Why did the slaves consent to slavery instead of refusing? If someone tries to enslave you there is nothing stopping you from resisting, fighting, and ultimately dying if necessary in order to protest. Death would obviously be preferable to slavery. So why did anyone go along with it?
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
>Death would obviously be preferable to slavery.
If this were true capitalism would’ve never replaced feudalism.
under capitalism you are free to quit and take your skills somewhere else if you don't like the compensation being offered. not the same thing as slavery, obviously.
But is that tiny difference worth dying for?
Considering the high suicides from working class yes.
You mean titanic difference. The fact you think capitalism is close to slavery is really a sign of your personal weakness, your personal fears. The signs of a tiny mind.
>under capitalism you are free to quit and take your skills somewhere else if you don't like the compensation being offered
Except there’s nowhere else that will offer you much better compensation and your boss can talk bad about you to ensure you’re never hired by anyone else and starve to death.
refuse to work then, and be willing to die to protest the state of things. dying for a good cause is better than a life of suffering.
>you are free to quit and take your skills somewher
That's if you can afford to move. Most people can't.
refuse to work then, and be willing to die to protest the state of things. dying for a good cause is better than a life of suffering.
why do you assume everyone thinks exactly like you?
people were often born into slavery. they have to stay in slavery to take care of their family
>why do you assume everyone thinks exactly like you?
I guess not all people think the same way.
have you ever faced the barrel of a gun?
you probably don't know what it's like to have your life threatened. most slaves did not rebel because they knew they would just die and their families wouldn't be better off. but some who did not have anything to lose did
>they knew they would just die
>they kill all of you
and that is why you will remain slaves
And that’s why you will remain a slave too dumbass
Maybe you have a slave's heart but I would choose to die a free man rather than suffer that indignity.
Easy to say that when you don't have gun pointed at you. The only time rebellions that are of the "if we don't we'll all die" occur are in places where slaves and forced laboruers were worked to death. The reason the Kongo-Wara Rebellion was a thing was because the French were literally working them to death to build a railroad and the malaria+working conditions generated immense death tolls to the point that it was either fight or die.
If you would choose to die free than be a slave then you wouldn't be here talking with us right now.
Not him but that doesn't make sense and so maybe you're moronic.
Okay let's say you start a mass rebellion. They manage to defeat you and they kill all of you and quickly replace you so you are back to square one.
>under capitalism you are free to quit and take your skills somewhere else if you don't like the compensation being offered
stupid
>under capitalism you are free to quit and take your skills somewhere else if you don't like the compensation being offered
Like 43% of my country is made up of uneducated wagies.
There was one slave revolt, Nat Turner revolt in 1831.
The answer my history teacher gave years ago (and I don't know how much I buy into this) is complacency from generations of slavery and initial terror from the first slaves coming over in the slave ships.
thats a stupid cop out of an answer.
The answer is very simple. The ever present threat of violence, and the acts of violence themselves. and being treated well enough that death is not a better alternative. Death is the end, maybe you are broken, and maybe this modern world has broken most of us. But slaves were still allowed to create families even if they couldnt marry. They were allowed some celebrations. Also there was an entire system to aid runaway slaves. and while there was only one major slave revolt. There were countless individual cases of violence.
>Death would obviously be preferable to slavery
No
slavery is so abhorrent that death would absolutely be preferable.
Easy to say that. Suicide is actually really hard to do, that's why those who do it are under an altered state of mind.
>Suicide
It's not suicide if you die fighting for a good cause.
You and I the descendant of slaves and poor men. Before us worse things existed, and soon manmade horrors will fill our daily lives, and we'll have to live through it. Life ought to be lived no matter how painful
>Life ought to be lived no matter how painful
dying for a good cause is better than a life of suffering.
empirically, it is not, seeing as the vast, vast majority of slaves throughout places and times has chosen to not kill themselves
maybe not all kinds of people are equally tolerant of slavery.
>escape
No evidence of this. No nation in history has borne slavery gladly.
It really doesn't work like that
People are so easy to break and subdue, this is always something people in libetal societies forget. Everyone always thinks: "Dude I would just epically resist the guys with the guns and die a martyr, y'all are just pussies". Imagine being taken prisoner by random Fulani jihadis, dragged across the jungle, sold to some random Brazilian and then being put on a ship, in chains, for 6 weeks. You would neither have the energy, nor the faith left to rebell against your master. Only case I could imagine is, that slaves could slowly organize and rebel if their master is uncautious, but even then the chance of victory is very slim.
>Fulani jihadis
Those aren't really where slaves came from and the Fulani Jihads were done to expand political power and to "return Islam to its roots"
That's a really pedantic distinction. Slaves were captured by other Africans in wars, who sold them to European merchants manning slave castles on the coast of West Africa.
It's not., More so you are heavily over simplifying how it went down.
I'm not
. I'm just curious why you're so intent on defending African warlords who sold slaves
I'm not defending them at all.
Based autistic missing the point entirely
If you are gonna say stuff at least be accurate. Most of the Brazilian slaves came form the Portuguese sources down south in Angola where the dynamics in conjuring up slaves was different and the Portuguese were more established. The Fulani Jihads area whole different thing altogether..
The slavers shaped entire worldviews. People awaken consciousness into society at a time that instills all sorts of messages, twisted narratives, and learned helplessness into the very souls of slave societies. Everything around them was designed to make them belief and accomplish certain aims. It's why to this day black populations suffer from internalized racism, self hatred, certain rearing practices and certain takes on God and perceptions in society. Its pervasive perniciousness inculcated through every avenue and institution.
>internalized racism, self hatred, certain rearing practices and certain takes on God and perceptions in society
Any articles talking about this? Like surveys that ask about these specific topics? No woke shit from academic purple hairs.
Slavery was seen as a normal thing for most of history so maybe they were kinda used to it. Remember that American slaves were slaves back in Africa as well.
The real question is why do slaves in present-day Africa put up with it
>American slaves were slaves back in Africa as well.
Most them weren't slaves. The slaves shipped over covered the entire range if society.
Source
Africans are extremely lazy. Organizing a whole revolt takes a whole lot lore energy than just rolling over and getting enslaved. Not like slave work was hard anyways. Planting a few crops for a couple hours each day?
Remind me, how do Africans live back home? Don’t they already farm? Lol.
>Organizing a whole revolt takes a whole lot lore energy than just rolling over and getting enslaved.
Yet there were many in the new world boy.
Easy to say in the 21st century from a mid tier country at worst.
>Easy to say in the 21st century from a mid tier country at worst.
so you would rather be a slave than die?
I wouldn't. Not just for myself, but for what that means for everyone else around me who they might try and force into slavery.
>so you would rather be a slave than die?
>I wouldn't.
You a fat ass talking tough on a Gay meet up website shut up.
Uneducated dullard. Troll harder back at /misc/
You are weak and have soft hands. Slavery is for cucks. Work your own land or pay people to help you do it, cheap weak homosexual
>Death would obviously be preferable to slavery
Obviously this has not been the case throughout history, brainlet.
the only reason slavery doesn't happen is when people are willing to die to prevent it. Brainlet.
How sheltered are you?
how delusional are you?
How the frick do you define "willing to prevent it" you damn trog? You think people in the colonies who were put into forced labour had a choice? Get the frick off your armchair.
refuse to be a slave, and be willing to die instead.
And it's easy to say that all the way in the 21st century. Once the skabe trade was abolished people just switched to forced or indentured labour which was basically the same shit. The British pimped Indians out so hard that they were shipped to so many plantations allowed over the world to the point they were numerous in many non Anglo colonies because of how widespread the system was. You know the Kenyan railway? The labour conditions were so horrid that Africans either left the abusive conditions or refused to do it since the pay was ass. So the British shipped in indentured Indians and got them to die enmasse to disease and wildlife. That's what you fail to get. If they can't get you to work for free they'll do the next best thing and either depress your wages to the point of wage slavery or import people who would do it for less/have no choice.
>And it's easy to say that all the way in the 21st century.
You would seriously allow your children to live as slaves instead of dying to try and stop it from happening? that is really messed up. I get it if you dont have enough self respect to do anything about you being a slave, but your kids?
Because harsh put downs in response is a thing.
You would choose to live in chains, as a slave, for your entire life instead of fighting, and if necessary dying, to prevent it. Dying in defense of your own freedom is incredibly honorable. If you don't value your own freedom then at least for your children's sake you should be willing to fight and die.
>If you don't value your own freedom then at least for your children's sake you should be willing to fight and die.
Fight and die then have your kids and wife split up permanently and your corpse used as an example.
Yes. Because you should fight and die if necessary to try and prevent your own enslavement. And if you dont value your own freedom enough, then you should be willing to do it for your children's sakes.
And what if you got into forced labour as a result of a rebellion or lost war? Then what?
if you got forced labor then you stopped fighting. Make them either kill you or accept you are free.
there were 10 million people enslaved in America in total (approximately) and of those 100 thousand escaped. that's 1%, and extreme minority.
They didn't resign themselves to life in slavery. Many escaped or at least tried to. At least one actually sued for her freedom in court and won. Others engaged in illicit trade to build wealth and buy their freedom, and those who didn't resist openly often did so subtly by sabotaging their own work.
they were an extreme minority. Most did not refuse to be slaves. if they had, then none would have been slaves.
These weren't an "extreme" minority. Something like 100k slaves managed to escape in the US, despite roving slave patrols and bounties on their heads. Resistance is a constant struggle, not a single act that either succeeds or fails.
>100k
that's probably less than 1% (10 million slaves) if you believe the official numbers (which are probably overcounting). 1% is an extreme minority.
There were four million freed slaves in 1865. Like I said, not bad considering the odds they were up against, and that's not the only way of resisting.
Depends where they were, but generally there were a lot of obstacles they faced. At the very least, they faced natural hazards like disease, exposure, and hunger. Even if they established themselves on free soil, they had to make a living as a disliked minority unless they joined a community of other free blacks.
And those escapees alongside freedman still had struggles.
I'd be an anti-natalist slave.
>anti-natalist slave
That's like saying you'd be a believer in Jesus during the time of Moses. Anti-natalism is a postmodern ideology and slavery is firmly premodern
>slavery is firmly premodern
No it's still pretty modern. It just dresses itself up in different clothes and goes under a new name. Humanity will never abandon forced labour unless radical changes in business occur and the sheer disparity between states and income shrinks severely.
>refuse to be a slave, and be willing to die instead.
You die and are replaced by someone else, the end.
if everyone of your race refuses and is willing to die instead of being slaves then it wont take long for the israelites to realize they cant make money from the effort.
>if everyone
it won't happen, this is not even idealism.
why? I am skeptical of you implying that Africans as a race are inherently accepting of being enslaved.
NTA
This isn't unique to Africans. Slave escapes were historically far more common than revolts. You'd be hard-pressed to find many examples of entire populations unanimously deciding all at once to either kill for their freedom or die trying.
>then it wont take long for the israelites to realize they cant make money from the effort.
Then you die off and the following happens
>Enslaved in a foreign land.
They just buy more and if possible slave insurance covers it.
>Enslaved or forced to engage in forced labour on own land.
You and your people die off and they just take over your land as your people get written off as "another group that just mysteriously vanished" in the suatbin of history.
Just as heads up in many areas labour rebellion was often met with severe retribution and "salt the Earth" beat downs of needed.
Yes, and death is preferable to slavery. I see no problem with this.
Rebellion meant almost certain death. In North America, living slaves could at least have hope of escaping or buying their freedom
>Rebellion meant almost certain death.
Death is preferable to slavery. I see nothing wrong with dying instead of submitting to slavery.
I'm sure you'd say the same thing if you were faced with watching your family be tortured to death in front of you before you were burned at the stake.
You don't get it. being dead is better than living as a slave. If you loved your family you'd rather they were dead too instead of slaves. An honorable death for a good cause is better than a shameful life.
You have a better chance of escaping or buying your freedom if you're alive, which was relatively likely in North America.
No. That requires submitting to being a slave. And only 1/100 slaves escaped so that's not somthing to expect. And by going along with it at all you're making it possible for others to suffer that same fate. Resistance and death instead of slavery is the only moral choice.
Slaves didn't just submit. They sabotaged their work, supported slaves who planned escape, and tried to get enough money to buy their own freedom. That was a more effective path than what would have been a suicide mission. The largest and most successful slave revolt in the hemisphere was in Haiti, and they paid dearly for it by losing ~20% of the population to war, devastating the economy, and getting into debt for 140 years. There was another major one in Jamaica but it was crushed. North America had a few in the 19th century, but the slaveowners were so terrified by the Haitian revolution that they made any revolt practically impossible. That's not to say that nobody tried. There were slave revolts in America in 1800, 1811, 1822, and 1831, notably. Basically similar to the record of rebellions in most other places where people were oppressed.
>Slaves didn't just submit.
submitting to slavery at all is unacceptable for any reason. fighting and if necessary dying while resisting being enslaved is the only moral option. Otherwise you are complicit in enabling the continued existence of slavery.
Depends on the odds and what is actually possible. A rebellion that's ultimately doomed might still be able to damage slavery as an institution. But ultimately the survival instinct tends to win out, and hence suicide missions are historically uncommon in any such scenario. Usually there are instances of brave individuals and their allies facing certain death as rebels, but the majority of people take the option of survival and subtle defiance or sabotage.
>ultimately doomed
it does not matter if you have no hope of survival. its still morally required to resist and die if necessary to prevent becoming enslaved.
Collective suicide missions aren't preferable to resistance. That's the logic of Jim Jones and other psychos. It's also a historical anomaly. Like I already said, in most historical situations, the majority of people will choose survival.
dude shut the frick up if aliens from space came and enslaved humanity you think the majority would mass suicide? frick no.
>if aliens from space came and enslaved humanity you think the majority would mass suicide?
It's not suicide if they kill you. Suicide is when you take your own life, obviously. And yes, people have a moral obligation to resist becoming enslaved, and to die if necessary to avoid it. If you become enslaved then you stopped fighting.
I'm sure some tribes and nations have tried all fighting to the death. While admirable, it doesn't usually end well. It's usually not the best choice if you want your nation to survive. That's why people tend to choose resistance and subversion. If every town in occupied Europe did what the inhabitants of Lidice did, they'd probably suffer the same fate.
>it doesn't usually end well
it's better to die free than be enslaved. Not only for yourself, but for your people. If you allow the enslavers to believe your people can be slaves then they will not stop. If your people fight violently and die resisting then the enslavers will move onto other easier victims.
If you fight back immediately and violently they won't stop either. They'll redouble their efforts, and they won't be content with just enslaving you. They'll aim to kill you, and then it's game over. You're dead. Lost to history. Dust in the wind. If you flee and fight from the shadows or stage underground resistance, you have a chance of surviving, at least for a while. This is basic military/guerilla strategy here.
It's also important to note that people's willingness to risk death or extermination depends on the bearability of the alternative. Slavery in the Caribbean was nightmarish, hence the numerous and significantly more violent slave revolts. More slaves knew that if they didn't fight they'd last at most a few years. North American slavery wasn't totally benign but especially outside the Deep South and sugar plantations slaves had a chance of living long enough to have kids, acquire property, and potentially have a QoL on par with other poor people in rural North America in that era.
>You're dead
Better to die free than suffer the indignity of slavery.
Then you choose extinction with no possibility of freedom. Ever.
Better to die free than suffer the indignity of slavery.
Should peasants have killed themselves as well?
>killed themselves
its not suicide if they kill you. make them kill you if they want to enslave you.
It can be considered suicide by proxy because it's voluntary.
Then realize virtually nobody shares that position. Maybe people who've been brainwashed or who face a fate worse than annihilation.
if you want to be slaves so bad then do it. why the hell would you tell people to just accept being slaves? pathetic worms is what you are.
This thread is about explaining why slaves allowed themselves to become slaves. This is the answer. Keep seething.
I'm not ordering people to be slaves. I'm just explaining that
1. African Americans and other black people did rise up or at least resist
2. Most people in history regardless of race didn't prefer death in battle over subjugation
Maybe you think that, but the majority of people disagree.
>african slaves
>families
They didn't have structures like that traditionally
In America they did. Or tried to, at least, until they got separated.
They did, moron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion
The reason it wasn’t more common was because of the use of religion to manipulate slaves and slaves resisting in more subtle ways
>They did, moron
no they didn't. if they had refused to be slaves, and been willing to die fighting, then none of them would have ever been slaves.
The vast majority of slaves were children of other slaves. Think about how much less likely you’d be to revolt as a slave if it was all you knew and everyone you knew just thought of it as a fact of life.
refusing to be a slave for the sake of children so that they will not be slaves is an extremely honorable thing to die for. Why did adults allow slavery to continue when their own children would have to also be slaves? horrible.
Especially after 1804, staging a slave revolt would have been next to impossible. There were slave patrols everywhere, limits on weapons, constant supervision, etc, and those who showed any signs of insubordination, let alone revolted, would be whipped or beaten as an example to the rest.
so you're saying that they mostly all decided that they would rather just be slaves than refuse to go along with it. They valued their lives over their freedom and and over the freedom of their own children. that's sad.
Freedom by revolt wasn't a likely option - more likely they'd be burned at the stake, dismembered, beheaded, or suffer some other similarly gruesome fate. The best options would have been living and subtly defying the master or escaping.
There were many slave revolts and many, many more slaves who escaped.
they were an extreme minority. Most did not refuse to be slaves. if they had, then none would have been slaves.
read on the history of pre-industrial (chattel) slavery.
The entire concept is rooted in basically:
a. Kidnapping and removing the victim from everything they know, including the way back home
b. "Selling" or willfully becoming a slave to avoid starvation due to lack of skills / famine.
People will always choose slavery to death if the know their death accomplishes nothing
Sadly I think I have to agree with the other person who said it's easy to say "I would have fought back if that was me" but even looking beyond America major slave revolts (and even small scale mutinies) have always been a rare thing.
I'm sure most slaves probably had revenge fantasies, but I think in America most of the slaves who couldn't take it anymore just ran away rather than trying to fight back. Even if you managed to kill the master and his enforcers what real hope was there after that? You'd still be hunted down by others, so you'd then have to run away. Why not just skip to that part?
Ever read the book by the 12 years a slave guy? He was a free black who was randomly kidnapped and sold as a slave. When he tried telling people what had happened they beat him, so he stopped. Eventually he was able to get legal help and prove his status, but only after...12 years a slave. Apparently things like that just happened all the time.
Difficulty to subjugate person directly correlates with one's IQ. homosexual sapiens with nothing to lose is a very dangerous ape, and if it's determined to frick you up, it will eventually devise million ways to do so, go through with most effective one and either get his way or die trying. And smarter specimen is, more ways he will find. If you attempt to enslave avg IQ European male, benefits you gain from it will not warrant amount of problems he's going to cause you to do something about his status, even if dying to escape one. However if you find dull specimen, there may be some benefits because his ability to resist is very limited, and relies mostly on brute force and not intellect and planning. Kongoid species don't even process time properly, so if you overwhelm them with brute force of your own, you can make them submit.
Same thing is showcased on monogamy and polygamy in various strains of human. Big Black person beats other Black folk into submission and rapes all b***hes, and other Black folk can't do shit. However, this scenario playing out in any triple digit IQ population will inevitably result in equivalent of big Black person getting ganked within week, which facilitates completely different system of b***hes' distribution.
Plenty of slaves escaped or tried to escape, and there was at least one recorded slave revolt. The planter class lived in perpetual terror of a large-scale slave revolt, especially after the Haitian Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_slaves
Blacks are largely a passive group and pretty much do as they're told. Slap em in chains and they go "ah shid muddafugga", tell them to be violent and they go "ah shid muddafugga" *burns down your family business*
Oh right that's why there were hundreds of slave rebellions.
And hundreds easily squashed.
What's your point? They're still rebellions, just like the hundreds of peasant revolts in Europe.
No other people's entire history is just being a slave. That's it, that's the culture. We wuz slaves. Even the only Sub-Saharan "kingdoms" existed because they enslaved and sold those slaves to mostly Arabs. Easily domesticated. Doesn't mean it's right to do it, they deserve to be treated fairly like the other beasts of Eden, but that's the way it is.
That's not the case. Slavery has existed in every era on almost every continent, and African diaspora peoples aren't the only ones defined by it. Many Greeks were enslaved by the Romans. American Indians and Roma people were subjected to large scale enslavement too. Other peoples like the Irish weren't all chattel slaves per se but were forcibly subjugated and used as cheap labor by their occupiers for centuries.
You're wrong on slavery in Africa too. Africans fought foreign invaders for centuries in some places, sometimes killing settlers wholesale. On the slave ships many jumped overboard to drown or be eaten by sharks rather than continue their misery. Others fought to the death, sometimes staging wholesale mutinies.
I didn't say slave didn't exist anywhere else your purposely trying to change the argument. I said noone else stays a slave for their entire legacy. Noone else tolerates it but the Black. Yes of course they tried to fight back at first but they all get buck broken by that big Arab wiener in the end.
Nobody tolerates slavery, including black people. Why would there have been rebellions, resistance, escape, or sabotage if they all tolerated it? Why are they unique?
>Nobody tolerates slavery, including black people.
They became enslaved. If they didn't tolerate it then that wouldn't have happened.
Then every nation in history has "tolerated" enslavement, occupation and invasion by that logic. It's unrealistic and fantasist to expect everyone in a population to go full kamikaze. It goes against the survival instinct.
There's no denying black people have always been the easiest to enslave by a large margin. It's all Sub-Saharan people have known. They do it to themselves, others do it to them, it is just easy. Saying "oh yea well once someone else one time was a slave" isn't a counter argument
It's not isolated. The vast majority of humanity throughout history were peasants, slaves, cannon fodder, or slum dwelling factory workers, all under someone's boot.
OP, if someone pointed a gun at you, you'd be bent over picking cotton
Whether or not death is preferable to slavery is not the issue. The issue is the slaves lacked the skillset and the mental faculties to make it on their own if they organized an escape. Much like today's cosmopolitans.
>Death would obviously be preferable to slavery.
It is obviously not.