So here is my piece. Eric Williams's arguments were basically that the beginning of slavery in the so-called New World by England and its abolition as spearheaded by England were not based on race. He says that it began because it was economically beneficial to England and that it ended because it was no longer economically beneficial to England. He argued that race was used after slavery was already in place to justify it, but that it was not the reason for slavery. He also argued against the sentimentality of abolitionism and the idea that England was so heroic/brave/selfless and symbolic of hope and humanitarianism for abolishing slavery first as this was not the reason they did so. I am down with Williams though I think he downplayed race a lot because his argument was primarily economic and he wanted to differentiate his argument from others. I think that slavery was both based on economic need and the idea that people from other lands with different customs and languages and who look "different" from English hegemonic "man" were underdeveloped mentally because they had a whole different paradigm of value, intelligence, labor, family, etc.
|Rosie the Riveter|
|Anti sweatshop poster calling it slave labor|
I hope that all made sense.