The line went up so yes

the cotton was not worth it in the end

>>225015197
Nope, it was a terrible coincidence
The Songhai Empire fragmented, and the many kingdoms that splintered off from it began to enslave one another, since Islamic on non-Islamic slavery was common in these areas.
The portuguese saw an opportunity there and began the Triangular trade

>>225015197
The Portuguese absolutely didn't have enough people to cultivate sugar kane, cotton, tobacco and mine gold and diamonds at the scale they wanted, even if they actually wanted to have tenant farming and paid miners (which they didn't). The natives were not that receptive to being enslaved and were much more adept at running away in the jungle. And there weren't that many of them after the immunological shocks anyway. The Jesuits also protected them as much as they could and were often at odds with landowners and local governments.
So, as a sort of business imperative, slavery was necessary in Brazil.
I don't know about the US.

>>225015197
Who cares?

>>225015197
is it true Americans think Europeans just went into the African jungle with nets and loaded them onto ships? How many are aware the slaves were just currency for local rulers the buy guns?

>>225015197
No. The capitalists couldve payed european workers a fair wage for the work but they didnt so europeans refused to work in plantations.
It was an early example of class consciousness actually.

>>225015197
Necessary is a heavy word.

It was needed to accumulate capital, however.

>>225015630
>is it true Americans think Europeans just went into the African jungle with nets and loaded them onto ships?
No. The interwar warfare of west Africa is taugh well in class
>How many are aware the slaves were just currency for local rulers the buy guns
Not many. People don't pay attention to school

>>225015197
>Was slavery really necessary?
Define "necessary". No, but it helped the colonies grow faster in the places where slavery thrived.

>>225015649
basically this, they could have brought in other europeans, even if they weren't portuguese, from regions plagued by hunger and war, just as Brazil did in the 19th and 20th centuries, when slavery was abolished.
slavery is only explained by wickedness and greed.

>>225015197
Yes, and one day we're gonna put them back in chains

>>225015197
No it was mostly due to greed and unironically capitalism.
But I always wonder how there seemingly was an almost endless supply of Africans to ship around the world.
As far as I know they mostly lived in tribes without much agriculture.
So how could they have such population growth to sustain the high slavery numbers?
And yes technically Europeans bought them from other Africans and didn't enslave them themselves.

>>225016151
freak