Where did the Slaves come from?

[CORed]

Yep, and that's completely ignoring the immense psychological suffering caused by being the property of another person who has the literal power of life and death over you, with no repercussions or disapproval from his peers.



Can I get a source on that? I know a fair number of Irish forced labourers were used (especially on Barbados, I think?) but I believe English bond-servants were widely used as well. I'm not saying you're wrong, because it's not my strongest area and it's been a while since I read up on it.

AFIK, the Irish and English were "indentured servants". They were treated much like slaves, but were required to work for a period of years to pay for their passage to America, after which they were free. Many of these were "transportees", i.e. they were convicted of some crime, and offered the option of going to America (Australia too) as indentured servants rather than being hanged.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

AFIK, the Irish and English were "indentured servants". They were treated much like slaves, but were required to work for a period of years to pay for their passage to America, after which they were free. Many of these were "transportees", i.e. they were convicted of some crime, and offered the option of going to America (Australia too) as indentured servants rather than being hanged.

Yep. Forced labour is the generic term in economical analysis. It can be profitable in industries where there are large marginal returns for each additional unit of labour input. Chattel slavery has the additional advantage that a slave constitutes an investment in perpetuum, since slaves, well, reproduce. You only need a return of about 8% of the purchase price per annum to break even IIRC. The economic drawbacks are much more complex to evaluate - the biggest one is probably the fear of emancipation destroying the value slaveowners have invested. At least in a society where you'd otherwise have a large population earning subsistence wages.

What I was wondering about was the Irish being the first.

 

[lobosrul5]

Yep. Forced labour is the generic term in economical analysis. It can be profitable in industries where there are large marginal returns for each additional unit of labour input. Chattel slavery has the additional advantage that a slave constitutes an investment in perpetuum, since slaves, well, reproduce. You only need a return of about 8% of the purchase price per annum to break even IIRC. The economic drawbacks are much more complex to evaluate - the biggest one is probably the fear of emancipation destroying the value slaveowners have invested. At least in a society where you'd otherwise have a large population earning subsistence wages.

What I was wondering about was the Irish being the first.

First off, not just Irish any convict could be transported from the UK to America or Australia. Second they weren't exactly chattel slaves like African slaves, for one any offspring were not slaves. For another the term was usually 7 or 14 years. And I think, at least on paper, they had certain rights.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

First off, not just Irish any convict could be transported from the UK to America or Australia. Second they weren't exactly chattel slaves like African slaves, for one any offspring were not slaves. For another the term was usually 7 or 14 years. And I think, at least on paper, they had certain rights.

Yes, I know. That's why I was asking Planigale about their assertion.

 

[Giordano]

/thread

I know- just when one thinks a thread is safely dead it comes back to eat the brains of the living.