Skip to main content

Describe the living conditions of slaves transported by ships as a part of the transatlantic slave trade. Did slavery have a role in the growth of...

The living conditions for slaves were about as inhumane as one could imagine. Because the Africans were regarded as cargo, they were packed in the bottoms of ships as such. No considerations were made for pregnant women who gave birth on the ships, or, quite simply, for people who would need to use the bathroom. As a result, for weeks, human beings were forced to lie in their own blood, feces, urine, and vomit, as some of those transported became ill due to illness or from being overwhelmed by the smells.


Slaves were packed very tightly into the bottoms of ships. The goal of the traders was to fit as many bodies in as possible. Mere inches of space separated one captured individual from another. More space was allowed only in instances in which a slave committed suicide by jumping off of a ship, or when those who had become too ill to be sold were forced overboard.


Every few days, slaves would be brought out onto the deck of the ship. Here, they would get exposure to sunlight and were allowed to breathe fresh air. Traders would get buckets of freshwater and throw the water onto the slaves. This was a feeble effort at maintaining hygiene. They were allowed small amounts of food (e.g., manioc, fish) and water to drink.


Slavery certainly had a role in the development of racism. Arguably, if Europeans had simply admitted that they captured Africans out of economic necessity (attempts to enslave Native Americans had failed over the long-term, and white indentured servitude was deemed less economically viable), perhaps some future troubles could have been avoided. It was the need to justify the act of enslavement which caused the racial tensions and hatred that remain prevalent today.


Racism had developed as a pseudo-science in the eighteenth century. Those who studied anthropology and biology began measuring skulls to determine differences between groups of people. It was assumed that the skulls of those of African descent showed evidence of poor mental development. With this, many whites came to believe that blacks deserved enslavement because they were deemed mentally inferior to whites.


Of course, not every white person believed this. There were some who believed that slavery was morally wrong and inhumane. A few even went as far to try to have it abolished, which was the purpose of the abolitionist movement.


It would be incorrect to think that the movement was popular. Though slavery did not exist in the North after the early nineteenth century (New Jersey was the last to abolish it in 1804), Northerners were not exactly more enlightened in their views on race. The popularity of minstrel shows in Northern cities in the 1830s and 1840s is proof of that. 


It would also be incorrect to think that everyone who detested slavery viewed blacks as equals. This was also true of some abolitionists. One of the causes of the rift between Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison was Garrison's stubborn need to use Douglass as a symbol of his cause instead of viewing Douglass as a peer in the movement.


The slave trade was abolished in the United States in 1807. Great Britain followed suit, abolishing its trade a year later. Other Western nations would continue to perpetuate the trade, including Spain. 


The assumption among some members of Congress was that the abolition of the trade would lead to the eventual discontinuation of slavery in the South. This proved to be untrue. Slavery would not end in the United States until President Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Until then, to whet its appetite for more slaves, traders and planters forced the breeding of slaves, often raping black women themselves to force pregnancy. Also, free blacks from the North were sometimes kidnapped and brought to the South to be sold.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...