Explanation and some thoughts: First, I would like to note, in unfortunate if mild agreement with the PragerU bullshit, that the development of slavery in settled societies was an improvement over genociding all the defeated enemies. As societies develop, conflicts with ever-further-flung foes means that societies cannot integrate peoples who are extremely hostile and culturally distinct into the polity without extensive assimilative institutions, which are fairly late developments in most societies. This leaves either expelling the enemies, murdering them, or reducing their ability to resist (ie through the restriction of their liberty). As population densities increase, expulsion ceases to be an option - leaving only murder or reduction of the defeated’s state. This is not an excuse for the individuals who participate in the institution of slavery (with the odd reinforcing note that even in many slaver societies, slave traders and overseers are seen as utter scum), but that, on a societal level, slavery is an unfortunate lesser evil compared to genocide. This is a large part of the reason why slavery is so widespread in human history, across vastly different cultures and regions, and in societies where the economic influence of slavery remains minimal.
HOWEVER
First, the Atlantic Slave Trade was not based on this unfortunate development of early human society - it was the trade of flesh for cash by European societies which not only had developed means of overcoming resistance by legal institutions WITHOUT resorting to slavery, like earlier polities, but were not even seriously involved in the wars on the African continent at the time, making their involvement purely and objectively a fucking evil, not even a lesser evil like early slavery, but a greater one. The Europeans fueled wars between African tribes on the continent (who were largely restricted by the aforementioned circumstances making slavery the least-bad option after intense wars) all in the name of buying cheap slave labor, because the prospect of paying a decent share to their own Filthy Poors™ was too much for their precious little pocketbooks to handle.
Second, Christopher Columbus was a piece of shit by the standards of a time wherein we would regard the ‘baseline’ of behavior as representing total pieces of shit. Not only was he a slaver before he became a explorer, but when he found and was welcomed by the people of the Caribbean with gifts and supplies after a long journey, his first instinct was to plunder, murder, and enslave them. If that wasn’t bad enough, his treatment of them after being granted control of the region was so abhorrent that the Spanish crown, itself hardly a bastion of humane treatment and sentiment, stripped him of his position on grounds of cruelty.
And third, offering someone a choice between slavery and death for the crime of existing while being weaker is not a fucking good thing, and certainly not something that a fucking children’s ‘educational’ program should be playing apologist for. The ‘nuances’ of slavery should not exactly be high on the fucking curriculum.
Minor correction, the Spanish crown objected to him enslaving Christians which is a major violation of Canonical Law. They would have been fine had he enslaved them but after making them Christian subjects of Spain it was a bridge too far.
If that wasn’t bad enough, his treatment of them after being granted control of the region was so abhorrent that the Spanish crown, itself hardly a bastion of humane treatment and sentiment, stripped him of his position on grounds of cruelty.
My understanding is that he was stripped of his position because of what he did to his European subjects and because his rival wanted to take his place, and that hardly anyone back in Europe gave a shit about his abuse of native people. Is that not correct?
His rival wanting to take his place was definitely part of it, but his abuses against the native peoples were recounted in great and horrific detail as core accusations of his unfitness for the position of governor.
To add, slaves generally did work which was very unhealthy, either because of the work itself or the environment (heat, diseases). IIRC (it’s been a while since university) most slaves in the Caribbean died within years, generating a constant demand for new slaves.
Plantation holders were always looking for cheap labour from any source (compare indentured servitude), but it was a hard sell compared to the North American colonies.
Reminds me of the Danish colonies. After the king declared an end to slavery in 10 years (iirc) the plantation owners cranked up the cruelty to extract as much wealth as possible.
The enslaved were dying at much high rates and actually lead to the first slave revolt on the islands.
Explanation and some thoughts: First, I would like to note, in unfortunate if mild agreement with the PragerU bullshit, that the development of slavery in settled societies was an improvement over genociding all the defeated enemies. As societies develop, conflicts with ever-further-flung foes means that societies cannot integrate peoples who are extremely hostile and culturally distinct into the polity without extensive assimilative institutions, which are fairly late developments in most societies. This leaves either expelling the enemies, murdering them, or reducing their ability to resist (ie through the restriction of their liberty). As population densities increase, expulsion ceases to be an option - leaving only murder or reduction of the defeated’s state. This is not an excuse for the individuals who participate in the institution of slavery (with the odd reinforcing note that even in many slaver societies, slave traders and overseers are seen as utter scum), but that, on a societal level, slavery is an unfortunate lesser evil compared to genocide. This is a large part of the reason why slavery is so widespread in human history, across vastly different cultures and regions, and in societies where the economic influence of slavery remains minimal.
HOWEVER
First, the Atlantic Slave Trade was not based on this unfortunate development of early human society - it was the trade of flesh for cash by European societies which not only had developed means of overcoming resistance by legal institutions WITHOUT resorting to slavery, like earlier polities, but were not even seriously involved in the wars on the African continent at the time, making their involvement purely and objectively a fucking evil, not even a lesser evil like early slavery, but a greater one. The Europeans fueled wars between African tribes on the continent (who were largely restricted by the aforementioned circumstances making slavery the least-bad option after intense wars) all in the name of buying cheap slave labor, because the prospect of paying a decent share to their own Filthy Poors™ was too much for their precious little pocketbooks to handle.
Second, Christopher Columbus was a piece of shit by the standards of a time wherein we would regard the ‘baseline’ of behavior as representing total pieces of shit. Not only was he a slaver before he became a explorer, but when he found and was welcomed by the people of the Caribbean with gifts and supplies after a long journey, his first instinct was to plunder, murder, and enslave them. If that wasn’t bad enough, his treatment of them after being granted control of the region was so abhorrent that the Spanish crown, itself hardly a bastion of humane treatment and sentiment, stripped him of his position on grounds of cruelty.
And third, offering someone a choice between slavery and death for the crime of existing while being weaker is not a fucking good thing, and certainly not something that a fucking children’s ‘educational’ program should be playing apologist for. The ‘nuances’ of slavery should not exactly be high on the fucking curriculum.
“Getting punched in the shoulder is better than a kick to the face, no?”
“Why are you hitting me?”
Minor correction, the Spanish crown objected to him enslaving Christians which is a major violation of Canonical Law. They would have been fine had he enslaved them but after making them Christian subjects of Spain it was a bridge too far.
I thought part of his behavior was preventing natives from being baptized specifically so he could legally enslave them.
It’s not a core period/subject of interest of mine, so I might be remembering wrong.
That could be the case and I could be misremembering. I’ll try to find Isabella’s letter about it later.
My understanding is that he was stripped of his position because of what he did to his European subjects and because his rival wanted to take his place, and that hardly anyone back in Europe gave a shit about his abuse of native people. Is that not correct?
His rival wanting to take his place was definitely part of it, but his abuses against the native peoples were recounted in great and horrific detail as core accusations of his unfitness for the position of governor.
You forgot the party where Columbus was going to be EXECUTED by the Crown, and may have only been saved by being friends with Queen Isabella.
To add, slaves generally did work which was very unhealthy, either because of the work itself or the environment (heat, diseases). IIRC (it’s been a while since university) most slaves in the Caribbean died within years, generating a constant demand for new slaves.
Plantation holders were always looking for cheap labour from any source (compare indentured servitude), but it was a hard sell compared to the North American colonies.
Reminds me of the Danish colonies. After the king declared an end to slavery in 10 years (iirc) the plantation owners cranked up the cruelty to extract as much wealth as possible.
The enslaved were dying at much high rates and actually lead to the first slave revolt on the islands.