As I say, you mixed up things. You first said that Africans and Afro Indian were Indians traders and translators; I told you that runway slaves cannot be traders, you then talk about European Indian traders; now I am not even sure what it is. First it was: - and now it is .

In Santo Domingo native women were the mestizos mothers, as they were the mulatos mothers. If many thousands of natives had less children for Spanish men, than maybe few thousand (if that many) of native women had for African men, even if it defies logic, so be it.

It is a fact that by the independence time, there were very few indentured servants and hundreds of thousands of slaves. But if Toyin Falola, Amanda Warnock, the Gale Group, Wim Klooster accounts are bogus and they made-up that the demand for indenture servants disappeared because their task was assumed by free people of color, that many French tried their luck in the colonies and Saint Domingue was their preferred destination, receiving 1,000 new immigrants every year or that they worked temporarily in plantation as mason, carpenters or permanently as tutors and butlers or simple servants or even than to serve in the militias was associated in the colony with indenture servants of old, therefore a step down in society, again so be it. I only reproduced what they said, I don’t claim ownership. Of course I remain you that I usually try to talk about Haiti and Santo Domingo, without mixing in the whole American situation that mostly does not apply to them. I let you be the judge of what author has the true and who doesn't.

Amor,

I did not mix anything since it's very clear in my mind ( I read all the books I quoted): Googling is not knowledge

1. The first in history called Indian Traders [B]in North America [/B], or Coureur des bois (Canada) were Europeans and were responsible of the Indian slave trade : Olexer, Gallay, Katz

Native Indians had many fights with them: Olexer's book will give you many examples.

* If we take the Spanish conquistadores times , what we could call “Indian Traders” were both Spanish and Black: Cabeza de Vaca y Estavenico : J A Rogers (Sex and Race Vol II) , Katz

2. The Indian Traders trusted by the Native Indians , who spoke Indian languages, married natived women were mostly the AA, Africans, Mulattoes (James Beckwourth ):

- some being already settled in Florida: those free Africans or AA who lived there at spanish time (Katz, Opala)
- some being runaways : Katz, Gallay
- Many of them were leaders or had a chiefly status : Katz, Gallay, Aptheker
- US Laws were edicted to suppress this Indian/African partnership ( for instance, Africans told the Indians to allied together to defeat their oppressors, and taught the Indians about the really nature of their common oppressor) : Katz, Gallay
- Some of them were called indian fighters and integrated in such elite troops in the us army: see Katz's books ( with iconographical evidence)

[B]Important[/B] : Seminoles accepted many AA runaways among them, but themselves were welcomed by the free Afro-Spanish who lived in Florida who taught them agricultural practices from their African Homeland (Senegambia and Sierre Leone) : Joseph Opala, Katz

Or in other words Seminoles found AA or Afrospanish in Florida before they setlled there

In the Following books, I found many evidences of AAs, [B]or Runaways as Indian Traders or Tribe leaders[/B] :

* North America

- J A Rogers : Sex and Race Vol II
- William Katz : Black Indians
- William Katz : Black West
- Richard Price : Maroon Societies
- Olexer : Enslavement of Native Indians
- Jack D Forbes : who says that Mixing occured more with Africans in the US

* Central and South America

- Richard Price : Maroon Societies
- Jack D Forbes : African and Native Americans
- Gilberto Freyre : Masters and Slaves : Brazil
- Roger Bastide : Les Amériques Noires : Brazil
- Roger Bastide : The Africans Religions of Brazil

Ortiz, Beltran for Cuba and Mexico

When I said "most of the Indian traders were AAs" ( I did not say in canada..African slaves have never been numerous in this country) this is what I had in mind , you can't find so much trace of good relationships ([U]save few cases of course[/U]) between European Indian traders and Indians.

If you had to do a commercial, social partnership will you choose your friend or your oppressor? I guess the Indians were also clever and highly wised (as Olexer showed it with the Indians thoughts about European and European Indian Traders )

European Indian Traders were also those who organized the slave trade among the Native indians tribes:

> Sell guns to one tribe to catch slaves from another tribe : Olexer, Gallay
> Sell alcohol to the indians in order to enslave them : Richard Brandon Morris
> Paying money to any indian who provided a scalp of another Indian (enemy ) tribe : Olexer
> They started the bacteriological war by selling blankets with disease to kill the indians : Gallay, Olexer , katz , Rogers etc
> In Canada the French would defeat 1 tribe and force them to hunt down another tribe for slaves : Olexer, Gallay

European Indian Traders were not trusted: Gallay , Katz, Olexer, J A Rogers, Opala etc

Please read/consult the books I cited and you'll find out by yourself (I'll send you a cheque if I'm lying lol ) : what hollywood and "official" history taught/teach us , is full of lies

Indians were very pacific and welcomed the 1st English ( see Jordan and Walsh book about Indenture servants), they gave them food/shelter etc. The runaways indentured servants of Maryland used to flee/take refuge to the indians ( see Richard Brandon Morris cited earlier)

[B]Mestizos en la Hispaniola :[/B]

Amor, the conclusion reached by Dominican scholars like Dipp , Bosch , Deive ==> I'll quote them when I have few time, or by others Meville Herskovits, Aguirre Beltran, Jack D Forbes , Gilberto Freyre, Roger bastide [So much eminent scholars can't be ALL wrong : they opened/read the primary sources, the 1st testimonies]; I found it by myself by doing my own reserach.

1. Historia de las Indias : Vol 1 by las Casas

Las Casas a witness of that period will tell you that the natives men and women hated the spanish. Women preferring abortion, Men hating Guacanagaríx and all his tribe because seen as traitors.

Tainos fought the Spanish once they knew what the latter expected : gold, slavery and other things that I can't name. You should research why Caonabo killed the 39 spaniards left is la Isabela...

2. Spanish were very few

* As said earlier there was 689 Europeans (including spanish) for more than 1000 Slaves in 1514 : the mestizos group could not have been the most numerous at that time

* Most of the first spanish went to the mainland and left la hispaniola (no more gold) : spanish could not have produced the a huge mestizos group ( even if many spanish conquistadores were polygamous..)

* Spanish in la Hispaniola never reached the proportions they had in the mainland : this is where the mestizos group is the bigger and yet in mexico, Zambos and Mestizos were almost similar in proportion ( Zambos being the first ) : see Aguirre Beltran cited above ( he presents table in his book " La poblacion negra de Mexico" )

* Spanish being the smallest part of the population (African and Indian more numerous) , how could have they produced a huge mestizos group even via concubinage or polygamy ? It's non sense! Specially when Native Indian women were used themselves as slaves and worked in the slave plantation and Gold mines ( wash the gold) and died in huge proportions

* Indians stayed away from the Spanish: Dipp gives accounts of independent Native Indian villages in la Hispaniola in Puerto Plata , Samana and other parts in the mid 1500s. One can someone make many babies when you have no woman or she is fleeing you ?


3. Indian and Africans were very closed due to their respective social system and also had the same oppressor

* The social organization of Native Indians and Africans is highly closed :

- Chiefs
- Tribes
- Priests
- Agricultural practices

Highlighted by Deive in his book “ El Indio, El Negro y la Vida Dominicana” and by Juan Bosch “ De Colombus a Castro” (quoted by Dipp)

[B]Most Important they were both oppressed by their same enemy [/B]: the Spaniard, this is why joined together in the Carribeans ( DR, PR, CUBA,, Martinique , Guadeloupe etc) and in the Mainland ( Mexico, Peru etc) to fight them (joined rebellions) .

They lived together in maroon societies (palenques, mocambos, etc) all other the Caribbeans ( DR, PR, Cuba) and the Mainland (Brazil, Mexico)

In Martinique (Matinino) Lucien peytraud (Esclavage aux antilles) would tell you that African Maroons had indian wives too, some being polygamous with 2 indian wives :

* African men, slaves being the more numerous group and having no african wives with them did not have another choice

In Richard Price we have also evidences of spaniards living with African and Indian runaways (Indios Bravos), in Cuba. They wanted to leave their fellow spanish compadres for various reasons : piracy, criminals and others and lived in the Palenques with runaways.

I did my research, do yours and you'll find out if you want to , but official history is full of lies and myths.

Mestizos group did exist in la hispaniola , but has never been the 1st in term of volumes if we take in account all the elemenst cited in this thread, it's logical and not sentimental.

If you ask yourself how I found out all of these, if you study the African Slave Trade you discover 3 important things :

1. Native Indians were the 1st slave in the new world :

* the 1st slave trade to be organized in the new world from west indies/brazil to the Iberian slave markets (Seville, Lisboa)

*the 2nd slave trade was the carribean slave trade where spanish tried to replace the natives (sometimes hidden in autonomous colonies) by the natives of Bahamas ( lucayos) , Curaçao, trinidad , mainland etc

* Another minor slave trade was organized from the Philippines to the spanish colonies: Native Filipinos were sold in Cuba and Mexico for instance

* A minor slave trade was organized from East Indian colonies (India, Bengale etc) and they were sold in South Africa, France

* During colonial times spanish , portuguese and english would exchange Native slaves for African slaves in Saint Domingue, Jamaica.

2. European Nations tried to replace them by European Temporary Chattel : Indentured Servants, Convicts (forzados), Engagés; or Other perpetual slaves in spanish colonies like Turks, Moors (due to the reconquista and the fights in the Mediterranean sea vs the muslims)

3. Africans arrived to replace the 2 groups (Indians/ Europeans) , but since they were all oppressed by the same elite they joined , lived, rebelled together

* When you study the story of African slavery in the new world you start by La Hispaniola who was the clearing house for all spanish colonies at the beginning of the African Slave Trade. In Santo Domingo the African slaves were first trained to learn spanish (see William D Philips) and then sent in the mainland or the spanish carribeans ( cuba, PR, Jamaica) . Once again I owe you the picture with esclavas Blancas in PR : 99 % of the African slaves in 1512 in PR came from La Hispaniola


Cuidate

Now Ruwaways could be traders: Maroons or Runaways slaves traded with Europeans, Native Indians or African slaves

Many examples can be found in Richard Price: " Maroon Societies"

For instance, In Dutch Guyana the bush negroes will exchange agricultural products like honey ( see John Stedman testimony) mainly for Guns and powder.

In Cuba marrons exchanged their products too

The maroons of la Hispaniola had guns too (see deive “ Los Guerrilleros Negros) only exchanges with Europeans allowed them to be armed or , by attacking the slave plantations


French Indentured Servants system :

Debien says that it was officially (by law) banned in 1774 ( if I'm not wrong)

French IS vs English IS : what was common

- Harsh system of punishment : the slave codes in US and French colonies were based on the codes imposed to the IS

- Their origins : Poors, convicts (many deported in Louisiana , and Jacques Cartier emptied out the Jails of Brittany in Canada, you can see official letters in St Domingue were officials beg the French Royalty to stop deporting the IS in Pierre de Vaissiere), Lewd women

- Recruitment : Lured, Kidnapped in France, Germany, London, Scotland etc

- Rebellions : Bacon Rebellions, Rebellions on the ships , Engagés killed their masters in the French West Indies ( Père Labat, Père Du Tertre, Moreau de Saint Mery)

- Status : They were considered chattel slaves and worked along the black slaves in US (Smith, Morris), Caribbean (Morris), French Colonies ( Père Du Tertre : Guadeloupe)

- Maroons: Indentured servants escaped their masters ( as shown in the ads), as in the French Colonies ( Guadeloupe, Haiti etc) . Lucien Peytraud confirms Deive by saying that many fled to the spanish side. French of Saint Domingue looked for 3 groups in la Hispaniola : Deserters, African Maroons, and Indentured Servants. Deive says that some of the French IS lived in San Lorenzo de los Minas ( at origin a runaway community)

- IS (poor whites in US) , or Petits blancs in St Domingue were used as a social force against the African slaves and other people of color or Native indians (us) : they were overseers in the US , in Jamaica , in french colonies ( in less extent)

- Their time would be extended if they had runaway from their masters

- Both systems died because of economics reasons : better to buy a African slave for life , than a temporal slave whose costs were higher ==> See Eric Williams , Immanuel Wallestein, Gabriel Debien, Antoine Geisler

- An IS could suceed and be rich; Andrew Jackson the future US President was a runaway IS though...Lincoln Grandmother or Great Grandmother was an IS too


French IS vs English IS : what was different

- 1/2 to 2/3 of the First colonists in North America were IS : Jordan and Walsh, Morris, Smith, Hoffmann : The proportion was not so high for the French side

* IS could be enslaved for life in the US :

- If they had lost their indentured papers : J A Rogers
- If they had done serious offenses : Morris

- Many of the Flibustiers or Pirates who lived in la Isla de la Vaca , and who settled in the future St Domingue were french Engagés : Oxemelin (he was an Indentured Servant) , Pierre de Vaissière, Alan Cambeira, l'Abbé Grégoire

- IS time was higher in the US : 5, 7, 14 yrs and sometimes for life ( rare)


So as you see there was many common points between the 2 systems and they both failed for the same reason : Economics 1st, Recruitment 2nd

Now the French developped a new system of engagé in the 19 th century but it was for Africans and East Indians :

- They "freed" the slaves in the slave boats caught in the African seas
- These "freed" slaves were sent to be IS in Guadeloupe and Martinique for 14 yrs : see William b Cohen for such examples
- East indians would be sent to the French Colonies ( Guyana, Guadeloupe , Mauritius etc) , British did the same in Jamaica, Trinidad etc


In the US :

- It was the "PIG TRADE" , chinese so-called IS were used as slaves to build the railroad. And they were "Shangaid" (i;e many kidnapped) as termed by Abbott Emerson Smith..These Chinese (or Indonesian) slaves were deported in Cuba, South America, North America

For those authors you cited I did not read them so I could not tell my pros and cons against their ideas

Eso es mi amor !

Cuidate

Not all "History" is truth. There are many facts and figures that are turned and twisted to suit what some people WANT history to say to them. The slavery on the Eastern side may not have been as immense or harsh, but to think it was ALL just one big happy slave sanctuary is just foolish. As mentioned not all the slave brought in were accounted for. But there presence is evident in the genetics of many Dominicans today.

It wasn't a big happy slave sanctuary, but it also wasn't a place where people began their days at the sound of the whip, and that by itself is a immense show of progress for the epoch, as much as people like you try to cover the sun with a finger. If it wouldn't have been that way, the slaves on the western part of the island wouldn't have done everything on their power to flee to this part and would have remained on the mountains on their part of the Bahoruco as soon as they fled from the plantation. How do you think the town (now barrio) of Los Minas came to exist? They wouldn't have put their persons at the hands of the Spanish authorities if they didn't have the guarantees of being treated BETTER than they were on the place they fled from, that's for sure.

One thing is for certain, though: be it under the name of Saint Domingue or under the one of Haiti, the fact is that the western part of the island seem fated to remain being a place made for the suffering of the people of black and/or African descent, even despite the fact that it's currently operating under the fiction of their being in charge right now. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

I've actually read accounts of slaves CRYING when they were being seperated from their masters as a result of the Haitian invasion. That's very telling. The nature of slavery was distinct on the Spanish side and that's going by all the historical accounts I've come across. On the Spanish side more often then not the master and slave were typically in the same precarious econimic situation, mainly that they were both broke. This and other factors created for different dynamics. Of course there were your typical plantations, but they were very few indeed on the Spanish side. Most slaves in colonial Santo Domingo were domestics that augmented the family or were involved with husbandry, the latter more often than not alongside their "masters".

As Adam Smith himself told on his "wealth of nations", slavery is more tolerable in "a poor and barbarous country" (in our case, Santo Domingo Español) than in a "rich and polished" one (Saint Domingue Francais), specially if the majority of the slaves on the former have been born on the island and adopted the language and culture of their masters, which were as poor and miserable as them, to top it all off. Whereas in Saint Domingue Francais the majority of the slaves were born outside the colony and outnumbered the local population (both free and enslaved), and there was never a serious effort on the part of the masters to make their slaves forget their ancestral cultural connections. The comparison between both realities is a typical "apples vs. oranges" scenario, if you ask me.

Some amazing facts are displayed here.

"the majority of the slaves on the former have been born on the island and adopted the language and culture of their masters, which were as poor and miserable as them, to top it all off".

It shows on the Dominican side Africa was enough of a distant memory but not to the point that the traits did not cease to exist. We can embrace enough of what we have retained...A triracial people we are. Off the record we speak a language that is understood by Spain but i do not see Creole being understood by the people of France. I believe such to have a factor. Spain was the lesser of two evils and they never ended up becoming a nation targeted in comparison to the french.

No civil rights movement...No segregation..No major slave revolt.. Unity in labor in order to keep the ranches operating effectively. The facts remain that of coarse nothing was perfect and slavery did exist. Yet the remaining Spanish in the colony were already the residue that the higher up captains had left behind in search of gold and silver.