I had a professor for a class called Philosophy of Race, and he brought up a few times that both black slaverowners and white slaves existed tp varying extents at various times, but that they were always small percentages. However the white slaves were almost always Irish or another group who was viewed by the WASP culture as inferior anyhow. His claim was that anti-black racism evolved out of the environment of slavery, essentially that since most slaves were black because that was the major export of West africa after Columbus's voyages found new sources of gold and sent the African coast into economic dissarray. Europeans then continously tried to find ways to justify slavery, constantly refining white to exclude those they wished to dominate. Indians, as in from India, and arabs we're included as 'white' due to "common culture" i.e. a market focus, until it was more useful for them to be considered 'others' for colonialism. As the European markets began to dominate, they could dictate who was what race and their inherent values due to having more gold, more advanced tech bought with said gold, and more allies funded with, you guessed it, colonial gold.
In America and britain at least, Irish werent treated as white for religious, economic, and political reasons. The arabs, initially called 'white' were Denegrated over time as being less rational for rejecting the trinity, which somehow stimulated greater rational thought according to some author(s). Similarly, pagan Africans and other animists were said to only be able to contemplate tangible physical things because of their worship of spirits/gods in parts of nature, and thus weren't considered irrational and incapable of higher thought. But none of these judgements became popular until there were geopolitical benefits to be gained from adopting them. Excuses made to justfy the action, rather than the cause of the action.
Tldr. Anti-black racism developed because black slaves were in supply as an effect of new gold markets crushing the west african gold trade, and this grew into "blacks are lesser because i lIke them enslaved" rather than "these people are lesser, let's enslave them". I think this is really important for discussing counter-factual slave trade. If so much of the gold that came from the conquests of the carribbean, the Aztecs, etc somehow stayed in the Americas, maybe buried to hide it or lost at sea, perhaps the west african gold trade would be less hindered, would not to such an extent grow to rely on the slave trade, and thus slavery would evolve completely different. Perhaps in this scenario, the slave population would be made up of criminals, debtors, prisoners of war, and unfortunately whatever native Americans are still alive, rather than by and large coming via trade. At least in this scenario maybe supply never quite reaches demand, and other techniques gain the prominence slave labor did. Also, this would butterfly Britain turning black and white Americans on each other via policy, as they did after Bacon rebellion. This helped to cement a "us vs you" mentality that we still suffer from.
Maybe Columbus dies during his adventure, and the news of the new world and it's riches takes longer to spread, with colonialism taking longer? Give more time for either west africa to adapt to its disappearing gold trade, or simply to let the butterflies flap and simply slaves aren't used as widespread as in otl. If slavery is less popular due to less supply, or if the supply comes from other sources, might we see a more Roman slave system than the chattle of the Columbian trade? This would be an entirely different colonialism however; different economy, butterfly most African Americans, likely destroys the rest of the native population, and probably leaves religious justification as justification for slavery rather than race. Now that I'm thinking about that though, this might make the divide between christian and the Muslim world more virolent, more resemble the anymosity of otl racial issues, with Europeans making up justifications that other religions are 'less rational' and thus inferior, "so war and enslavement!". This may have disastrous effects on relations with Africa later on, as if I'm correct christianity didn't spread until colonialism besides in Nubia and Ethiopia, no? I could actually see this turning into a 'draka-esque' situation, though I think a combination of the crusades and apartheid would be a better comparison, as I'm sure it would eventually crumble. Whites had to make up bullshit justifications to feel better about slavery, I'm sure the cognitive dissonance that "were equal....but not you!" Would erupt eventually in lower classes who see the horrors but not the benefit, and in this scenario would be at risk of being enslaved themselves for "heresy" i.e. anything those who want more slaves came up with.
Also maybe a pod in west africa, where something besides the slave trade replaces the gold trade, would be as effective for diversifying the slave population? A gradual loss of the gold trade rather than an immediate stop may allow for less profitable industries to arise to take the place, meaning that some slaves are probably west african but the supply is significantly less and thus they are significantly less of the slave population.
Also sorry this is so long, speculative, and kinda off topic, my brain just keeps firing and I'm interested in what other have to say on this. I really do think that racism to otl extent is an accident of circumstance that became cemented as hatred so white people could ignore the guilt of profiting off of misery. Note: I don't see this is as apologism because if this is true, white people ignored their consciousness and created centuries of racial problems in order to feel better, that's worse to me than intentional dickery. Its not that people didn't know it was wrong, it's that they didn't care and insitutionalized their not caring. That's harder for me to get over
In America and britain at least, Irish werent treated as white for religious, economic, and political reasons. The arabs, initially called 'white' were Denegrated over time as being less rational for rejecting the trinity, which somehow stimulated greater rational thought according to some author(s). Similarly, pagan Africans and other animists were said to only be able to contemplate tangible physical things because of their worship of spirits/gods in parts of nature, and thus weren't considered irrational and incapable of higher thought. But none of these judgements became popular until there were geopolitical benefits to be gained from adopting them. Excuses made to justfy the action, rather than the cause of the action.
Tldr. Anti-black racism developed because black slaves were in supply as an effect of new gold markets crushing the west african gold trade, and this grew into "blacks are lesser because i lIke them enslaved" rather than "these people are lesser, let's enslave them". I think this is really important for discussing counter-factual slave trade. If so much of the gold that came from the conquests of the carribbean, the Aztecs, etc somehow stayed in the Americas, maybe buried to hide it or lost at sea, perhaps the west african gold trade would be less hindered, would not to such an extent grow to rely on the slave trade, and thus slavery would evolve completely different. Perhaps in this scenario, the slave population would be made up of criminals, debtors, prisoners of war, and unfortunately whatever native Americans are still alive, rather than by and large coming via trade. At least in this scenario maybe supply never quite reaches demand, and other techniques gain the prominence slave labor did. Also, this would butterfly Britain turning black and white Americans on each other via policy, as they did after Bacon rebellion. This helped to cement a "us vs you" mentality that we still suffer from.
Maybe Columbus dies during his adventure, and the news of the new world and it's riches takes longer to spread, with colonialism taking longer? Give more time for either west africa to adapt to its disappearing gold trade, or simply to let the butterflies flap and simply slaves aren't used as widespread as in otl. If slavery is less popular due to less supply, or if the supply comes from other sources, might we see a more Roman slave system than the chattle of the Columbian trade? This would be an entirely different colonialism however; different economy, butterfly most African Americans, likely destroys the rest of the native population, and probably leaves religious justification as justification for slavery rather than race. Now that I'm thinking about that though, this might make the divide between christian and the Muslim world more virolent, more resemble the anymosity of otl racial issues, with Europeans making up justifications that other religions are 'less rational' and thus inferior, "so war and enslavement!". This may have disastrous effects on relations with Africa later on, as if I'm correct christianity didn't spread until colonialism besides in Nubia and Ethiopia, no? I could actually see this turning into a 'draka-esque' situation, though I think a combination of the crusades and apartheid would be a better comparison, as I'm sure it would eventually crumble. Whites had to make up bullshit justifications to feel better about slavery, I'm sure the cognitive dissonance that "were equal....but not you!" Would erupt eventually in lower classes who see the horrors but not the benefit, and in this scenario would be at risk of being enslaved themselves for "heresy" i.e. anything those who want more slaves came up with.
Also maybe a pod in west africa, where something besides the slave trade replaces the gold trade, would be as effective for diversifying the slave population? A gradual loss of the gold trade rather than an immediate stop may allow for less profitable industries to arise to take the place, meaning that some slaves are probably west african but the supply is significantly less and thus they are significantly less of the slave population.
Also sorry this is so long, speculative, and kinda off topic, my brain just keeps firing and I'm interested in what other have to say on this. I really do think that racism to otl extent is an accident of circumstance that became cemented as hatred so white people could ignore the guilt of profiting off of misery. Note: I don't see this is as apologism because if this is true, white people ignored their consciousness and created centuries of racial problems in order to feel better, that's worse to me than intentional dickery. Its not that people didn't know it was wrong, it's that they didn't care and insitutionalized their not caring. That's harder for me to get over
