3 ms·

> "If they refused, the offer would go out to their rivals. " Ok, so what? Both you and you rival have something to sell. If I don't buy it from you, I buy it

> "If they refused, the offer would go out to their rivals. " Ok, so what? Both you and you rival have something to sell. If I don't buy it from you, I buy it from your rival. Let's face it, the Europeans created a greater demand for a product that the natives were already providing: Slaves. (no disrespect intended by the word product, just an analogy). > *"ignoring your own source saying that it isn't clear chattel slavery was practiced in the area" The moment the natives the sold those slaves, even if they weren't chattel slaves before (which I agree with you, was not clear), they started practicing chattel slavery. That's just the definition of it. In a nutshell, Europeans didn't turn that people into chattel slaves, they where turned into that by the other natives that enslaved them. > "Yet you ignored the parts that didn't, like the ten percent of the population part." Yes, the 10% that only occurred for a short time compared to the rest of the all Europe and because you keep accounting for people passing by than only spent there some weeks (i.e. the slaves waiting to be sold).

boomboomsubban 9y ago
>Ok, so what? Both you and you rival have something to sell. If I don't buy it from you, I buy it from your rival. It's not a one time transaction. If they buy slaves from your rivals, they have more money to spend on arms and a need for more people to sell. So refusing wasn't a safe option, creating a larger demand changed the game dramatically. >In a nutshell, Europeans didn't turn that people into chattel slaves, they where turned into that by the other natives that enslaved them. You could sell a debt slave with the thought the new owner would abide by the same rules. Or if slaves were treated as members of your household with an free children and a general path back to freedom, you might expect the buyer does the same. If you don't view people as property, you won't expect what someone buying them will do. >Yes, the 10% that only occurred for a short time compared to the rest of the all Europe and because you keep accounting for people passing by than only spent there some weeks (i.e. the slaves waiting to be sold). Source? As given how poorly Portugal looks in the slave trade, the last ship of slaves being Portugese to Brazil, that is hard to believe. And are you really happy with the argument "Portugal shouldn't overly acknowledge the slave trade, they barely kept any in the mainland while profiting off their sale and work for centuries."
- jbmorgado 9y ago
  > "Portugal shouldn't overly acknowledge the slave trade, they barely kept any in the mainland while profiting off their sale and work for centuries." We are just going around and around in circles. Again and for the final time: The article and my problem with it, is NOT about Portugal's involvement in the slave trade. I totally admit Portugal was the big motivator of the slave TRADE, yet history let's it very clear that the Natives were the ENSLAVERS and already since at least 1500 years before and have continued to do it UNTIL THE PRESENT, long after the Europeans stopped that. The article IS about some WRONG idea there is some slave legacy in LISBON - when in fact there is basically none.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    Capitalizing random words doesn't make them true, nice dodge out of getting that source and ignoring how being the motivator still makes you the kidnapper. Next you'll tell me about how glorious the reconquista was.
    - jbmorgado 9y ago
      > " being the motivator still makes you the kidnapper" This is just ridiculous. You still dodged why there is still slavery in Africa TODAY. Let me guess, still the Europeans fault I guess... Face it, Europeans traded the slaves, but the ones doing the enslaving were the Africans themselves that have been doing it for at least 2000 years now. I know, facts hurt your feelings when all you care is to play the SJW... though life. > "Next you'll tell me about how glorious the reconquista was." Let me guess, Portuguese and Spanish getting rid of the people oppressing and ENSLAVING them for centuries hurts your SJW feelings, cause Portuguese and Spanish are mostly white and as such they deserved to suffer? P.S.: BTW: "Historian John L. Vogt estimates that 10% of Lisbon’s population was black (BOTH ENSLAVED AND FREE) during the sixteenth century." It comes directly from the ARTICLE you so much love and defend, but I can't even expect you to be able to have that level of reading comprehension.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago

boomboomsubban 9y ago

>Ok, so what? Both you and you rival have something to sell. If I don't buy it from you, I buy it from your rival. It's not a one time transaction. If they buy slaves from your rivals, they have more money to spend on arms and a need for more people to sell. So refusing wasn't a safe option, creating a larger demand changed the game dramatically. >In a nutshell, Europeans didn't turn that people into chattel slaves, they where turned into that by the other natives that enslaved them. You could sell a debt slave with the thought the new owner would abide by the same rules. Or if slaves were treated as members of your household with an free children and a general path back to freedom, you might expect the buyer does the same. If you don't view people as property, you won't expect what someone buying them will do. >Yes, the 10% that only occurred for a short time compared to the rest of the all Europe and because you keep accounting for people passing by than only spent there some weeks (i.e. the slaves waiting to be sold). Source? As given how poorly Portugal looks in the slave trade, the last ship of slaves being Portugese to Brazil, that is hard to believe. And are you really happy with the argument "Portugal shouldn't overly acknowledge the slave trade, they barely kept any in the mainland while profiting off their sale and work for centuries."

jbmorgado 9y ago
> "Portugal shouldn't overly acknowledge the slave trade, they barely kept any in the mainland while profiting off their sale and work for centuries." We are just going around and around in circles. Again and for the final time: The article and my problem with it, is NOT about Portugal's involvement in the slave trade. I totally admit Portugal was the big motivator of the slave TRADE, yet history let's it very clear that the Natives were the ENSLAVERS and already since at least 1500 years before and have continued to do it UNTIL THE PRESENT, long after the Europeans stopped that. The article IS about some WRONG idea there is some slave legacy in LISBON - when in fact there is basically none.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  Capitalizing random words doesn't make them true, nice dodge out of getting that source and ignoring how being the motivator still makes you the kidnapper. Next you'll tell me about how glorious the reconquista was.
  - jbmorgado 9y ago
    > " being the motivator still makes you the kidnapper" This is just ridiculous. You still dodged why there is still slavery in Africa TODAY. Let me guess, still the Europeans fault I guess... Face it, Europeans traded the slaves, but the ones doing the enslaving were the Africans themselves that have been doing it for at least 2000 years now. I know, facts hurt your feelings when all you care is to play the SJW... though life. > "Next you'll tell me about how glorious the reconquista was." Let me guess, Portuguese and Spanish getting rid of the people oppressing and ENSLAVING them for centuries hurts your SJW feelings, cause Portuguese and Spanish are mostly white and as such they deserved to suffer? P.S.: BTW: "Historian John L. Vogt estimates that 10% of Lisbon’s population was black (BOTH ENSLAVED AND FREE) during the sixteenth century." It comes directly from the ARTICLE you so much love and defend, but I can't even expect you to be able to have that level of reading comprehension.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago