"... we should note that in any true Northwest Coast settlement hereditary slaves might have constituted up to a quarter of the population. These figures are striking. As we noted earlier, they rival the demographic balance in the colonial South at the height of the cotton boom and are in line with estimates for household slavery in classical Athens. If so, these were full-blown 'slave societies' where unfree labour underpinned the domestic economy and sustained the prosperity of nobles and commoners alike. Assuming that many groups came south from the Northwest Coast, as linguistic and other evidence suggests, and that at least some of this movement took place after about 1800 BC (when slavery was most likely institutionalized), the question becomes: when and how did foragers in the 'shatter zone' come to lose the habit of keeping slaves?"
"As we mentioned, the Yurok and their immediate neighbours were somewhat unusual, even by Californian standards... On the one hand, they actually did hold slaves, if few in number. Almost all the peoples of central and southern California, the Maidu, Wintu, Pomo and so on, reject the institution entirely. There appear to have been at least two reasons for this. First, almost everywhere except in the northwest, a man or woman's money and other wealth was ritually burned at death - and as a result, the institution served as an effective levelling mechanism..."
---excerpts from Chapter 5 of The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow
While I'm not saying that this is the argument here, I am tired of having people (inevitably) using examples such as this as "proof" that slavery in the US of A wasn't any different from slavery throughout the world, throughout the ages. Slaves were not the captives of conquered peoples that fought against the US, but they did provide the economic engine that sustained not one, but two very distinct social, geographical and economic societies in the antebellum US. The North could not have maintained its push towards an industrialized society without the cheap raw materials supplied by the more agrarian South. In fact, the North was so heavily invested in "the peculiar institution" that many an Ivy League institute of higher learning directly profited from their southern investments.
ReplyDeleteMore nomadic, less slavery. Less nomadic, more slavery. The Northwest tribes had abundant aquatic food resources and stable climate, enabling permanent, elaborate settlement. More commonly, it's with the introduction of agriculture that we see slavery become the norm.
ReplyDeleteI was going to let Stan B speak for me, but just today a frequent grump on my favorite (ostensibly non-political) discussion board once more quoted similar data in order to demonstrate--something. At the slightest excuse he trots out a "well what about...?" whether it be the plight of the indentured Irish, Africans selling Africans into slavery, or a dozen other irrelevancies. Last week it was, "If not for the Arab slavers there would never have been a trans-Atlantic slave trade!" He never actually states his point, but the idea seems to be "everyone else did it, so what's the big deal?" The important point--that the mighty US economy was originally built upon slave labor--is never addressed.
ReplyDeleteArguing about whether there was and is great injustice is like arguing about anthopogenic climate change. It's not debatable. The question is what to do about it. Deniers deny mostly because they know the next step involves some kind of sacrifice. But, on the left, it seems like we have people wallowing in identity talk all day long (NPR) and many of these will vote for a meritocratic Hilary Clinton over a justice oriented Bernie Sanders. As if any serious stride toward economic justice is a bridge too far. Talking endlessly about race and gender is a national hobby on the left. Poverty affecting all races? Class? Not so much.
DeleteYou bring up a good point, which I think is, at least in part due to how far Right this country is now skewed. Tricky Dick with his pro environment, pro Medicare policies would be considered a radical Leftie today. I think a sizable part of (what remains of) the Left has been reduced to wishful thinking and righteous babble since so little of real consequence gets passed even with the Dems slim (ie- imaginary) lead...
ReplyDelete