3 ms·

> Conventional slavery was damn near ubiquitous, accessible to many. [citation needed]

pengaru 7y ago
For starters, in the early 1700s over 40% of NYC households enslaved people, not even in the south. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Colonial_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#C...
- viklove 7y ago
  I don't know how true that is, considering the link used as a citation for the claim is dead: https://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/slavery_in_new_york https://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/slavery_in_new_york My biggest question is how a "household" is defined. Does it only count landowners? Landowners are significantly wealthier than the average citizen, so of course they would be able to afford more than most. Also, are you aware that the population of NYC was under 10,000 until 1710? So even according to that stat, 4,000 people in one of the wealthiest cities in the country owned slaves. It doesn't seem like evidence that conclusively proves your point. Got any other sources?
  - pengaru 7y ago
    Frankly I find this subject far too depressing to read about for your needs. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of google searches and reading about the history of slavery on your own if you're so interested. We were taught this in school, that it was a very common practice with little to no barrier to entry in the early days, and wasn't even racially discriminated until rebellions started. There are even well-documented records of freed slaves becoming slave owners themselves, it was that trivially accessible and generally accepted. My point was that slavery was accessible to many, contextually in contrast to prisons today, context your quote omitted. Slaves you'd acquire in units as small as an indentured servant, prisons are far more complex with substantial barriers to entry. In an environment of legalized slavery any household could easily get in on it, I can't even begin to imagine how I'd go about starting a prison yet it's presumably legal for me to try.
    - viklove 7y ago
      > Frankly I find this subject far too depressing to read about for your needs. That's what you're going with? So what evidence are you basing your belief of of? Sounds like it's just a feeling.
- scotty79 7y ago
  It's not 1700 anymore. Infrastructure is order of magnitude better. Real estate is way more expensive. It's cheaper to rent exploited worker to clean than it would be to house the slave for that on average.

For starters, in the early 1700s over 40% of NYC households enslaved people, not even in the south. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Colonial_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#C...

viklove 7y ago
I don't know how true that is, considering the link used as a citation for the claim is dead: https://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/slavery_in_new_york https://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/slavery_in_new_york My biggest question is how a "household" is defined. Does it only count landowners? Landowners are significantly wealthier than the average citizen, so of course they would be able to afford more than most. Also, are you aware that the population of NYC was under 10,000 until 1710? So even according to that stat, 4,000 people in one of the wealthiest cities in the country owned slaves. It doesn't seem like evidence that conclusively proves your point. Got any other sources?
- pengaru 7y ago
  Frankly I find this subject far too depressing to read about for your needs. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of google searches and reading about the history of slavery on your own if you're so interested. We were taught this in school, that it was a very common practice with little to no barrier to entry in the early days, and wasn't even racially discriminated until rebellions started. There are even well-documented records of freed slaves becoming slave owners themselves, it was that trivially accessible and generally accepted. My point was that slavery was accessible to many, contextually in contrast to prisons today, context your quote omitted. Slaves you'd acquire in units as small as an indentured servant, prisons are far more complex with substantial barriers to entry. In an environment of legalized slavery any household could easily get in on it, I can't even begin to imagine how I'd go about starting a prison yet it's presumably legal for me to try.
  - viklove 7y ago
    > Frankly I find this subject far too depressing to read about for your needs. That's what you're going with? So what evidence are you basing your belief of of? Sounds like it's just a feeling.
scotty79 7y ago
It's not 1700 anymore. Infrastructure is order of magnitude better. Real estate is way more expensive. It's cheaper to rent exploited worker to clean than it would be to house the slave for that on average.