All due respect, but I think that explanation is a cop out (whatever that means). It was a miniscule percentage that owned slaves. The same type as the 0.1% in most third world kleptocracies. Soulless, despicable opportunists. To say that they were doing it to protect themselves is misguided apologetics. They were doing it to enrich themselves.
It's described in every anti-colonial text. A select and usually tiny number of the existing ruling class or groups chosen to be the ruling class of the colonized people are elevated to the local bourgeoisie to legitimize the colonial regime but also individual opportunists who get elevated to "preferred subjects" and act on behalf of the metropole, won't be at the wrong end of the colonizer's gun (at least initially). They also see their special status as a means to gain and control wealth and consolidate power locally even though they as a class will never attain parity with the colonizers.
I was totally agreeing with you that it is both to varying degrees. So given the material reality and power structures, it's not that surprising that Indigenous people owned African slaves.
Unrelated to this thread, but not only were there American First Nations slave owners, but some Canadian First Nations would actually actively slave themselves even before colonisation. The Haida Gwaii, to this day, are hated among First Nations people in British Columbia. In the 19th century, some of the FN folks actually preferred to ally with the British against the Haida because the Haidi were so ruthless.
The fact that there were some Native American slave owners. That shit shook me.
deleted by creator
All due respect, but I think that explanation is a cop out (whatever that means). It was a miniscule percentage that owned slaves. The same type as the 0.1% in most third world kleptocracies. Soulless, despicable opportunists. To say that they were doing it to protect themselves is misguided apologetics. They were doing it to enrich themselves.
deleted by creator
It's described in every anti-colonial text. A select and usually tiny number of the existing ruling class or groups chosen to be the ruling class of the colonized people are elevated to the local bourgeoisie to legitimize the colonial regime but also individual opportunists who get elevated to "preferred subjects" and act on behalf of the metropole, won't be at the wrong end of the colonizer's gun (at least initially). They also see their special status as a means to gain and control wealth and consolidate power locally even though they as a class will never attain parity with the colonizers.
deleted by creator
I was totally agreeing with you that it is both to varying degrees. So given the material reality and power structures, it's not that surprising that Indigenous people owned African slaves.
deleted by creator
Unrelated to this thread, but not only were there American First Nations slave owners, but some Canadian First Nations would actually actively slave themselves even before colonisation. The Haida Gwaii, to this day, are hated among First Nations people in British Columbia. In the 19th century, some of the FN folks actually preferred to ally with the British against the Haida because the Haidi were so ruthless.
deleted by creator