The Caribbean islands, the Cockpit of Europe; where most of Europeans sought out power and fought in wars for dominance over their territories. The Cockpit of the Caribbean, where average white Europeans were enslaved in the midst as cocks and eventually cock fighters; Slave trade was about economics and not race. Invented by the Europeans with absolute power, for their own greed, and of course with war.
Gold, sugar, slaves was the Caribbean trinity represented an enormous accession of wealth and power, and with that greed throughout Europe (Williams 69). As the greed for the Caribbean islands intensified, war was an effect. As stated in our lecture Slavery was usually a result of war, a defeated enemy was understood to be subject to a portion of the defeated population being taken as slaves. War among France, England, Spain, in addition to other nations. War was inevitable, most if not all of Europe wanted the Caribbean; neither would renounce nor share and there was not enough room for France or Britain, let alone all of Europe; war was the result. With war there were losses and enslavement of the average European, whether he be a French, Spaniard, or British man. The Europeans invaded the Caribbean and destroyed the land and their people to the point of extinction. Thus, they turned to average citizens of their own nations to work the hard labor on the fertile land (Williams 95).
The period during European colonization of the Caribbean, thousands of European workers were condemned to involuntary slavery as punishment for their debts or their rebellion against the king. Since the Black Plague epidemic, average white Europeans were sought out to the islands for involuntary labor. This system known as an indenture, a legal and financial arrangement of indentured slavery. As French philosopher Roland Barthes has reasoned race itself is a red herring, and was used as such by despotic, embryonic corporations. Slave trading corporation sought to justify the crimes they committed against the European people as well.
As Hobbes stated for the violation of the social contract “No right to rebel. The ruler's will defines good and evil for his subjects. The King can do no wrong, because lawful and unlawful, good and evil, are merely commands, merely the will of the ruler.” This I would say is the absolute power kings during their period had and they were able to decree whomever to be enslaved. Whom do you think were usually the King’s target; average Europeans. Contrary to Locke’s statement on social contract “If a ruler seeks absolute power, if he acts both as judge and participant in disputes, he puts himself in a state of war with his subjects and we have the right and the duty to kill such rulers and their servants.” Kings do not have the right to pass judgment alone and this would only bring them to their...