390K to North America, 1.3M to Central America, 4M to the Caribbean and 4.8M slaves to Brazil Alone
- Thread starter intruder
- Start date
And how exactly would the Europeans have been able to enslave Africans without the help of other Africans? So are you actually dumb enough to think that White people just walked into Africa and kidnapped millions of Black people over a 300 year period with just flintlock guns; without any help from Africans on the continent?
The Europeans didn't know the land, languages and ethnic groups; so how were they going to be able to enslave anyone?
Are you aware that the African armies were so strong that the Europeans were unable to leave the shorelines and go inland for several centuries? And that it took the several centuries of depopulating West Africa through constant warfare brought on by slave raids; the invention of the machine gun and a drug for the treatment of malaria that allowed the White man to finally be able to colonize the Africans that remained in Africa?
Maybe you could read some of the accounts of the slave trade issued by the Africans of that time. Or maybe you could research some of the apologies that many chiefs in modern day African nations have issued regarding their tribes roles in the slave trade.
Last edited:
AJaRuleStan
All Star
It's always good to talk about Slavery, or anything from the past in the sense of gaining and depending on the results of time-tested structures rather than ones own personal experience. My only issue is with ppl only focusing on slavery for the sole purpose of staying in a bitter mind-state.
Was slavery unfair? Yes. Did justice get served? Not really, but that's the rule of life, not the exception. Human nature is essentially unchanging and man is naturally, inherently self-interested, regardless of the best intentions. There is no ideal state, only trade-offs. The same is true for the case of Slavery, so lets learn from it, not live by it.
Btw, it's important to learn all aspect of slavery, but I must ask why does the fact that Western Civilization was the first to question the morality of slavery get thrown under the rug? Nowhere before the 18th century was there any serious question raised about whether slavery was right or wrong, and don't even waste my time by responding with Slavery didn't exist among Africans, Arabs, Asians and virtually the entire non-Western world. I won't entertain you.
It was a couple of men in England who formed the world's first anti-slavery movement, and they saw their task as getting their fellow Englishmen to think about slavery -- about the brutal facts and about the moral implications of those facts. Their anti-slavery ideas eventually spread throughout Western civilization, and turned the Britain empire from the worlds biggest slave traders, to the worlds policemen in terms of preventing slave trade. If there is a lessened to be learned, surely it's why those anti-slavery ideas came into existence and spread to the degree it did.
Was slavery unfair? Yes. Did justice get served? Not really, but that's the rule of life, not the exception. Human nature is essentially unchanging and man is naturally, inherently self-interested, regardless of the best intentions. There is no ideal state, only trade-offs. The same is true for the case of Slavery, so lets learn from it, not live by it.
Btw, it's important to learn all aspect of slavery, but I must ask why does the fact that Western Civilization was the first to question the morality of slavery get thrown under the rug? Nowhere before the 18th century was there any serious question raised about whether slavery was right or wrong, and don't even waste my time by responding with Slavery didn't exist among Africans, Arabs, Asians and virtually the entire non-Western world. I won't entertain you.
It was a couple of men in England who formed the world's first anti-slavery movement, and they saw their task as getting their fellow Englishmen to think about slavery -- about the brutal facts and about the moral implications of those facts. Their anti-slavery ideas eventually spread throughout Western civilization, and turned the Britain empire from the worlds biggest slave traders, to the worlds policemen in terms of preventing slave trade. If there is a lessened to be learned, surely it's why those anti-slavery ideas came into existence and spread to the degree it did.
How to Apologize for Slavery
-----
Slavery itself did not end because of U.S. moral obligation or Lincoln’s sense of guilt, but because a large swath of the country felt it was in the nation’s strategic, and eventually military, interest to emancipate black people. It is not a coincidence that America’s chief European peers and rivals abolished slavery decades before the Civil War. Likewise, even Western nations’ prohibition on international slave-trading was a product of political and economic calculus, not born of moral imperative.
----
Similarly, segregation was not outlawed because the U.S. suddenly felt black people were equals, but because integration was in the national interest. During World War II, Germany dropped leaflets on black American troops reminding them that they were fighting for a country that subjugated them. Japan established “Negro propaganda operations” that sought to damage America’s international reputation, destabilize the U.S. by deepening its racial divide, and dissuade black soldiers and sailors from fighting in World War II. The Soviet Union utilized racial propaganda during the Cold War; for example, the Russian newspaper Trud circulated a story of a Louisiana lynching where “a crowd of white men tortured a negro war veteran … tore his arms out and set fire to his body,” and “the murderers, even though they are identified, remain unpunished.” As a 1961 issue of the Afro-American noted: “As long as any type of racial discrimination remains in the United States, the world will know about it, for, this senseless and indefensible practice is superb fodder for anti-West propaganda mills.”
-----
Slavery itself did not end because of U.S. moral obligation or Lincoln’s sense of guilt, but because a large swath of the country felt it was in the nation’s strategic, and eventually military, interest to emancipate black people. It is not a coincidence that America’s chief European peers and rivals abolished slavery decades before the Civil War. Likewise, even Western nations’ prohibition on international slave-trading was a product of political and economic calculus, not born of moral imperative.
----
Similarly, segregation was not outlawed because the U.S. suddenly felt black people were equals, but because integration was in the national interest. During World War II, Germany dropped leaflets on black American troops reminding them that they were fighting for a country that subjugated them. Japan established “Negro propaganda operations” that sought to damage America’s international reputation, destabilize the U.S. by deepening its racial divide, and dissuade black soldiers and sailors from fighting in World War II. The Soviet Union utilized racial propaganda during the Cold War; for example, the Russian newspaper Trud circulated a story of a Louisiana lynching where “a crowd of white men tortured a negro war veteran … tore his arms out and set fire to his body,” and “the murderers, even though they are identified, remain unpunished.” As a 1961 issue of the Afro-American noted: “As long as any type of racial discrimination remains in the United States, the world will know about it, for, this senseless and indefensible practice is superb fodder for anti-West propaganda mills.”
NoGutsNoGLory
Superstar
Werd as sick as slavery in the US was, if you can believe it it was preferable to going to somewhere in Latin America. The Brazilian slave holders had to be sadists from what I've read.
Western nations were not the first to question the morality of slavery. That is some more propaganda bullshyt from White people trying to make themselves look enlightened and the Africans look backwards. Many African kingdoms also questioned the morality of slavery and took steps to try to end it, but they were overrun and in many instances the other Africans ended up enslaving the people that fought against the practice; and of course the Europeans armed the enslaving Africans.
Actually the Nri Kingdom (Igbo people) had a ban against slavery altogether. You couldn't have slaves and any slaves in their territory were freed immediately. The Nri Kingdom dates back to 900. Which group do you think became one of the most enslaved group of people? The Igbos.
Nri Kingdom and Igbos of Nigeria
Another African Kingdom that wanted slavery to end was the Kingdom of the Kongo (modern day Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola and the Republic of the Congo).. King Afonso wanted the trade to end back in the early part of the 1500's, which is near the time that it originally started; because he could see how the practice was destroying his Kingdom. He even wrote letters to the King of Portugal asking for the practice to be stopped. Eventually Afonso did attempt to stop the practice, but it was too late.
"The Slave Trade
In 1526 Afonso had a series of letters condemning the violent behavior of the Portuguese in his country and their establishment of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. At one point he accused them of assisting brigands in his own country and illegally purchasing free people as slaves. He also threatened to close the trade altogether. However, in the end, Afonso established an examination committee to determine the legality of all enslaved persons presented for sale.
Afonso was a determined soldier and extended Kongo's effective control to the south, especially. His letter of 5 October 1514 reveals the connections between Afonso's men, Portuguese mercenaries in Kongo's service and the capture and sale of slaves by his forces, many of which he retained in his own service.
In 1526 Afonso wrote two letters concerning the slave trade to the king of Portugal, decrying the rapid destabilization of his kingdom as the Portuguese slave traders intensified their efforts.
In one of his letters he writes
"Each day the traders are kidnapping our people - children of this country, sons of our nobles and vassals, even people of our own family. This corruption and depravity are so widespread that our land is entirely depopulated. We need in this kingdom only priests and schoolteachers, and no merchandise, unless it is wine and flour for Mass. It is our wish that this Kingdom not be a place for the trade or transport of slaves."
Many of our subjects eagerly lust after Portuguese merchandise that your subjects have brought into our domains. To satisfy this inordinate appetite, they seize many of our black free subjects.... They sell them. After having taken these prisoners [to the coast] secretly or at night..... As soon as the captives are in the hands of white men they are branded with a red-hot iron.
Afonso believed that the slave trade should be subject to Kongo law. When he suspected the Portuguese of receiving illegally enslaved persons to sell, he wrote in to King João III in 1526 imploring him to put a stop to the practice."
Afonso I of Kongo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From pg. 360 of World History: Journeys from Past to Present, Vol. II, by Candice Goucher and Linda Walton
Which group became the most enslaved group of all? The Bakongo Kingdom, because the Europeans armed their enemies and caused the Kongo Kingdom to collapse.
The Kingdom of Benin (in modern day Nigeria) didn't want to have anything to do with the slave trade and they were actually able to block slave trading a little while. "In 1514, Oba Ozolua of Benin sent an embassy to the Kingdom of Portugal, protesting the slaving activities of Portuguese subjects based in the Gulf of Guinea islands. In 1516, the Kingdom of Benin banned the export of male slaves. Benin still traded with Europeans to acquire firearms and other goods, but they mainly exported goods like ivory, pepper, and cotton textiles instead of slaves." From pg. 516 of The Cambridge History of Africa, Vol. III, edited by J.D. Fage:
Yes I'm that dumb because in "recorded history" Africans gone to war with the Europeans. With your logic let me ask you this. If the Africans said "no" you think those white people would back up their bags and go home?
Your such a fukking c00n
You are too dumb for words. You are just a dumb mofo. Yes you dumb mofo; if the Africans would have told them to leave then the Europeans would have left or they would have been slaughtered. It was that simple, but the Africans were looking to trade in goods and they didn't make them leave; so the Europeans learned who the people were and who had enemies; and the Europeans armed the enemies like the people of Dahomey and they went on a program of divide and conquer.
Do you know anything about the African armies of that time? Obviously not. The White armies during that period could not mount effective campaigns against those African Armies. All the Whites could do was shell villages from their ships., but all the Africans would do was to move inland. As soon as the White men tried to come ashore; the Africans Armies would slaughter them and then the Africans would take their war canoes out into the harbors and burn the ships down.
There were 5 wars between the Ashanti and English alone.
Anglo-Ashanti wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There were wars between the Kingdom of Kongo and Portugal.
Battle of Mbwila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seriously, though you really don't know much about the African and European Armies of that period. But it takes a real dumb ass c00n to think that the Africans had no way to defend themselves against the White man. So basically you are saying that Black men were inferior militarily to the White men of that day which is incorrect. But a c00n got to c00n; so keep c00ning you c00n.
Last edited:
nikka what's???
AJaRuleStan
All Star
I guess, my response to your post is, I don't agree with the conclusions you make on the events that you cite. In point -- are those examples evidence of X questioning slavery as something that's right or wrong, or X being disgruntled with the the fact that Europeans and Native traders were reaping the benefits of the slave market at their expense?
What I mean is this; you cite Afonso, but far as the facts go, he seems more upset about the self-interest of his citizens overriding Kongo Law rather then the moral inclinations of slavery it's self. There is no evidence I could find that shows he would even care about the slave markets if it just followed Kongo Law. Plus, there is also this, "Slavery had existed in Kongo long before the arrival of the Portuguese, and Afonso's early letters show the evidence of slave markets."(Atmore, Anthony and Oliver (2001). Medieval Africa, 1250–1800. p. 171.) . When slave markets didn't come at the cost of a kingdom, it seems that no problem was to be found on the issue. This is a case of being upset about exploitation from a specific market imo.
Similar conclusions could be drawn with The Kingdom of Benin too. Yes, you are correct, they did ban the selling of their own ppl(Males only) for a time, but not for the reasons you think.
(Trade and Empire in the Atlantic 1400-1600, pg 45, the time frame is also late 1400s)
What happened in this situation was simply a market dispute, or at the very least the Benin ppl feeling it wasn't in their best interest as a group to sell off their warrior males, especially when you consider Oba Ozolua brought prosperity to his ppl by expanding their military might. I don't see anything to conclude that they thought it was morally wrong if a person was owned.
In conclusion, I'm sure there has been individuals or groups that didn't support the concept of owning another human way before the British or Christians, so in that sense I was wrong. But as a cultural value, I still stand behind that. It's very easy to test a belief as true by words said, but it's a whole other task to test it true by actions. In the case of the Nri Kingdom, you can check the results to see how the kingdom declined compared to it's neighbors when self-interest started knocking at their door. There you will find what values the ppl of the land really stood for which is a much better test imo.
All and all though, regardless of all that, anti slavery ideology that emerged in western civilization from slavery is still important lesson that isn't getting enough attention in these topics, and that was my main point.
Hey dumbshyt; seriously though; you might be retarded. Africans expelled people all the time from their Kingdoms. The King of the Kongo expelled the Portuguese you moron.
Then you made a dumb ass statement about there being no recorded history of Africans going to war against the Europeans. I gave you 5 recorded instances of War between the Africans and Europeans, but you didn't respond to those posts; because you didn't know about those wars. But instead of admitting that you didn't know about the Wars; you came back with something equally as stupid. Just so you know it; the English also had long wars against the Kingdom of Benin and against the Sokoto Caiphate in Nigeria.
Btw, this is what a Dutch traveler in the Kingdom of Benin had to say about the Oba at that time:
"The King of Benin can in a single day make 20,000 men ready for war, and, if need be, 180,000, and because of this he has great influence among all the surrounding peoples. . . . His authority stretches over many cities, towns and villages. There is no King thereabouts who, in the possession of so many beautiful cities and towns, is his equal."
—Olfert Dapper, Nauwkeurige Beschrijvinge der Afrikaansche Gewesten (Description of Africa), 1668"
Benin Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have really bought into White Supremacy. It was Black people that enslaved one another and it was Black people being divided that caused them all to be colonized.
Last edited:
I guess, my response to your post is, I don't agree with the conclusions you make on the events that you cite. In point -- are those examples evidence of X questioning slavery as something that's right or wrong, or X being disgruntled with the the fact that Europeans and Native traders were reaping the benefits of the slave market at their expense?
What I mean is this; you cite Afonso, but far as the facts go, he seems more upset about the self-interest of his citizens overriding Kongo Law rather then the moral inclinations of slavery it's self. There is no evidence I could find that shows he would even care about the slave markets if it just followed Kongo Law. Plus, there is also this, "Slavery had existed in Kongo long before the arrival of the Portuguese, and Afonso's early letters show the evidence of slave markets."(Atmore, Anthony and Oliver (2001). Medieval Africa, 1250–1800. p. 171.) . When slave markets didn't come at the cost of a kingdom, it seems that no problem was to be found on the issue. This is a case of being upset about exploitation from a specific market imo.
Similar conclusions could be drawn with The Kingdom of Benin too. Yes, you are correct, they did ban the selling of their own ppl(Males only) for a time, but not for the reasons you think.
(Trade and Empire in the Atlantic 1400-1600, pg 45, the time frame is also late 1400s)
What happened in this situation was simply a market dispute, or at the very least the Benin ppl feeling it wasn't in their best interest as a group to sell off their warrior males, especially when you consider Oba Ozolua brought prosperity to his ppl by expanding their military might. I don't see anything to conclude that they thought it was morally wrong if a person was owned.
In conclusion, I'm sure there has been individuals or groups that didn't support the concept of owning another human way before the British or Christians, so in that sense I was wrong. But as a cultural value, I still stand behind that. It's very easy to test a belief as true by words said, but it's a whole other task to test it true by actions. In the case of the Nri Kingdom, you can check the results to see how the kingdom declined compared to it's neighbors when self-interest started knocking at their door. There you will find what values the ppl of the land really stood for which is a much better test imo.
All and all though, regardless of all that, anti slavery ideology that emerged in western civilization from slavery is still important lesson that isn't getting enough attention in these topics, and that was my main point.
Slavery as the Europeans practiced it was not the same slavery that Africans practiced. African form of slavery wasn't chattel in nature. People were still human beings and many times the slaves were required to intermarry with the people that captured them. I state that because in Afonso's letter he seems to differentiate in the form of slavery practiced in the Kongo and that practiced by Portugal. He mentioned that the Portuguese were enslaving "free and freed subjects", noble people and even members of his own family. At the end of his letter he clearly says that he didn't want his Kingdom to be a place of trade or transit of slaves. So right there he was putting an end to it.
The Kingdom of Benin had it's own reason for what it did, but it does seem to imply that Women could be traded as slaves.
