Explaining Slavery

As I mentioned the other day, I have been reading Simon Newman’s A New World of Labor: The Development of Plantation Slavery in the British Atlantic.

It has been refreshing to dive back into history after spending so much time lately writing about current events and politics. Right now, I am reading about the world of 17th century England, the Gold Coast and Barbados, and it is utterly unlike anything that exists in the present day.

How did slavery even happen? Do these liberals ever stop to think how something like the slave trade could have got started in the first place? The answer is that West Africans had no concept that there was anything wrong with slavery. Their economies were based on slavery. They had been engaging in the Trans-Saharan slave trade for centuries when the first Europeans arrived in the region.

As for the English, they were living in a different world at the time. England was a Commonwealth of households. Each household had a master with authority over his dependents. English law at the time actually required people to work. If you were an unemployed vagabond, a justice of the peace could step in and bound you to a master for a term of service. There was nothing like the “free labor” system we have today. English workers existed in a state between slavery and freedom.

What about human rights? What about liberty and equality? What about racism? These concepts were only developed centuries later. The doctrine of universal natural rights was developed … in the 18th century. The English were debating the morality of slavery … in the 19th century. The concept of racism didn’t exist until … the 20th century. These were also debates internal to European societies. Africa never had an anti-racist or anti-slavery or human rights movement during the slave trade.

West Africans living along the Gold Coast were more than happy to trade with the English. Slaves were valuable commodities. It was a business transaction. In West Africa, it was land that was held in common, and slaves which were commodities rather than the other way around. The Africans were in an overwhelming position of dominance and dictated the terms of the slave trade. The English slave traders were decimated by malaria and yellow fever. They were dependent upon African castle slaves. They were also dependent on the towns that grew up adjacent to the slave castles for their supplies.

It was the Africans who did all the enslaving in the interior. They transported slaves to the coast. They specialized in every aspect of the slave trade in West Africa. Amazingly, it never once seems to have occurred to them that the slave trade was “racist.” They could have easily shut it down if they so desired but they valued the commerce. In fact, West Africans protested the end of the slave trade. They resented abolition which was imposed upon them by the British in the 19th century. One of the reasons Britain colonized West Africa was to abolish slavery against their will.

In the Caribbean, even the rights and liberties which the English traditionally enjoyed in pre-liberal England seem to have deteriorated. In Barbados, human rights didn’t even apply to the White population, much less the enslaved blacks who replaced the first generation of White indentured servants. There was simply no concept of equality in Barbadian society.

Anyway, that’s how slavery got started in the British colonies. You had one group with New World sugar plantations and a severe labor shortage. You had another that was willing to sell slaves which were considered a legitimate article of commerce. There was no concept of universal human rights. Centuries later, we developed the concepts that made us feel guilty about it after the fact.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. The problem is NOT slavery per se. It is blacks.

    Had those blacks been brought as free laborers, they would have caused the same problems.

    Suppose the US had brought over 300,000 white slaves and 300,000 black free laborers(as immigrants).

    Which group would be causing more problem today?

    The descendants of white slaves or descendants of black free laborers? I say the blacks.

    Just think. Suppose the US had brought over 300,000 Chinese slaves.
    Would their descendants be causing much trouble for whites?

    No. As Chinese are smaller and weaker than whites, white men would maintain manly pride as top athletes and studs in the nation. And since Chinese men have weak voices, they never would have produced MLK and all those Magic Vocal Negroes. Whites wouldn’t have become spellbound by Chinese.

    Also, as Chinese are shorter and smaller-donged than whites, Chinese men would not be a sexual threat to white men. If anything, white men would be doing white women AND yellow women who prefer white stud to yellow dork.

    So, the real problem was NOT slavery but race. Whites brought over blacks.
    Look at Europe. It is taking in free immigrant blacks, but they cause the same problems. They commit more crime. Also, as they are stronger and faster, they take over sports and gain ‘hero’ status. Also, they got stronger voices, so they win in music and dance. Also, they got bigger dongs, so white women got jungle fever and go with Negroes, and this leads to the Afro-colonization of white wombs that produce blacks who beat up white boys and hump more white girls.


    Whites should have brought over white slaves or Asian slaves.

    But whites brought over black slaves. The great problem was not slavery per se but RACE. Whites brought over the stronger and more aggressive race. Had 300,000 blacks been allowed in a free workers, they would have caused the same problems, same dangers, and same anxieties to the white race.

    Look at blacks in America. Slavery ended long long ago, and blacks even got total equality. But racial problems go on. And more and more black dudes beat up weaker dudes. And more and more white girls get infected with jungle fever from listening to rap, watching football, having sex with high school black athletes, and watching cuck-porn from a young age.
    And some of the white fathers of these girls invite black mandingos to do their white wives on their own beds.

  2. So, what you’re saying is that African Negroes are racist for enslaving the “lesser tribes” around them? And that everything that’s supposedly white privilege is 12 right now is actually Negro privilege? I can be OK with that.

      • Why does it matter? To you or to me? If you’re a Jew you have your own theological stances. If you’re black you have your own theological stances. You will never convince me of your heresy, and if you want to be saved you need to adopt mine. So why asked the question in the first place?

  3. Brad, let’s not forget that the markets for American products were in north western Europe. Primarily, Britain, Germany, Holland & France. Due to the mercantile system only the products of England came to America, or foreign products sold & shipped thru Britain.

  4. At least cotton picking negros didn’t have to worry about lions,war fare tribes,famine, and deseases. they were secured from all that in the Southern plantation.

  5. UK: MP candidate arrested for opposing immigration and warning about “Islamic warriors”

    Stoke byelection candidate arrested over anti-immigrant comments

    Independent candidate Barbara Fielding, 78, held on suspicion of publishing material that may stir up racial hatred

    By Nazia Parveen, The Guardian, 17 February 2017

    A candidate in the Stoke byelection has been arrested on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred.

    The byelection has been mired in scandal in recent days with Ukip’s candidate failing to turn up for a hustings and Labour’s candidate apologising for posting a series of abusive tweets aimed at women.

    Barbara Fielding, 78, who is standing as an independent, was arrested after a complaint about her website, which [allegedly] calls for all immigrants to be repatriated and warns of a “seeping tide of Islamic warriors”. [n.b.: “Islamic” does not refer to any race] Police seized her mobile phone and computer and later released her on bail until next month.

    Fielding said: “I was arrested on suspicion of publishing racial hatred material on my website. Someone must have made a complaint to the police. They took me away and took my files, my paperwork, my mobile phone and my computer. I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong. I’m not worried about this.

    “I’m giving information to anybody who wants to read it. I’m not saying people should go out and do something bad to immigrants. I set up my website 18 months ago. I wasn’t involved in politics before, but I just felt politicians had made a mess of things.”

    Staffordshire police confirmed that a 78-year-old woman had been arrested under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it an offence to publish or distribute written material which may stir up racial hatred.

    The byelection in Stoke next Thursday and the byelection in Copeland on the same day are seen as a key electoral test for the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, whose party is defending both seats. It was triggered by the resignation of Tristram Hunt, who left parliament to become the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.

    Ukip’s Paul Nuttall was an early favourite to win but his chances have been dented by questions over his residency in the seat, his failure to name all six pottery towns, and his admission that claims on his website about having lost close friends in the Hillsborough disaster were false.

    Labour’s candidate Gareth Snell has also proved controversial after he made offensive remarks about panellists on ITV’s Loose Women. He backed remain in the EU referendum and suggested Brexit was a “massive pile of shit”, while Stoke voted strongly for leave.

    • ‘Arrested Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election candidate: ‘I’ve done nothing wrong”

      Oh, but, you have done something terrible wrong, M’am – you spoke the truth; and, for that, you stand convicted of poor taste.

      • They mostly want the proles to censor themselves, with nobody being sure what is and is not permissible speech.

  6. also in the 17th & 18th & part of the 19th centuries, blacks survived south of the mason dixon line longer than whites, b/c blacks were more immune to tropical diseases.

    & what should be done in a world with different people with different/overlapping normal curves of ability? slavery was not a bad solution to that problem of nature. later, segregation, & jim crow were also reasonable solutions to that problem.

  7. Only around 5% of the niggers coming to the New World as slaves were sent to America, the rest went to the Caribbean or South America. And slavery wasn’t officially abolished in Brazil until 1881. So the shitlibs should be focusing their kike-fueled antiwhite rage at Latin America, not the US.

  8. Louis Farrakhan said the slave castles in Ghana used to have the Star of David on them but they were removed. The Star of David is an ancient symbol. So is the Swastika which is supposed to really represent good and not evil. I’ve read that for it to represent good, the size/proportions have something to do with it. I also believe it has a connection to both luck and ancient geometry (Fulcanelli). Like the Roman/Bellamy Salute, the Swastika has been hijacked by the Synagogue of Satan (we are warned about the Synagogue of Satan in the Book of Revelation 2:9 or 3:9 depending on version). And, the Synagogue of Satan controls everyone and everything to some degree in the present day. It is a death-grip that has been going on for a very long time.

Comments are closed.