Reply #11: Nah, Columbus was worse [View All]

[jobycom]

He enslaved the inhabitants of Haiti, using the men to work the fields and the women as rewards for his men. His men preferred women under the age of ten (yes, for that), so Columbus instructed slavers to look out for that age group, especially.

Problem was that the inhabitants of the island knew it better than he did, so they kept escaping. He tried all the normal stuff-- cutting off their ears and noses as a warning to others, cutting off their feet, killing them, going to war and annihilating villages. Nothing worked. Even though he reduced the population of Hispanola from 8 million to 3 million in around three years the darned slaves kept escaping.

So he came up with a clever solution. He would pack the inhabitants of the island into slave ships, take them to the Canary Islands and the Azores, and trade them for African slaves who did not know the territory, and therefore wouldn't be as likely to escape. There was a natural loss to this plan-- many died in the hulls of the ships. They were dumped overboard. Other ship captains commented that you could sail from the Canaries to Hispanola without a compass by following the dead bodies.

But ultimately it worked, mostly. African slaves were less likely to escape. Many did, and went to live with the original inhabitants. But that type of slaver stuck.

So here's my question-- which is worse, to breed generations of people as slaves based upon their race, or to capture, enslave and slaughter an entire free population for slavery. Keep in mind that when you have to buy the slave, you at least (and this is very small credit) have to keep the slave alive or you are out some money. When all you have to do is grab someone off the street, put them in chains, and crack them with a whip, you tend to not care if you have to kill a few of them-- they are free for the taking.

See why we celebrate Columbus Day? American values, eh? (answer, no.)