It’s so insulting to all women that we be seen as passive participants in history. As owning slaves was the norm in the Caribbean and the American South, why wouldn’t women participate? I’m sure if you studied the African tribes who sold the slaves in the first place, you’d find the involvement of women, there, too. It’s infuriating for women to be considered as simply stupid patsies who stood by and did as they were told. Most women did follow the trends, but many of us bucked the trends to continue the struggle that all women feel in trying to achieve a place in a world dominated by men. It still eludes us. Why isn’t women’s history studied more broadly as we’ve always made up half the world? You’ll find that women did great things and horrific things. We’re just as human, and fallible as men but since not many have bothered to find out our history, it remains a big surprise when we achieve greatness, or infamy.
"The “nasty and unseemly business of transacting for human beings,” as one historian described it, must surely have been a male domain?"
Anyone that views women as such delicate, sinless, naive flowers has never bothered to observe how women tend to treat each other in daily life - in fact, often much more brutally and unrelentingly than men do. Even more slyly than men, as they often get others (especially gullible young men seeking approval of women) to do their dirty work for them if it involves physical force or actual physical work.
Thank you for this detailed examination of how women were also full, active participants in the slave trade. You're probably aware of it, but there's also a 2019 book that confirms your essay, "They Were Her Property" by Stephanie Jones-Rogers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Were_Her_Property)
"A study analyzing over 15,000 sale records from the New Orleans slave market between 1856 and 1861 (the largest such market in the antebellum US) revealed that women appeared as either buyers or sellers in 30.2% of all transactions. Even more telling is that women were not disproportionately concentrated on one side of the market. They were listed as sellers in 16.5% of transactions and as buyers in 17.2%, a near-perfect balance that directly challenges the notion that these were widows merely liquidating inherited property."
It’s so insulting to all women that we be seen as passive participants in history. As owning slaves was the norm in the Caribbean and the American South, why wouldn’t women participate? I’m sure if you studied the African tribes who sold the slaves in the first place, you’d find the involvement of women, there, too. It’s infuriating for women to be considered as simply stupid patsies who stood by and did as they were told. Most women did follow the trends, but many of us bucked the trends to continue the struggle that all women feel in trying to achieve a place in a world dominated by men. It still eludes us. Why isn’t women’s history studied more broadly as we’ve always made up half the world? You’ll find that women did great things and horrific things. We’re just as human, and fallible as men but since not many have bothered to find out our history, it remains a big surprise when we achieve greatness, or infamy.
"The “nasty and unseemly business of transacting for human beings,” as one historian described it, must surely have been a male domain?"
Anyone that views women as such delicate, sinless, naive flowers has never bothered to observe how women tend to treat each other in daily life - in fact, often much more brutally and unrelentingly than men do. Even more slyly than men, as they often get others (especially gullible young men seeking approval of women) to do their dirty work for them if it involves physical force or actual physical work.
You shouldn't use the lexicon of the enemy
Thank you for this detailed examination of how women were also full, active participants in the slave trade. You're probably aware of it, but there's also a 2019 book that confirms your essay, "They Were Her Property" by Stephanie Jones-Rogers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Were_Her_Property)
https://sklebi.substack.com/p/modern-day-slavery-the-children-on?r=4csx9c&utm_medium=ios
"A study analyzing over 15,000 sale records from the New Orleans slave market between 1856 and 1861 (the largest such market in the antebellum US) revealed that women appeared as either buyers or sellers in 30.2% of all transactions. Even more telling is that women were not disproportionately concentrated on one side of the market. They were listed as sellers in 16.5% of transactions and as buyers in 17.2%, a near-perfect balance that directly challenges the notion that these were widows merely liquidating inherited property."
This doesn't make sense mathematically.
These descriptions are bone chilling.