Who Knew?

”shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!” sed Das Proggiez

A total of about 600,000 slaves were imported into the Thirteen Colonies and the U.S, constituting 5% of the twelve million slaves brought from Africa to the Americas. The great majority of African slaves were transported to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and to Brazil. As life expectancy was short, their numbers had to be continually replenished.

Life expectancy was much higher in the U.S. and the slave population began to reproduce; enslaved peoples’ numbers grew rapidly, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census. From 1770 until 1860, the rate of natural growth of North American enslaved people was much greater than for the population of any nation in Europe, and was nearly twice as rapid as that of England.

Mention that at the next dinner table event where you find yourself attempting to discuss, well, anything with random Proggie friends/relatives. Report back.

But Brazil is rarely mentioned in connection with slavery for one simple reason. It ain’t got no money. Race guilt — and guilt in general — is directly proportional to wealth.

Yeah — RTWT.

14 Comments!

  1. Jess
    Posted July 14, 2014 at 3:37 pm |

    I don’t break bread with progressives. To me that’s like hand feeding cockroaches, so I guess I’ll have to make a special trip to Starbucks and ruin someone’s latte with facts and common sense.

  2. logdogsmith
    Posted July 14, 2014 at 4:02 pm |

    Didja notice the drudge headline this morning? Dead youth washing up on the shores of the Rio Grande? Life is cheap for some, indeed.

  3. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted July 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm |

    Good find Claire. Wretchard is an incredible talent. I don’t know how he produces these gems, day after day.

  4. Fawkes News (Blacklisted and Loving It)
    Posted July 14, 2014 at 4:50 pm |

    Those of us who studied History before it was banned some years go already knew this. But it doesn’t fit Teh Narrative™ , therefore it never happened.

    Did I mention Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia?

  5. DougM (paleface™)
    Posted July 14, 2014 at 5:02 pm |

    Slaves in the British colonies (and early US) fared better because of two things: tropical diseases killed fewer, and slaves were valuable capital assets (often comprising the bulk of a plantation owner’s wealth). Imorality and cruelty were one thing, keeping slave stock in working condition was quite another.

    In the Caribbean and South America, slaves endured far worse conditions and were less valuable as capital assets — more expendable (e.g. tires). Iberian masters were not like British or American.

    Piss on all of ‘em, from the Africans who captured and sold their neighbors, to the European and Arab slave traders, to the shippers, to the slave owners. It cost the US the blood of hundreds of thousands of its sons to rid itself of this inherited European/African/Arab crime against humanity. The US even stopped the taking of slaves between Amerind tribes. Attaboy, America.

  6. PeggyU
    Posted July 14, 2014 at 6:04 pm |

    Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People has a bit at the beginning on slavery in Brazilian sugar plantations. He also talks a bit about indentured European slaves.

  7. MikeG
    Posted July 14, 2014 at 6:38 pm |

    DougM nailed it. The colonists were capitalists at heart and knew it was better to treat their property better. Even reproduce them much as we do cattle today. Doesn’t make the practice of slave ownership less wrong, it just explains why it worked so well for the owners. As far as the longer lifespan goes, I could argue that is not necessarily a good thing when your life is in bondage.

  8. Fawkes News (Blacklisted and Loving It)
    Posted July 14, 2014 at 7:11 pm |

    ^ That wasn’t really Doug’s point.

  9. ZZMike
    Posted July 14, 2014 at 7:25 pm |

    “… is directly proportional to wealth.”

    On the other hand, one of the primary suppliers of slaves to the world were the Arabs, who are currently among the top 1% of the top 1%.

  10. Ironic in Denver
    Posted July 14, 2014 at 9:00 pm |

    Claire, this is a great post.

    Doug 5: Hear, Hear!!!

    By the way, although I don’t know if it is true, my Eighth Grade history teacher told me that the levees built on the lower Mississippi River before the Civil War were largely built using imported Irish labor because the labor mortality rate was so high that slave owners were (economically) unwilling to risk valuable property in the work.

  11. geezerette
    Posted July 15, 2014 at 7:30 am |

    Every GD thing is proportional to wealth. Always was, is and will be for ever and ever ——– Amen.

  12. hank
    Posted July 15, 2014 at 8:31 am |

    (for certain jobs) …labor mortality rate was so high that slave owners were (economically) unwilling to risk valuable property in the work.

    My civil war history teacher in college had a similar take. A landowner was much more likely to hire the local white-trash to do a dangerous job, rather than risking his valuable slave (or even a mule). He had not only money, but time and training invested in some of his slaves. Much cheaper in the long run to pay Bubba for the dangerous stuff.

  13. Posted July 15, 2014 at 9:10 am |

    A poor white had a far greater chance of being hanged for a serious crime than did a slave in the U.S. If a slave committed a serious crime, he/she would often be sold to another slave-holder in a different state. A poor white was worth nothing, so there was no financial harm done to off him.

  14. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted July 15, 2014 at 9:14 am |

    The Civil War ended slavery. Today in the South, if you want to hire cheap labor for hard and/or risky manual labor——set up a hiring stand outside of Walmart!!!!!!