-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The swedish mining industry did similar stuff (though a lot of it was small scale local peasants doing their own mining and smelting) including the right for outlaws to seek asylum in exchange for work at the mines.
If I recall correctly, the Virginia coal mines would send agents to the shore every time a new boat landed, trying to get the immigrants to promise right off the boat to work in the mines before they even got a chance to see what other options there might have been.
And that is written _after_ a lot of labour-saving stuff and basic security and safety was implemented.
Despite what others said about coal.
Gulf of Mexico in the 17th century plantation work ? Think about it for a moment. We talk about field work in tropical conditions and not an Italian holiday resort.
Tuna fishing was traditionally back-breaking labour, but really really profitable (at least for the magnates). As such, some Southern Spanish towns had royal privileges and laws in which an outlaw could seek asylum in exchange for working at tuna fishing.
There is a reason there is a proverb which says "Mata rey y vete a Conil" (Kill a king and go to Conil), Conil being a town with a big tuna fishing and processing industry
It's also worth remembering that coal mining, and mining in general has a history of labor violence. Conditions were poor overall, adn no one was particularly happy about being a miner but it was relatively stable work generation to generation which was nice considering all of the disruptions happening in other industries.
Back to the original topic. The number of sales depended on where slaves were going. If they were going to South America or the Caribbean, the answer is rarely more than 2 times once they made the crossing. A small number of Caribbean slaves might be resold in North America, but that number was very small due to the high demand. Those sold in North America would potentially face 4 or more sales if they were destined for a small farm in the interior. Probably the most depressing statistic is that British North America/US received only about 6% of all slaves, but had a quarter of the African population, due to the mortality rate on South American and Caribbean plantations. The second most disturbing figure is that more than 7% of freed blacks owned slaves.
Back to the original topic. The number of sales depended on where slaves were going. If they were going to South America or the Caribbean, the answer is rarely more than 2 times once they made the crossing. A small number of Caribbean slaves might be resold in North America, but that number was very small due to the high demand. Those sold in North America would potentially face 4 or more sales if they were destined for a small farm in the interior. Probably the most depressing statistic is that British North America/US received only about 6% of all slaves, but had a quarter of the African population, due to the mortality rate on South American and Caribbean plantations. The second most disturbing figure is that more than 7% of freed blacks owned slaves.
The first slave owner, as in owning someone for life, rather than a period of indemnity, in the thirteen colonies was Black. Slavery was the norm in the world. The Europeans were the exception not because they enslaved Black people, but because they forbade the enslavement of White people.
It makes a nice sound bite but is not exactly true.
For more half a millennia cities in Germany, France and Italy benefited from the slave trade (with white people) conduct in Eastern Europe. First Pagan Slavs during the Christianization, then to reduce population pressure and bolster the pockets of Polish and other nobles.
At the same time serfdom was also slavery. You could not sell serfs, but they came with the land and punishments rather reminiscent of what happened to slaves could be implemented against those who left.
And then there is of course indentured servitude which might span more than one lifetime...
The reason white people did not enslave other white people to settle the Americas are much more detailed than intra-white solidarity.
I don't disagree. Slavery / not slavery, is not a clearly defined binary. Imprisonment is a form of slavery, so what people normally mean by the abolition of slavery is no slavery with out due process conviction for a crime. But then there's the question of POWs, internment, refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers. For me the Guantanamo inmates are a clear and unequivocal case of slavery but others may well disagree.
But my essential contention still holds. The Europeans in 1775 had an exceptionally developed level of what we would now call human rights. We seem to have this romanticised view of the past. Of evil slave owner perpetrators and innocent victim slaves. But the reality for most of history and pre history was the slave's dream was not merely to be free but to own slaves of their own.
But my essential contention still holds. The Europeans in 1775 had an exceptionally developed level of what we would now call human rights. We seem to have this romanticised view of the past. Of evil slave owner perpetrators and innocent victim slaves. But the reality for most of history and pre history was the slave's dream was not merely to be free but to own slaves of their own.
No, John Punch's owner was white. You are confusing white nationalist memes with reality.
Last edited:
Nope, nope. It really is not.
I would dispute that, but I would first like to know what you even mean (for I count at least two weasel words).
So?
Basically Murder is not that bad if the other person had people they would have liked dead?