A question that I have answered.
What is the difference between slavery in the US in the 19th century and New Zealand before British colonisation?
Slavery in the US and Maori slavery are completely different because, Maori slaves weren’t voluntarily taken, but the US purposely went to get slaves.
During early 17th century, slavery in the Americas began. A Dutch ship came back with 20 slaves on board. These slaves were extremely economically efficient, as they didn’t need much income and food and they were much cheaper to buy as European slaves were. Also, they seemed to have an endless supply of them. So, the US started to ‘slave farm’ and bring back millions of African slaves. Back in New Zealand, many conflicts between local tribes were at hand. Many tribes would just kill their prisoners of war and think nothing less. Some tribes would use the prisoners of war as slaves. Here is the difference. The US needed a supply of slaves to run their economy, but the Maori people just used their captives to an advantage. It’s a completely different story after the British colonised New Zealand. In the early 19th century the Europeans arrived and colonised New Zealand. They brought many interesting items with them, one of which was the musket. Maori tribes would trade ridiculous amounts of resources to obtain one musket. They would use them to gain vengeance on lost battles with other tribes and enslave people. Having such power would give them the confidence and encourage them to start enslaving more and more people. This suggests that Maori people did want slaves but, couldn’t find an efficient way to obtain them without losing many men. A great example of this behavior was in 1835, when mainland Maori tribes attacked the peaceful Moriori of the Chatham Islands. They enslaved, and nearly exterminated their entire population using the musket.
Going back to the US and Maori tribes before the Europeans arrived, examples of their differences in slavery show in the number of slaves they had. The Southern states of the US had over 350,000 slaves working in plantations. Furthermore, there is primary evidence that logbooks for slave sales and numbers were active. While in New Zealand we know for a fact that the whole population was less than 120,000 and tribal wars didn’t result in captives, telling us that Maori people believed that slaves were quite hard to obtain.
我已经回答了一个问题。
19世纪美国的奴隶制与英国殖民统治前的新西兰有什么区别？
美国的奴隶制和毛利人的奴隶制完全不同，因为毛利奴隶并非自愿被奴役，但美国故意去奴隶。
在17世纪初期，美洲的奴隶制开始了。 一艘荷兰船上载着20名奴隶。 这些奴隶在经济上非常有效率，因为他们不需要太多的收入和食物，而且他们像欧洲奴隶那样购买便宜得多。 而且，他们似乎有无穷无尽的供应。 因此，美国开始“奴隶农场”并带回数百万非洲奴隶。 回到新西兰，当地部落之间的许多冲突就在眼前。 许多部落只会杀死他们的战俘并且不会少想。 有些部落会以战俘为奴隶。 这是区别。 美国需要供应奴隶来经营其经济，但毛利人只是利用他们的俘虏来获利。 在英国殖民新西兰之后，这是一个完全不同的故事。 在19世纪早期，欧洲人抵达并殖民新西兰。 他们带来了许多有趣的物品，其中一个是步枪。 毛利部落会交换荒谬的资源来获得一支步枪。 他们会利用它们来报复与其他部落和奴役人民的战斗。 拥有这样的权力会给他们信心，并鼓励他们开始奴役越来越多的人。 这表明毛利人确实想要奴隶，但是找不到有效的方法来获得他们而不会失去许多男人。 这种行为的一个很好的例子是在1835年，当时毛利大陆部落袭击了查塔姆群岛的和平Moriori。 他们被奴役，几乎用火枪消灭了他们的整个人口。
在欧洲人到来之前回到美国和毛利部落，他们在奴隶制上的分歧的例子显示他们拥有的奴隶数量。 美国南部各州有超过35万名奴隶在种植园工作。 此外，有主要证据表明奴隶销售和数字的日志是活跃的。 在新西兰，我们知道一个事实，即整个人口不到12万，部落战争没有导致俘虏，告诉我们毛利人认为奴隶很难获得。
网友评论