Of the 20 million Africans forcefully transported across the Atlantic, about 30% were women, and 1.2 million experienced sexual violence, according to data in the Caricom plan.
So, 6 million women, of whom 20% suffered sexual violence. What was the prevalance of sexual violence at the time? In Africa?
Also, this, remarkably ahistorical:
During the transatlantic slave trade, a child took the legal status of the mother through partus sequitur ventrem (“that which is born follows the womb”), which was codified in 1662 in Virginia, then a British colony. “From that moment it meant that, as an enslaved woman, you were the property of the owner,” Otele says. “Women were currency, they could be bought, exchanged. They were a reproductive tool being impregnated to extract more enslaved people, more labour, more profit.”
Well, in fact, true perhaps of Virginia and other cotton based slavery. But simply not so of sugar based slaveryu. There are vast reports in fact, looking into the slave trade. People asking, well, why don;t you import more owmen then raise your own next generation of slaves? Why continue to buy in from Africa?
The answer, vile as it is, was that it was cheaper to import more men then work them to death than to raise a child or three.
Reproductive tools wasn’t how sugar slavery worked.
Yep. Slavery wasn’t nice. We all know that. Great that it’s over, huh? What’s that? It persists in a fashion in many places? Terrible. How about we focus on eradicating modern slavery? I reckon people might fund that!
Hello…? Anyone….?
Slavery is one of those turd subjects with no clean end to be picked up by. What makes our blogger voluntarily jump into the cesspool is a mystery.
What makes our blogger voluntarily jump into the cesspool is a mystery.
Because it’s fun and instructive to expose leftist and racial grifting, hypocrisy and factual inaccuracy?
And rational discussion of slavery is hardly “a cesspit”…
“How about we focus on eradicating modern slavery?” Modern Slavery in both grift and law (but I repeat myself) is more about finding excuses to give free flying foreign whores and/or rubber boat refugees an excuse to remain in this country when they would by other measures deserve deportation (although I suspect the whores can afford their own plane tickets, since that’s generally how they got here in the first place.
True. If an illegal immigrant is found in the UK, they risk deportation. If they were ‘trafficked as a human slave’ they get tea, sympathy and a flat to live in.
I know lots of free flying foreign whores. None of them are enslaved. Unless someone’s paying them premium rates to be.
Perhaps I should have just written ‘slavery’. Various forms still persist in the duskier parts of the world. I agree that modern slavery is used in Britain as bullshit to force illegals on us.
How about we focus on eradicating modern slavery?
Let’s not. Let’s focus on what matters to us – mass immigration, re-migration, reducing debt, encouraging enterprise, etc…
Quite. If the Global Majority wish to enslave each other in their own countries that’s their concern. If they come her they must become coconuts.
Today apart from the usual htes we have a wgat and a whoi, with a slaveryu and a owmen thrown in for good luck.
The obvious and trivial substack is almost entirely free of bloopers. Perhaps the content is composed at a different time of day to this blog.
I’m guess pre- the 2nd or 3rd coffee of the day. Maybe Timmy needs to up his dosage, although having said that the body does seem adjust to upping the caffeine dosage far too quickly, hence idiots giving them arrhythmia by consuming multiple cans of Red Bull to get started in the morning.
Sorry but how does anyone know the stats on sexual violence towards slaves? Not a crime, right? So who was working this out?
My theory on this is a lot of the women were willingly shagging massa. Which comes from a deeper theory that most people just got on with being slaves. Slavery was within the normal spectrum of life. You were just the lowest class. And women will always try and shag the top guy around. Maybe it meant you got treated nicer. Working in the house, things bought for you. And of course, a good chance of your kids being well looked after.
One answer that’s also historical…
Q: “Why keep female slaves?”
A: “To keep the male slaves happy.”
Carrot and Stick actually works….
And for the women, under the average owner who protected his investment, their life was vastly better than they could have expected in Africa, or even worse, if bought up by the Arabs..
Even more so for the men….
But that, of course, doesn’t fit the Narrative™..
Have they never seen Spartacus ?What do they think Jean Simmons was doing ? Reading the gladiators The Tiger who Came to Tea ?
( Gladiators used to fight each other with gladioli, but the spectators soon got bored with that ).
I know what I like to think of Jean Simmons doing.
A fair point that – any estimate of how many were raped would be a WAG at this point. Nonetheless, it’ll be treated as a cold, hard fact and probably morph quickly into “at least 30%”.
I also find it amusing that this bit tells us all that women could be bought, etc. Umm, that’s kind of what slavery is all about, innit?
This bit continues the proud tradition of “World ends tomorrow, women & minorities hardest hit”.
Correct. Southern plantations resembled manorialism.
except for the slavery, obviously.
But materially, how much different was life picking cotton in Louisiana vs picking turnips in Essex?
You’re an African. You get shipped to the USA. You work picking cotton. You get fed, housed, clothed and to some extent, looked after (assuming the master is rational and wants to protect his investment).
If you leave the plantation, what are you going to do? Now, sure, some people left, probably with ambitions beyond picking cotton but most people will have just done that. Same as how someone picking turnips worked for the Lord of the Manor.
Of course, the stories we have are all of cruelty and rape, but how much is that just because that’s more exciting than someone who looked after his slaves and rarely resorted to physical punishment?
The essential difference is that the villein in Essex was not the legal property of the Lord. Serfdom meant that the peasant’s labour was owned by the manor. Even then, this ownership was limited and the serf was still able to work for himself .
While slavery was illegal in England from 1102, the line between serfdom and slavery was sometimes paper-thin in practice. In some instances, unfree peasants were still treated as commodities. For example, a surviving 1170 document from the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds records a knight selling an unfree peasant named Aluric, “with all the progeny that has descended from him or will descend from him,” effectively treating the serf and his family as breeding stock.
This… Plenty of confirmed cases across *all* the western slave-owning nations that when the Great Manumitting hit quite a lot of the slaves didn’t *want* to be “freed”.
They were damn well aware that under a responsible owner, they were better off than Free and thrown into an unsecure future, doubly so because they didn’t own *anything* and had little chance of acquiring anything any time soon, and with *fewer* actual rights, because nothing changed regarding their social status…
And the Horror Stories always sell better…
But really… If you’re a commercial farmer, the very first thing you learn is that you need to take care of your Land, Livestock, and Assets.
If you don’t you very quickly end up a pennyless non-farmer..
Slaves, in terms of investment, were comparable to modern farm equipment: pretty expensive, especialy the ones with “guaranteed quality”.
You want *years* of production out of those assets, which meant keeping those slaves relatively happy, and if you could manage provide them with a better life than Outside the Fence.
Which did include making sure Runners and Shirkers got Properly Punished.
But *good* Owners didn’t even need to do that all that often, because the benefits of what’s called “manorial life as an Asset” here were clear for anone but the most belligerent.
And the Ambitious/Smart ones.. you taught Reading, ‘Riting and ‘Rithmatic. And positioned them as Middle Management on your farm.
Kept those people happy *and* busy….
And a Thing people tend to forget…. the Social/Political Mores at that time was *not* Democracy…
The Example to Rule, besides good Husbandry, was …. Enlightened Dictatorship/Monarchy.. Which in and of itself sprang from Best Practices in Husbandry, applied to Nations, Duchies, Baronies, etc….
You *develop* your Posessions, making full use of what your Posessions give you. Making allowances for Status and employing Pragmatism and Meritocracy.
It’s your Duty as Ruler.. And it’s in the Bible.. And it’s Sound Practice when it comes to actually being successful as proven all across the “Civilised” world.
And never forget…. drive people too far in a corner, and they’ll bite back. Hard…
Abuse your slaves, and you’ll find that they *will* figure out there’s more of them than there’s of you and your mates. Even when you’re armed, and they not. Doubly so when it takes a minute to reload a gun, 30 seconds if you practice.
Against machetes and farm tools….
Of which there are *also* a fair number of confirmed stories….
But *those* Sell… and fit the Progressive/Grifter Narrative.
People actually managing their farm, with slaves, properly is *BORING* ….
“If you’re a commercial farmer, the very first thing you learn is that you need to take care of your Land, Livestock, and Assets.
If you don’t you very quickly end up a pennyless non-farmer.”
The notorious slave owner Thomas Jefferson was also a notoriously bad farmer and businessman. I don’t know if he treated his slaves well.
yes.. He sucked at Real Life, so turned to Politics….
Setting a Trend for Lawyers, which…ended up at the Mess the US is in now….
But Jefferson… Founding Father… Holy… Do Not Touch….
Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Courthouse created 3 million homeless, unemployed blacks.
Smooth move, Sherman.
The point is even made in Orwell’s <i>Animal Farm</i> where the revolution happens almost by accident – triggered by Farmer Jones’s drunken folly.
Slave breeding was common in Rome, in Egypt, in Persia. From my memory slave breeding only got underway in the Americas when The British cut off the supply of replacement slaves.
I think you must be right. There’s also a huge period over which there was slavery with, and later without, the cross Atlantic trade.
Curious, Sir Timothy, you’ve noted before how much nastier the sugar slave business was than cotton. Was the cotton version less dreadful because of the economics or were the people in charge not as cruel?
It’s not me saying it. But sugar slavery had no real use of the labour of women or children. Bit of household stuff, not much more. It’s heavy, heavy, backbreaking labour. Cotton slavery did have a use for female and or child labour. Therefore….
There were a few sugar plantations in Louisiana. There are analyses stating that their modern descendants are markedly different – in mating behaviour etc – than other descendants of US slaves.
Culture of the slaveowners? Brasilian blacks (PT) are very different to Hispanic blacks (ES). And look at Haiti/DR. Louisiana was French with some Spanish
Sounds interesting – could you point to any off-hand?
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/slavery-sugar-and-african-american-family-structure
Discussed that before around and about.
Yes, interesting and not implausible. However, cultural determinists can use such apparent effects to argue for slavery reparations…
But it’s all junk. An appeal to affluent white women. Easily conned into suicidal empathy.
It’s Caribbean Con. And not even a very good one.
Check… that’s social pressure, nothing physically hereditary…..
edit: which in it’s place and time *can*, but not enough time, lineages, and ….. an undisturbed social environment… to even try that one….
You can breed people…. it’s just that the Timescape is Centuries…
Pretentious twattery. A massive gender imbalance – far more male slaves/blacks than female slaves/blacks is claimed to lead to a major increase in the number of households headed by a black female with no male partner.
“Counter-intuitive” is not strong enough. There are some villages in the Himalayas which practice polyandry (or at least did when I read the National Geographic as a teenager); in the sugar plantations black women had every opportunity to do so: why would they choose to raise children on their own?
yars….. that would be interesting….
Especially since I never twigged on that particular whopper…
Sugar slavery was essentially men acting as machines. By that I meam that the work ( cutting the cane, carrying it to the boiler and then throwing it into the boiler/crusher ) required strong men with fast reflexes. One false move in any of that process and a limb could go flying.
African slaves were ideal for this work. The indentured servants who first worked on the plantations did not last the first season. They also had to be fed well to keep up their strength. Slaves were an expensive capital item.
The breadfruit that Bligh was carrying on the Bounty was destined to be replanted as food for the slaves.
according to data in the Caricom plan
My Bible.
Virginia, then a British colony. Then an English colony.
Silly cow can’t even get the elementary facts right.
What would my girlfriend prefer to be? A Brasilian currently driving a Merc from Copenhagen to here & last night sleeping in a rather nice hotel in Narbonne after a very good meal? Or African?
Yes BiS, a question I always pose when watching some black grifter on the telly telling us just how bad the UK is.
Like the ropers*, there are plenty of places run by you chaps so if you don’t like it here, fuck off to one of them.
*ropers won’t do that though, their good book tells them they have to take over the world.
One of our friends is originally from Equatorial Guinea. So my girl is under no illusions about the charms West Africa has to offer.
We won’t have any money left for this once we’ve paid the £4tn to cover the demand for climate reparations.