At the turn of the eighteenth century, the once rapid growth of the Brazilian economy began to wane. As a result, it was essential to promote efficiency through emphasizing productivity among the slaves that worked in fields, mills, and mines. The growing need for labor efficiency was recognized by slave owners and Jesuits alike. As a result, a consensus was reached, and it became understood that those slaves who worked hard in the field should be fed three times a day and those who are sick “should be treated with care and humanity.” This consensus, however, was not made in recognition of the basic human rights of the slaves, but rather out of a desire for optimized productivity. Jesuits, in this case, did not act as advocates for the fair treatment of fellow human beings, but rather as ruthless proponents of business. According to Italian Jesuit João Antônio Andreoni in an open letter to the owners of sugar mills, “without [slaves] it is not possible in Brazil to set up, maintain, and develop a plantation, nor to have a functioning mill.” In order to follow this Italian Jesuit’s business model, there must be an abundant supply of slaves so that productivity could be maintained. Andreoni further contended that “whether [slaves] are available for labor in good condition or not depends on how they are treated.” Therefore, any advocacy on behalf of the humane treatment of slaves must be understood in the context of the overriding economic circumstances. In the cases that slaves were treated compassionately, the compassion was born out of a desire to continue exploiting the slaves for as long as possible. Benevolent treatment was not a way to alleviate the suffering of slaves but rather perpetuate the slavery for the sake of
At the turn of the eighteenth century, the once rapid growth of the Brazilian economy began to wane. As a result, it was essential to promote efficiency through emphasizing productivity among the slaves that worked in fields, mills, and mines. The growing need for labor efficiency was recognized by slave owners and Jesuits alike. As a result, a consensus was reached, and it became understood that those slaves who worked hard in the field should be fed three times a day and those who are sick “should be treated with care and humanity.” This consensus, however, was not made in recognition of the basic human rights of the slaves, but rather out of a desire for optimized productivity. Jesuits, in this case, did not act as advocates for the fair treatment of fellow human beings, but rather as ruthless proponents of business. According to Italian Jesuit João Antônio Andreoni in an open letter to the owners of sugar mills, “without [slaves] it is not possible in Brazil to set up, maintain, and develop a plantation, nor to have a functioning mill.” In order to follow this Italian Jesuit’s business model, there must be an abundant supply of slaves so that productivity could be maintained. Andreoni further contended that “whether [slaves] are available for labor in good condition or not depends on how they are treated.” Therefore, any advocacy on behalf of the humane treatment of slaves must be understood in the context of the overriding economic circumstances. In the cases that slaves were treated compassionately, the compassion was born out of a desire to continue exploiting the slaves for as long as possible. Benevolent treatment was not a way to alleviate the suffering of slaves but rather perpetuate the slavery for the sake of