Why do many New World cities/countries have higher murder rates than Old World?

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Lol how is it dishonest? Can we not compare different practices of slavery? I also compared it to our modern slaves in Asia that make our clothes and shoes.

I mean sure, you can do whatever you want. It doesn’t make it particularly meaningful or insightful though. I explained it well enough and haven’t seen any posts you’ve made that seem to even approach historical relevancy. .

FWIW, understanding how certain systems affected outcomes doesn’t mean any single person today is personally responsible. I’ll never understand that leap in logic.

[badrunner]

We've reached a new low when "slavery had nothing to do with racism" becomes a talking point

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

We've reached a new low when "slavery had nothing to do with racism" becomes a talking point

You are mistaking what came about in the US with why it started in the first place.

Let me help you out. We had indentured servants...but this became a problem. They started living longer than their service contract which meant they eventually got their freedom. This caused a couple of issues, chiefly you had a bunch of young men and women(mostly men) who had little to no access to land which meant they wanted to push further west which meant they came into conflict with the local native Americans for their land. The local governments didn't like this, but it pretty much kept happening until Bacon Rebellion in Virginia. At this point the government found it was easier for everyone involved to simply import slaves rather than servants. Slaves didn't require eventual freedom and they didn't understand English law while they were in service.

The fact that places like Virginia went the way of slavery wasn't guaranteed. Georgia very well could have stayed a free state if it wasn't for a few misguided steps they choose in their early decades. One of the earliest recorded slave owners in America was a black man. I think people today wonder how the hell could slavery been allowed in the first place. The real question is why did we end slavery in such an abrupt way(historically speaking) and why at that certain time in history. Slavery was the norm.

In any case, was there racism in America in 1609? Yes. Was racism the main reason that we started bringing Africans in to become slaves? No.

Edit: I've already explained why Africans were targeted for slavery vs anyone else. They were the easiest targets for Europeans(and for Arabs and the Turks btw).

[Encolpius]

^ Yeah, Bacon's Rebellion was super important in the history of slavery and racism in the US. But you didn't fully explain why.

The plantation owners in the Chesapeake colonies brought both black slave and white indentured labor to work the fields. They lived and worked side-by-side, fraternized, not infrequently made families together, and the colonies also attracted immigrants from the Caribbean including free blacks and mulattos. During the Commonwealth (1649-1660), indentured labor from England was becoming harder to get; the planters had taken to transporting criminals, vagabonds and kidnapping folks from Ireland -- upon arrival, these sorts of whites were harder to control and likely to cause trouble.

During the winter of 1676-77, colonists across all classes, black and white, rose up against the planter elite and burnt Jamestown to the ground. That scared the hell out of the elites. They discovered they needed to divide if they were going to rule.

Over the next few years, Virginia Colony worked out the very first black codes defining the separate legal status of blacks and whites, banning miscegenation, and strictly regulating the behavior of free blacks. At the same time, the legislature began addressing some of the grievances of poor whites and making the laws more favorable towards them.

Slavery didn't happen because wealthy planters were racist. They just knew slavery could help 'em get rich. Racism happened because they needed it as a tool to keep blacks and poor whites from making common cause.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

^ Yeah, Bacon's Rebellion was super important in the history of slavery and racism in the US. But you didn't fully explain why.

The plantation owners in the Chesapeake colonies brought both black slave and white indentured labor to work the fields. They lived and worked side-by-side, fraternized, not infrequently made families together, and the colonies also attracted immigrants from the Caribbean including free blacks and mulattos. During the Commonwealth (1649-1660), indentured labor from England was becoming harder to get; the planters had taken to transporting criminals, vagabonds and kidnapping folks from Ireland -- upon arrival, these sorts of whites were harder to control and likely to cause trouble.

During the winter of 1676-77, colonists across all classes, black and white, rose up against the planter elite and burnt Jamestown to the ground. That scared the hell out of the elites. They discovered they needed to divide if they were going to rule.

Over the next few years, Virginia Colony worked out the very first black codes defining the separate legal status of blacks and whites, banning miscegenation, and strictly regulating the behavior of free blacks. At the same time, the legislature began addressing some of the grievances of poor whites and making the laws more favorable towards them.

Slavery didn't happen because wealthy planters were racist. They just knew slavery could help 'em get rich. Racism happened because they needed it as a tool to keep blacks and poor whites from making common cause.

Well, you did say it better than I ever could. Great post. "Racism happened because they needed it as a tool to keep blacks and poor whites from making common cause" is absolutely key here and I totally left that out in my extremely brief and amateurish explanation.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

You are mistaking what came about in the US with why it started in the first place.

Let me help you out. We had indentured servants...but this became a problem. They started living longer than their service contract which meant they eventually got their freedom. This caused a couple of issues, chiefly you had a bunch of young men and women(mostly men) who had little to no access to land which meant they wanted to push further west which meant they came into conflict with the local native Americans for their land. The local governments didn't like this, but it pretty much kept happening until Bacon Rebellion in Virginia. At this point the government found it was easier for everyone involved to simply import slaves rather than servants. Slaves didn't require eventual freedom and they didn't understand English law while they were in service.

The fact that places like Virginia went the way of slavery wasn't guaranteed. Georgia very well could have stayed a free state if it wasn't for a few misguided steps they choose in their early decades. One of the earliest recorded slave owners in America was a black man. I think people today wonder how the hell could slavery been allowed in the first place. The real question is why did we end slavery in such an abrupt way(historically speaking) and why at that certain time in history. Slavery was the norm.

In any case, was there racism in America in 1609? Yes. Was racism the main reason that we started bringing Africans in to become slaves? No.

Edit: I've already explained why Africans were targeted for slavery vs anyone else. They were the easiest targets for Europeans(and for Arabs and the Turks btw).

Why are you acting like slavery was a one time thing with a singular historical cause? It persisted for hundreds of years. The bulk of it happened under explicitly racist policies backed by widely held scientific theories. You seem to be in complete denial about basic history.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Why are you acting like slavery was a one time thing with a singular historical cause? It persisted for hundreds of years. The bulk of it happened under explicitly racist policies backed by widely held scientific theories. You seem to be in complete denial about basic history.

Dude,it is so hard discussing this topic with you. You always veer back to the US when it comes to slavery. Therefore, I am painting this picture of slavery's beginnings in the US. It didn't persist for hundreds of years, it lasted for thousands in the world.


You seriously have zero clue what you are talking about man. Zero. You can only focus on US slavery but then don't even know it's history and then you don't even understand or acknowledge the VERY BASIC history that slavery has been a staple in history for thousands of years.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Dude,it is so hard discussing this topic with you. You always veer back to the US when it comes to slavery. Therefore, I am painting this picture of slavery's beginnings in the US. It didn't persist for hundreds of years, it lasted for thousands in the world.


You seriously have zero clue what you are talking about man. Zero. You can only focus on US slavery but then don't even know it's history and then you don't even understand or acknowledge the VERY BASIC history that slavery has been a staple in history for thousands of years.

What in the hell are you blabbing on about? I never once mentioned the US in relation to slavery in this thread. I was specifically referring to the phenomenon of African chattel slavery. Mentioning specific economic rationale for slavery in no way absolves the state sanctioned racism and abject dehumanization suffered by millions of people.

Furthermore, I have not once responded to a post of yours in this thread that wasn't directly addressed to me. You felt the need to respond to multiple posts of mine that had nothing to do with you. So if you find it so hard discussing the topic with me, and if don't want to hear the truth, I suggest you take your desperate attention seeking antics elsewhere.

[dc_denizen]

FYI. Marxism didn’t exist in 1677 and the early colonists were unlikely have have read das kapital

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

FYI. Marxism didn’t exist in 1677 and the early colonists were unlikely have have read das kapital

Yeah I don't really get these ad hoc retroactive anachronistic explanations for why racism came about. "Racism happened because they needed it as a tool..." like wtf. As if 17th century peasants needed to be given a specific reason to be racist toward slaves...

[Encolpius]

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Yeah I don't really get these ad hoc retroactive anachronistic explanations for why racism came about. "Racism happened because they needed it as a tool..." like wtf. As if 17th century peasants needed to be given a specific reason to be racist toward slaves...

Thinking in terms of "races" in the modern continental sense was not a normal thing for people in the premodern era. Sure, they had all sorts of broad-brush biases regarding people of given origins. But they could have had the same sort of feelings - hell, even stronger ones - about groups like the Irish. There is tons of historical evidence that the first black people to come to Virginia were indentured servants under terms not appreciably different from white indentured servants. It took two generations for what we would identify as the forms of white supremacy to become fully ensconced.

Slavery persisted because it worked well for planters, and racism put down deep roots because it helped to defend the institution of slavery and white supremacy. As I said, in the early colonies in the U.S. South and elsewhere (Barbados was once majority white) attempts to bring in indentured servants to do field work failed because they had a very high death rate. In order to make cash-crop plantations work, European planters needed a black labor force. In order to keep this black labor force oppressed, they needed to keep them enslaved. And in order to keep the slave system in place, they needed to have a system where the white population internalized that this was the natural and expected order of things.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Thinking in terms of "races" in the modern continental sense was not a normal thing for people in the premodern era. Sure, they had all sorts of broad-brush biases regarding people of given origins. But they could have had the same sort of feelings - hell, even stronger ones - about groups like the Irish. There is tons of historical evidence that the first black people to come to Virginia were indentured servants under terms not appreciably different from white indentured servants. It took two generations for what we would identify as the forms of white supremacy to become fully ensconced.

Slavery persisted because it worked well for planters, and racism put down deep roots because it helped to defend the institution of slavery and white supremacy. As I said, in the early colonies in the U.S. South and elsewhere (Barbados was once majority white) attempts to bring in indentured servants to do field work failed because they had a very high death rate. In order to make cash-crop plantations work, European planters needed a black labor force. In order to keep this black labor force oppressed, they needed to keep them enslaved. And in order to keep the slave system in place, they needed to have a system where the white population internalized that this was the natural and expected order of things.

Yes, the climate of sub-Saharan Africa was similar to the climates in the Caribbean and tropical/sub-tropical zones of the American mainlands (North and South). Obviously those climates can be a lot different from western Europe.

[hallelujah]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

True today as it ever was

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, the climate of sub-Saharan Africa was similar to the climates in the Caribbean and tropical/sub-tropical zones of the American mainlands (North and South). Obviously those climates can be a lot different from western Europe.

Europeans could probably have done fine in these areas in pre-Colombian days. It doesn't seem like there was much in the way of epidemic disease in the New World back then. But soon after contact Europeans introduced malaria and yellow fever, which not only made those areas deadly for Europeans, but also deadly for native Americans.