2 ms·
Slaves were merchandise for the VOC but they did not import many slaves to do work [1]. They typically (ab)used the local population to do that. Still nothing t
by speleding 8y ago
Slaves were merchandise for the VOC but they did not import many slaves to do work [1]. They typically (ab)used the local population to do that. Still nothing to be proud of, but it is a different story than slaves that were brought to the Americas to work on plantations. Exploitation of the local people would certainly be unethical by today's standards, it wasn't unethical back then and it also wasn't a crime (although you probably meant the word "crime" figuratively).
[1]> the Dutch had only a relatively insignificant share in the Atlantic slave trade—never averaging much more than 5–6 per cent of the total.
https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/545 https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/545
- cromulent 8y agoIt's an interesting discussion. Liverpool was a huge trading port and a powerful city for a long time, mostly built from the slave trade. No local slaves, but plenty of people who became rich from slavery. "Overall, Liverpool ships transported half of the 3 million Africans carried across the Atlantic by British slavers." http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/europe/liverpool.aspx http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/europe/liverp...