I think conflating racists and slave owners is a bit disingenuous. The slave owners would have done the same thing to white people if there weren’t any convenient Africans to exploit.
They weren’t racist, they’re were just incredibly lazy and selfish, and also possibly racist but in a disconnected way.
I think you don’t know how slavery was justified.
You know I don’t think the “slavers weren’t racists” take is really the one you want to go with.
Rich people knew what they were doing, they just enjoyed the luxury too much to care.
i mean children and wives were property as well
Syke! Racists care about (already born) children just as much they care about people of color
Son, if you don’t want to die in nonsensical military skirmish, you’re not a person
Yes they are
OOP is on to something, let him going
I wonder how many slave owners were racist and how many just had them because they were slaves. Possibly varied
You’re repeating yourself
Maybe it didn’t make sense, to rephrase better, I wonder how many slave owners who bought black slaves would have also bought white slaves had they been sold
White slaves were sold. Irish I believe were most common white slaves, I am unsure if there were others. There were also Asian slaves as well which were commonly from China but I think also came from other Asian countries as well. I don’t know if there is any race that was excluded from slavery, actually. Slavery, for a long time in history, was a common way to pay off debt, either of the individual or their relatives, though I am guessing you are specifically referring to slavery in the United States specifically in the 1700s-1865, because online slavery diacussions almost always only refer to that. Which had Asian, Black, and White slaves.
Now this is my guess, and I must admit I never really cared so much about slavery to research prices or reasons for why one race might be more common that another, but I would guess that black slaves were the most common because they were cheaper and maybe more of them were acquired from Africa (enemy tribes, capture, etc) at a cheaper rate. Again, this is only a guess.
The debt paying off I believe is indentured servitude, where they were meant to be freed after a time period. Wether or not they were is a different matter
You are correct that is what that means, but my mention of that was about slavery before the US colonies existed. “Indentured Servitude” was a term that first appeared in the 1700s and was basically “non-imported people becoming laborers until their debt is paid,” which then naturally altered the term slaves to be “imported captives that become permanent laborers.” Before that, it was all just called slavery and had the first definition. Obviously that didn’t always go like that, as you know.
In the US colonies and states, I think the safe assumption is that probably almost all of them were racist, or were at least some level of bad. I don’t know if any would have cared enough to specifically not buy non-black slaves, if that is what you were asking. As I said, I never really cared enough about slavery to look for that kind of thing. My curiosity in it never really went beyond historical context.
It was possibly easier to stomach slavery if the person you are buying is black and visibly different, as it could help differentiate it from your own kin. However, some people are just cruel and wouldn’t have a problem exploiting a family member if they had the chance. I think because of my former point though, racism was a factor.
