diane77
Aficionado
Registered: 08/23/08
Posts: 634
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #31 |
Quote: Originally Posted by DaTokenBlaqGuyQuote: Originally Posted by LboyQuote: Originally Posted by diane77
Most biracial slaves weren't the descendants of wealthly white slave owners. Harriet Jacobs was a biracial slave her father was a white indentured servant. Daniel Coker was a biracial slave his mother was a white indentured servant. Good point brought up. "White Indentured servants" Some White Indentured Servants became slaves. If White Slaves were capable of being sold in early colonial America then I don't see why a mulatto slave would be hard to sell. Go and Yahoo or Google "White Slaves in America". The article talk about the White Slavery that was going on before Black Slavery. Other white people AND Native Americans were used as slaves before the gold mind that was African slavery made it easier to a) make it easier to know exactly who was a slave by sight verification alone and the Natives kept dying off which no one wants their livestock dying off before they can get a good hoe in now would they? The library is also a good place to learn about the history non-African slaves of America. That's where I get most of my information. |
| | diane77
Aficionado
Registered: 08/23/08
Posts: 634
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #32 |
Quote: Originally Posted by PassingWomanQuote: By the census of 1850, the aggregate number of slaves in the United States was 3,204,313. Of this number, 246,656 were of mixed blood, mulattoes, The number of unmixed negro blood was, therefore, 2,487,455. The free black and mulatto population was 434,495, in the following proportions; blacks, 275,400; mulattoes, 159,095. Ah, yes... but we need not forget the ODR.. FGMs would be counted as "Black." It's only when the cream in the coffee starts being obviously CREAM that one becomes "mulatto" in many eyes... And what slave owner wants to admit that every slave on his plantation under the age of 20 is mulatto, especially if he's the only white male for a 50 mile radius? And in 1850, who did the census takers ask about the race of slaves on the plantation? The census takers did not rely on looking at the slaves-- they asked the slave owners. Did the slave owners wish to get John Brown and his followers more upset? Invoke the rath of the abolitionists? No... The last 50 years of slavery repopulation sans importation was all done by.. (gasp) those libidenous black slaves! PS - All of my ancestors on my father's side are recorded as "Black." Even my very light skinned grandmother and her (lighter skinned) mother. ODR. ~PW PassingWoman
Virtuoso
Registered: 01/15/08
Posts: 1,301 | | Reply with quote | #7 |
Ahem.
Mine says "Mulatto." Recall, I am a white phenotype.
Say, where are you located anyways?... as far as I know they stopped putting race on birth certificates in NY State about 43 years ago....
But here's the thing: The HOSPITAL and attending physician "make the call." If they believe that all people with darker-than-white-skin tones are "black", then that's what they put down.
If they believe that a white phenotype infant with a black father cannot be "black," then they put down "mulatto"... at least that was how it worked for me....
I think the staff at your hospital of birth missed the seminar on cultural competency.....
~PW
__________________
Like this site? Then help out!
Donate funds to cover expenses at http://www.mulatto.org
Tell everyone you know about Mulatto.org- blog it, write it, scream it from your desk (ok, don't do that last suggestion!)...
Be part of it. |
|
|
| | MGMgrande
Dilettante
Registered: 08/12/09
Posts: 314
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #33 |
Quote: Originally Posted by PassingWoman
Just a "chime in" from someone who has studied slavery, mixes and women...
#1.) The importation of slaves was prohibited in the US in about 1807/1808. After that point all the slave owners had to rely on PROCREATION. Now, since women were not the brunt force of the labor, there were fewer of them on the plantations.... You had more male slaves than female slaves on the plantation... And relying on the fact that they would want to "mate" with other slaves was pretty much a crap shoot... Hmmm.. how does one keep up the levels of labor on the plantation when you can't just import them?????
My black grandmother could "pass." (She married a Black man to "put more color back in the line") From what I've heard, her mother could pass, and even more so. (I have a picture of my grandmother... she looks White with dark wavy hair) Her mother was raped by her master, and I am the product (eventually) of that. I am not sure if she had been sold from her originator (father) but if the son had raped her (or the father) that would be disgusting--even to the slave holders.
Bear in mind, the slave masters did not hold any amorous feelings for their slave women, or any love for their slave offspring. It was a profit-making enterprise, which, of course, had the additional added pleasure for the plantation owner... Your women slaves were also your concubines.
~PW
We can all assume that rape was fairly common during slavery. We cannot make assumption about the nature of all relations between white slavemasters and black female slaves without resorting to gross generalizations. There are numerous cases (such as my family) were the slavemaster gave his black concubine a sh*tload of land and paid for the education of the children they created together. If there were no "amorous" feelings than these types of things would not have happened.
I am not downplaying the heinous nature of rape. But it is probable that most of the time "rape" was just that, "rape"--a violent nonconsensual sex act, not a method to increase the slave population.
|
| | MGMgrande
Dilettante
Registered: 08/12/09
Posts: 314
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #34 |
Quote: Originally Posted by PassingWomanQuote: By the census of 1850, the aggregate number of slaves in the United States was 3,204,313. Of this number, 246,656 were of mixed blood, mulattoes, The number of unmixed negro blood was, therefore, 2,487,455. The free black and mulatto population was 434,495, in the following proportions; blacks, 275,400; mulattoes, 159,095. Ah, yes... but we need not forget the ODR.. FGMs would be counted as "Black." It's only when the cream in the coffee starts being obviously CREAM that one becomes "mulatto" in many eyes... And what slave owner wants to admit that every slave on his plantation under the age of 20 is mulatto, especially if he's the only white male for a 50 mile radius? And in 1850, who did the census takers ask about the race of slaves on the plantation? The census takers did not rely on looking at the slaves-- they asked the slave owners. Did the slave owners wish to get John Brown and his followers more upset? Invoke the rath of the abolitionists? No... The last 50 years of slavery repopulation sans importation was all done by.. (gasp) those libidenous black slaves! PS - All of my ancestors on my father's side are recorded as "Black." Even my very light skinned grandmother and her (lighter skinned) mother. ODR. ~PW
There was no need to have the ODR during slavery because it was not illegal to enslave mulattoes. Nevertheless, a disproportionate number of "freedmen" were indeed mulattoes during slave time so buying mulattoes was riskier because of the chance that the mulatto might run away and pass for a freedman or as a "white" or "indian." This fact alone would surely drop the market value of mulatto slaves.
|
| | LaCosa
Virtuoso
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 1,238
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #35 |
Quote: Originally Posted by MGMgrande
I think to state that black slave women were impregnated by white slavemasters for the purpose increasing the number of slaves is a huge overstatement & generalization. I have read a a historian or two who have made this allegation so I wont deny that a few slavemasters did this. But black slaves were rather sexually prolific in the U.S. & their numbers increased naturally without any help from Massa. 1. This is unlike places like Brazil were slaves were ill fed and treated much, much worse. Brazil needed to import slaves well into the 1860s. The U.S. on the other hand had no problem maintaining their slave population.
We can all assume that rape was fairly common during slavery. We cannot make assumption about the nature of all relations between white slavemasters and black female slaves without resorting to gross generalizations. There are numerous cases (such as my family) were the slavemaster gave his black concubine a sh*tload of land and paid for the education of the children they created together. If there were no "amorous" feelings than these types of things would not have happened.
2. I am not downplaying the heinous nature of rape. But it is probable that most of the time "rape" was just that, "rape"--a violent nonconsensual sex act, not a method to increase the slave population.
@ #1: Yeah, that was pretty much my understanding, at least that pertained to the "average" field slaves work environment. There was apparently a much greater rate of being worked to death in Brazilian fields than in U.S. fields. Of course, I'm speaking of a generalization and an average. There was always plantations that fell above or below the average treatment of slaves in both their respective nations.
However, slavery in the Americas always brings to mind field work. There was plenty urban slavery too, that employed skilled craftsmen. Without a doubt Rio de Janeiro was prime example, given that at the height of its slavery past, the city had the largest urban slave population since ancient Rome (the city of Rome). Brazil also had a big tradition of manumission (which was eventually universally outlawed in the United States).
The urban slavery phenomenon aside, cotton plantations in the U.S. often treated their slaves well - nutritionally at least. So well, the skeletal remains of black slaves in the U.S. on a number of burial sites (not all burial sites of slave remains), reveal a people better fed, and more physically (maybe not mentally) healthy than their black peers in West Africa during the same period.
However, the rice plantations in the U.S. were notoriously harsh. Slaves died young their. Imagine working all day bare foot, in essentially swap water, with pig shit used to fertilize the rice plants? You were almost certain as a black slave to be infected with worms, that crawled out of the pig shit, and squirmed their way into some open wound in your foot.
And of course, you have heard that slave masters threatened - and did - sell disobedient or runaway slaves down, further, and further into the "deep South," which carried the reputation of being more and more cruel all the way into Mississippi.
@ #2: Concur.
__________________
~(p v q)
Lo there do I see my father. Lo there do I see my mother, my sisters, and my brothers. Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning. Lo they do call me. They bid me take my place among them in the halls of Valhalla. Where the brave, may live forever. -- The 13th Warrior
     |
| | caribe
Aficionado
Registered: 02/06/07
Posts: 645
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #36 |
Quote: Originally Posted by LaCosa
@ #1: Yeah, that was pretty much my understanding, at least that pertained to the "average" field slaves work environment. There was apparently a much greater rate of being worked to death in Brazilian fields than in U.S. fields. Of course, I'm speaking of a generalization and an average. There was always plantations that fell above or below the average treatment of slaves in both their respective nations.
Quote: Originally Posted by LaCosa
However, slavery in the Americas always brings to mind field work. There was plenty urban slavery too, that employed skilled craftsmen. Without a doubt Rio de Janeiro was prime example, given that at the height of its slavery past, the city had the largest urban slave population since ancient Rome (the city of Rome). Brazil also had a big tradition of manumission (which was eventually universally outlawed in the United States).
Urban slavery seems to be very prominent in Latin American and less prominent in the U.S. Slaves were also allowed to form mutual aid societies based on tribal affiliation with the protection of the Catholic church. These societies often raised the funds to pay for the manumission of their members. Some of these societies still exist in Cuba and Brazil (?) today.
Quote: Originally Posted by LaCosa
The urban slavery phenomenon aside, cotton plantations in the U.S. often treated their slaves well - nutritionally at least. So well, the skeletal remains of black slaves in the U.S. on a number of burial sites (not all burial sites of slave remains), reveal a people better fed, and more physically (maybe not mentally) healthy than their black peers in West Africa during the same period.
This makes sense. After the slave trade was outlawed in the U.S., slave owners had an incentive to preserve and take care of their property (i.e., slaves). Of course there was an internal slave trade within the U.S. and Africans-either from Africa or someplace in the Americas-were still imported into the U.S. illegally. However, at emancipation the percentage of slaves who were actually born in Africa was quite small. In places like Cuba and Brazil, the percentage was much higher.
|
| |
|
