All of this was in sharp contrast to European values as brought over by the first colonists,a society of rich and poor,controlled by priests,by governors,by male heads of families.For example,the pastor of the Pilgrim colony,John Robinson,thus advised his parishioners how to deal with their children:"And surely there is in all children...a stubbornness,and stoutness of mind arising from natural pride,which must,in the first place,be broken and beaten down;that so the foundation of their education being laid in humility and tractableness,other virtues may,in their time,be built thereon. Gary Nash describes Iroquois culture: No laws and ordinances,sheriffs and constables,judges and juries,or courts or jails-the apparatus of authority in European societies-were to be found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival.Yet boundaries of acceptable behavior were firmly set.Though priding themselves on the autonomous individual,the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and wrong....He who stole another's food or acted invalourously in war was "shamed"by his people and ostracized from their company until he had atoned for his actions and demonstrated to their satisfaction that he had morally purified himself. Not only the Iroquois but other Indian tribes behaved the sameay.In 1635, Maryland Indians responded to the governor's demand that if any of tRem lolled an Englishman,the guilty one should be delivered up for punishthebt according to English law.The Indians said: It is the manner amongst us Indians,that if any such accident happen,wee doe redeeme the life of a man that is so slaine,with a 100 armes leneth of Beades and since that you are heere strangers,and come into our Countrey,yo hould rather conform yourselves to the Customes of our Countrey,than impose your pon us.... So,Columbus and his successors were not coming into an empty wilderness,but into a world which in some places was as densely populated as Europe itself,where the culture was complex,where human reations were more egalitarian than in Europe,and where the relations among men,woren,children,and nature were more beautifully worked out than perhaps any place in the world. They were people withou a written language,but with their own laws,their poetry, their history kept in memory ard passed on,in an oral vocabulary more complex than Europe's,accompanigd by song,dance,and ceremonial drama.They paid careful attention to the devetopment of personality,intensity of will,independence and flexibility,passion and potency,to their partnership with one another and with nature. John Collier,an American scholar who lived among Indians in the 1920s and 1930s in the American Southwest,said of their spirit:"Could we make it our own,there would be an eternally inexhaustible earth and a forever lasting peace." Perhaps there is some romantic mythology in that.But the evidence from European travelers in the sixteenth,seventeenth,and eighteenth centuries,put together recently by an American specialist on Indian life,William Brandon,is overwhelmingly supportive of much of that "myth."Even allowing for the imperfection of myths,it is enough to make us question,for that time and ours,the excuse of progress in the annihilation of races,and the telling of history from the standpoint of the conquerors and leaders of Western civilization
All of this was in sharp contrast to European values as brought over by the first colonists, a society of rich and poor, controlled by priests, by governors, by male heads of families. For example, the pastor of the Pilgrim colony, John Robinson, thus advised his parishioners how to deal with their children: "And surely there is in all children ... a stubbornness, and stoutness of mind arising from natural pride, which must, in the first place, be broken and beaten down; that so the foundation of their education being laid in humility and tractableness, other virtues may, in their time, be built thereon." Gary Nash describes Iroquois culture: No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or courts or jails-the apparatus of authority in European societies-were to be found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behavior were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and wrong.... He who stole another's food or acted invalourously in war was "shamed" by his people and ostracized from their company until he had atoned for his actions and demonstrated to their satisfaction that he had morally purified himself. Not only the Iroquois but other Indian tribes behaved the same way. In 1635, Maryland Indians responded to the governor's demand that if any of them lolled an Englishman, the guilty one should be delivered up for punishment according to English law. The Indians said: It is the manner amongst us Indians, that if any such accident happen, wee doe redeeme the life of a man that is so slaine, with a 100 armes length of Beades and since that you are heere strangers, and come into our Countrey, you should rather conform yourselves to the Customes of our Countrey, than impose yours upon us.... So, Columbus and his successors were not coming into an empty wilderness, but into a world which in some places was as densely populated as Europe itself, where the culture was complex, where human relations were more egalitarian than in Europe, and where the relations among men, women, children, and nature were more beautifully worked out than perhaps any place in the world. They were people without a written language, but with their own laws, their poetry, their history kept in memory and passed on, in an oral vocabulary more complex than Europe's, accompanied by song, dance, and ceremonial drama. They paid careful attention to the development of personality, intensity of will, independence and flexibility, passion and potency, to their partnership with one another and with nature. John Collier, an American scholar who lived among Indians in the 1920s and 1930s in the American Southwest, said of their spirit: "Could we make it our own, there would be an eternally inexhaustible earth and a forever lasting peace." Perhaps there is some romantic mythology in that. But the evidence from European travelers in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, put together recently by an American specialist on Indian life, William Brandon, is overwhelmingly supportive of much of that "myth." Even allowing for the imperfection of myths, it is enough to make us question, for that time and ours, the excuse of progress in the annihilation of races, and the telling of history from the standpoint of the conquerors and leaders of Western civilization. No Profit Use Only
2.Drawing the Color Line A black American writer,J.Saunders Redding,describes the arrival of a ship in North America in the year 1619: Sails furled,flag drooping at her rounded stern,she rode the tide in from the sea.She was a strange ship,indeed,by all accounts,a frightening ship,a ship of mystery.Whether she was trader,privateer,or man-of-war no one knows.Through her bulwarks black-mouthed cannon yawned.The flag she flew was Dutch;her crew a motley.Her port of call,an English settlement,Jamestown,in the colony of Virginia.She came,she traded,and shortly afterwards was gone.Probably no ship in modern history has carried a more portentous freight.Her cargo?Twenty slaves. There is not a country in world history in which racism has been more important,for so long a time,as the United States.And the problem of "the color line,"as W.E.B.Du Bois put it,is still with us.So it is more than a purely historical question to ask:How does it start?-and an even more urgent question:How might it end?Or,to put it differently:Is it possible for whites and blacks to live together without hatred? If history can help answer these questions,then the besinings of slavery in North America-a continent where we can trace the coming of the first whites and the first blacks-might supply at least a few clues. Some historians think those first blacks in Virgina were considered as servants,like the white indentured servants brought from Europe But the strong probability is that, even if they were listed as"servants"(a more familiar category to the English),they were viewed as being different from white servants,were treated differently,and in fact were slaves.In any case,slavery developequiokly into a regular institution,into the normal labor relation of blacks to whites in theNew World.With it developed that special racial feeling-whether hatred,or contempt,or pity,or patronization-that accompanied the inferior position of blacks in America for the next 350 years-that combination of inferior status and derogatory thought we call racism. Everything in th eprience of the first white settlers acted as a pressure for the enslavement of blacks. The Virginians of1619 were desperate for labor,to grow enough food to stay alive. Among them were survivors from the winter of 1609-1610,the "starving time,"when, crazed for want of food,they roamed the woods for nuts and berries,dug up graves to eat the corpses,and died in batches until five hundred colonists were reduced to sixty. In the Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia is a document of 1619 which tells of the first twelve years of the Jamestown colony.The first settlement had a hundred persons,who had one small ladle of barley per meal.When more people arrived,there was even less food.Many of the people lived in cavelike holes dug into the ground,and in the winter of 1609-1610,they were ...driven through insufferable hunger to eat those things which nature most abhorred,the flesh and excrements of man as well of our own nation as of an Indian,digged by some out of his grave after he had laid buried there days and wholly devoured him;others, envying the better state of body of any whom hunger has not yet so much wasted as their own,lay wait and threatened to kill and eat them;one among them slew his wife as she
2. Drawing the Color Line A black American writer, J. Saunders Redding, describes the arrival of a ship in North America in the year 1619: Sails furled, flag drooping at her rounded stern, she rode the tide in from the sea. She was a strange ship, indeed, by all accounts, a frightening ship, a ship of mystery. Whether she was trader, privateer, or man-of-war no one knows. Through her bulwarks black-mouthed cannon yawned. The flag she flew was Dutch; her crew a motley. Her port of call, an English settlement, Jamestown, in the colony of Virginia. She came, she traded, and shortly afterwards was gone. Probably no ship in modern history has carried a more portentous freight. Her cargo? Twenty slaves. There is not a country in world history in which racism has been more important, for so long a time, as the United States. And the problem of "the color line," as W. E. B. Du Bois put it, is still with us. So it is more than a purely historical question to ask: How does it start?—and an even more urgent question: How might it end? Or, to put it differently: Is it possible for whites and blacks to live together without hatred? If history can help answer these questions, then the beginnings of slavery in North America—a continent where we can trace the coming of the first whites and the first blacks—might supply at least a few clues. Some historians think those first blacks in Virginia were considered as servants, like the white indentured servants brought from Europe. But the strong probability is that, even if they were listed as "servants" (a more familiar category to the English), they were viewed as being different from white servants, were treated differently, and in fact were slaves. In any case, slavery developed quickly into a regular institution, into the normal labor relation of blacks to whites in the New World. With it developed that special racial feeling—whether hatred, or contempt, or pity, or patronization—that accompanied the inferior position of blacks in America for the next 350 years —that combination of inferior status and derogatory thought we call racism. Everything in the experience of the first white settlers acted as a pressure for the enslavement of blacks. The Virginians of 1619 were desperate for labor, to grow enough food to stay alive. Among them were survivors from the winter of 1609-1610, the "starving time," when, crazed for want of food, they roamed the woods for nuts and berries, dug up graves to eat the corpses, and died in batches until five hundred colonists were reduced to sixty. In the Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia is a document of 1619 which tells of the first twelve years of the Jamestown colony. The first settlement had a hundred persons, who had one small ladle of barley per meal. When more people arrived, there was even less food. Many of the people lived in cavelike holes dug into the ground, and in the winter of 1609-1610, they were ...driven through insufferable hunger to eat those things which nature most abhorred, the flesh and excrements of man as well of our own nation as of an Indian, digged by some out of his grave after he had laid buried there days and wholly devoured him; others, envying the better state of body of any whom hunger has not yet so much wasted as their own, lay wait and threatened to kill and eat them; one among them slew his wife as she No Profit Use Only
slept in his bosom,cut her in pieces,salted her and fed upon her till he had clean devoured all parts saving her head... A petitionby thirty colonists to the House of Burgesses,complaining against the twelve-year governorship of Sir Thomas Smith,said: In those 12 years of Sir Thomas Smith,his government,we aver that the colony for the most part remained in great want and misery under most severe and cruel laws...The allowance in those times for a man was only eight ounces of meale and half a pint of peas for a day...mouldy,rotten,full of cobwebs and maggots,loathsome to man and not fit for beasts,which forced many to flee for relief to the savage enemy,who being taken again were put to sundry deaths as by hanging,shooting and breaking upon the wheel...of whom one for stealing two or three pints of oatmeal had a bodkin thrust through his tongue and was tied with a chain to a tree until he starved... The Virginians needed labor,to grow corn for subsistence,to grow tobacco for export.They had just figured out how to grow tobacco,and in 1617 they sent off the first cargo to England.Finding that,like all pleasureable drugs tainted with moral disapproval, it brought a high price,the planters,despite their high religious talk yere not going to ask questions about something so profitable. They couldn't force the Indians to work for them,as Coltinbus had done.They were outnumbered,and while,with superior firearms,they could massacre Indians,they would face massacre in return.They could not capture them and keep them enslaved;the Indians were tough,resourceful,defiant,and at home d these woods,as the transplanted Englishmen were not. White servants had not yet been brought over in sufficient quantity.Besides,they did not come out of slavery,and did not have to do more than contract their labor for a few years to get their passage and a start in the New World.As for the free white settlers, many of them were skilled craftsmerfor even men of leisure back in England,who were so little inclined to work the land that John Smith,in those early years,had to declare a kind of martial law,organize them into work gangs,and force them into the fields for survival. There may have been a kibd of frustrated rage at their own ineptitude,at the Indian superiority at taking gare of themselves,that made the Virginians especially ready to become the mastersof aves.Edmund Morgan imagines their mood as he writes in his book American Slavery,American Freedom: If you were a colonist,you knew that your technology was superior to the Indians'.You knew that you were civilized,and they were savages...But your superior technology had proved insufficient to extract anything.The Indians,keeping to themselves,laughed at your superior methods and lived from the land more abundantly and with less labor than you did...And when your own people started deserting in order to live with them,it was too much...So you killed the Indians,tortured them,burned their villages,burned their cornfields.It proved your superiority,in spite of your failures.And you gave similar treatment to any of your own people who succumbed to their savage ways of life.But you still did not grow much corn... Black slaves were the answer.And it was natural to consider imported blacks as slaves,even if the institution of slavery would not be regularized and legalized for several decades.Because,by 1619,a million blacks had already been brought from Africa to South America and the Caribbean,to the Portuguese and Spanish colonies,to work as
slept in his bosom, cut her in pieces, salted her and fed upon her till he had clean devoured all parts saving her head... A petitionby thirty colonists to the House of Burgesses, complaining against the twelve-year governorship of Sir Thomas Smith, said: In those 12 years of Sir Thomas Smith, his government, we aver that the colony for the most part remained in great want and misery under most severe and cruel laws... The allowance in those times for a man was only eight ounces of meale and half a pint of peas for a day... mouldy, rotten, full of cobwebs and maggots, loathsome to man and not fit for beasts, which forced many to flee for relief to the savage enemy, who being taken again were put to sundry deaths as by hanging, shooting and breaking upon the wheel... of whom one for stealing two or three pints of oatmeal had a bodkin thrust through his tongue and was tied with a chain to a tree until he starved... The Virginians needed labor, to grow corn for subsistence, to grow tobacco for export. They had just figured out how to grow tobacco, and in 1617 they sent off the first cargo to England. Finding that, like all pleasureable drugs tainted with moral disapproval, it brought a high price, the planters, despite their high religious talk, were not going to ask questions about something so profitable. They couldn't force the Indians to work for them, as Columbus had done. They were outnumbered, and while, with superior firearms, they could massacre Indians, they would face massacre in return. They could not capture them and keep them enslaved; the Indians were tough, resourceful, defiant, and at home in these woods, as the transplanted Englishmen were not. White servants had not yet been brought over in sufficient quantity. Besides, they did not come out of slavery, and did not have to do more than contract their labor for a few years to get their passage and a start in the New World. As for the free white settlers, many of them were skilled craftsmen, or even men of leisure back in England, who were so little inclined to work the land that John Smith, in those early years, had to declare a kind of martial law, organize them into work gangs, and force them into the fields for survival. There may have been a kind of frustrated rage at their own ineptitude, at the Indian superiority at taking care of themselves, that made the Virginians especially ready to become the masters of slaves. Edmund Morgan imagines their mood as he writes in his book American Slavery, American Freedom: If you were a colonist, you knew that your technology was superior to the Indians'. You knew that you were civilized, and they were savages... But your superior technology had proved insufficient to extract anything. The Indians, keeping to themselves, laughed at your superior methods and lived from the land more abundantly and with less labor than you did... And when your own people started deserting in order to live with them, it was too much... So you killed the Indians, tortured them, burned their villages, burned their cornfields. It proved your superiority, in spite of your failures. And you gave similar treatment to any of your own people who succumbed to their savage ways of life. But you still did not grow much corn... Black slaves were the answer. And it was natural to consider imported blacks as slaves, even if the institution of slavery would not be regularized and legalized for several decades. Because, by 1619, a million blacks had already been brought from Africa to South America and the Caribbean, to the Portuguese and Spanish colonies, to work as No Profit Use Only
slaves.Fifty years before Columbus,the Portuguese took ten African blacks to Lisbon- this was the start of a regular trade in slaves.African blacks had been stamped as slave labor for a hundred years.So it would have been strange if those twenty blacks,forcibly transported to Jamestown,and sold as objects to settlers anxious for a steadfast source of labor,were considered as anything but slaves. Their helplessness made enslavement easier.The Indians were on their own land The whites were in their own European culture.The blacks had been torn from their land and culture,forced into a situation where the heritage of language,dress,custom,family relations,was bit by bit obliterated except for remnants that blacks could hold on to by sheer,extraordinary persistence. Was their culture inferior-and so subject to easy destruction?Inferior in military capability,yes-vulnerable to whites with guns and ships.But in no other way-except that cultures that are different are often taken as inferior,especially when such a judgment is practical and profitable.Even militarily,while the Westerners could secure forts on the African coast,they were unable to subdue the interior and had to come to terms with its chiefs. The African civilization was as advanced in its own way as that of Europe.In certain ways,it was more admirable;but it also included cruelties hirabehical privilege,and the readiness to sacrifice human lives for religion or profit.It was)a civilization of 100 million people,using iron implements and skilled in farming.It had large urban centers and remarkable achievements in weaving,ceramics,skapture. European travelers in the sixteenth century wer mpressed with the African kingdoms of Timbuktu and Mali,already stable and organized at a time when European states were just beginning to develop into the modern nation.In 1563,Ramusio,secretary to the rulers in Venice,wrote to the ItaMan merchants:"Let them go and do business with the King of Timbuktu and Mali and ere )s no doubt that they will be well-received there with their ships and their goods and treated well,and granted the favours that they ask..." A Dutch report,around 1607,on the West African kingdom of Benin,said:"The Towne seemeth to be very great,When you enter it.You go into a great broad street,not paved,which seemeth to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes Street in Amsterdam....The Houges in this Towne stand in good order,one close and even with the other,as the Houses in Holland stand." The inhabitants ofthe Guinea Coast were described by one traveler around 1680 as "very civil and good-natured people,easy to be dealt with,condescending to what Europeans require of them in a civil way,and very ready to return double the presents we make them." Africa had a kind of feudalism,like Europe based on agriculture,and with hierarchies of lords and vassals.But African feudalism did not come,as did Europe's,out of the slave societies of Greece and Rome,which had destroyed ancient tribal life.In Africa,tribal life was still powerful,and some of its better features-a communal spirit, more kindness in law and punishment-still existed.And because the lords did not have the weapons that European lords had,they could not command obedience as easily. In his book The African Slave Trade,Basil Davidson contrasts law in the Congo in the early sixteenth century with law in Portugal and England.In those European countries,where the idea of private property was becoming powerful,theft was punished brutally.In England,even as late as 1740,a child could be hanged for stealing a rag of
slaves. Fifty years before Columbus, the Portuguese took ten African blacks to Lisbon— this was the start of a regular trade in slaves. African blacks had been stamped as slave labor for a hundred years. So it would have been strange if those twenty blacks, forcibly transported to Jamestown, and sold as objects to settlers anxious for a steadfast source of labor, were considered as anything but slaves. Their helplessness made enslavement easier. The Indians were on their own land. The whites were in their own European culture. The blacks had been torn from their land and culture, forced into a situation where the heritage of language, dress, custom, family relations, was bit by bit obliterated except for remnants that blacks could hold on to by sheer, extraordinary persistence. Was their culture inferior—and so subject to easy destruction? Inferior in military capability, yes —vulnerable to whites with guns and ships. But in no other way—except that cultures that are different are often taken as inferior, especially when such a judgment is practical and profitable. Even militarily, while the Westerners could secure forts on the African coast, they were unable to subdue the interior and had to come to terms with its chiefs. The African civilization was as advanced in its own way as that of Europe. In certain ways, it was more admirable; but it also included cruelties, hierarchical privilege, and the readiness to sacrifice human lives for religion or profit. It was a civilization of 100 million people, using iron implements and skilled in farming. It had large urban centers and remarkable achievements in weaving, ceramics, sculpture. European travelers in the sixteenth century were impressed with the African kingdoms of Timbuktu and Mali, already stable and organized at a time when European states were just beginning to develop into the modern nation. In 1563, Ramusio, secretary to the rulers in Venice, wrote to the Italian merchants: "Let them go and do business with the King of Timbuktu and Mali and there is no doubt that they will be well-received there with their ships and their goods and treated well, and granted the favours that they ask..." A Dutch report, around 1602, on the West African kingdom of Benin, said: "The Towne seemeth to be very great, when you enter it. You go into a great broad street, not paved, which seemeth to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes Street in Amsterdam. ...The Houses in this Towne stand in good order, one close and even with the other, as the Houses in Holland stand." The inhabitants of the Guinea Coast were described by one traveler around 1680 as "very civil and good-natured people, easy to be dealt with, condescending to what Europeans require of them in a civil way, and very ready to return double the presents we make them." Africa had a kind of feudalism, like Europe based on agriculture, and with hierarchies of lords and vassals. But African feudalism did not come, as did Europe's, out of the slave societies of Greece and Rome, which had destroyed ancient tribal life. In Africa, tribal life was still powerful, and some of its better features—a communal spirit, more kindness in law and punishment—still existed. And because the lords did not have the weapons that European lords had, they could not command obedience as easily. In his book The African Slave Trade, Basil Davidson contrasts law in the Congo in the early sixteenth century with law in Portugal and England. In those European countries, where the idea of private property was becoming powerful, theft was punished brutally. In England, even as late as 1740, a child could be hanged for stealing a rag of No Profit Use Only
cotton.But in the Congo,communal life persisted,the idea of private property was a strange one,and thefts were punished with fines or various degrees of servitude.A Congolese leader,told of the Portuguese legal codes,asked a Portuguese once,teasingly: "What is the penalty in Portugal for anyone who puts his feet on the ground?" Slavery existed in the African states,and it was sometimes used by Europeans to justify their own slave trade.But,as Davidson points out,the "slaves"of Africa were more like the serfs of Europe-in other words,like most of the population of Europe.It was a harsh servitude,but but they had rights which slaves brought to America did not have,and they were "altogether different from the human cattle of the slave ships and the American plantations."In the Ashanti Kingdom of West Africa,one observer noted that "a slave might marry;own property;himself own a slave;swear an oath;be a competent witness and ultimately become heir to his master...An Ashanti slave.nine cases out of ten,possibly became an adopted member of the family,and in time his descendants so merged and intermarried with the owner's kinsmen that only a few would know their origin." One slave trader,John Newton(who later became an antislaverleader),wrote about the people of what is now Sierra Leone: The state of slavery,among these wild barbarous people,esteem them,is much milder than in our colonies.For as,on the one hand,they hove no land in high cultivation,like our West India plantations,and therefore no call for that excessive, unintermitted labour,which exhausts our slaves:so,ok the other hand,no man is permitted to draw blood even from a slave. African slavery is hardly to be praised.But Kwas far different from plantation or mining slavery in the Americas,which was lifelong,morally crippling,destructive of family ties,without hope of any future."Afriodn slavery lacked two elements that made American slavery the most cruel forr of savery in history:the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture,the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred with that relentless clarity based on color,where white was master,black was slave> In fact,it was because they came from a settled culture,of tribal customs and family ties,of communal life and traditional ritual,that African blacks found themselves especially helpless when removed from this.They were captured in the interior (frequently by blacks eaught up in the slave trade themselves),sold on the coast,then shoved into pens with blacks of other tribes,often speaking different languages. The conditions of capture and sale were crushing affirmations to the black African of his helplessness in the face of superior force.The marches to the coast,sometimes for 1,000 miles,with people shackled around the neck,under whip and gun,were death marches,in which two of every five blacks died.On the coast,they were kept in cages until they were picked and sold.One John Barbot,at the end of the seventeenth century, described these cages on the Gold Coast: As the slaves come down to Fida from the inland country,they are put into a booth or prison...near the beach,and when the Europeans are to receive them,they are brought out onto a large plain,where the ship's surgeons examine every part of everyone of them, to the smallest member,men and women being stark naked...Such as are allowed good and sound are set on one side...marked on the breast with a red-hot iron,imprinting the
cotton. But in the Congo, communal life persisted, the idea of private property was a strange one, and thefts were punished with fines or various degrees of servitude. A Congolese leader, told of the Portuguese legal codes, asked a Portuguese once, teasingly: "What is the penalty in Portugal for anyone who puts his feet on the ground?" Slavery existed in the African states, and it was sometimes used by Europeans to justify their own slave trade. But, as Davidson points out, the "slaves" of Africa were more like the serfs of Europe —in other words, like most of the population of Europe. It was a harsh servitude, but but they had rights which slaves brought to America did not have, and they were "altogether different from the human cattle of the slave ships and the American plantations." In the Ashanti Kingdom of West Africa, one observer noted that "a slave might marry; own property; himself own a slave; swear an oath; be a competent witness and ultimately become heir to his master... An Ashanti slave, nine cases out of ten, possibly became an adopted member of the family, and in time his descendants so merged and intermarried with the owner's kinsmen that only a few would know their origin." One slave trader, John Newton (who later became an antislavery leader), wrote about the people of what is now Sierra Leone: The state of slavery, among these wild barbarous people, as we esteem them, is much milder than in our colonies. For as, on the one hand, they have no land in high cultivation, like our West India plantations, and therefore no call for that excessive, unintermitted labour, which exhausts our slaves: so, on the other hand, no man is permitted to draw blood even from a slave. African slavery is hardly to be praised. But it was far different from plantation or mining slavery in the Americas, which was lifelong, morally crippling, destructive of family ties, without hope of any future. African slavery lacked two elements that made American slavery the most cruel form of slavery in history: the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave. In fact, it was because they came from a settled culture, of tribal customs and family ties, of communal life and traditional ritual, that African blacks found themselves especially helpless when removed from this. They were captured in the interior (frequently by blacks caught up in the slave trade themselves), sold on the coast, then shoved into pens with blacks of other tribes, often speaking different languages. The conditions of capture and sale were crushing affirmations to the black African of his helplessness in the face of superior force. The marches to the coast, sometimes for 1,000 miles, with people shackled around the neck, under whip and gun, were death marches, in which two of every five blacks died. On the coast, they were kept in cages until they were picked and sold. One John Barbot, at the end of the seventeenth century, described these cages on the Gold Coast: As the slaves come down to Fida from the inland country, they are put into a booth or prison... near the beach, and when the Europeans are to receive them, they are brought out onto a large plain, where the ship's surgeons examine every part of everyone of them, to the smallest member, men and women being stark naked... Such as are allowed good and sound are set on one side... marked on the breast with a red- hot iron, imprinting the No Profit Use Only