PC: Viable Climates for White Slavery

Wow! What vitriol.
Also maybe try to not mix up race with culture/nationality? Different definitions and all.
This subforum is "Before 1900", not "After 1700 and Before 1900". For the majority of human history there was no distinction between race and ethnicity. Romans viewed themselves as closer to Greeks than Persians, but not as the same race, just more "civilized".
So don't go around spouting the false statement that chattel slavery didn't discriminate racially before the Transatlantic Slave Trade when it clearly did.
 
Not as we would see race, but there’s a reason slave as a word descended from the word Slav.



Except there absolutely could be social mobility. One of the underlying tensions within Haiti while it was a colony was between the free colorleds and the White French, because the free coloreds were often the wealthiest people on the island, more even than the wealthy whites (because the whites would come from France to make a fortune, and then leave, while the coloreds built up their wealth on Haiti). The free coloreds were all either freed slaves or their descendants. This also led to interracial marriage as poor white (men) would marry free colored (women) so that the children of the colored woman would gain additional status under the law from having a French father, while the white man would gain access to his wife’s wealth.

You can also see similar dynamics in say New Orleans, where black slaveownets existed all the way to the ACW.
Interesting, so would the French system have been an outlier or was this social mobility more wide spread? I do know miscegenation was common in Brazil, just don't know if resulting children were considered slaves or free.
While I can't think of any exceptions off the top of my head, I believe every slave society ever had preferences as to which group they enslaved which we can tell from 19th/20th century anthropological accounts of various indigenous groups or from the Bible where the rules for Israelite slavery are recorded that make distinctions between Jews and non-Jews. This is reflected historically, where Europeans made distinctions between various African groups in terms of how viable they were as slaves. This was usually made in extremely crude terms (presumably targeted at slave merchants and people wanting to buy slaves) that described some African groups as generally obedient and hardworking, others as "lazy" or "rebellious", or various other stereotypes. This affected how Europeans dealt with sub-Saharan Africa given the genetics of African-descended people in the Americas.
I know that Romans preferred Greek as domestic slaves to be teachers but that's about it. Were Jews particularly targeted by Egyptians or was it simply a case of opportunism and vulnerability at play?
 
Last edited:
Wow! What vitriol.
Also maybe try to not mix up race with culture/nationality? Different definitions and all.

Good day to you.
…you clearly have no idea what’s being talked about. You are operating off an extremely modern view of those topics, one that absolutely did not exist during ancient times. Greek was not a nationality, there was no Greek state.


Interesting, so would the French system have been an outlier or was this social mobility more wide spread? I do know miscegenation was common in Brazil, just don't know if resulting children were considered slaves or free.
Eh, depends on everything from location to society. Trying to force your extremely narrow definition of slavery however would basically require a complete redefinition of the term.


I know that Romans preferred Greek as domestic slaves to be teachers but that's about it. Were Jews particularly targeted by Egyptians or was it simply a case of opportunism and vulnerability at play?
The Romans didn’t just take Greeks as domestic slaves, because they took hundreds of thousands of them as slaves. And he’s not talking about the debunked Exodus slavery story, but about slavery as codified in the Old Testament, ie that perpetrated by the ancient Israelites.
 
…you clearly have no idea what’s being talked about. You are operating off an extremely modern view of those topics, one that absolutely did not exist during ancient times. Greek was not a nationality, there was no Greek state.
You know what, that's it. I looked at Greeks, Romans and Chinese etc... as nearly proto-states of the 16th centuries onward because I was speaking of 13-19th century West Africa. My mistake.
Eh, depends on everything from location to society. Trying to force your extremely narrow definition of slavery however would basically require a complete redefinition of the term.
I'd argue this but...
The Romans didn’t just take Greeks as domestic slaves, because they took hundreds of thousands of them as slaves. And he’s not talking about the debunked Exodus slavery story, but about slavery as codified in the Old Testament, ie that perpetrated by the ancient Israelites.
That does it. I somehow saw Israeli and Egypt in there and just responded between the work. Night Shift's sleep deprived me it seems.

I'm bowing out, reached home and going to bed.
 
Say What? Where? How? Seriously, this is the first time I heard this. BTW I mean the Atlantic/Americas, I'm aware classical slavery was also diverse.

In Brazil when it was a colony and later when it was an empire, I will give you some citations and sources:

"This article examines the African population baptized in the parish of
Conceição da Praia in the city of Salvador, during the first half of the eighteenth
century. This period is characterized by the substantial increase of the slave trade in
Africa, notably West Africa, generically called mines, which replaced the West African
Central (generically called Bahia Angolas). Although Salvador primarily as scale of the
slave trade to the region of the mines, this is the largest consumer of slaves from Africa
at the time, the city of Bahia was the great African city of Portuguese America in the
period. Lack of books marriage and death becomes even more valuable time these
records, which show the strong presence of women (in opposition to the dominant
model of demographics African slave) and the unusual participation of African slaves as
masters of other African slaves. Finally, the town of Praia da Conceição was preferred
by the seafarer as living and working conditions, including working in the Atlantic
market of captives."
Source (then click in Baixar este arquivo PDF) (use an online translator to translate the pages 56 to 60)


"In May 17th, 1788, was buried in this grave a slave named João João, owned by our slave Ignácio dos Santos.

"In March 29th, [17]89 was buried in this grave a slave owned by our slave Damásio de Camorim, called Maria.

Source:
https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vozes/politicamente-incorreto/escravos-donos-de-escravos-intrigam-historiadores-brasileiros/
Copyright © 2021, Gazeta do Povo. Todos os direitos reservados.

You can use an online translator to read the source above too.

About sons of slaves becoming nobles the biggest example are the sons of Chica da Silva (Francisca da Silva de Oliveira 1732-1796).
 
In Brazil when it was a colony and later when it was an empire, I will give you some citations and sources:

"This article examines the African population baptized in the parish of
Conceição da Praia in the city of Salvador, during the first half of the eighteenth
century. This period is characterized by the substantial increase of the slave trade in
Africa, notably West Africa, generically called mines, which replaced the West African
Central (generically called Bahia Angolas). Although Salvador primarily as scale of the
slave trade to the region of the mines, this is the largest consumer of slaves from Africa
at the time, the city of Bahia was the great African city of Portuguese America in the
period. Lack of books marriage and death becomes even more valuable time these
records, which show the strong presence of women (in opposition to the dominant
model of demographics African slave) and the unusual participation of African slaves as
masters of other African slaves. Finally, the town of Praia da Conceição was preferred
by the seafarer as living and working conditions, including working in the Atlantic
market of captives."
Source (then click in Baixar este arquivo PDF) (use an online translator to translate the pages 56 to 60)


"In May 17th, 1788, was buried in this grave a slave named João João, owned by our slave Ignácio dos Santos.

"In March 29th, [17]89 was buried in this grave a slave owned by our slave Damásio de Camorim, called Maria.

Source:
https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/voz...-escravos-intrigam-historiadores-brasileiros/
Copyright © 2021, Gazeta do Povo. Todos os direitos reservados.

You can use an online translator to read the source above too.

About sons of slaves becoming nobles the biggest example are the sons of Chica da Silva (Francisca da Silva de Oliveira 1732-1796).
The more you learn. Our schooling mostly focused on the negative economic impact of Transatlantic Slave Trade on Africa and it's horrible conditions.
 
I've seen serfdom suggested a few times but I do need to ask, was serfdom really comparable to slavery? Were lords allowed to rape their serfs and murder on a whim? If I recall serfs did have a right to leave for the cities if treated too badly and most of their suffering was economic, whereas slaves are treated as actual property that can be legally reclaimed and done as you wish with.
 
I've seen serfdom suggested a few times but I do need to ask, was serfdom really comparable to slavery? Were lords allowed to rape their serfs and murder on a whim? If I recall serfs did have a right to leave for the cities if treated too badly and most of their suffering was economic, whereas slaves are treated as actual property that can be legally reclaimed and done as you wish with.
"Most of their suffering was economic", what does that even mean? They were largely farmers, they didn't live in luxury, their "economic situation" being bad means being worse fed, have worse living quarters, not having less access to spices, nice pottery or something like that.
 
I've seen serfdom suggested a few times but I do need to ask, was serfdom really comparable to slavery? Were lords allowed to rape their serfs and murder on a whim? If I recall serfs did have a right to leave for the cities if treated too badly and most of their suffering was economic, whereas slaves are treated as actual property that can be legally reclaimed and done as you wish with.

In western Europe during the middle ages serfs were tied to the land, not the lord, they were required to pay taxes and work for free, but the lord wouldn't be allowed to use their bodies or hurt them, except in the case of punishing a crime. Serfs would have more or less freedom depending of the local laws, in Spain and Portugal feudalism was different from France that was different from England and so on, for example in Portugal and Spain after the conquest of an area the king would grant an area a chart of rights called "foral" and those rights couldn't be changed later. Something that was more or less common around Europe would be that the serfs would govern themselves most of the time through local councils to solve small disputes for example. But serfdom is an institution as old as civilization itself and an institution that evolved independently around the world, the European type of serfdom for example can trace its roots at least to the Crisis of the Third Century when latifundia was being phased out in favor of coloni (tenant farmers). Some types of serfdom were more brutal like the Russian and Polish systems, I think that I have seen the system of forced labor during the Qin Dynasty be classified as serfdom too, but most of the time it is called just slavery, some system really blurred the lines between slavery and serfdom, but they were the exception.
 
"Most of their suffering was economic", what does that even mean? They were largely farmers, they didn't live in luxury, their "economic situation" being bad means being worse fed, have worse living quarters, not having less access to spices, nice pottery or something like that.
General poverty, mostly the constant threat of starvation where after you give a portion of the harvest to your lord you don't have enough for you and your family to survive. Having only a few weeks worth of food during a harsh winter is slightly more urgent than having nice pottery in the home. And as horrible as starvation is, a slave could be literally tortured to death and an owner would have every legal right to do so.

In western Europe during the middle ages serfs were tied to the land, not the lord, they were required to pay taxes and work for free, but the lord wouldn't be allowed to use their bodies or hurt them, except in the case of punishing a crime. Serfs would have more or less freedom depending of the local laws, in Spain and Portugal feudalism was different from France that was different from England and so on, for example in Portugal and Spain after the conquest of an area the king would grant an area a chart of rights called "foral" and those rights couldn't be changed later. Something that was more or less common around Europe would be that the serfs would govern themselves most of the time through local councils to solve small disputes for example. But serfdom is an institution as old as civilization itself and an institution that evolved independently around the world, the European type of serfdom for example can trace its roots at least to the Crisis of the Third Century when latifundia was being phased out in favor of coloni (tenant farmers). Some types of serfdom were more brutal like the Russian and Polish systems, I think that I have seen the system of forced labor during the Qin Dynasty be classified as serfdom too, but most of the time it is called just slavery, some system really blurred the lines between slavery and serfdom, but they were the exception.
While definitely needed to be abolished, what were the worst aspects of Russian serfdom? Did they practice family separation and droit du seigneur?
 
Last edited:
General poverty, mostly the constant threat of starvation where after you give a portion of the harvest to your lord you don't have enough for you and your family to survive. Having only a few weeks worth of food during a harsh winter is slightly more urgent than having nice pottery in the home. And as horrible as starvation is, a slave could be literally tortured to death and an owner would have every legal right to do so.
Could be is the key word, the same could in theory happen to many poor serfs given they didn't live in a world with perfect rule of law.
I'd rather look at what happened on the ground, we know that the sugar plantation slaves had far higher mortality rates than birth rates so clearly, beyond the skewed gender ratio, their life was very hard and not conductive to long lives, but what happens when we start comparing other type of slaves to the poorer serfs?
 
And blacks were so much more easily spotted if they ran away. Iirc someone pointed this out in Roots.
Also European indentured servants fit more into the society, being culturally very similar or even identical to the masters. Also it's a lot harder for the masters to justify to themselves slavery of people just like themselves, when there were people they viewed as barely human savages available. In Australia aborigines were even hunted like wild animals, not for bounty as it was in California, but because they competed for resources and for fun.
 
Also European indentured servants fit more into the society, being culturally very similar or even identical to the masters.

Indeed (courtesy of many masters whose "chivalry" didn't extend to being faithful to their wives) by the 1850s there were many slaves on sale who were to all appearances white.
 
Could be is the key word, the same could in theory happen to many poor serfs given they didn't live in a world with perfect rule of law.
I'd rather look at what happened on the ground, we know that the sugar plantation slaves had far higher mortality rates than birth rates so clearly, beyond the skewed gender ratio, their life was very hard and not conductive to long lives, but what happens when we start comparing other type of slaves to the poorer serfs?

Honestly it’s more complex, slavery was rarely heritable mostly because slaves was either worked to death before reproducing or ended up freed. The cases where we do see heritable slavery, it doesn’t look that different from the worse forms of serfdom. But that’s also another aspect serfdom cover a wide range of different legal concepts and some legal concept are often badly translated as serfdom. Another aspect is that states often gave property owners a power over their families and (free) servants, which sometimes could look a lot like slavery, the different between a concubine and a legal wife could also in some societies be pretty fluid. To large extent the major protection for free women against their husbands’ ire would be their male relatives a protection concubines lacked.
 
Indeed (courtesy of many masters whose "chivalry" didn't extend to being faithful to their wives) by the 1850s there were many slaves on sale who were to all appearances white.
The bar for white was a lot higher back then. Today we might say they're white, but I think back then they'd be called halfbreeds or something even if they were 87.5% European.
 
Top