|
Powergamz1 -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/19/2013 1:43:13 AM)
|
It takes 2 to trade. Slavery as spoils of war had been around for much longer than that.
The Middle Passage slave trade under discussion was a business venture of the Portuguese. the English, et al. in order to avoid sailing empty ships to the colonies to pick up spices, cotton, and other exports.
80% of the slaves thus transported ended up *outside* of the American colonies, because they started using the later generations of slaves as replacements, instead of buying more.
Do they not teach this anymore?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
Who do you think started the racial discord in the first place?
My money's on the folks who imported and owned black slaves.
i was wondering when I'd get the chance to work in some hate for the Dutch, since they were the first to do it here. [;)]
It was actually the Portuguese first, based on the business model they first established with slave-based sugarcane plantations in the Canary Islands, only a few years before discovery of the "New World." Quite propitious. Easy translation of that model to the Bahamas, Cuba, Brazil, etc., which laid the groundwork for all subsequent Atlantic slave trade.
quote:
But you're right-many of those same families who used to own slaves are now in power.
To answer to the quote you were responding to ("the importers and owners of black slaves"): the importers and the owners were different parties, from different continents.
The slave owners were the "one-percenters" of the day in the South. The merchants of the US Northeast and Europe bought every bit of that slave-made cotton they could get their hands on with out any hesitation. The latter made for a significantly greater number than a comparatively few wealthy plantation owners. No market for slave-made cotton => eventual end of market for slaves. No windfall profits to Europeans capturing and transporting and selling the slaves => end of market for slaves.
The Europeans banned slavery within their borders, but banning the profits from the trade was out of the question, at least at the time (just as it was out of the question to even consider banning import of slave-made cotton to the North in the US). When slavery was finally abolished in the US, that made abolition of the now dead-duck slave trade in Euro countries politically feasible.
The point being that there are many more descendants of those who profited from the slave trade and the economic benefit of the product derived thereby in power now, both in the US and in Europe, than there are descendants of former slave owners in such current position.
You and virtually every person in this sub conversation are ignoring one important fact.
The slave trade did not begin with the Dutch.
It did not begin with the Spanish.
It did not even begin with the Portuguese.
Something like 95% of all slaves were originally captured and put into slavery by other Africans getting rid of undesirables, criminals or enemies.
|
|
|
|
