[LMB] OT: RAH

Damien Sullivan phoenix at mindstalk.net
Tue Oct 17 16:49:16 BST 2017


On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:40:18AM -0500, Beatrice_Otter wrote:

> That's actually how slavery and the whole "black" vs. "white" race thing started.  The first Africans were brought to this country as slaves before "white" and "black" existed.  In the early days of the American colonies, indentured servants (poor people from the British Isles, mostly) had about the same treatment as African and Native American slaves.  (There were technical differences in how indentured servants and slaves were supposed to be treated, but they were honored more in the breach than in the keeping.

And the first slaves in the Americas were Native Americans[1].  Columbus
enslaved and slaughtered the Taino.  Charles Mann writes that the
Carolina were *exporters* of Indian slaves to the Caribbean sugar
colonies, early on.

[1] Yes, they enslaved each other.  That doesn't excuse what Europeans
did.  And again, the conditions were often different, e.g. "capture,
assimilate, free."

Though Mann also claims that the SE Indians had a more chattel form of
slavery, vs. more "slowly assimilated captives" in the NE, suggesting
that influenced how whites treated their slaves too.  I wonder about the
records, and whether whites influences the Indians, rather, confusing
the evidence.  Because Mann also writes about why African labor became
so desirable in the South: malaria and yellow fever resistance.
(Ironically, diseases introduced by importing so many Africans.)

Part of the decline of white forced labor might have been that they'd
just die in Southern fields anyway.

-xx- Damien X-) 


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list