Answer:
many reasons
1) for prestige and power
2) wanted more raw materials.
3) industrialised more
Pretty sure this is false!
Hello Historical narrative would be long and wordy, while the timeline would be short and to the point.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The differences between the types of slavery traditionally practiced in Africa and the slavery that developed in the New World were basically the following.
African slaves were the by-product of the consequences of wars between African tribes. The one that won the war, conquered the territory, and forced people into slavery. The victorious tribe did no see slavery as a form of property but as a form of punishment.
Slavery in the new world was different. For white Europeans in the North American territory, slaves represented a form of property. That is what they considered when they bought slaves during the Slave Trade period. In the Americas, Africans were slaves for life and depended only on the landlord.
Other types of servitude such as European serfdom compared to slavery because it also exploited not only Africans but the Native Indians. For instance, when Spaniards conquered the American territory of what today is México, the Caribbean Islands, and South America, they instilled the Encomienda, a form of slavery, where Native Indians worked in the farm fields for long hours in exchange of housing and some food.
Answer:
Leviticus 24-44:46.
Explanation:
The Hebrew Bible mentions few rules and regulations for maintaining slaves and how to treat them. Some provisions of the Hebrew Bible talks about setting slaves free after specific years while some talks about keeping them for generations.
The provision that might discourage many Hebrew slaves from seeking their freedom would be through the contents of Leviticus 24-44:46 of the Hebrew Bible. It says that slaves can be acquired from other nations or from one's own land itself if one wills to do so. The slaves that one acquire become one's private property and can be inherited to one's children.
This interprets that slaves have no right to become free if the owner does not wants to set them free. Instead they can be inherited by the owner's children as their property.
