Hello there, again?
I cannot talk about everything here, so I will make multiple pages to talk freely about any subject that I wish to.
It may come as controversial, but I wish to go more in depth about slavery throughout America, Europe, and a little bit in Africa at 1600. First, you have to keep in mind that slavery prospered around the Bronze Age; it was everywhere, and for multiple reasons. But for today, I'm talking specifically about 16s.
What we know is that slavery was around the 14th or 15th century, many people encouraged it, and of course, it was around back then. Sugar plantations in France needed people, mines in Brazil, and many more places. Though even with the vast information we hold, nobody truly knows when slavery began; it's so vague, even with the current documents we hold. Going back to the early ages of America, when they discovered the seashore states of Africa and the communities of it, everything was blurry. In other words, both civilisations saw each other as demonic beings. The native had the belief of "white demon" ( I think coming from the fact that they were used as military slaves by the Romans, or by any white colony).
People were already stripped of their freedom. Europeans and Arabs would have routes throughout Africa, the most popular route in the 15 th century, from the Sahara desert in the north to the south, transporting African captives from sub-Saharan Africa. Their main goal was to reach the slave markets of North America, Asia and Europe. Later on, the demand for slaves was accentuated by the spread of Islam and the necessities of "The New World". The Islamic religion pierced deep into the West and East Africa, and trading routes linked with other trading routes were carved into the soil, providing goods for Europe. Regarding Europe, ironic but disgusting is "The European sweet tooth", in other words, the history of sugar. That which you use in recipes, tea, and so on, is to some degree the history of the Atlantic world. Large networks of sugar plantations were established in the Atlantic sea islands. In fact, one of the islands became a slave trading centre.
Mainflower was a ship full of British merchants, trying to find a new land, being the first colony to set foot on American soil. Undoubtedly, most of them haven't survived the harsh and unforgiving winter despite receiving shelter and resources from the Native Americans (Obs. I hear a lot of people saying that most of the Natives were killed, but I find it hard to believe. First off, if it were in fact true, why would they help a race that killed their people? Throughout history, we can see tribes of natives helping both Europeans and Africans. They shelter fugitive slaves and help out the whites with rations and more. I think they were oppressed; their traditions, way of speech, etc., were brushed off as unimportant or dowdy)
While the Mayflower represents freedom and the beginning of America, the White Tiger depicts the beginning of slavery and segregation.
The White Tiger carried the first-ever African slaves to America, which is the primary reason why the number of black slaves increased from 30 to 400. Once the Americans elected for their liberty and freedom of speech, they, as well, elected for the prolongation of slavery. In America, segregation has ended 54 years ago; let that sink in. In other words, it's not as ancient as the majority of people think it is. Even on this day, they are not seen as human beings; mixed children are viewed as monsters. Society holds a grudge over them, and it's disgusting. The "white" is pure; the first record of this morbid mentality is in 1630, when Hugh Davis was sentenced, by a member of the Virginia Assembly, to be whipped for sleeping with a Black person. Although this sounds reasonable, the true reason behind it is that he got punished for staining the purity of the whites. Later on, even if the victims were black slaves, the bigger punishment would fall on them.
Europeans cared about this new land that would fill their pockets, new laws that would regulate the land, land treaties, etc, that would oppress the natives of this soil, so they rebelled. A massive attack in 1622, by the warriors of Powhatan, they would destroyed any English settlement on sight. Many died, but shockingly, one survived. A black man, named Antonio, native to Angola. He survived the attack and later fought his way out of slavery. He had a land, servants and slaves, kids, and was considered a free man, his family not. After his death, his children fought for their freedom and land, as the Assembly wanted to hold to the land. Without an heir, everyone died, and we would forget his bloodline, but the politicians took into consideration his situation and made it impossible for any black person to have his freedom.
I have seen several reports of free blacks or black marriages, as a result of which they could own land. Now comes my own view on it. I think slavery was seen as a purification process, and Christianity was implemented in everyday life, so seeing heretics, they would compare them to ogres. Salvery is a sentence, as the first slave for life was dated in 1700, so it would have a term. That's why there are free blacks, maybe that's why, for the current time, you see more and more black families pierce Christianity and treat it as their saviour. The more I read, the more I realise that this religion was built on a lustful and idolatrous ideology, the early punishment for whites sleeping with backs was church hours, the beginning of slavery was because of tobacco, and the harvesting of it. That's how cities built on slavery arise; that's how capitalism arises. They couldn't comprehend labelling a "child of God" as a slave, so they would just call them "servants" with little freedom. Slaves didn't have this, and it was easier to exploit them than their own race, to make excuses that they should be purified.
Slaves were fighting for their liberty, so when white couples would have a black Christian child, they would use the excuse that they were Christians. Realising this, many black mothers would baptise their kid in the hope of their child being a free human. This loophole was soon discovered by the higher level of society and immediately banned as "Any black kid would follow their mother role". Many slave owners were scared of losing their slaves and profit, so when this rule was enforced, it represented another win for capitalism. Though in Spain, if you identified yourself as Roman Catholic, you were granted freedom; that's how a black couple founded a city in Spain. Across history, there were cases of slave owners granting freedom, but most of them were tragic and still money-hungry. For example, a black father with his kid got granted freedom, but because the rules enforce the kid's status as the mother, they chose to keep the child in slavery, since the mother meant profit.
For the time being, I'm leaving it like this.I still have to read and research a lot
https://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0091
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/transatlantic-slave-trade-begins
Go back?