White Slaves of England

There's no big cover up.

There is more written history about individual white workers than individual black slaves, because the white workers were counted as people. They were individually documented. Their deaths were registered (in the exception of big disease outbreaks). They had names. You can trace their often tragic stories, because they had names. They were counted as people. If they died they had basic christian burials.

Black slaves were just a head in a herd. Their bodies disposed of on the plantation grounds with other agricultural waste. You cant trace an individual because they werent counted as individuals.

Its just not true that history has hidden the poor white worker.

I have read Black Diamonds by Catherine Bailey and can recommend it as a very good read. She has also written The Secret Rooms which is about the Duke of Rutland and his family at Belvoir Castle in Leicestershire, another very good read. Both are on Kindle.

There wasnt such status attached to having bonded workers as having slaves.

Because slaves were things. Things you owned. Bonded workers were just people you had working on your land.

Things! Not people!

And one of the reasons that some conditions were superficialy better on slave plantations than where bonded workers were is not because slaves were treated better, but because as comodities they had higher value, and owning them had higher status. They would be made to live along the driveways of the larger plantations so that the owners slave wealth was displayed to visitors, as you would display fine art or fancy gardens.

So the farms that bonded workers ended up on were often poorer land owners and poorer land.

It was not because slaves themselves had better Ts&Cs than white workers. Again it comes back to the dehumanisation of slave ownership

Since the concept of the bonded worker and abused white poor is so new to you (don't know why it is well documented, not hidden as you infer) I urge you to get your information from more than one source (there are many, there are even museums you can visit about it!) before taking one angle as fact!

It cites legal processes at the time so I think your assertion that the book is a manipulation of fact for political gain falls flat.

As I said, the best way to promote propoganda is to take some correct facts, then use them to infer an incorrect conclusion.

The financial and political motivation to do so then has not changed much beneath the surface!

Being sub human wasnt "better" even if it meant they were "fed up" to work longer.

The distinction is important.

Being owned because youre not a person Vs being maltreated by an employer who employs you as a person.

Both are bad. They are not both "slavery"

I am well aware that the "happy slave" mytg isnt a new concept. Its still not true.

notanan2
BTW this book was written in 1854 and is composed of statements from the whole breadth of society at that time, workers politicians doctors priests landowners . It cites legal processes at the time so I think your assertion that the book is a manipulation of fact for political gain falls flat.

This response is exactly the same that the landed gentry, mine and factory owners made ?

No one is saying slavery wasn’t bad but why has white slavery been dismissed when potentially conditions were worse for U.K. workers than Slaves sold by their countrymen and because of their status had legal protections not afforded to the poor British worker.

Nobody is "dismissing" the plight of the poor or bonded white worker.

It was different from slavery. Nobody is saying it wasnt awful. But it did not have the added horror that makes slavery slavery, of being owned like an object and not being considered human!

There is no denying the conditions of poor white workers going on.

Bonded workers werent a cheap way to have slaves. It wasnt a loophole. One were employees of sorts . The others were things.

They couldnt be owned in the same way because they were not considered the same thing/species

Propoganda works best when it uses correct facts to draw incorrect conclusions.

notanan2
No one is saying slavery wasn’t bad but why has white slavery been dismissed when potentially conditions were worse for U.K. workers than Slaves sold by their countrymen and because of their status had legal protections not afforded to the poor British worker.

I do hope you will download and read this book.

What you are quoting there is half truth twisted to suit a political agenda.

The truth is the difference was that one was a form of exploitative employment. The other was ownership of a comodity.

Land owners did not actually prefer bonded workers over slaves. As history tells us. They replaced/increased their slave stock. The bonded worker traffic was short lived and fell out of favour

By all means educate yourself about the plight of bonded workers.
But it is not any sort of evidence that slavery "wasnt as bad". There are people with vested interests in having you believe the myth of the "happy slave".

Being striped of your name and the title of being a person does an extra cruelty on top of other hardships

Another short excerpt, re the Irish:

‘We have thus shown that Ireland has long endured, and still endures, a cruel system of slavery, for which we may seek in vain for a parallel. It matters not that the Irish serf may leave his country; while he remains he is a slave to a master who will not call him property, chiefly because it would create the necessity of careful and expensive ownership. If the Irish master took his labourer for his slave in the American sense, he would be compelled to provide for him, work or not work, in sickness and in old age. Thus the master reaps the benefits, and escapes the penalties of slave-holding. He takes the fruits of the labourer's toil without providing for him as the negro slaves of America are provided for;’

It might also apply that a slave owner would look after his property as he had paid for it whereas the 'free' working classes were disposable and replaceable. No-one would care if they starved or died whereas the slave owner would not want his slaves starving or dying.

If you want proof of the distinction, ask a geniologist!

You can trace the family tree of bonded or tennant worker families. They had real names. They were counted as people.

It's almost imposible to trace a family tree once you get back to slaves.

It was not the same thing

There is a financial motive behind those who seek to play down the dehumanising aspects of recent slavery, because reparations are still owed. Slave money is still being enjoyed by many white families.

Be aware of such connections when reading literature that seeks to erase the distinction between bad employers (all round) and the act of slavery (which by nature strips a person of their humanity, even in many cases of their name!)

The fact that bonded workers were considered human/people ultimately "saved" many because bonded workers became less fashionable/desirable due to being human/people
"Cattle-like" slaves were considered a better investment. It was thought they could work harder, sustain more beatings, endure harsher conditions etc. So slavery pervailed where bonded workers were released and not replaced.

because bonded workers WERE considered human/people and therefore not as profitable/useful as "livestock"

Some bonded workers were cast aside even before their bond was up. They went out of fashion. Were a poor investment.

I can't find the free download on Kindle? Only a £6 or £8 copy?

I don't need to be enlightened I am aware of how (often fatally) awful the treatment of tennants and lower class and bonded workers was.

It still wasnt "slavery". To be a slave is to be owned like an object or a crop or livestock. As opposed to be a bonded or tennant worker, which haf its own hardships. But wasnt "slavery"

Once someone is bought or sold as a "slave" that in itself strips them of being considered human or a person.

It does not apply to all forms of bad treatment. It means something very specific.

Its not about how comparatively bad the suffering was.

The bonds were finite and did not apply to the bonded's off spring.
Some survived and did become free and there are pockets of their descendents living in the carribean until this day.
Feedom didnt necessarily = prosperity, but the ending of the bonds WERE honoured (if they survived that long)

Yes, slaves were higher valued, and that meant in some cases better welfare. In some cases. But that is because they were not considered human they were livestock!

notanan2
Sorry, there was no light at the end of the tunnel. As this document states their treatment was worse than those named as slaves, because slaves had legal levels of care and protection (though probably negligible), which the British working class did not have.
Just read the book, download it free from Kindle, I promise you with be enlightened and horrified

My library hasn’t heard of the book so I’ve requested they buy it.

It does not belittle the plight of the bonded worker to say that they were never de-humanised in the same way as black slaves.

As awful as it was for bonded workers. As many that died. At the very very least they had that flicker of dignity from being considered human/people. And the light in the tunnel of bonds being finite.