For clarification, I'm referring to the Transatlantic slave trade. I'm aware that Europeans did periodically enslave other Europeans throughout their history, and I've heard that some slaves in the Americas were European (I'm going to conflate "European" with "white" and "African" with "black" for the purposes of this post). But the vast majority of slaves in the Americas were black, to my knowledge.
So... why didn't Europeans just enslave other Europeans and ship them overseas instead of enslaving Africans? I've read one explanation from Frank Wilderson, professor at UC Irvine, from "Red, White & Black: Cinema and Structure of U.S. Antagonisms", that:
"[Europeans] could easily have provided 50,000 [white slaves] a year [to the New World] without serious disruption to either international peace or existing social institutions that generated and supervised these potential European victims" and that "the costs of enslavement would have been driven down exponentially had Europeans taken white slaves directly to America [...] shipping costs... composed by far the greater part of the price." He continues that "not only would European civil society have been able to absorb the social consequences of these losses (i.e. class warfare would have been unlikely even at this rate of enslavement), but civil society 'would [also] have enjoyed lower labor costs, a faster development of the Americas, and higher exports and income levels on both sides of the Atlantic."
He concludes that "what Whites would have gained in economic value, they would have lost in symbolic value". Basically, Wilderson's explanation seems to be that white Europeans are simply driven by an evil obsession with dominating and subjugating people based on skin color (that there isn't really an economic or practical reason why they do this - in fact, they do this despite strong economic incentives not to), because Whiteness/White Culture is based on exploitation and violence.
Is this actually the case? Did Europeans have no real reason to pick blacks for slavery other than not liking dark-skinned people? One of the traditional explanations I've heard for the origins of racism against blacks amongst whites is that, because of the strong commercial incentives to get cheap labor for the Americas, White European colonialists enslaved Africans because labor shortages meant the costly practice makes economic sense. However, European liberalism seemed to imply that enslaving your fellow man was wrong, so Europeans had to come up with an ideological justification why the principles of liberalism (human rights, agency, freedom, etc.) would not apply to slaves, thus originates the racist theory that blacks are categorically different than whites in moral character. In other words, modern racism has its origins as an ex post facto justification for an economically motivated practice (instead of just being an irrational superstition that white people made up so they could be sadistic). But I'm not sure if this "squaring liberalism's circle" argument makes a whole lot of sense.
Anyone?
"[Europeans] could easily have provided 50,000 [white slaves] a year [to the New World] without serious disruption to either international peace or existing social institutions that generated and supervised these potential European victims"
This is a bold statement to make. It does not discuss either where or what country or what class these white slaves would come from. Or who, and why would be shipping them over. What country would be willing to forcefully displace part of its populous to a colony? That sounds like disastrous idea. Besides the European lower classes in the early modern period where not easy control. This era of history is full with peasant uprisings. They would not have let themselves be displaced. Examples would be seen in the Food riots of the 18th century, or the German Peasants' War.
Now about why African slaves? was it about skin colour?
My answer would be initially, no. Slavery existed basically everywhere in Southern Europe, North-Africa and the near east. And had existed since antiquity. Anybody could be a slave, regardless of skin colour or religion. McKay in 'A history of Western Civilisation' describes the slave trade as being an integral part of the Mediterranean economy. Sources of this trade where, White Christians from the Balkans bought from the Ottomans, Jews and Muslims from Iberia as a result of the Reconquista and Guanches from the Canary islands. In the Early 1500's the source of slaves from the Reconquista dried up and Iberian and Genoese traders found a new source of slaves in Black and Berber Africans. This comes at the same time as the expansion of Spanish colonies in South-America and the abolishment of the encomienda system. These events started the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. A triangular trade system that started as a purely economic development.
Now slavery is a very complex topic, and i dont have the time to fully answer all the questions you have in this post. There where of course besides convenience of geography and economic factors others. Like the fact that black pagan Africans formed a group totally outside of society and far from home. This way they could easily be repressed. Then gradually came the idea that White Christians couldnt be slaves in later centuries. The curse of Ham was one of the most common arguments to defend that black people and black Christians could be slaves. And over time it really became a question about colour of skin. Liberalism is a much much later ideology, coming on the stage early 19th century and it did lead in many places to the abolition of slavery. I recommend you read 'The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas' by David Eltis or some other books if you are interested in the subject.
Excuse me if this answer isn't satisfactory, I'm sure someone will give a more complete and accurate answer later, but here's what I remember from AP US History.
In the beginning of slavery in the New World, most (or at least many) of the forced laborers were Europeans bound by indentured servitude. That is, they agreed to be slaves for a set number of years in order for their master or seller to pay their fare to the Americas. After that time period, the servant would be free to go and work on their own if they hadn't already been worked to death, as was sometimes the case.
Indentured servitude had its problems, though. For one, servants could escape quite easily and blend into the population. They'd look like most other poor settlers, and would be hard to pick out and find once they'd escape. Another thing I believe I remember (and take this with a grain of salt), is that indentured servants often lived outside the settlement's walls which allowed them, once they gained freedom, to claim land (and therefore power) on the frontier. Once they gained their freedom, they'd have enough land such that they were actually more powerful in a sense than their former masters. This created tensions between the city-dwelling elites and the poor on the frontier, which materialized in the form of rebellions such as Bacon's Rebellion, where Nathaniel Bacon led a force of Virginia poor farmers on Jamestown because of increased tensions with the Governor.
African slaves fixed these problems. For one thing, they could be easily picked out from the crowd if they ever got away. It was also much harder for them to organize rebellions or form alliances against their masters, because most spoke different languages and were from different tribes.
In the end, Africans made more sense for use in America. Indentured servitude was still used, but enslavement of Africans outgrew it.
I'm having trouble imagining why a 16th century European lord or king would sabotage the economy of the land they ruled over and weaken their position in Europe by sending over tens of thousands of their population as slaves, and I'm having trouble imagining those populations just accepting enslavement without a fuss.
Later on in the history of colonialism, European populations had grown to the point where sending tends of thousands of denizens of a home country to that country's imperial possessions might made some sense. However, by this point in time the Atlantic slave trade was already going strong.
MY understanding of the rules is that follow-up questions are allowed.
He concludes that "what Whites would have gained in economic value, they would have lost in symbolic value". Basically, Wilderson's explanation seems to be that white Europeans are simply driven by an evil obsession with dominating and subjugating people based on skin color (that there isn't really an economic or practical reason why they do this - in fact, they do this despite strong economic incentives not to), because Whiteness/White Culture is based on exploitation and violence.
MY question is with regards to this quote. How widely, if at all, is this quote accepted by historians at large, and the general academic culture?
There was white slavery. The modern word Caucasian comes from the idea that Caucasians were the most beautiful people of all (because they were more likely to be sex slaves and so were easily exploited sexually.) Indentured servitude in the American colonies was initially more prevalent than black slavery. The main difference is that indentured servitude only lasted a certain number of years, but many indentured servants died before they were legally free. Once indentured servants started living longer as the colony got more settled, slavery became a cheaper alternative. Racism against blacks was created to justify slavery, not the other way around. I would recommend you take a look at The History of White People.
I'm really surprised that someone who isn't historian and don't cite any source can come with this kind of theory.
How do you think Spain, England, Portugal or France would have found million of Europeans to enslave?
The European population in 1500 had decreased considerably compared to the previous centuries because of the plague and various famines. This situation made that people weren't easily expandable and you weren't able to do whatever they wanted. The population grew but it was linked with an evolution of society.The system he 'explains' needs a lot of work and organization. Meanwhile, there was a slave market used for centuries by arab and other Africans. His claims are really disconected with reality and they seem to exist only to support his agenda.