click here to read what hedz are sayin' (comments) below
(written 2014)

The English language is not a very pragmatic language. It is unique and useful in its ability to construct sentences that depending on how those sentences are interpreted can mean opportunity or misery. Various legal, governmental, social and business agencies within society ascribe to different dictionaries when creating or defending contracts, laws, requests, etc. Even worse, no one is obligated to alert you as to which dictionary they are using when you interact with them since "ignorance of the law is no excuse." We have all at one time or another read over some sort of important contract or legal document which we assumed we had a good grasp on. Only to discuss that same document with a legal professional to have it explained in a completely different context. With that in mind I would like us to discuss the difference between "Slaves and Prisoners", especially in the larger context of European enslavement of Africans, or rather European warfare with Africans.

The thought first came to me as I was reading an article about black inventors who were denied patents to their inventions by the U.S. patent office because they were slaves. The article talked about one man, Benjamin Bradley, who was born into enslavement around 1830 in Maryland. He invented a new and improved steam engine for a warship. He later sold the invention, and bought his and his family's freedom. That is an amazing accomplishment for anyone, let alone someone who Europeans labeled as a slave. But wait... He bought his and his family's freedom? This isn't the first time I've heard of this type of scenario, but for some reason while reading this article it struck me like never before. A black person could buy their freedom. But what does that really mean? What exactly are they buying? They aren't acquiring any new possessions. They aren't paying for tickets to go to a different country. How can freedom be bought? Freedom from what? Slavery? But slavery is not a person or a country. What, exactly, is Slavery?

Slavery-
(Webster)- submission to a dominating force
(Black's Law)- that civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another.

Webster's definition mentions that slavery happens at the point of submission. Black's Law definition points to power dynamics within a given relationship. The origin of the word presents a similar meaning. Slave comes from the root word Slav, as in Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Yugoslavia, etc. These Slavic groups were at war with other ethnic groups of Europe. When the Slavic people were defeated in battle they were kept as P.O.W.'s and forced into servitude. This practice of defeating and capturing Slavs was the basis for the term slave. So, it appears that slavery has all to do with one person or group being dominated by another, however the key aspect being submission. It is with this in mind that I ask the question: Did slavery ever happen to black people?

Were Africans ever slaves, or just prisoners? Is there a difference between a prisoner and a slave? Well, according to the U.S. constitution there isn't. There are many people who erroneously think that Christopher Columbus discovered America. The same can be said about Abraham Lincoln freeing slaves. Firstly, western chattel slavery came to an end because of the spark for freedom that was created by the successful Haitian revolution, which eventually disrupted the economic stability of the entire slavery system and spread rebellion fever all across North and South America. Secondly, there was no moral or civil reasoning behind this emancipation proclamation. The U.S. was at civil war, fighting over power and money, with northern and southern white business men and politicians at each other throats. But all that aside, slavery in the U.S. was never even abolished. It was transformed into the prison industrial system with the help of the 13th amendment which states:

13th Amendment Section
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The key words in section 1 being, "except as a punishment for crime..." Section 2 goes on to state that Congress "shall have" power to enforce this thru "legislation". It does not say that Congress "must" or "will" enforce it. Just like many other laws that are on the books, Congress, and the gov't in general, pick and choose when they do and do not want to enforce certain laws. Even more alarming is that Congress can enforce this amendment thru legislation . In other words, Congress can simply create a new slave population (in prison) by creating new laws which create new criminals.

At this point, I think its important that we take a brief look at the meaning of Prisoner as contrasted to Slave.

Prisoner
(Webster)- a person deprived of liberty and kept under involuntary restraint, confinement, or custody
(Black's Law)- One who is deprived of his liberty; one who is against his will kept in confinement or custody.

They both (slave and prisoner) have similar aspects or power dynamics, however, the slave is different in that he/she has submitted to his captor. His/her life, destiny, will, etc become the property of another. What an unnatural state for a human being to exist in...

So what about Benjamin Bradley buying his freedom? We've already established that a prerequisite to slavery is being conquered or defeated in war. So, what was it that Mr. Bradley was buying when he bought his and his family's freedom? Was he buying guns to arm his self against being conquered again? Maybe his saw himself as a piece of property, so he paid the fair price for himself (but that just sounds ridiculous). Using deductive logical reasoning the only conclusion I can come to is that "buying oneself out of slavery" is the equivalent of paying a ransom, blackmailing. Back in the good ole mafia days they called it "paying for protection." You pay someone a load of money so that they don't kick your ass or kill you.

Africans did not remain enslaved out of desire. Thousands of them tried to escape only to be tortured, maimed, or killed. Those who did stay stayed out of fear of violence or death. So, to say that someone "bought themselves out of slavery" is to say that they paid someone to leave them and their families alone, which is very different from freedom. Extortion by any other name is still extortion. So while the European history books talk of heroism, hard work, and courage of their forefathers in building "this great country", we should know that heroism, hard work, and courage should be translated as torturing, kidnapping, and pirating.

Yet, even looking at slavery as an enterprise of kidnap and torture, it is still pretty farfetched to ask "If slavery ever happened to black people", right? Well, that depends on your definition of a slave. Some people might be inclined to say that I am arguing semantics. Well, I am. In the sense that semantics deals with the real meaning of a word. No one can deny the difference between calling a woman pretty versus beautiful. They both refer to something similar but they are very different in quality. Another example is the relation between the words nigger and negro. They have the same phonetic root AND meaning. But the context and usage are unquestionably different.

So, if Africans did not got through slavery what happened? I cannot go as far as to say that slavery never happened. However, according to the definition of a slave we can not say that all the kidnapped Africans who survived the middle passage were made into slaves. More accurately, we should call them prisoners or P.O.W.'s. Even if they worked in the plantation fields for a limited time or until their death, as long as they possessed a rebellious, defiant mind and spirit they could never become slaves. More than just for a sense of ancestral pride, this is a very important historical and psychological observation to make. The visual image of a slave is a very strong one. It carries a heaviness to it. It reflects someone who is helpless, weak-willed, unintelligent. It carries the idea of someone who lacks power. A person who has no hope. A slave is someone who has accepted servitude as their place in life. This would be historically inaccurate in referring to the state of black people during 16th-19th centuries. The records of hundreds of revolts, rebellions, rebellious acts, and escapes from white bondage prove that in the eyes of Africans this whole slavery business was to be fought against and won. There have been numerous free black states (Maroon Societies, Quilombos) that were created during this time who fought against and in many cases defeated European armies that would try to force these Africans back into bondage. How logical is it then to call a man a slave who obviously refuses to accept that title, who refuses to submit? Additionally, when using this title to refer to our ancestors, we have to remember that "Slave" is the term the Europeans used, and comes from their ethic vocabulary. It is a European concept. "Slave" was not how we identified ourselves.

So, did slavery ever happen? I prefer to say we are at war. Prisoners of war. However, I must acknowledge that many of our ancestors did become enslaved. Enslaved in their minds and spirits by European torture and brainwashing. And similarly we have many of our people who are still enslaved to this very day. They lack the fire in their chests. They have accepted servitude to Europeans as their place in life. They do not yearn for a free black state. They do not know that to fight against European dominance is their birth right. Slavery, just as freedom, is a concept. It exist in the mind, and is reflected in behavior. Harriet Tubman is quoted saying, "I freed hundreds, but I could have free thousands if they only knew that they were slaves." They forgot who they really were. They didn't remember that they had power to choose their own destiny. They relinquished their "power over the life, fortune, and liberty" of themselves. They submitted to being ruled by whites. Maybe if they had been prisoners ready to defy their captors they would have found freedom.

Contact Faro-Z @ rapperfaroz@gmail.com

Read more from our Current and R-Kyvz Vault