Indentured White Servants Were Treated Worse than Black Slaves in the West Indies

[John Smith Esq.]

You won't hear this on the BBC...

 

[Mottie]

Shhhhhhhhh. Some whiteys on here don’t want to hear that. Black man good, white man bad.

 

[John Smith Esq.]

Shhhhhhhhh. Some whiteys on here don’t want to hear that. Black man good, white man bad.

Interesting.

So it sounds as though they are racist and spiteful, self loathing mutants at the same time. I wonder what causes a person to end up that way?

 

[blup]

The common denominator is white men being bad to other men.

 

[motorbiking]

statistically its non-whites being bad.

 

[MNW67]

This man isn't a proper historian.

But even if any of this is true, he is comparing people who were taken against their will into a life of slavery, to people who entered willingly into a short term contract.

 

[transam]

Black Africa were complicit and up to there eye balls in the slave trade

As were the Arabs

 

[noseall]

Black Africa were complicit

We couldn't have had slaves without them.

 

[motorbiking]

This man isn't a proper historian.

But even if any of this is true, he is comparing people who were taken against their will into a life of slavery, to people who entered willingly into a short term contract.

what makes you a proper historian?

 

[John Smith Esq.]

This man isn't a proper historian.

But even if any of this is true, he is comparing people who were taken against their will into a life of slavery, to people who entered willingly into a short term contract.

Not really. It was a choice between being hanged, sent to a penal colony or indentured labour. It wasn't people waking up one day and deciding to live that way. Also, these were formerly free people whereas 90% of the slaves taken to the West Indies were already slaves (of Africans or Arabs).

The main takeaway is that the system incentivized better treatment for the black slaves. Something we seldom hear about.

Also, he is a proper historian. He has had lots of books published on the subject. More of a serious historian than, say, BBC favourite David Olusogo.

 

[MNW67]

what makes you a proper historian?

Having proper academic history training and publishing peer reviewed research.

 

[MNW67]

Not really. It was a choice between being hanged, sent to a penal colony or indentured labour. It wasn't people waking up one day and deciding to live that way. Also, these were formerly free people whereas 90% of the slaves taken to the West Indies were already slaves (of Africans or Arabs).

The main takeaway is that the system incentivized better treatment for the black slaves. Something we seldom hear about.

Also, he is a proper historian. He has had lots of books published on the subject. More of a serious historian than, say, BBC favourite David Olusogo.

I don't like him either.

And I detest Simon Schama.

 

[John Smith Esq.]

Having proper academic history training and publishing peer reviewed research.

Nope, being rigorous and above all being right are what counts. The rest is pieces of paper and patting on the back, cosy club BS.

 

[John Smith Esq.]

The common denominator is white men being bad to other men.

The office for national statistics disagrees with you.

 

[MNW67]

Nope, being rigorous and above all being right are what counts. The rest is pieces of paper and patting on the back, cosy club BS.

Unless his work has been properly reviewed by others, then we have no way of knowing whether he is right. Anyone can throw a few bits and bobs together and sound authoritative on YouTube.