THE ENGLISH LANDOWNERS WERE TO A DEGREE DRAWN FROM THE UPPER CLASS IN ENGLAND. THE ENGLISH ELITE OR UPPER CLASS CONDESCENDED TO THE MASSES AND THE "COMMONERS." THEY LOOKED DOWN ON THE PEOPLE AS DOGS. THE MEMBERS OF THE ENGLISH ELITE WHO CAME TO VIRGINIA BROUGHT THESE SNOBBISH ATTITUDES WITH THEM. THIS CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE WAS WIDESPREAD AMONG THE ELITES OF EUROPE TOWARD THE PEASANTRY. IN FRANCE AND RUSSIA, THE PEASANTS WOULD EVENTUALLY CARRY OUT REVOLUTIONS AGAINST SUCH CONTEMPT. BUT THE ENGLISH ARISTOCRATS WHO CAME TO AMERICA BROUGHT WITH THEM CONTEMPT FOR THE SO-CALLED LOWER CLASSES.
THE RESULT WAS A LEVEL OF WHITE-ON-WHITE BRUTALITY IN COLONIAL VIRGINIA THAT IS INCREDIBLE, IN THE 16TEENS AND 1620S. AND IF FREE ENGLISHMEN WERE BRUTALIZED, IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE THAT THE INDENTURED SERVANTS WERE MISTREATED. WHENEVER WE GIVE HUMAN BEINGS POWER OVER OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, THERE IS THE DANGER OF ABUSE OF POWER. POWER CORRUPTS.
IN MAY 1624 IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT ONE RICHARD BARNES HAD UTTERED "BASE AND DETRACTING" SPEECHES AGAINST THE ROYAL GOVERNOR IN VA. AS PUNISHMENT, HIS WEAPONS WERE TAKEN AWAY. HE HAD TO PASS THROUGH TWO ROWS OF MEN, CALLED A GAUNTLET, AND THEY BEAT HIM UP AS HE PASSED THROUGH. BOTH HIS ARMS WERE DELIBERATELY BROKEN. AND THEN THEY HELD HIM DOWN, AND USED FORCEPS TO PULL HIS TONGUE AND THEN BORED IT THROUGH WITH AN AWL (LIKE AN ICE-PICK). HE WAS FINED 200 L STERLING, AND KICKED OUT OF VIRGINIA (MORGAN, AMERICAN SLAVERY, AMERICAN FREEDOM, P. 124). HE WAS A FREE MAN, NOT A SERVANT.
ALSO IN 1624, IT WAS REPORTED THAT ONE EDWARD NEVELL HAD MADE STATEMENTS CRITICAL OF THE EXECUTION OF RICHARD CORNISH, BY THE COLONIAL GOVERNMENT. NEVELL WAS PUNISHED. HE HAD TO STAND IN A PILLORY, IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE. BOTH OF HIS EARS WERE CUT OFF. AND HE WAS SENTENCED TO SERVE THE COLONY AS A SERVANT FOR ONE YEAR (MORGAN, P. 125).
SOON THEREAFTER AN INDENTURED SERVANT NAMED THOMAS HATCH ALSO CRITICIZED THE EXECUTION OF RICHARD CORNISH. HATCH WAS A CABIN BOY, OR DUTY BOY, ON A SHIP, AND ALMOST AT THE END OF HIS TERM OF INDENTUREMENT (OF 7 YEARS). AS PUNISHMENT, HE WAS WHIPPED AND PLACED IN THE PILLORY. ONE EAR WAS CUT OFF. AND HE WAS SENTENCED TO SEVEN MORE YEARS AS AN INDENTURED SERVANT.
RICHARD CROCKER SAID THAT TWO MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNOR’S COUNCIL (GOV. YEARDLEY) WERE NOT FIT TO SIT ON THE COUNCIL, BECAUSE "THEY DEAL UPON NOTHING BUT EXTORTION." FOR HIS OFFENSE, HE WAS PUT IN THE PILLORY AND BOTH HIS EARS WERE NAILED TO IT.
JOHN AND ALICE PROCTOR WERE TWO LANDOWNERS IN VA. THEY AHD TWO ENGLISH INDENTURED SERVANTS. BOTH SERVANTS DIED AS A RESULT OF BEATINGS AT THE HANDS OF THE PROCTORS. ELIZABETH ABBOTT, A WHITE SERVANT WOMAN, WAS WHIPPED SO BADLY THAT SHE DIED. GOVERNOR THOMAS GATES SAID HE COUNTED 500 LASH MARKS ON HER BODY. SARCASTICALLY, AND DISAPPROVINGLY, AS ABBOTT LAY DYING, GATES TOLD THE PROCTORS THAT THEY MIGHT AS WELL KILL HER AND PUT HER OUT OF HER MISERY. ELIAS HINTON, ANOTHER SERVANT OF THE PROCTORS, WAS BEAT TO DEATH WITH A RAKE. THERE IS NO RECORD THAT THE PROCTORS WERE EVER PUNISHED FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
EDMUND MORGAN ASKS A RHETORICAL QUESTION ABOUT THIS ENGLISH-ON-ENGLISH BRUTALITY. HE ASKS, IF THE ENGLISH COULD ABUSE, MISTREAT, MAIM AND EVEN KILL THEIR OWN PEOPLE, WHAT WOULD THEY DO TO PEOPLE WHO WERE DIFFERENT FROM THEMSELVES AND WERE NOT "THEIR OWN PEOPLE?" HIS ANSWER TO HIS OWN QUESTION IS "ANYTHING WOULD BE POSSIBLE."
MORGAN IS SAYING THAT IF THE ENGLISH COULD BRUTALIZE PEOPLE WHO SHARED THE SAME ETHNICITY, AS ENGLISHMEN, AS THEMSELVES; AND PEOPLE WHO WERE CHRISTIANS LIKE THEMSELVES; AND PEOPLE WHO SPOKE ENGLISH LIKE THEMSELVES; AND PEOPLE WHO SHARED THE SAME CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS AND CULTURE AS THEMSELVES; AND PEOPLE WHO LOOKED LIKE THEM AND WERE WHITE AND EUROPEAN LIKE THEMSELVES---THEN WHAT WOULD THEY DO TO SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT WHITE, NOT EUROPEAN, WHO WAS NOT NECESSARILY A CHRISTIAN, WHO DID NOT SPEAK ENGLISH OR SHARE THEIR CUSTOMS AND CULTURE?
HE IS SAYING THAT IF THE ENGLISH COULD TREAT THEIR OWN PEOPLE LIKE DOGS, HOW WOULD THEY TREAT THE AFRICANS? IF SOMEONE WILL MISTREAT THEIR OWN CHILD, HOW WILL THEY TREAT YOUR CHILD? ULTIMATELY, THE AFRICAN COMES TO BE TREATED AS LESS THAN HUMAN, AS AN ANIMAL. THE INDENTURED SERVANTS WERE DEGRADED AND BRUTALIZED, AND THIS PAVED THE WAY FOR THE MISTREATMENT OF THE AFRICANS. IN A SENSE, THE ENGLISH PRACTICED ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE (ETHNIC GROUP) FIRST, AND THEN INFLICTED EVEN MORE EXTREME TREATMENT ON THE AFRICANS, WHO WERE SO DIFFERENT FROM THEMSELVES.
The English could whip other Englishmen; break the arms of other Englishmen; nail their ears to pillories; chop of their ears; bore their tongues throgh with ice picks; even beat them to death or kill them. But there was one thing that the English could not bring themselves to do to other Englishmen or to any white European. They could not hold them as slaves for life: to enslave somene fopr life was to reduce that person to the elvel of an animal. It was to make them socially dead, and less than human. It was to treat a person as if he or she were livestock, no more than a cow or a horse. It was like sentencing a persdon to life in prison, and thus depriving them of any hope of a meaningful future. To hold someone as a slave for life was to transform a person, a human being, into an OBJECT (objectification) A THING, to be bought and sold. It was to make a person into a COMMODITY. At servitude for life, the English drew the line. Beyond that psychological barrier or threshold they did not cross. But if the African was an animal--inferior and subhuman-- then what difference did it make if he or she was enslaved for life? What harm is there in treating an animal like an animal? Imputing the stigma of inferiority to Africans allowed the Europeans to enslave and mistreat the Africans. It made it psychologically possible for the Europeans to do things to Africans that they could not bring themselves to do to Europeans--without feeling guilt about it. "Prejudice" released Europeans from feeling guilt about the enslavement of Africans and "blacks" in America. It was as if racial prejudice gave Europeans a license or permission to abuse Africans or anyone else who was "different."
Increasingly it was as if the Europeans came to identify white as HUMAN. To be human and normal was to be white (European or of European descent). If one was not white (and of European descent) then one was not human. Not white came to mean not human, not normal (or abnormal). This assumption about the normality of whiteness and the deviance or subhumanity of those who were "not white" eventually came to saturate the subconscious of Europeans and European-Americans and the dominant culture. It was there even without anyone consciously thinking about it.
Ideas have consequences, and sometimes the consequences can even be unintended or unforeseen. The idea that not-white (European) is not human made it easier for the Europeans and Euro-Americans to enslave African people and people of African ancestry--without feeling guilty about it. Whereas they did feel guilty about the prospect of enslaving other Europeans.
Syllogisms
Finally, bear in mind that POPULAR European Christianity reshaped Chrisitianity in its own image. In the popular imagination, as evident by the Sistine Chapel, God was white. Adam and Eve and the characters of the Bible were white. Europeans were white. The conclusion...
Europeans could do no wrong; Africans and people of African ancestry could do no right.