Using logic to guess at what happened in the past is justifiable when there's no evidence. When there IS evidence, you ignore it at your peril. There are literally millions of historical primary sources still in existence that provide direct evidence about what chattel slavery on this continent was like: slave narratives, letters, diaries, census surveys, shipping manifests, bills of sale, wills, advertisements, etc. It really isn't logical to overlook them.
________
WEB SHOWS

It's correct that you can't for the point that YOU were making but don't confuse that with saying that there are no historical facts to support the opposite of your claims.

You're quite unfamiliar with this topic to the extent that you are unfamiliar with the different ways of saying the same thing. You're running around in circles basically.

Incorrect.

I have essentially already said this and that fits in line with the "low wage labor"/capitalism approach. Hence, my first comment in this thread.

In the end, our only point of contention is in your unfounded assertion that "the slaves weren't THAT abused." Everything else has already been covered.

That doesn't make slavery about "race" at the onset and in its earliest stages. I never said it wasn't about race at all, although some people in this thread may have. There are also academicians who believe it wasn't about race at all, hence the continuous debate (off of GC).

Perhaps people do not understand what it means when I say slavery wasn't about "race" but I have already explained it in previous posts but I'll try once more. To make something about "race" is more than saying "hey, there are Africans over here who would be great slaves in a foreign land where they don't speak the language and are easily identifiable as NOT European." Being about "race" requires more than the identifiability of someone whose skin is darker than yours and language is different. It also requires negative beliefs and stereotypes that fuel the use of those people for economic purposes. Not the other way around, which argues that the economic purposes were established first, the people (from and outside of Africa) were chosen, and then to reinforce this slavery institution there were negative beliefs of stereotypes such as "these people are immoral savages who NEED to be brought to this land...they aren't even human." So it became more and more about race as the negative beliefs and stereotypes grew but was not initially about this.

There is no hard evidence that places the causal ordering of the economic purposes and negative beliefs and stereotypes. Therefore, we are forced to interpret history and apply theory to understand why slavery and systemic oppression of racial groups, in general, was able to perpetuate. If it was just about "race" and prejudices, we could have knocked slavery, Jim Crow, and all inequalities out the box by educating people and eliminating bigotry. But I know that you don't have to be a "race bigot" in order to be a racist. You can love everyone and have minority friends but still refuse to hire a racial or ethnic minority because it hurts your company's profit when bigoted white people will no longer patron you. These types of racists would claim that they aren't doing it because of "race," they are doing it because of "economics"/profit. Whatever's whatever.

I know. You just started running around as a diversion tactic. ;)

So your assertion is unfounded even on a cost-benefit basis.

Right, and I do not argue that the initial impetus was not economics, but very early on, before the 1700s, it morphed into a institution that was in many ways circumscribed by race. Not to mention that the negative perceptions of Africans that fueled this transition had their roots in early Enlightenment thought, so even if the codification of these beliefs into law did not happen until later, these ideas were certainly a part of the popular European cultural imagination before colonization even begin in earnest (I think that Gould talks a bit about this in The Mismeasure of Man; and I am looking for other sources here). Indeed,the fact that the negative beliefs predate the institutionalization of slavery might have aided in the shift from the indentured servitude, "free labor" institution to the system of chattel slavery.

As I clarified earlier, economics were certainly a factor, but race was just as much of a factor from almost the beginning of the institution and to suggest otherwise is just wrong-headed to me. It seems to me that as race was such a defining characteristic for the majority of the time that the institution existed, we are justified in saying that it was in many ways about race. To cite the economic beginnings as a way of negating the racialized history of chattel slavery is problematic to me (not to say that you were doing that, but that this often happens.)

There were only 3 white people on this huge (school bus sized) tour bus. Me, and a couple from Holland. The surprised faces were on the blacks on the bus. This is all part of the "Black History Tour" that has Federal funding now in Charleston, b/c most of the slaves did enter from the Port of Charleston. I thought the Gullah tour was very interesting.

When we were stationed in Kansas, some of the buildings on Post were built with Indian slave labor.

And if one wishes to continue with the history class here:
The term "Cow-Boy" may have as one of its bases as a way to differentiate house-boys and cow-boys.
Over 1/3 of the Cow-Boys in the West were Black.
Something else not covered in most Western or History books.

Around the 1830s or 1840s some residents of Louisiana around and in NOLA realized that slaves were not 'free labor'. They were expensive to feed, keep healthy, etc. They were valuable assets. New Irish immigrants were actually cheaper to employ than slaves to maintain. So much of dangerous or difficult physical work, such as digging canals, was transfered to the Irish.

More food for thought.

Left the previous country I had been in for a bit of a vacation in the sun.

Yall (theres no apostraphe on the keyboard all it shows is à), are ridiculous.

SECdomination, others. Dont argue with racists. Anyone focused on race/culture to a degree where every thread becomes an issue of race, is a racist (DSTChaos, etc). Its the most obvious form of collectivism and is the reason the Democratic/Green and other parties are so rife with it. Look at some of the most absurdly racist countries in the world...Spain, Germany, Poland. Their past with statism/socialism is appalling.

and SWTXBelle is correct. It was an offhand remark that was mocking the comments making fun of macallen in dubbing him a White AngloSaxon Protestant and old money. Relax.

Racism = prejudice + power. The end.

No one here has called anyone else racist(well, with the exception of you); we are all engaging in debate that is both healthy and enlightening. If any of us learn something new from engaging in this debate, then it has been fruitful. If you do not want to learn anything, then peace out.

It seems like this may be a semantics issue on what we're calling "race"? Europeans certainly saw the African as other from the beginnings of the slave trade, but that view's development into modern ideas of race was a process that took a few centuries.

We are saying the same thing.

ETA: See my response to DSTRen13 on the "slight" differences.

Exactly. "Race" is more of a North American construct.

But the concept of "cultural and ethnic differentialism" increased throughout the institution of slavery.

It isn't "the end."

I am one of many who do not believe that racism requires prejudice.

But I agree with you that prejudice without power isn't racism. :)

You really are an idiot with barely a toddler level of reading comprehension and understanding.