Who really "started" the institution of slavery and who benefited the most from it?

[Lik3]

Who "started" the "institution" of slavery as far as history goes? Who benefited the most out of Ancients? Who really benefited the most out of slavery in the US? Most slaves in the US (obviously) were black and mulatto with some whites. Who really benefited, whites, some blacks, some Native Americans, some Jews, or all of the above? How did the concept of racism that we in the States have now evolved from the "institution" of slavery? Did the idea that the Africans were not just slaves, but in their minds "heathens who needed to be "Christianized"" one reason?

I wanted to know all of this because the history of black African people in the US started in the 1600s with enslavement, indentured servitude, and the Middle Passage. I was told that slavery was deemed legal for less than a century yet it continued until 1865 under law. Maybe I need to read up on State Law and the Constitution some more. Anyways, did most white free people really benefit from slavery or was it just the enslavers and plantation owners who owned numerous slaves of all "races" and colors?

I have all of these questions because especially Hollywood and our schools see blacks as below everyone else as far as education and socioeconomic issues. However, true history has not been written when it comes to slavery. Slavery was, and always will be, evil and vile whoever was enslaved, "African" or "European" descendants. If the truth is, many people were enslaved were black, how come Hollywood shows only black slaves, and white masters whereas history was more "racially" and "ethnically" diverse than just "black" and "white"?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

All human societies had some form of slavery. If man can force another to work, slavery was born.

We see Ancient Egypt taking slaves from its enemies; the Sumerians haf slaves; we read of slaves in Greek history; Chinese; Mesoamerican; Polynesian; Indian; Korean etc.
Now all slavery was not the same however. Roman and Korean slavery for instance saw high levels of manumission, while it was less common, but not unheard of, amongst other groups like Europeans in the Americas.
Usually slaves were taken from foreign populations or religious groups. For instance in the Middle-Ages slaves were manumitted if they converted to Christianity at the next Jubilee, but no legal qualms were in place for Islamic slaves.
Some groups like the Koreans enslaved their own people, usually contractually or on account of debt, but this went hand in hand with high levels of manumission.

Sufficed to say, Slavery is fairly typical of all human societies. Our absence of it following Abolition in the 19th century is actually the aberation in history. Slave labour was anyway still prevalent in Nazi Europe or the Communist countries under other names and some labour practices today are essentially slavery in all but name.

Who benefitted from slavery? Why the rich and powerful who ultimately bought/caught the slaves and profitted from their use. This was the mercantile class in America and Europe and the indigenous Tribal Elites in west Africa where the Atlantic slave trade is concerned. Others also benefitted such as the Native Americans who traded and bought slaves and the free blacks who did so as well. I personally don't think it profitable to point fingers at who gained the most from it, for ultimately the entire free society gained from captive labour, which is why slavery only disappeared when cheaper alternative forms of labour such as wage slavery or serfdom came into place.

 

[JackRT]

Some time ago I read an article on US slavery that suggested for the most part that it was not nearly as economically advantageous for the slave owner as was thought. Particularly on the larger plantations the slaves became very adept at goldbricking and sabotage. The article went on to suggest that these slave owners would have been better off by simply hiring free workers at a fair wage.

 

[Lik3]

Some time ago I read an article on US slavery that suggested for the most part that it was not nearly as economically advantageous for the slave owner as was thought. Particularly on the larger plantations the slaves became very adept at goldbricking and sabotage. The article went on to suggest that these slave owners would have been better off by simply hiring free workers at a fair wage.

Interesting. If there were no slavery, would the Africans who were brought here during the Middle Passage been paid fairly? What would have happened?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Interesting. If there were no slavery, would the Africans who were brought here during the Middle Passage been paid fairly? What would have happened?

Probably not. They would then have been brought as Indentured labour, similar to how Britain shipped Indians all over the place. This was a fixed contract that could not be renegotiated and which amounted to conditions close to slavery for a fixed period. Thereafter the Indians were free to go home or do what they please, but were often too poor to do so and ended up signing a new contract of Indenture in most cases.

 

[Tina W]

The thing that makes slavery in America different from slavery among other groups, is that the people being enslaved in America looked so different from the ones who were enslaving them. In other cultures, the ones who were enslaved did not look that different from the ones who enslaved them and they were not born a slave. They were able to eventually earn their freedom and because they didn't look so different from the ones who enslaved them, once free it was easier for them to go on with their life and blend in with the rest of society. They could just move to another area and no one would know of their past as a slave. They didn't have SSN's back then and no way to be identified in any computer system like today. The thing that made American slavery a whole other beast of it's own is the fact that blacks looked so different from whites. That made it easier to identify a slave or past slave. That made it easier to say a person was born a slave, because slavery became synonymous with black skin. A black person if they did escape could not just leave town and blend in with society. Having a group that's enslaved look so different from the majority of people in the nation made a whole lot of other cruel things easier to do and get away with from a certain mindset, to mental and physical abuse because looking so different made them an easier target.
It's the reason why even after all these years after slavery has ended it's still hard for blacks to move on and just blend into society is because since they look so different it's easy to look at a black person and guess they were a descendant of slaves. Whereas with any other group after this many generations you wouldn't be able to tell who was descended from slaves and who wasn't. It also made it easier to continue to look down on and discriminate against a group of people who used to be slaves when they stand out and look physically different from those who enslaved them. No matter what they do, how they act etc they still looked like slaves used to look and still stood out so people could still view them as slaves or as lower in society. So it made it harder for whites in the past to change that mindset because a certain mindset was ingrained and brainwashed in them for so long that black or dark skin equals slave, or less than or lower than. So slavery turned into discrimination. Same mindset, just different actions. Same mindset as slavery but with invisible, non physical chains.
So it took a loooong time to reverse what slavery created because it was so much easier to keep a part of it going when the victims look so different than the rest of society. If blacks did not look so different from whites in America, all traces of slavery and the mentality of slavery would be a long gone part of history by now. Descendants of slaves would have blended into society by now and it would be impossible to tell who descended from slaves, from segregation from discrimination etc. Those things would not even be possible if you could not physically tell who belonged to a certain group. How could you have segregation from a group of people who look just like you do? That can only happen when a group of people look different. So that's what makes American slavery so much worse than other forms of slavery in other places in the world historically....the fact that the slaves looked so different from those who enslaved them.
Even when they mix and have mixed children, most of the time you can still tell they have some black in them. But there were a lot who when they mixed you could not tell they were part black, those are the ones who married other whites and blended into society. That's the reason why most white Americans have some traces of black genes in them even though they don't know it. They have black ancestors who "passed" for white and married whites and blended in to society. So you really can't compare American slavery to slavery in other parts of the world or history because those enslaved back then did not look that different from those who enslaved them.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The thing that makes slavery in America different from slavery among other groups, is that the people being enslaved in America looked so different from the ones who were enslaving them. In other cultures, the ones who were enslaved did not look that different from the ones who enslaved them and they were not born a slave. They were able to eventually earn their freedom and because they didn't look so different from the ones who enslaved them, once free it was easier for them to go on with their life and blend in with the rest of society. They could just move to another area and no one would know of their past as a slave. They didn't have SSN's back then and no way to be identified in any computer system like today. The thing that made American slavery a whole other beast of it's own is the fact that blacks looked so different from whites. That made it easier to identify a slave or past slave. That made it easier to say a person was born a slave, because slavery became synonymous with black skin. A black person if they did escape could not just leave town and blend in with society. Having a group that's enslaved look so different from the majority of people in the nation made a whole lot of other cruel things easier to do and get away with from a certain mindset, to mental and physical abuse because looking so different made them an easier target.
It's the reason why even after all these years after slavery has ended it's still hard for blacks to move on and just blend into society is because since they look so different it's easy to look at a black person and guess they were a descendant of slaves. Whereas with any other group after this many generations you wouldn't be able to tell who was descended from slaves and who wasn't. It also made it easier to continue to look down on and discriminate against a group of people who used to be slaves when they stand out and look physically different from those who enslaved them. No matter what they do, how they act etc they still looked like slaves used to look and still stood out so people could still view them as slaves or as lower in society. So it made it harder for whites in the past to change that mindset because a certain mindset was ingrained and brainwashed in them for so long that black or dark skin equals slave, or less than or lower than. So slavery turned into discrimination. Same mindset, just different actions. Same mindset as slavery but with invisible, non physical chains.
So it took a loooong time to reverse what slavery created because it was so much easier to keep a part of it going when the victims look so different than the rest of society. If blacks did not look so different from whites in America, all traces of slavery and the mentality of slavery would be a long gone part of history by now. Descendants of slaves would have blended into society by now and it would be impossible to tell who descended from slaves, from segregation from discrimination etc. Those things would not even be possible if you could not physically tell who belonged to a certain group. How could you have segregation from a group of people who look just like you do? That can only happen when a group of people look different. So that's what makes American slavery so much worse than other forms of slavery in other places in the world historically....the fact that the slaves looked so different from those who enslaved them.
Even when they mix and have mixed children, most of the time you can still tell they have some black in them. But there were a lot who when they mixed you could not tell they were part black, those are the ones who married other whites and blended into society. That's the reason why most white Americans have some traces of black genes in them even though they don't know it. They have black ancestors who "passed" for white and married whites and blended in to society. So you really can't compare American slavery to slavery in other parts of the world or history because those enslaved back then did not look that different from those who enslaved them.

Other societies also made slaves easy to identify. The Romans usually branded them or tattooed their temples.
Some Native American groups cut off certain fingers to represent slavery.
Often the slaves did look different, like Arab slavers taking Africans from East Africa or Slavs from Eastern Europe, who looked markedly lighter or darker than the slave owners.

Also, all slave societies had people born into slavery, not neccessarily caught and sold into it.
An analogous society to American slavery was the Dutch slavery at the Cape. Yet here a mixed race free group arose and initially the white populace took wives from the slaves or freedmen as well.

We also saw a large free black population in South Carolina (slave owners themselves) and Louisiana.

While the English colonies in North America were peculiar in the fact that manumission was so rare, they aren't that different in other respects from other slave societies. It was always imperitive to be able to easily recognise a slave, so if they were not of a different phenotype then other methods like shackles or branding was invariably used. Runaways or freedmen could not easily blend into society without their origins being known in any such society.

As in all things, its a bit more complicated.