Aren't some countries unfairly vilified for their slavery/colonial past?

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,877
Portugal
But has it always had "racial" overtones ?

If not, is there a point in history where "racial" elements begin to dominate the concept of slavery ?
It would depend of the concept or “racial”. If it is the concept of the “other”, then that begun since the beginning of times, it was the “other” tribe that should be enslave, if you are thinking more strictly in a question of skin colour than it just begun in the Early Modern Period with the huge availability of black slaves in the market.

So, somewhere along the timeline we had a "racial" component enter into the concept of slavery. Would this be a correct statement ?

What was this component ? How did this component manifest itself ?

In respect to the OP, could we link this component to colonialism ?

Was there a switch in the way people viewed slavery during European colonial expansion ?

Can we localize this to a particular time frame or era ?
There is a scene in the “Vita Sancti Theotonii” (an hagiography) that in Coimbra the saint urges to the king of Portugal, D. Afonso Henriques (that had just arrived from a raid in Muslim lands with captives), to release the slaves since they were Christians.

During the Medieval period and then in the beginning of the Age of Exploration, the Portuguese, and the Castilian and Aragonese, made raids on the lands of the Muslims and on the Canary Islands. From that raids resulted slaves. They could be “white” or “black”. Usually the Christians were released. The reverse also happened, with Muslim raids on Cristian lands.

With the arrival of the Portuguese to other lands, in Africa, in the Indian ocean, Pacific or in America, all types of people were enslaved, Moors, black Africans, American Indians, Chinese, Japanese…

But at the same time in Portugal we could see free people of several colours.

But the majority would be black Africans, due their availability, low price, closeness to America and Europe (their initial market). So the equation black=slave begun to be build, especially since other countries soon joined this Atlantic slave trade.

So this equation black=slave begun to be built in Europe and America in the 16th century.


Social Democracy is a form of capitalism.
In some way, both: “Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism.“ Quoted from: Social democracy - Wikipedia
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,740
So, somewhere along the timeline we had a "racial" component enter into the concept of slavery. Would this be a correct statement ?

What was this component ? How did this component manifest itself ?

In respect to the OP, could we link this component to colonialism ?

Was there a switch in the way people viewed slavery during European colonial expansion ?

Can we localize this to a particular time frame or era ?
It was gradual and varied a bit between colonial empires. The Iberian empires retained more of a connection to the slavery of Antiquity, where freeing slaves was still considered a virtue. What you can find is that in the northern European empires, the British in particular, by the 18th c. it had become technically illegal to free slaves, who were by then all African. So by the 18th c. the process was mostly complete within the parts of the British and French overseas empires that relied on African slave labour. By then Africans were supposed to be made slaves because they were slaves by nature, and any legal status as not effectively part of the fauna of Africa, or as slaves in a European colony, was supposedly illegal and perverse, more or less.

But one can also assume that by the time this had to be legislated, that legislation was only codifying what had been the de facto situation for quite a long time already. And that the need for codification came as some people started questioning the state of things.

The situation was built clearly up over the 16th-17th c.s. There was a process of rationalizing slavery for Africans that started once Africans had become the predominant population that was being enslaved. The ideologues for slavery and it's blending with scientific racism, also beginning in the late 18th c., almost ALL took place with the imperial framework of Britain and France. (J.F. Blumenbach, professor of anatomy at German Göttingen, inventor of the signal 19th c. race science of "craniology", was a subject of HM George III of Britain, and received materials from the travels of Capt. Cook, Sir Josiah Banks of the Royal Society, etc. It dovetailed with a racialization of politics that started in the 18th c. as well, whether "Anglosaxonism" ("Alfredism") in the UK, or an ideology of aristocracy based on superior Frank and Norman (Germanic) blood in France.) There is a possible argument to be made here that northwest Europe does deserve more censure than a lot of the rest because of the development of the ideology to rationalize with the institution.


Another way of reading the signs of this is looking at when the Abolitionist counter argumentation started. Again it was the late 18th c. The ideologues of slavery had their conceptual tool-kit ready by then to argue that slavery for Africans was both natural, right and proper. And they were met by a new opposition observing this ideology of slavery to be perverse and wrong, and arguing for the full humanity and emancipation of Africans-as-slaves – from 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade in the UK, and the following year, 1788, in France the Société des Amis des Noirs.
1570605591658.png
Motto and one of the designs of the British Abolitionist movement, designed by the industrialist Josiah Wedgewood (Charles Darwin's maternal uncle).

Satirized by the defenders of the naturalness of slavery, for Africans, by things like this:
1570605616917.png
Sort of asking: "If we start with the Negroes, why not include the bloody apes as well, when we're at it?"
 

Peter Graham

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,619
Westmorland
Utter nonsense, no normal person is down the pub talking about Rhodes. Your position is not that of the ordinary people, it's fake.
Ad hominem attacks really don't help an argument and are generally a sign that someone is losing the argument. So either provide your grounds for suggesting that I am not an ordinary person or pack it in.

Perhaps it might help if you provide a definition of an 'ordinary' or a 'normal' person?

Also, perhaps you can confirm whether or not you really are saying that the objective acid test for whether something is important is if people are talking about it in pubs?
 
Last edited:

Peter Graham

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,619
Westmorland
So how then Low Countries were pretty ecnomically developed by 16th century ? How the newly created Dutch Republic was that economically developed by 1600 ?

What about Hanseatic League ?
You are misisng the point. I'm not saying that slavery was an inevitable or a requisite part of economic development or wealth creation. All I am saying is that being able to benefit from slavery assisted colonial powers like Britain to accumulate even more wealth than they otherwise might have done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,877
Portugal
I'm not saying that slavery was an inevitable or a requisite part of economic development or wealth creation. All I am saying is that being able to benefit from slavery assisted colonial powers like Britain to accumulate even more wealth than they otherwise might have done.
Since slave trade was a profitable economy, that undeniable. By the way, valid for Britain as well for any other country that made the slave trade. What the countries made with those profits is another theme. Apparently some made a better investment of that capital than others.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,740
Since slave trade was a profitable economy, that undeniable. By the way, valid for Britain as well for any other country that made the slave trade. What the countries made with those profits is another theme. Apparently some made a better investment of that capital than others.
Largely the Europeans who could afford the commodities ate (sugar), drank (coffee) or smoked (tobacco) them. It made huge profits for some, but a lot of it was luxury consumption.

The best get-rich-quick scheme for a young 18th c. Englishman with a bit of capital was to get a loan to buy some land on one of the Carribean sugar islands, acquire the requisite number of slaves for a sugar production operation, and then work them to death as fast as possible. New labour could be acquired as and when the first batch wore out. The more callous to the cost in human life, the faster the loan could be paid off and the investment recouped.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,476
Londinium
Largely the Europeans who could afford the commodities ate (sugar), drank (coffee) or smoked (tobacco) them. It made huge profits for some, but a lot of it was luxury consumption.

The best get-rich-quick scheme for a young 18th c. Englishman with a bit of capital was to get a loan to buy some land on one of the Carribean sugar islands, acquire the requisite number of slaves for a sugar production operation, and then work them to death as fast as possible. New labour could be acquired as and when the first batch wore out. The more callous to the cost in human life, the faster the loan could be paid off and the investment recouped.
While I'm not disagreeing with your point, isn't this the same "get-rich-quick-scheme" that a Roman, Ottoman or Umayyad caliphate person (or any state/nation from the Sumerians to modern times) would have available to them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isleifson
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
The racial component was added to slavery when the concept of race existed in the first place.

It's a very stupid thing that lumped various unlike groups together either by color, geography, or both.

It's basically something that Europeans used to try and group themselves together as this superior group while making the rest of the world beneath them as an attempt at unity and as an excuse to screw over everyone else, however the concept of race lumping different groups together was just a silly in Europe as outside Europe and that didn't work as planned at all with all the wars 3 days a week.

Another thing i race was political because people were "black" "asia": or "White" depending on the agenda. There were blacks in North Africa, contrary to popular belief, and still are, but back in the day certain non-black (the Europeans version of black) were called black when the agenda called for it.

Just like Indians originally not being Asian and later becoming Asian.

Don't forget not all of Europe was originally white, "white" was something that was thrown around, hence why you saw in Europe and in America for a time certain groups considered "white" now were not white then or were "debatable" white. Whites on Central and South America were not white, but where "Indians" or "Black: if they were more tanned. This later changed to Hispanic, which isn't a race, thus we now see the paler skinned Central and South Americans becoming "white" although actual "Whites" use hispanic as a race to prevent calling them "white."

The whole everyone that's pale skinned outside Asia as "White" happened when there was desperation to revise African historical findings as assisted or lies and it was "white men" and this era was the time where the Super Insane Pro-White nonsense happened where the Near East were all white people and the greeks taught the Egyptians how to make statues and run a kingdom, and was mostly white, and the Nubians didn't exist until Rome and were taught by the Romans to plant flowers, and taught Asians how to write.

You know the same Rome that hated the Europeans at the other than the Greeks.

The whole concept has caused untold damage, and people looking back at history will take race apply it to the past in era where it didn't exist as is, to push agendas, and not every "race" basically does this now from China to England.

Ethnic group has always been more important and a better indicator of a group of people. It's also much more useful for historical research, especially on where groups settled. It's how we found out about the Bantu migration.