If we turn this thing about slavery around. What does it mean seen from another perspective?

Question

A slave was used to carry out work that somebody else couldn't do. Several groups were tried as slaves in the beginning but black people seemed to be more fruitful to the trade and that's why the Atlantic was crossed many many times. A slave was also often abused both physically and verbally. I don't know if we should call that hatred or dislike for the slave. And this is where the other perspective comes in.

If the slave was disliked so much that he was constantly abused why did they continue to bring or breed more of what that society claimed to not like. Wasn't this because the slave had alot of value/was of great value to the business then? This argument can be strengthened by the fact that both the African western coast as well as the eastern coast experienced this. People were exiting from all directions. So is it true that a slave can be degraded/devalued, through language and action, by the very same society to which he is/ has been of great value. Don't you think so?

No I really think they knew that they were people. Otherwse they never would have called them boy or things of that kind. And if at all they didn't know then, know they know that these were people. But that is over now. Let us work together towards our survival as a planet.

Woof, I've said it before that yes there were sick individuals in the form of African chiefs and elders who sold off fellow brothers and sisters just because they were feuding. But what I do know is never did they give them guidelines on what to do with the slaves and how to treat them once they gained control of them. If the buyers knew better then they would have acted better than the African chiefs.

Woof, yes the African leaders were terrible (and you and I have seen what people can do to each other during wars so that part is settled), but again the people who later came to spread light in other continents didn't prove any different. Are you telling me that since the African chiefs, elders, leaders - or whatever - did what they did it became automatically ok for others to do the same? The finger should be pointed in all directions, not just one.

Yeah Africans have come over but it's far from all. Count me out too.

Answer 1

I think that slave owners realized the value of their slaves (hello - free labor). I think the degrading came along as a way to justify how slaves were treated. You could not treat a person they way slaves are treated so slave owners came to the conclusion that slaves must be less than people therefore they could get away with not paying them and subjecting them to terrible living conditions.

This is similar to how people degrade each other today - They make someone out to be less than what they really are therefore justifying their behavior towards them (think of bullies for example).

Answer 2

First, I don't want 50 thumbs down for my reply. The question was asked and I'll reply.

First, the slave was not performing labor that someone else could not do. It was economics. As a plantation owner it was cheaper in the long run to buy a slave then it was to pay a field hand a daily wage. Once the slave performed a certain amount of work, the slave was paid for it was basically free labor. Additionally, the slaves were bred like any other 'live stock' on the plantation. If you bought a breeding pair of mules, you could mate them and have more mules. The same with slaves. As slaves were considered livestock and a resource to the plantation, the slave master could not have them running off on him. With a mule he could put up a fence, but with a slave he had to find another way. Whipping, intimidation and fear are how he kept the slave 'penned in'. It wasn't hate; the slave had to be 'convinced' to stay. Many slave owners had slaves work in the house and even raise their children. House slaves were treated very well by owners, field slaves were mules.
One final note on your question. The slaves were brought across the ocean by the Whiteman. The slave was sold to the Whiteman by slave traders WHO BOUGHT THEM FROM AFRICANS. The Africans had been using slaves captured from waring tribes for 100's of years and saw the opportunity to make money by selling slaves. Africans enslaved Africans. I'll get 100 thumbs down for this, oh well -


UPDATE - jjjjjjjjj - I just read your post and I agree.
Princess - The African tribes used captured warriors from other tribes as slave labor their selves. There are accounts of them torturing them and routinely killing them. They viewed their slaves as not only property, but as the enemy that they humiliated and killed.

Question back to you “The first Africans were brought to Jamestown in 1619 by a Dutch slave ship” “Slavery ended in 1865.” (How many Africans were in America in 1865 ) minus (how many African have come to live in the USA since 1865 / including offspring) plus (How many total people of African decent are there in the USA today) Without knowing the exact numbers it seems like slavery brought a lot of Africans and decedents to the USA.

Answer 3

Yeah weird wasn't it. Of course the slave had great value for his ability to be used in a physical way but no value as a human being. I think that is the crux of the matter. A slave was just a thing like a tool to be used, abused and discarded when no longer useful. If their masters thought of them as people then they could not have done what they did. I have just finished reading a book called 'white gold' about the white slave trade. White people where captured off ships and taken in slave raids from England and Europe and treated in the most appalling manner. Their value lay in their use as manual labourers and as hostages for ransom by their governments. They were taken especially for the Muslim nations in north and west Africa. these nations also had black slaves from the lower regions of africa. It was really an eye opening book. I cant recall the author but go to the library and ask for that title.

Answer 4

Ok, first off the whole Slavery thing is just disgusting. I DO NOT agree, nor understand how ppl back then treated another human being like they did! Really sickening!!
I was on the net looking up ancestory stuff for my man who's black and from Louisiana. I was literally sick to my stomach and soo sad to find listing of slaves for sale. Ahh! How could they treat ppl like they did. The way they discribed them as if they were stock or cattle! Very distrubing and disgusting!
I agree w/ you. They degraded and abused the slaves as if they were nothing. But in those listing they list them like you would a damn car, "Real healthy, strong, young buck!" WHAT THE HE!!??? I'm soo glad I was not around that time because I would not have been able to handle seeing ppl treated like the slaves were.
So yes, although the white man acted as if they were nothing, they were one of their greatest assets! Sick bastards as they were!

Answer 5

A slave owner paid for a slave just as he paid for any animal which he owned. He expected at the very least to get back his original investment and any further upkeep in the form of work on the slaves part. This is where their worth lay. Even with a troublesome animal (and slaves were basically regarded as such) one tries many manners of 'persuasion' to coax it into proper behaviour to perform its tasks. Breeding the animal instead of always purchasing new stock can cut down on overhead, as well as provide stock to sell for money or goods.

So simply place slaves in the light of being animals to the slave owners, and consider what people do with farm animals as being their incentive for the way in which they treated slaves.


Additional: "No I really think they knew that they were people. Otherwse they never would have called them boy or things of that kind"

Are you serious? People call their dogs "boy" and such, and people are always giving names to their pets as well as inanimate objects. Ask a guy if he has a name for his car and see what response you get.


And Woof below makes some of the same points I was making but said in a slightly different manner. I wasn't being prejudiced or racist in my remarks, either. The question asked to look at it from the perspective of the slave owner, which I did and even stated that was the perspective I was taking. I never claimed it was mine. Why people who are reading this can't comprehend that without having it pointed out to them is beyond me.


Additonal: "But what I do know is never did they give them guidelines on what to do with the slaves and how to treat them once they gained control of them."

This just means they weren't told what to do or not to do with them. Meaning the chiefs sold them without any regard (or conscience) as to what would or might happen to them. And you're deluding yourself if you honestly believe the people buying slaves didn't know better or at least suspect. People oft times turn a blind eye when they know they might see something that they don't want to see. Just because they ignore it or turn away from it doesn't mean they aren't aware of its existence in some way.

Answer 6

Being a value and being valued are two different concepts. No one claims that slaves were disliked, they were abused because they were devalued as human beings and horrible people were allowed to do as they pleased with them. Free people are disliked and abused, it's not a concept only applied to slaves. Slaves were of no value to society as slavery did nothing to enhance society, it only enhanced the riches of some members. Stealing advances the riches of thieves, so your argument would suggest that thieves are a value to society.
There is no justification for slavery, it is and was and always has been an immoral activity. Don't you think so?

Answer 7

Yes, I think slaves were degraded by the very people that depended on them. But I don't think this was due to dislike or hatred. I think it was something much worse. The slave owners didn't see them as human. They were objects to be owned, used and discarded when no longer useful. This underlying philosophy is what made life so difficult for former slaves even after the practice was abolished.

Answer 8

Please don't take this as a example to anyone on Yahoo. But it's a way to control like a abuser in a personal relationship keeps abusing the other. If you have done any research on Domestic Violence you will see what I mean. It's a way to control others, to keep them in check, to keep them too afraid to change. It works in many ways, like the school yard bully, same type of abuse.

Answer 9

I see your point......... and I do agree........ I *hate* the fact that was done to humans...... can not take it back tho, so must move forward........ but, YES, the slaves were valuable in many ways to the economy as great workers..... our industry would not have moved forward without their contributions to the work force.......... go in peace..... God bless

Answer 10

yes. the economics of empire rely on forced labor.
pyschological and physical abuse beame control mechanisms. racial divisions did, too - as well as serving as a wedge between forced-labor groups of different ethnicities, and an excuse to take land from other peoples.