you're an racist yourself
>>350448
Well, yea. The Ottoman empire comes to mind. In Iceland, you where allowed to kill Turkish citizens up until the 1970's because Turkish pirates abducted people.
>>350434
Why are Americans so obsessed with their slavery?
The Curse of Ham is a misnomer[1] for the curse upon Canaan that was imposed by the biblical patriarch Noah. The narrative occurs in the Book of Genesis and concerns Noah's drunkenness and the accompanying shameful act perpetrated by his son Ham the father of Canaan (Gen. 9:20–27).[2] The controversies raised by this story regarding the nature of Ham's transgression, and the question of why Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned, have been debated for over two thousand years.[3]
>The story's original objective was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites,[4] but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Jews, Christians, and Muslims as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery.[5] Nevertheless, most Christian denominations and all Islamic, Jewish denominations now strongly disagree with such interpretations due to the fact that in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed and race or skin color is never mentioned.[6]
>>350434
There weren't enough workers and you can't make a "superior white" be a slave, and Africa had no chance against Europe and they were brought to America. The natives were either slaves or dead.
>>350569
You can't generilise such a large ethnic groupe to just one name and call them the most beatiful stupid.
>>355185
>you can't make a "superior white" be a slave
Tell that to the Arabs.
>>355247
>Implying that whites had no white slaves for centuries.
>>355185
>you can't make a "superior white" be a slave
white people have been enslaving eachother for centuries
just to name a couple of examples
>thralls
>helots
>serfdom (migth not technically be slavery but its close since they dident own the land they worked and they usually hade no other option then to work for the local lord)
Can someone sum this thread up for me please? The answer seems obvious (and I posted my answer yesterday), but here we are a day later with 100 replies. What have you been arguing about?
>>350434
Almost every stock of humans were enslaved at one point. It's one society dominating another.
Africans were sold as slaves by other Africans or Arab slave traders. It was really just availability coupled with the primitivity/incivility of the common African. To put it simply... If you feed a dog you can get it to work for you, it doesn't think much. They were enslaved by so many because they were easy to dominate, and again one society being able to dominate the other is what leads to it.
You see I come from the past where I’m paid for with cash
Slave master whoop my ass if work not done fast
Now how the fuck I end up like this?
From living life in my hut with my wife and my kids
Now I’m stuck chained up from my legs to my wrists
On a trip on a ship and the ocean getting motion sick
Praying at the same place I eat and piss
Fuck the saying, I’m really knee-deep in shit
I’m on a foreign land no longer considered a man
My life stands and any plans the white man commands
We’re so damned our minds are programmed
Ain’t no if, buts, or I can’t, or force their hand
Cause of my race I’m deeply hated for living
But got a lot of love when they’re taking and raping our women
My life crazy, it really feel like Christ hate me
If i stare at the white lady too long they might hang me
Treated so harsh cause my skin’s so dark
Everything so hard, I’m protected by no laws
Life full of bullshit, if I try to flip
I’ll probably get lynched or body ripped by a bullwhip
My peoples faced with the same shit for generations
So people breed their seeds off deep hatred
>>350463
Arabs enslaved EVERYONE they got their hands on.
You know what I don't get? Some Black Americans are Muslims, because they view Christianity as forced upon them, and is the white man's religion. Islam was also forced upon Africans too, not to mention the bigger and longer slave trade that only stopped (legally) in the 50s.
>>355591
Islam wasn't really forced on Black Africans. It was a long cultural osmosis across the Sahara, not an invasion.
>>350671
I'm a black guy, and I can answer this...somewhat.
As soon as black people hear that they were the first Homo sapiens on the planet (technically, it's a 50/50 chance that the Khoisan were actually the first, depending if they were the first members of our species or the first members to have a separate "race'), we start thinking that we ruled the world. Even when they were few black people in certain areas.
Hell, some people think that white people are actively trying to kill us, because of a "theory" that black people were kings and queens of Europe, and because of "racist jealousy", they rose up and killed us all in Europe.
>>350795
>causasian people
At first I thought you were separating Native Europeans and Caucasians, but then I remembered the Caucasus Mountain range. Yeah, they enslaved a lot of people from there.
>>355623
*as soon as some black people
Sorry, forgot that part.
They don't sunburn, so they are better suited to working in the field.
>>355785
that has goto be the sole reason for the slave trade to the americas
>>355785
>black people don't sunburn
They don't sunburn easily, but they can still get burned sometimes. Especially the medium to light skinned ones.
>>350434
Black people were essentially the "perfect slaves" for America.
>Not native to the land, so they can't run away
>Military vulnerability to slave raids
>No cultural prohibitions against capturing and selling people
>Vernacular knowledge of rice and grain cultivation in warm climates
>Resistance to European diseases
>Visibly different enough to be identified as runaways
Arabs and other whites wouldn't have worked. Native Americans were enslaved in many places during the 16th and 17th century, but this was abandoned in Spanish America do to Bartolome de Las Casas' love for Amerindians, and they also died too quickly.
>>350443
Whites were never enslaved in America in the same way that blacks were.
While the indentured servitude of the Irish and some other ethnicities would be called slavery today, these people were not literally owned and their children were not born as slaves.
Mainstream historians ought to spend more attention on indentured servants, though. If these people had not been able to visibly blend in to free Anglo society, I'm sure they'd be as marginalized as African Americans are today.
Many Japanese were enslaved during the Nanban trade
>>350578
False. Slaves weren't bred eugenically, but there was organized breeding. Some slave-owners actually forced slaves to marry or bang each other.
It was all about numbers. Slave-masters wanted their human property to have as many children as possible.
I'm not sure why black slaves were not bred for physical traits, but my guess is that it takes too long. A slave master would never live to see more than three generations, while a horse breeder could live to see dozens.
>>350477
kek
>>350531
1. They're white and thus desirable
2. They're poor
3. The Russian mafia is enormous
4. Russia has too many women
>>350626
It actually isn't. He/she is exaggerating the importance of metalworking skills, and I don't think Europeans envied African knowledge, but one of the reasons why West Africans were preferred was because of their agricultural knowledge.
>>350807
Yes, actually. It was just less common. Look at this advertisement for Arab concubines, lol:
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1248serfs5.asp
However, Europe had less of a need for slave labor due to its more rural population and peasant economy. The Knights Templar actually sold captive Saracens to Franks in Malta, though.
>>354185
Indeed.
Africans weren't strangers to pre-colonial Europeans, but most of their contact with them during medieval times was through the Arab slave trade.
>>357391
I thought this stuff was common knowledge.
Senegambian slaves were valued for their skill at rice cultivation back home as well as their relative literacy because of Islam.
Gold Coast slaves were wanted for their perceived strength and health, but were also viewed as very proud, stubborn, and rebellious. Nat Turner was an ethnic Akan (American born).
Slaves from the Bight of Biafra while clever were seen as weak, bitter, and prone to depression as well as suicide when faced with their fates as slaves.
Congo-Angola slaves constantly tried to escape but were very good at blacksmithing.
>>357417
Unfortunately, it isn't.
African history isn't generally taught in the United States and Europe, and many /pol/acks have very wrong preconceptions of Africa that are impossible to shake.
A regularly poster here insists to his dying day that no African people knew how to grow crops or domesticate cattle.
It's weird how people think Europeans and the various peoples of Americas had no damn clue about the various peoples of west and central africa, as if by mere chance rice growers went to rice growing regions.
It's silly, that people assume we were all perceived as the same meant only to pick cotton while not knowing we literally introduced cotton farmer and production en masse not only via north african intermediaries but once the Portuguese visited Gambia and Senegal.
>>357457
Oh the slavers knew about the general regions of west africa and which slaves were good for what
Biafra slaves were cheap as hell but a Mandinka butler/assistant or an Ashanti farmhand would cost you an arm and a leg.
>>357430
>African history isn't generally taught in the United States and Europe, and many /pol/acks have very wrong preconceptions of Africa that are impossible to shake.
Now I can't speak for Europe, but that's a shame. There's a lot of cool African history from all over the continent that could be taught in schools.
>>357491
I'll admit as a native that it's kind of a niche subject like Mesoamerica or Southeast Asia
>>355185
>you can't make a "superior white" be a slave
They did, they just called it "indentured servitude" and it was mostly on the Irish and Eastern Europeans who were seen as lesser whites. It was only when the population of slaves and servants got to the point where revolts were possible that a distinction was made between the two, so that indentured servitudes and the like could say, "at least we're not black", effectively leading to infighting within the groups so they wouldn't attack their real master. Irish were basically classified as black.
People literally can't point Senegal, Nigeria, DRC or Ethiopia on a map
They know what Madagascar is because of that movie with talking animals, most people think of us as starved people devoid of history or expertise. That or they see us as a once utopia.
Neither is true but certainly the former is truly fallacious, do you know how many times I have to explain to Americans and Europeans that's most of Africa had iron and weren't stone age?
Irish were never classified as blacks, even in Montserrat with he largest Cromwell derived Irish servants they were never perceived as Black and very quickly they became the overseers and masters of the black slave population.
The English were never so dumb as to truly marginalize fellow Europeans in plantation societies, no matter what kind of relationship they had with them back home.
>>357367
Also there were European trade posts already set up in Africa and African Kingdoms happy to enslave enemy tribes for more guns and liquor.
>>357501
I just can't understand the boner everyone has for the Zulu and Maasai.
The Mandinka, Ethiopians, Ashanti, and Edo/Yoruba could have stomped their shit in.
>>357563
The same reason why so many European Americans love cowboys and pioneers, it's the western paradigm of masculinity European and African Americans fall for.
>>357430
Part of the reason African history is generally overlooked is that most World History courses tend to talk about things based on their overall impact on history.
Thanks to a generally Eurocentric approach to things (coupled with the fact that it's largely been the West that's defined created the world we live in today), the focus really only tends to be on things that more or less directly effected the West in some way. The West African states like Mali and Songhai get a little bit of coverage (thanks to the trans-Saharan trade), but when the bulk of pre-colonial interaction with Africa tends to be with the slave trade, there isn't much incentive to delve much deeper.
You see similar things in other regions. East African states that interacted with the Arabs are largely ignored, as are India and Central and Southeast Asia. The most well covered Eastern states tend to be those along the Silk Road, and of all the Turkic/Asian migrations into Europe, the only ones that really get significant attention are the ones that had the biggest impact on the West - the Huns and the Mongols.
>>357500
>Eastern Euros
>indentured servitude
Those came much later, retard. Vast majority of indentured servants were Anglos in the Virginia colony.
OP, tell me why the Slavs are named Slavs.
Thats a good starting point.
>>357626
Comes from slovo (word) or slava (glory). Likely the former.
>>357626
You're thinking the wrong way. The etymology of the word "slave" traces back to Slav. Slavs were slaves quite a lot in medieval Europe. Those colonies in the Crimea were real big on the slave trade.
>>357662
There were no Slavs in Crimea back then though.
>>350434
Jesus Christ you can't unironically ask this.
I'm starting to think /his/'s role on 4chan is to serve as babby's first history class. At this rate we will make fucking /pol/ a cultured place
>>357665
Yes, but the Crimea was close enough to the mouths of several major rivers that went deep inland (Don, Dniester, Kuban). It was a convenient hub for traders to access the market without having to go deep inland.
>>350434
>Why were blacks made the slave race?
Nobody made blacks a slave race. With the exception of Arab slave raids, black slaves were mostly enslaved by their own race.
As for the reason why Europeans bought slaves en masse from Africa - blacks are strong & unintelligent, meaning they're perfect for menial labor.
>Could some other race have been enslaved en masse?
Natives could've been enslaved (some were), but they're too weak. As for Arabs & Asians, we wouldn't be able to take them as slaves, since they could fight back capably.
>>357563
Let's put it this way: The Maasai scare lions away just by looking at them.
>>357702
Lions are just some stupid animals though.
>>350434
Convenience more than anything else.
The Native Americans were the backbone of slave labor for a while in the Americas, but as their populations dwindled thanks to all the diseases that came with the Europeans, the Europeans took advantage of the already established African slave trade.
If you look at the numbers, the African slave trade as we think of it today didn't really take off until native populations seriously declined in the Americas.
>>350560
Ever heard of Siberian Mouse?
>>357735
Little girls are the biggest whores m8.
>>357430
I don't know what americans are taught history classes are, but all countries give a baebones description of world affairs and immediately move to national history.
Argentine history classes start with indo-europeans, move to rome, then to spain. All this is summarized in like 5 text, and then we go in full with Argentine history. The world wars only get mentioned because of import substitution and the cold war only gets mentioned because US-USRR imperialism.
>>355185
>and you can't make a "superior white" be a slave
So why didn't they enslave Asians instead?
>>355623
>As soon as black people hear that they were the first Homo sapiens on the planet
Would this mean, from a logical point of view, that they would be less evolved than everyone else? How come this never occurs to Afro-centrists?
>>357367
>>Not native to the land, so they can't run away
>>Military vulnerability to slave raids
>>No cultural prohibitions against capturing and selling people
>>Vernacular knowledge of rice and grain cultivation in warm climates
>>Resistance to European diseases
>>Visibly different enough to be identified as runaways
All those apply to Asians as well.
>>357790
...are fucking stupid?
Don't answer that.
Evolution never stops you idiot.
>less evolved
This isn't fucking pokemon you creationist fuckhead.
Just as you would presume ignorantly, black Subsaharan Africans weren't lazy people who picked fruit off the trees in the jungle or hunted on the serengiti abundant herds of water bufffaloes while napping for most of the day. Africa is far more dangerous place compared to anywhere further north in Europe, Asia or the deserts of the Middle East in terms of environment and dangerous wildlife. I bet, once you see Africa really modernize and industrialize, black people are going to be the SMARTEST and most physically powerful race because of the dangers they constantly deal with on a day to day basis compared to comfy whitey and comfy chinaman. Black people have greater tolerance to pain and physical endurance than other people. Which is a proven fact because black African slaves could last ten times longer than your typical Native American or Irish slave
>>350531
they are on the market because there are 2 types of women:
whores love money and sex
sluts love sex and money
>>354754
this
>>357884
All right this is WE WUZ KINGZ N SHEET tier talk
>>357955
I think you mean /pol/ false flag
>>350700
>could not produce enough cotton
The problem with cotton was never in growing it. It was very simple to farm.
The problem was that cotton wasn't a profitable cash crop when it took tremendous man hours to manually separate the seed from the fiber. The cotton gin mechanized that process and made it profitable to grow widely. It was technological and industrial advances, not agricultural techniques from Africa that spurred King Cotton.
>>357793
>All those apply to Asians as well.
None of those things apply to Asia . Asians have a weak constitution and it would be a pain the ass to drag them to the new world all the way from Asia.
>>358000
>None of those things apply to Asia
Except they do.
>Asians have a weak constitution and it would be a pain the ass to drag them to the new world all the way from Asia.
Black death?
Chinese coolies?
>>350914
Gee, no response, someone got so educated it fucking killed them.
>implying the slave trade happened because of race
Bitch if those African despots were selling white slaves the Americans would buy them just the same.
>“They carry the Christian captives about the desert to the different markets to sell them for they soon discover that their habits of life render them unserviceable , or very inferior to the black slaves of Timbuktoo. “ from An Account of the Empire of Marocco, by J. G. Jackson published 1809 and 1814.
Tell me /his/, what was the actual worth of black slaves?
Normie blacks say that the slaves drove the economy in the south back then, but is that really true, because lots of people say that all the plantation work the slaves did didn't account for much.
>>358347
Basically I'm asking if the work blacks did was as big a deal as people make it out to be.
>>358347
kukking white husbands, while they are away getting slaughtered by yanks
>>358347
There were many states in the south where there were far more slaves than white people. People really overestimate what percentage of white people owned slaves, and vastly underestimate how many slaves there were.
>>350434
The honest answer is because it was easy.
I'm a Turk. That whole mean about some Turks being white skinned because they took white people slaves is true.
Slavs literally means Slaves. Slavs stopped being ez pz to take so we turned to black people. The old Ottoman Sultan used to keep black people in a single town to tend his gardens. The black used to live there till 10 years ago.
Why did we switch to black people? The same reasons the Americans used them, because the blacks were the only people to sell their own kind.
Why bother struggling to capture somebody when a plentiful supply, pre-captured and helping open up new trade routes? (English not the best. I may have said that wrong).
All societies owned slaves. Had it been another race, they'd likely have it better.
I'm studying in America. Because I look white and blend in, nobody bothers me. Even the Mexicans or real brown Arabs don't have problems for the most part.
Blacks have trouble because they don't look the same. They don't fit in. The Mexicans and Arabs get a pass because of the Italians being brownish too.
Black people can't submerge themselves. Kurdish people have the same issue in Turkey. They can't pass for Anatoliana like Armenians or Greeks. So they are treated different.
As a result they band together and form their own culture. This culture and self-caused (not sure if right word) segregation is their own fault. It keeps the cycle of not fitting in continuing.
>>350602
>>350623
This is what I am talking about. There are many groups in Turkey that consider themselves Turkish. They are not ethnic Turks but still members of the Republic of Turkey.
This man is like some the Kurds in that he feels no attachment to his country. He considers himself in a foreign land. "I'm from Senegal" or "Portuguese in my country" is not good. You are from America not Senegal. If you are really from Senegal then why stay in America? I would trade spots with you please.
>358532
Hello AlpAnon
I immigrated here young but I don't consider myself American by blood. I come from a long and intertwining history of Natives, Europeans and Arabized Berbers by bloodline and history.
I have to say the African Americans here aren't self imposed out of no where, it is based off of their unique history. My family came after most of the major work was done, we like other black migrants reap the benefits and like all other immigrants before us denegrate these local blacks.
Every nations black slaved population is percieved as the worse if its a majority non black place, they are pushed into ghettos and scorned except when its time to dance, sing, cook, clean or race someone else's children.
It's strange
but speaking of the transmission of enslaved people who were black in your country they aren't just in that one town, there are several towns including towns and villages in Greece's that was once under Ottomans control that to this day have blacks who speak Turkish and are Muslim. There are many more in tukey and Greece who've assimilated.
Being that I do not look like African Americans I have it easier, still its important to understand stigma to ones former slaves is a reality. I don't blame them for being where some are (people extravagate their poverty or laziness, grand majority work)
>>357615
No, it's not covered because africans didn't contribute anything to civilization unlike pretty much every other people in the old world
>>350434
It's because they enslaved and sold each other en masse.
>>352215
>Indians were essentially (and sometimes literally) slaves during the Raj, as well as some Chinese during its fall.
Indians were hardly slaves during the Raj. They were considered British Subjects, allowed to travel and be educated in institutions in Britain, several were even knighted(see JC Bose).
In fact, one of the motivations for the Anglo-Boer war was because the English were mad about discriminatory policies the Dutch had enacted against Indians in South Africa.
Black slaves were literally treated like subhuman property.
closest to origin of society and perceived as animalistic in pursuit of destroying knowledge of previous history and guilt and confusion over not knowing the truth; christianity and the golden falsehoods of alderon.
