Why didn't white people enslave native Americans or Mexicans...

Why didn't white people enslave native Americans or Mexicans? What was it about blacks that made them go accross the ocean to get them?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Well... cheidtopher columbus did enslave the tainos in tge carribean and several spanish conquistadors did enslave several native american tribes but were eventually exterminated. We used the niggers as slaves because they dumb but very strong.

blacks are dumber and easier to control, also more reliable for harsh conditions and there was a large amount of them avaidable on the market already, also whites didn't enslave them we bought them in africa as slaves for the lergest part,

They were all fucking dead.
Only people left were the meztisos which people felt weird about enslaving for some reason.

also after columbus left the tainos immiedetly butchered the crew he left behind

African warlords already had the slaves and sold them to whites.

It's actually pretty interesting because the Catholics were forbidden specifically from enslaving Mative Americans by the church, who much more wanted to convert them. They were seen as superior to Africans (maybe in part because of the general sophistication of groups encountered by the Spanish like the Inca and Aztecs.)

Not that it stopped the Spanish from making them slaves in all but name. Go read about the encomienda system. It was basically feudalism.

I've read several accounts of how the Indians were not well suited to hard labour in some cases. It's difficult to refer to Indians as a single people, because there were many subraces involved, but many of these peoples were said to not perform very well under duress. Whether this was due to stature, spirit or indolence cannot be easily determined.

Read Bartolomé de las Casas' Short Account on the Destruction of the Indies. Keeping the context in mind, i.e. that he was a forerunner for promoting better treatment of the Indians, there are flashes of insight amidst some of his exaggerations that show how the often physically tiny Indian tribesmen were ill suited to extensive labour for the most part.

In short, coons were less defiant, more physically robust, and likely came with fewer political implications in various cases -- Indian slaves were often sold as bounties from neighbouring tribes, but these numbers were not always sufficient, and contrary to the myths of the presently operating apparatchik, it wasn't a case of free reign to just grab a few Indians to do a job when one felt like it. As much as they would hate to admit it, there was a measure of friendship between European and Indian across a spectrum.

As a final point: "Mexican" in the context of what you're asking wasn't really a concept at the time in which slavery in the classical sense was practiced, and the modern American image of the "beaner" is simply a half-caste central American tribesman, which unfortunately populate much of the Americas today.

(((Someone))) sold them for cheap

Because Native Americans usually just fucking die for no reason.

Africa had an established slave trade when the Europeans arrived and Indians die en masse during forced labor.

The Indians would kill their slave masters in their sleep, many such cases.

God this thread is full of fucking brainlets.
A famous Jesuit stated that Natives should not be used as slaves since they are captured in unjust wars and said that Africa would be a better option since the slaves there are captured in Just wars. So the Spaniards and portuguese went with purchasing slaves as opposed to forcing the natives into it. The man who said this later stated he regretted it.

Niggers couldn't escape and run back home.

Religion, the church saved the noble indigenous population

Because Native Americans and Mexicans fought back.

Coons were stronger because we bred them like dogs. Also, after a generation they spoke English.

> Indian slaves were often sold as bounties from neighbouring tribes, but these numbers were not always sufficient, and contrary to the myths of the presently operating apparatchik, it wasn't a case of free reign to just grab a few Indians to do a job when one felt like it. As much as they would hate to admit it, there was a measure of friendship between European and Indian across a spectrum.

Nailed it. Up north there were some injun slaves but mostly we needed them for fur trading. We also used them to fight innumerable skirmishes against other tribes or colonial powers.

I would also posit that bringing African slaves to a completely different continent kept them disoriented and made escape a very risky move. Injuns knew the local terrain and some trade language, making escape more realistic.

>we bought them in africa
White's didn't do that either, that's Jews you're thinking of.

African Kangs traded their slaves to white explorers for sugar, salt, rum, and spices.

In North America, there wasn't an immediate process of conquest. It was a long and slow experience. So, English/French settlers and the natives actually had "state to state" relations, treaties, etc. If you look at something like King Philip's War in 1670's, you can see that the balance of power between natives and colonists was not as tilted in favor of the colonists as people imagine today. The colonists held their ground, but they certainly didn't hold ALL of the ground.

>t brainlet who went to school in Mississippi

It was Biological Warfare technique used by the Jew against the Christian, and Hebrew separatists.

The Slave Auction Markets were Jews...

The Slave Ships were owned/operated by Jews....

The largest Plantations were Jews...

The Niggers they couldn't sell, or use as Slaves were released to wreak-havoc on the culture.

Just as they do to this very day.
.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade

What the fuck is this spelling? Am I going fucking crazy?