Climate Prevents African Slavery in Northern States and Areas?

When talking about African slavery people often bring up how Africans do better in hotter or tropical climates unlike Europeans who would drop like flies if made to work in the same conditions. This is why you see African slaves instead of European indentured servants on sugar plantations. But what is less talked is how African slaves did in colder climates. I imagine if you sent African slaves to Canada to work they would not do well health wise especially if outside during the winter. So the question is do African slaves die in cold climates the same way Europeans die in tropical climates? Is this one reason we don’t see African slaves in those regions?
 
It's not that they could not survive in cold weather, but that there simply was no need for them as cash crops do not grow in those climates.
 
They can mine or work on infrastructure. Wouldn’t freezing weather cause Africans to get sick more often then Europeans?

By far the biggest problem is vitamin D deficiency due to darker skin reducing the amount of sunlight they absorb (compared to a lighter skinned person). But notice that at 34' S (the equivalent of 34' N, the northern part of the Deep South), Africans and Western Australians lived for tens of thousands of years with little problem. At the latitude of the Mid-Atlantic and Lower New England, Victorian and Tasmanian Australian Aboriginals had very dark skin yet survived in large numbers for tens of thousands of years.

This isn't to say that Africans (or other dark-skinned people) are "immune" to northern climates, but they don't do too worse than light-skinned people, at least since slavery means you're working them to the bone (so high injury/frostbite/mortality rates occur regardless). It can't be too much worse than slavery in the Upper South, which gets plenty cold in the winter (especially during the Little Ice Age).
 
But notice that at 34' S (the equivalent of 34' N, the northern part of the Deep South), Africans and Western Australians lived for tens of thousands of years with little problem. At the latitude of the Mid-Atlantic and Lower New England, Victorian and Tasmanian Australian Aboriginals had very dark skin yet survived in large numbers for tens of thousands of years.
Isn't summertine Southern Hemisphere's sun stronger than at similar lattitudes in the North? New Zealand, for example, despite being located quite far away from equator (34 to 46 S, comparable to Italy) has extreme levels of UV radiation in summer (40% higher than at corresponding lattitudes in USA or Europe) and highest rate of skin cancer in the world.
 
Industry in the 20th century brought many African-Americans into the Great Lakes manufacturing centers, and they don't seem to be suffering. But by then, vitamin supplements were common. Does anybody of any race get rickets or scurvy today?
 
They can mine or work on infrastructure. Wouldn’t freezing weather cause Africans to get sick more often then Europeans?

Not really. In the tropics, because of the ability for mosquitoes to survive in more stagnant water, you get a lot more disease. Anywhere where stagnant fresh water freezes over for part or all of the year innately has less disease since vectors and pathogens can't survive as well.

Now, if you're talking specifically about African peoples, then the relative prevalence of sickle cell anemia will come into play, but that isn't climate caused per se.

By far the biggest problem is vitamin D deficiency due to darker skin reducing the amount of sunlight they absorb (compared to a lighter skinned person). But notice that at 34' S (the equivalent of 34' N, the northern part of the Deep South), Africans and Western Australians lived for tens of thousands of years with little problem. At the latitude of the Mid-Atlantic and Lower New England, Victorian and Tasmanian Australian Aboriginals had very dark skin yet survived in large numbers for tens of thousands of years.

This isn't to say that Africans (or other dark-skinned people) are "immune" to northern climates, but they don't do too worse than light-skinned people, at least since slavery means you're working them to the bone (so high injury/frostbite/mortality rates occur regardless). It can't be too much worse than slavery in the Upper South, which gets plenty cold in the winter (especially during the Little Ice Age).

Yeah, if you're talking about the brutality of mining slavery then most people are going to be having other problems long before Vitamin D deficiency. I will also point out that most modern scholarship has found that the earliest inhabitants of Europe never evolved white skin despite having time to do so(esp. since skin color can vary extremely quickly), implying that light skin isn't necessary to survive even in Europe, and the same evidence is seen for N. America in First Peoples in the states also having great diversity of skin tones.
 
I don't think that's the reasoning, honestly I'm really skeptic of the idea of "white people die in tropical regions" when you have so many Caribbean countries with European populations, the problem is that it's hard to enslave your own population back in Europe, move it there and have it suffer the same conditions and on top of that having a higher chance to die for some biological reasons(disease or even skin cancer, although I'm not sure how the latter matters) but biology, even in theory, only works as a smaller co-factor.
 
Isn't summertine Southern Hemisphere's sun stronger than at similar lattitudes in the North? New Zealand, for example, despite being located quite far away from equator (34 to 46 S, comparable to Italy) has extreme levels of UV radiation in summer (40% higher than at corresponding lattitudes in USA or Europe) and highest rate of skin cancer in the world.

Source? This seems odd if true.

I don't think that's the reasoning, honestly I'm really skeptic of the idea of "white people die in tropical regions" when you have so many Caribbean countries with European populations, the problem is that it's hard to enslave your own population back in Europe, move it there and have it suffer the same conditions and on top of that having a higher chance to die for some biological reasons(disease or even skin cancer, although I'm not sure how the latter matters) but biology, even in theory, only works as a smaller co-factor.

The sickle cell adaptation found in Africans does help against malaria, a constant pest in tropical/subtropical regions into the mid-20th century in developed countries.
 
The sickle cell adaptation found in Africans does help against malaria, a constant pest in tropical/subtropical regions into the mid-20th century in developed countries.
That did not stop plenty of non-African populations from living in the region.

Isn't this caused by climate change and the negative effects on the ozone layer?
 
I don't think that's the reasoning, honestly I'm really skeptic of the idea of "white people die in tropical regions" when you have so many Caribbean countries with European populations, the problem is that it's hard to enslave your own population back in Europe, move it there and have it suffer the same conditions and on top of that having a higher chance to die for some biological reasons(disease or even skin cancer, although I'm not sure how the latter matters) but biology, even in theory, only works as a smaller co-factor.

Malaria and yellow fever killed Europeans at a much higher rate then Africans.
 
They can mine or work on infrastructure.

They could find Europeans willing to do those jobs.

Aside from moral issues, there are practical downsides to slavery. A slave is not paid in money but must be given food, clothing and shelter. Also you live in fear of a slave uprising. Europeans accepted these costs in the Caribbean but in a place with a temperate climate, did not need to.
 
I guess this is why there are no non-African populations around the tropical Americas region, oh wait...

There are, doubly so now in an age where medical care is light-years what it was in chattel slavery times. Are you seriously contesting that malaria and yellow fever didn't kill whites at higher rates then Africans?
 
There are, doubly so now in an age where medical care is light-years what it was in chattel slavery times. Are you seriously contesting that malaria and yellow fever didn't kill whites at higher rates then Africans?
No, non-African populations lived and still live in the region since the first slaves from Africa were brought there, they didn't start magically appearing in the 19th century.

Also please read before responding, I wasn't contesting that there are differences, only that they were not the main reason for the usage of black slaves.
 
Top