Labour bondage typically arises when labour is more valuable (more scarce) than land. If the population is in place, you get some sort of serfdom. If it has to be imported, you get slavery.
The export of the Eurasian disease pool to the Americas depopulated both continents. So, slavery was always going to be the likely response.
We evolved in Africa, so there were lots of parasites, pathogens, predators and mega herbivores that co-evolved with us. So Sub-Saharan Africa had low population density and thus endemic slavery. Slaves being exported into Islam had been going on for centuries. Suddenly, there were these depopulated continents across the Atlantic …
The earliest black arrivals in 1619 were treated similarly to indentured servants as were arrivals from England. Obviously there were cultural and language barriers, but the nature was of service for a period with a land grant at the end. Time passed and the ability of the government to provide those land grants ended. Without land to work, people then depended on land owners for work (and food). By 1660 actual slavery appeared as a way to have labor somewhat fixed and was essential for the now very large estates that had developed. There were even black slave owners who used the system that was becoming common.
As noted land became fixed ownership and there was a need for considerable labor. By the mid 1800's it was becoming obvious that the system was not economical given the maintenance cost of slaves with attendant obligations for a workforce that was not high;y motivated.
As an outsider (Brit/naturalised Aussie) in Ireland, Ireland still appears - or did appear, 20 years ago, less so now - very tribal. "Kin groups" and "hereditary constituencies" still dominate even national politics to an extent I found astonishing coming from Australia (only other country I've voted in). My reading informs me that some recent Irish tragedies e.g. Magdalen laundries (still not fully acknowledged by the whole community or full restitution given, if it ever will be) were in reality motivated by the concept of keeping land inheritance 'within the (legitimately acknowledged) family' rather than Catholic prudery, which is the official 'explanation'.
The modern Left has forgotten about class. No, I have never been a Marxist - when my father explained it to me when I was 8, I said, “People don’t work like that. Even chickens and cows don’t work like that.” Also I know too many ex-Soviets to have a bar of Marxism! But I do think class is really important in analysing social dynamics.
Question (and I don't see an email to ask it). You linked to a Free Speech Union briefing listing things like payment processors, and I'm currently looking into options. However the document you linked to does *not* rate "Buy Me a Coffee”, and I don't seem to find it in a search. Are you sure that one is problematic, or was it Kofi that is listed that is problematic? One problem with most options is they don't protect anonymity for those who wish to use pen names, but Buy Me a Coffee does which is why I'm wondering about it. Even if someone creates a DBA name or a business entity: in most locations the owners of those are public information (and there is often not a way to create an anonymous entity elsewhere without needing to also register it locally in those locations). Thanks.
Very interesting analysis! But one thing confused me: I've always heard that (in American cities) most police presence and most stops/arrests are in gang-ridden (mostly black, single mother) neighborhoods. I don't know if "defund the police" may have changed this in some places, but that was the conventional wisdom for as long as I can recall. This seems to conflict with your position that less revenue = less policing. Was it never actually true that police spent disproportionate time policing the gang neighborhoods?
Under-policed relative to need. They may have more police than elsewhere in such localities, but their much lower homicide clearance rates suggest nowhere near enough.
Is slavery in Virginia an accident or an expected event in its economic development?
Labour bondage typically arises when labour is more valuable (more scarce) than land. If the population is in place, you get some sort of serfdom. If it has to be imported, you get slavery.
The export of the Eurasian disease pool to the Americas depopulated both continents. So, slavery was always going to be the likely response.
We evolved in Africa, so there were lots of parasites, pathogens, predators and mega herbivores that co-evolved with us. So Sub-Saharan Africa had low population density and thus endemic slavery. Slaves being exported into Islam had been going on for centuries. Suddenly, there were these depopulated continents across the Atlantic …
So, an expected development.
Virginia:
The earliest black arrivals in 1619 were treated similarly to indentured servants as were arrivals from England. Obviously there were cultural and language barriers, but the nature was of service for a period with a land grant at the end. Time passed and the ability of the government to provide those land grants ended. Without land to work, people then depended on land owners for work (and food). By 1660 actual slavery appeared as a way to have labor somewhat fixed and was essential for the now very large estates that had developed. There were even black slave owners who used the system that was becoming common.
As noted land became fixed ownership and there was a need for considerable labor. By the mid 1800's it was becoming obvious that the system was not economical given the maintenance cost of slaves with attendant obligations for a workforce that was not high;y motivated.
Actually, as long as you could do work-gangs, it was still quite profitable. The price of slaves wasn’t falling. Otherwise, nice summary.
As an outsider (Brit/naturalised Aussie) in Ireland, Ireland still appears - or did appear, 20 years ago, less so now - very tribal. "Kin groups" and "hereditary constituencies" still dominate even national politics to an extent I found astonishing coming from Australia (only other country I've voted in). My reading informs me that some recent Irish tragedies e.g. Magdalen laundries (still not fully acknowledged by the whole community or full restitution given, if it ever will be) were in reality motivated by the concept of keeping land inheritance 'within the (legitimately acknowledged) family' rather than Catholic prudery, which is the official 'explanation'.
To be clear about what I meant by that last comment - it was often families themselves who consigned their daughters to a Magdalen laundry.
The modern Left has forgotten about class. No, I have never been a Marxist - when my father explained it to me when I was 8, I said, “People don’t work like that. Even chickens and cows don’t work like that.” Also I know too many ex-Soviets to have a bar of Marxism! But I do think class is really important in analysing social dynamics.
chickens and cows? 😂 😂 😂 wow what an insightful 8 year old you were. already on the coolaid I'm guessing?
LOL, I was a difficult child to teach, shall we say! Now I reap what I sowed, and teach others…
Question (and I don't see an email to ask it). You linked to a Free Speech Union briefing listing things like payment processors, and I'm currently looking into options. However the document you linked to does *not* rate "Buy Me a Coffee”, and I don't seem to find it in a search. Are you sure that one is problematic, or was it Kofi that is listed that is problematic? One problem with most options is they don't protect anonymity for those who wish to use pen names, but Buy Me a Coffee does which is why I'm wondering about it. Even if someone creates a DBA name or a business entity: in most locations the owners of those are public information (and there is often not a way to create an anonymous entity elsewhere without needing to also register it locally in those locations). Thanks.
Very interesting analysis! But one thing confused me: I've always heard that (in American cities) most police presence and most stops/arrests are in gang-ridden (mostly black, single mother) neighborhoods. I don't know if "defund the police" may have changed this in some places, but that was the conventional wisdom for as long as I can recall. This seems to conflict with your position that less revenue = less policing. Was it never actually true that police spent disproportionate time policing the gang neighborhoods?
Under-policed relative to need. They may have more police than elsewhere in such localities, but their much lower homicide clearance rates suggest nowhere near enough.
Ahh I understand, that makes sense. Thank you!