Well, first off, the term "hispanic" is linguistic, not racial. It refers to native speakers of the Spanish language. Therefore, it is possible to be both Hispanic and of European origin (white), and your question is null. Please, don't also forget that non-white peoples have also practiced slavery (including Africans). Slavery is not traditionally a race-related issue in history, although it is for the United States.

I would modify the other answer to say the Hispanic is considered an 'ethincity', and does not refer to 'race'. Many of the people of the Dominican Republic are Hispanic blacks.

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.

The question, as has been pointed out, is nonsensical. Ignoring the misleading categories, one would have to further differentiate the slave traders from those who actually captured and enslaved the unfortunate African tribes. That would mean that one could not ignore that most of this work was accomplished by black members of rival tribes, some of whom were former American slaves themselves, paid up to $100 if they would emigrate to Liberia as a result of the DC Emancipation Act. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/dc_emancipation_act/index.html The Spanish were known to be selling African slaves in Europe as early as the early 15th century. Of the 11 million slaves brought to the New World by traders, only a half million or so came to the US, the majority of them going to Brazil and other S. American and Carribean countries. Of all these slaves, only the American slaves were freed by the mechanism of a civil war fought mostly by free white men, in a paroxysm of slaughter never before imagined. The question also ignores the modern sanctioning of the enslavement of black Christians by Arab muslims in the Sudan, and the well-known use of slave labor in Communist countries like Russia and China, for starters. There are an estimated 30 million slaves in the world today, and yet many so-called educated folks labor under the very mistaken idea that the practice ended in 1865, or thereabouts. That is the real tragedy of this atrocity of (and against) mankind.

<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.> Stupid? Stupid enough to walk across an entire planet and still survive. To say they were not organized is to say that they were completely incapable of society. Look at the pyramids and their calendar. Also, check out how they introduced things such as DEMOCRACY (Six Nations), slash-and-burn agriculture, fishing, canoe-building, etc. I would hardly call them "stupid" or even act like they were ignorant until others came along. Furthermore, Africans, Euros and Natives ALL gave each other diseases. Just because the Europeans believed certain things does it mean they were correct.

lol good qs dude and well at the time threr were no hispanics cuz all hispanins r now r native amaerican and indian with dudes from spain which is white...so yeah white people enslaved blacks......im black but no hard feelings...lol

Barack Obama's ancestors who captured them and took them to the West Coast of Africa and herded them unto British, Portuguese and Dutch ships. That is why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had reservations about him before his election.

I think that in the Hispanic and Portuguese colonies there were much more slaves as in the Northern part of America. I think slavery was regarded in Spain and Portugal much more common and right as it was regarded in America. And as far as I know in Spain and Portugal for a long time prisoners were sold as slaves and slavery was regarded as a just and right institution by wide classes of society.

Ahem..."Hispanic" ARE white people. If you weren't so ignorant and you had studied your history, you would know that and that it was only after mixing with the indigenous populations and the Africans they imported for slavery that the original conquerors became mixed