Africans to Europeans were a “difference in colour” that represented the countless differences between the two societies. Essentially, Africans “looked different; their religion was un-Christian; their manner of living was anything but English”. Additionally, the ‘blackness’ of their skin was associate with the bible, where they were considered descendants of Ham, cursed by Noah to be “ugly and dark skinned” and the “servant of servants”. Whilst the notion that the slave trade in the Atlantic was built upon racism, Eric Williams claimed that “economic, not racism was the root of slavery” vastly contradicted racism as the root of slavery. Furthermore, Williams argued that “slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery”. However, the commodification of Africans into slaves enabled slavers to deny slaves’ full personhood. Eltis argued that “not only would it have been cheaper for Europeans to stock the plantations with enslaved Europeans, but also that doing so would have been welcomed by racist planters, uneasy about having to deal with Africans”. Essentially, enslaving Europeans was not more economically beneficial than enslaving Africans, but it would’ve solved the American labour problem, whilst eradicating the social problems caused by the lower class and criminals. However, this notion could never come to fruition, as Europeans considered it distasteful to enslave their own people, due to their believed belonging to the same moral community. Essentially, Europeans acknowledged at the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade, that the morality of the trade was questionable enough ‘to reject it as a condition for themselves’. Hence, the slave trade in the Atlantic exemplified that the root of slavery was racism, as there posed no economic advantage to enslaving Africans, rather, Europeans
Africans to Europeans were a “difference in colour” that represented the countless differences between the two societies. Essentially, Africans “looked different; their religion was un-Christian; their manner of living was anything but English”. Additionally, the ‘blackness’ of their skin was associate with the bible, where they were considered descendants of Ham, cursed by Noah to be “ugly and dark skinned” and the “servant of servants”. Whilst the notion that the slave trade in the Atlantic was built upon racism, Eric Williams claimed that “economic, not racism was the root of slavery” vastly contradicted racism as the root of slavery. Furthermore, Williams argued that “slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery”. However, the commodification of Africans into slaves enabled slavers to deny slaves’ full personhood. Eltis argued that “not only would it have been cheaper for Europeans to stock the plantations with enslaved Europeans, but also that doing so would have been welcomed by racist planters, uneasy about having to deal with Africans”. Essentially, enslaving Europeans was not more economically beneficial than enslaving Africans, but it would’ve solved the American labour problem, whilst eradicating the social problems caused by the lower class and criminals. However, this notion could never come to fruition, as Europeans considered it distasteful to enslave their own people, due to their believed belonging to the same moral community. Essentially, Europeans acknowledged at the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade, that the morality of the trade was questionable enough ‘to reject it as a condition for themselves’. Hence, the slave trade in the Atlantic exemplified that the root of slavery was racism, as there posed no economic advantage to enslaving Africans, rather, Europeans