Why did we Americans enslave niggers when we had a perfectly good source of cheap labor in the US already, the natives...

Why did we Americans enslave niggers when we had a perfectly good source of cheap labor in the US already, the natives? Why didn't we round them up and put them in chains to make them work? They were a little harder to catch, but we wouldn't have to ferry them halfway around the world to get them.

Were niggers better? Did we ever try to enslave the Amerindians? Were they just worthless? Why would we pay so much to drag them all the way from Africa? What would America be like today if we used the natives for slaves instead of niggers?

Jews wanted to destroy a new Europe, and the peasants would work for sustinance, same as a slave, also majority of the profits went for the owners luxury not the development of production, thus more pay to the worker simply would give luxury to worker rather than the owner.

Because Natives didn't really bother to sell thesmelves to us.

The Niggers did.

It's not like we went around and forcibly kidnapped people and forced them to work.; No.

We went to their village, traded with them. Their own people sold their other people out. We bought them up, and used them.

Perhaps we should have known better, but how could we? After all THEY didn't know better at that stage either.

it worked, USA is nowhere what Europe was due to all the negro influence.

Australia did know better, you beat the Jew, Australia is white.

all that slaves allowed was more luxury to owners and nothing for the peasants.

We tried but natives proved difficult to train, weren't hard workers, and were very good at escaping.

Source: historian

/thread

There weren't a whole lot of natives.

They had their own bubonic plague before white people found them and some people say up to 90% of them died.

This gets twisted around by simple minds into "white people killed 90% of natives with smallpox blankets" because historical nuances don't matter when you have an agenda.

Not to mention how stretched out they were. Theoretically speaking, there were enough to sustain a slave economy, but when you consider you have to kill most of the fighting aged men to capture a tribe of a few hundred people, it was much easier to bring slaves over from Africa, which already had the infrastructure to facilitate conquering and enslaving hundreds of thousands of people. The boat ride over was an opportunity to break them, which would have meant housing the captures under close guard for a long time in conditions not unlike those on a slave ship.

Natives are physically weak as fuck. But they're smarter than niggers, so they could fight back against slavery. Niggers were a better choice economically.

which is why England banned slavery, very bad to have millions of people not involved in any sort of production what so ever.

This and the Nigs were literally just sold to us by other Nigs. No catching them required.

Right, I mean I get that it was easy enough to buy enslaved africans from other African tribes along the coast, but the transport costs must've been huge. From what I understand, slaves were pretty expensive back then, so wouldn't some enterprising individual be set to make a ton of money by acquiring American Indians to use as slaves? Was it illegal to make them slaves? We could've bought them from other indian tribes which captured them like we did in Africa. But I guess there werent really any indian tribes which kept or took slaves i guess. Why did African tribes keep slaves but Amerindians didn't?

not very profitable to get killed, Africans were already caught by tribal warchiefs.

The real answer to this is disease and infection. Africa had been exposed to European diseases (smallpox, bubonic plague, etc) for years and thus niggers had resistance to these diseases. Natives had zero resistance so their death toll was massive when exposed to them.

>go die fighting tribes with guns
>go buy africans
what does the cunning jew do?

The Jews shipped the niggers over here.

I'm surprised there aren't more black people there. It's literally a prison island.

white Australia, they specifically declared Australia to be an outpost for the British race.

Too add yeah the Spanish did for a bit on the islands but the natives died rabidly for old world disease making them unsustainable (except in places with previous high population densities like the Andes, mesoamerica, and partly brazil) now whites had resistance to a few like small pox, flu, etc but they couldn't work in the more intense sun all day, then when mosquito diseases made their way over they really fell behind compared to African labor, that had resistance to malaria, yellow fever and on. Yes transport was expensive but so we're the crops they were growing, destined for export anyway. I'd have preferred Indian endentured servants to the early US but transport was even farther and by that time slavery was banned we already had more than enough blacks.

Roofucker is right. And stupid spain killed did a genocide on natives instead to use them, so nigger workforce were imported.

This too.

They knew the land better than any settler. All the little survival tricks only 10,000 years of evolution and cultural adaptation can teach.

Another factor is proximity. Enslave a couple indians and their buddies are just miles away looking for revenge. Africa is thousands of miles from here and the slaves were all sold by their government.

The US made international slave trade a felony offense very early in it's history - 1807.

Most slaves were ancestors of slaves who had been imported before this date - most dating to before the Revolution

Indians lack the physique to be good field workers.

Also Indians are smarter than niggers and will probably revolt more often.

They were cheaper before the US banned the importation of slaves in 1807.

read a book.

The Natives were prone to disease and a lot died during colonization. If I am not mistaken, natives were used as slave, however, the workforce died off. So the colonists resorted to African slaves from Africa.

natives at the time were numerous and powerful as well, many were allied and others hostile.

Think about this.

You have to break a slave. That takes time, and during that time you have to feed them, give them a place to sleep, it's not much but it adds up.

You cram 300 into the deck of a ship, feed them starvation rations, you accomplish a few things. First, you break them of their will. Totally isolated in the middle of the ocean, any dissenters get tossed overboard and eaten by sharks. They arrive more or less ready to work. Second, by overfilling the ships and giving them starvation rations, you ensure only the strongest survive. Third, sail power is free, no matter how heavy or full the ship is.

The transport costs are negligible when each slave will fetch hundreds of dollars at auction and over a lifetime of work make tens of thousands of dollars for their owner.

same reason europeans didn't invade Africa prior to medicine/maxim machine gun is reason they didn't fight natives recklessly, a European countries military is the difference between continuing thousands of years of inherintances and being annexed by moors or other European states, it was not profitable to lose soldiers for literally nothing.

Indian martial prowess also exceeded that of central and south africans, specifically in regards to hunting (except them nigs in the saharas facingLions and shit). Food isn't exactly hard to find in Africa, while American Indians had to deal with brutal foodless winter, surviving off of persistence hunting Deer and Bear

Idk how the second 85251950 got there but to reiterate we very much did early on, just Google "Indian slaves" or encomienda (Spanish version) Natives even bought African slaves from us, and sometimes inslaved whites, usually not chattel though, but more like ancient Rome probably. Again Spain worked with it more which is why Latin America has a lot of native blood/mestizos. Only places with labor intensive agriculture got Africans or Indians (subcontinental) like the US south, Caribbean islands, Brazil, Guyanas and much smaller numbers elsewhere

So I guess i see the benefits of using nigs as slaves instead of natives, but I'm still wondering if natives had any history taking slaves before the US really started importing them. Was it just their culutre not to enslave to a high degree? It sounds like natives kept, bought, and sold some slaves but it doesnt seek like many of the tribes were intered in keeping or taking skaves from other tribes.
I guess Indians never really needed slaves since many of the major tribes were nomadic.

natives enslaved other racial tribes.

>in Brazil...

Indians can run away to the forest
get sick or die from European diseases
less numerous, smaller in stature.
and they fight back.

Africans... you do the math

They would escape pretty easily and run off I to the woods and you would never find them. They were at home in the wilderness, we were not. Niggers would just sit around and sing let muh people go

They did, just like ancient Rome, africa, India and pretty much everywhere else. But it was domestic, Europeans did it for export profit of cash crops, tobacco, cotton, sugar, and needed a large labor supply. So it was a unique early person of globalism. It that makes any sense, the natives just got pows and had them do minor crap, but they didn't have the industry that would benefit from a large enslaved class. Again it was mostly tropical and subtropical crops, which is why Canada, North US, Argentina and Chile didn't receive many. Everything in between were used as "extractive states" and had little development or investment besides slaves, which is why they aren't as good.

If I'm correct, natives were used as slaves, but not as much as nignogs. For example, in my rural town in New Hampshire, this kind of shit happened way back:

>whites get Abenakis and enslave them
>their buddies save them and kill and drive out whites
>population becomes smaller due to this
>whites rise up again one way or another
>repeat until we stop fucking with Abenakis

>fact: jews don't do shit on Saturday
>fact: 50% of ameri-jew households owned slaves!!!

jews ran a large part of the slave shiping
and somereason its.... reparations whitey, white guilt.

They told me this in like middle school, actually.
They were weak as shit and lazy too, so even if they got beaten up they still did shit. Blacks were an alternative.

Natives fought to the death while Niggers were more cowardly and chose to give themselves to hard labor.

>not the same kind of lazy

in the amazon you can hunt a day's worth of food in 2-3 hours. women do part of the farming.

the rest of the time, is family/village time

>now compare, who is on Unemployment? and Not feeding their babies
9child support)

Harambe was too good to be with a bunch of niggers. Fuck you for posting that picture

Also, they were constantly dropping dead from disease