• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

History of Slavery in "Canada" (split from JT Popularity thread)



My point in this and my previous point is that slavery or some version thereof sees to be a constant through history.
Nor should slavery be viewed under the same lens. When people think slavery they only think of black slavery and specifically black trans Atlantic slave trade. The reality is incredibly diverse throughout history.
History is somethng to be learned from, not apologised for, particularly when the percieved Injustice has been committed by all peoples somewhere in their history.
It can still be apologized for if said history has a direct and continued damaging impact on the individuals affected and the perpetrators of those acts are still present. There are still moral principles that are universal throughout history.
 
This will come as a surprise to most First Nations, given that many of them:

1) practiced slavery;
2) slaughtered those men who defied them;
3) took the women as their own; and
4) raised captive children as their own, even forcing their own religion and behavioral norms upon them.

Mind you, so did the Catholic church.


Around 3,000 enslaved men, women and children of African descent were brought into British North America. By the 1790s, the number of enslaved Black people in the Maritimes (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island) ranged from 1,200 to 2,000. There were about 300 in Lower Canada (Québec), and between 500 and 700 in Upper Canada (Ontario).


To a tremendous extent, the enslavement of Indigenous peoples defines slavery in Canada. Fully two-thirds of the slaves in the colony of New France were Indigenous. After 1750, the number of Indigenous slaves brought into French Canada began to decline. When slavery was abolished in British colonies in 1834, Black slaves far outnumbered Indigenous slaves. (See also Black Enslavement in Canada.)

Prior to European contact, it was common in some Indigenous communities to enslave those captured in war. In general, most Indigenous peoples primarily distinguished between those who were kin and those who were outsiders — either trade allies or enemies who were legitimate captives in warfare. Indigenous peoples enslaved those they captured in war for a number of reasons.

Indigenous enslavement was central to the survival of England’s southern colonies; all relied almost entirely on Indigenous slaves initially, for personal service and to break the land for plantations. African slaves were less popular during this time because they were more expensive. It was cheaper to buy (or ultimately, to capture) Indigenous people.

When the supply of Indigenous slaves from South Carolina dried up following the Yamasee War, the French-Canadian colony obtained the slaves it needed from fur traders who brought Indigenous slaves from the western region of the continent. Some historians identified the primary slaves in Canada as the Pawnees, for whom the generic name Panis began to be used for most Indigenous slaves. Ultimately, slaves were obtained from all over the western territories where New France traded.

Small numbers of Indigenous and even fewer Black slaves were held in most regions of New France outside of the French Canadian colony (the exception being Louisiana, where the dominance of a plantation economy meant that thousands of Black slaves and some Indigenous slaves were also held). In Canada, the ratio of Indigenous to Black slaves was 2:1. The French colonists there received permission from Louis XIV to import African slaves in 1689. However, since New France relied on Indigenous allies for survival, the king was reluctant to rule on the legality of Indigenous enslavement.

After repeatedly petitioning the king for clarification,Intendant Jacques Raudot passed a colonial law in 1709 —Ordinance Rendered on the Subject of the Negroes and the Indians called Panis— that legitimized slavery in New France. The ordinance stipulated that both Indigenous and Black slaves brought to the colony would be considered the possession of those who purchased them.

...

Lots more if you like - Haida slavers, Iroquois slavers, Muslim slavers, Irish slavers, Chinese slavers, Cherokee, Choctaw and Seminole slavers, Black, Roman and Greek slavers.

....

One thing that my eye has been drawn to is the relationship between money and slavery.

In a society lacking in money slavery is pretty much a given. If you have gold you can buy food, shelter and people to work for you. If you lack gold, and foraging isn't an option, then your only alternative is to contract yourself to somebody that can supply those needs. Those contracts, in the absence of money, were open ended and depended on you keeping the contract holder happy. If you kept the old geezer happy then you might get lucky and receive your manumission. In the modern era this is defined as earning social credit.

Lord, Abbot, Bey or Commissar - they hold your future in their hands. You serve at their pleasure and on their terms. Medical care for whippings are at your expense.

....

Indenture contracts were an improvement. They were time limited. Their terms were controlled and they could be contested in independent courts. And, when money was transferred from the contractor to the servant then the servant could accumulate wealth, or capital, and buy out their contract on their terms.

....

Capitalism, the concept of everybody having access to a means of earning and storing wealth, put an end to slavery. With wealth, money, you could choose who and when you put yourself at the service of another and under what terms.

....

There is no coincidence in the rise of the capital banking system and the eventual demise of slavery. Steam engines and mobile wealth reduced the utility of slaves. The Arabs were among the last to grasp that concept, holding out until the 1980s.

....

Last slave state - Mauretania, 1981.


...

Short form. No apologies from me, or mine, or my kin. Now. Or ever.
 

apologize and compensate
And there's the crux of it. If the current State apologized for actions of an earlier State and everybody accepted it in the spirit it was offered, viewed it as a teachable moment and moved on, fewer people would have a problem with it. We can't provide moral contrition for those who have gone before us. Unfortunately, an apology is seen as an admission of guilt and the opening gambit for compensation.

Or maybe I'm just miffed at the English for all the things they did to my Scottish ancestors.
 
And there's the crux of it. If the current State apologized for actions of an earlier State and everybody accepted it in the spirit it was offered, viewed it as a teachable moment and moved on, fewer people would have a problem with it. We can't provide moral contrition for those who have gone before us. Unfortunately, an apology is seen as an admission of guilt and the opening gambit for compensation.

Or the GoC can pull what they did with the Chinese Head Tax and only offer to pay those who were actually affected, not their descendants.

To the disappointment of many in the Chinese Canadian community, it was announced that only original head tax payers, or their surviving spouses, then in their nineties, or a total 785 claimants, would receive CAD$20,000 in individual redress, representing less than a fraction of one-percent of the 81,000 original head tax payers. Only an estimated 20 Chinese Canadians who paid the tax were still alive in 2006.
 
And there's the crux of it. If the current State apologized for actions of an earlier State and everybody accepted it in the spirit it was offered, viewed it as a teachable moment and moved on, fewer people would have a problem with it. We can't provide moral contrition for those who have gone before us. Unfortunately, an apology is seen as an admission of guilt and the opening gambit for compensation.

Or maybe I'm just miffed at the English for all the things they did to my Scottish ancestors.
It was far more likely that it was other Scots afflicting your Scottish ancestors.

The Clearances, for example, were largely carried out by Scottish Lairds, so they could make more money off their land.

The English mostly didn’t care that much.
 
Bang on, and good reminder, but (technically) outside of government mandate & control ....

... and other church organizations, under government mandate, for sure.

Mind you, I'm reading "Canada" there in the narrowest sense of "government of Canada".
If you agree with the position of most present First Nations that they are the government of their people, equal at a level with the Govt of Canada and have been continuously not for hundreds, but for thousands of years. Then the actions of these people under their leadership at the time were done under a govt mandate and control (technically).
 
He's saying that the country Canada, established 1867 did not have slavery. The preceding colonies definitely had slavery but technically not Canada as an independent nation.
So therefore Canada did not burn the White House like soooooo many say Canadians did.
 
How dare you bring clarity to this discussion!!

Youre Welcome Maui GIF
 
This will come as a surprise to most First Nations, given that many of them:

1) practiced slavery;
2) slaughtered those men who defied them;
3) took the women as their own; and
4) raised captive children as their own, even forcing their own religion and behavioral norms upon them.

Mind you, so did the Catholic church. Christian churches.

FTFY
 

Agree that it is time for a thread split.

@Oldgateboatdriver

Not letting you away with your Catholic/Christian fix.

In the US the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed Negroes from bondage in the Northern States. It did nothing for Blacks in the South or any slaves in Indian Territory.

The Jesuits of Georgetown University did not free their slaves until Lincoln proclaimed them free. In 1838 they sold off 272 slaves they held to pay off debts.


Meanwhile the Abolitionist Movement, spearheaded by English speaking protestants, on both sides of the Atlantic, non-conformists and dissenters like the Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationalists had been agitating for freedom and equality since the 1730s - Georgia was originally a model colony where its original charter forbade slavery of any people, and blacks were people. They went to church. They sang Wesleyan hymns in English. They were taught to read and write. They entered English language colleges and universities and were assisted in setting up their own churches and schools.

Just as there wasn't a notable protestant presence in Islam, or China, or Africa there was little successful protestant activity in South America, both Spanish and Portuguese. One part of Latin America that did generate an indigenous protestant population after the Bolivarian revolutions was Mexico. But the Juaristas had to contend with Napoleon III and Maximillian.

So, no. You don't get to lump all churches together. The Catholic Church followed its own path quite independent of the English speaking protestant churches. Those protestant churches had major impacts on the policies of their government which happened to be the major economic and military power of its era. They shaped history. And made enemies.


Arguably the Catholic Church didn't come to terms with Protestantism until Vatican II in 1964. It was no friend of protestants during the Franco and Mussolini years.

Cheers.
 
It was far more likely that it was other Scots afflicting your Scottish ancestors.

The Clearances, for example, were largely carried out by Scottish Lairds, so they could make more money off their land.

The English mostly didn’t care that much.
No doubt the clans were divided on their support for the English throne, but the culture and economy struggled under English active legislation and benign neglect. My dad's side is lowland Scot so it was likely the potato famine in the mid-1800s which brought them over. My mom was born in Ayr and emigrated in the early part of the last century.
 
No doubt the clans were divided on their support for the English throne, but the culture and economy struggled under English active legislation and benign neglect. My dad's side is lowland Scot so it was likely the potato famine in the mid-1800s which brought them over. My mom was born in Ayr and emigrated in the early part of the last century.

Luckily for Canada, many of Scotland's best settled here...

Scottish Canadians​


Though often considered Anglo-Canadians, the Scots have always regarded themselves as a separate people. The Scots have immigrated to Canada in steady and substantial numbers for over 200 years, with the connection between Scotland and Canada stretching farther — to the 17th century. Scots have been involved in every aspect of Canada's development as explorers, educators, businessmen, politicians, writers and artists. The Scots are among the first Europeans to establish themselves in Canada and are the fourth largest ethnic group in the country. In the 2021 census, a total of 4,392,200 Canadians, or 12 per cent of the population, listed themselves as being of Scottish origin (single and multiple responses).

 
No doubt the clans were divided on their support for the English throne, but the culture and economy struggled under English active legislation and benign neglect. My dad's side is lowland Scot so it was likely the potato famine in the mid-1800s which brought them over. My mom was born in Ayr and emigrated in the early part of the last century.

Ayr raised Mar's Grey Breeks as a Jacobite force to suppress the local Covenanters. That unit fought the Jacobites at Sherrifmuir in 1716 and joined the Ayrshire Yeomanry (Earl of Carrick's Own) at Culloden to suppress Young Charlie's clans. This was all in addition to lots of foreign service. Mar's regiment continued as the Royal Scots Fusiliers, now 2nd Bn Royal Regiment of Scotland (Royal Highland Fusiliers).

We Southrons have more in common with the Hanoverian Sassenachs than the Erse Tcheuchters.
 
Ayr raised Mar's Grey Breeks as a Jacobite force to suppress the local Covenanters. That unit fought the Jacobites at Sherrifmuir in 1716 and joined the Ayrshire Yeomanry (Earl of Carrick's Own) at Culloden to suppress Young Charlie's clans. This was all in addition to lots of foreign service. Mar's regiment continued as the Royal Scots Fusiliers, now 2nd Bn Royal Regiment of Scotland (Royal Highland Fusiliers).

We Southrons have more in common with the Hanoverian Sassenachs than the Erse Tcheuchters.
It wasn’t until this summer that I began to understand the difference between Highland and Lowland Scots.
 
It wasn’t until this summer that I began to understand the difference between Highland and Lowland Scots.

Never too late to learn.😁

The Fusiliers never wore kilts. As noted they originally wore breeks like the rest of the Saxon population, and wore those flashy tartan trews from the Victorian era.
 
Back
Top