This question is based upon a logical malapropism - the assumption that slavery originated in a "White" or "Non-Black" society. I know this probably wasn't your intention - this is a really heated topic. I'll try my best to give you some basic, but useful, information.
If your question was meant to ask about the enslavement of blacks in the New World, specifically, then the largest importers of slaves to the New World were the Portugese, who controlled 75% of the slave trade until the international agreements ending slavery in the 1840s, and continued to trade in slaves until at least 1890. These are not "Hispanics", but they are not traditionally regarded as "Caucasian", or "White Europeans" either.
From a broader historical perspective, however, the origins of slavery go back at least 40,000 years to the dawn of civilization (this does not account for the new dating systems being proposed under the New Chronology, or the Megalithic Civilizations which seem to have existed at some point even earlier - these probably create exceptions which I lack the knowledge to discuss honestly). Prior to this time, enslavement was generally unpractical on a large scale, as organized societies were almost entirely based around hunter/gatherer structures, which had little use for extra mouths to feed or excess "stragglers" to slow down a tribe. Individuals were probably captured in warfare, but it's also highly likely that only the women (perhaps useful as "breeding stock") were kept for any period of time before execution.
Therefore, if we accept that "slavery" as we recognize it began with civilization, then it probably began in one of the two most probable locations for the origin of organized societies - the Middle East - the inhabitants of which were (and still are) known geneologically as "Semetic", or in Africa (North Africans being Semetic, Sub-Saharan Africans being what we would now recognize as Blacks).
In that case, the answer would be that slavery didn't begin with "Whites", though it certainly was adopted by them pretty darn quickly!
Please keep in mind that 'Slavery' is a catch-all term in which only one thing is really constant - an individual is held and forced to perform certain tasks without being granted the liberty of self determination - beyond that, slavery varies WILDLY from culture to culture. Classical slavery (as practiced by the Greeks and Romans) was NOT identical to the enslavement of individuals in the Americas, nor is tribal slavery as practiced in Polynesia, for example, identical to slavery practiced in Africa, nor even is East African slavery identical to West African slavery.
In some societies, slaves could buy their own freedom (even in the American South, this was possible, and at one point 14% of the slave owners in Virginia, for example, were actually Freedmen!), could rise to hold office, etc. Some even became Bishops, Generals, even Emperors.
Africans arrived as slaves in the New World for two primary reasons.
First, West Africans (these being the primary source of most New World Slaves in the first few centuries of settlement) were selected because they had an unparalleled skill as agriculturalists, and could grow and harvest crops on a scale demanded by their European masters. Most Native societies, particularly in the Caribbean, lacked sophisticated farming techniques, and the tradition was far more casual - organized around the growing of just enough food for the family unit, for example - than the hierarchical system in place throughout Western African society.
West Africans were particularly skilled when harvesting rice - a very popular crop in the early days of Caribbean settlement - and they were eagerly sought out in this regard. They also happened to practice crop rotation, which most Native societies did -not-, a significant advantage in increasing productivity.
Intriguingly, West Africans were also regarded as being "more intelligent" than Indian slaves, who were regarded (incorrectly) as being "stupid" because they did not take to organized activities such as mining, agriculture, etc.
The second reason is one of practicality. Africans were incredibly resistant to tropical diseases of both the Old and (strangely enough) the New World. They could survive a bout of fever - many Natives could not, and the White slaves imported from Europe (there were several thousand, at one point were absolutely incapable of surviving the malaria season if used as field servants.
Africans were also regarded as generally being of stronger build and physique than either Indian or White slaves. They could carry much larger loads, could tolerate difficult conditions, and could live with only minimal rations. Why? Most likely, because many had grown up on a continent prone to famine, and because many African slaves in the early years were young men, captured warriors sold into slavery by rival tribes.
At any rate, slavery is a rotten sort of institution. But it's an institution which, by and large, existed because organized societies required cheap labor in large quantities. The origins of slavery have very little to do with racism - they have much more to do with the need for labor and general malaise (apathetic laziness) on the part of the upper classes in such societies.
Comments
no links, no evidential support
by Answers101 on March 18th, 2006
An excellent answer, factual, and obviously well researched......except for the conclusion that slavery "existed", as though it no longer does.
by dilligras on July 3rd, 2006