I think you have me confused with another poster. I don't segregate black people. If you are black you are black to me...I don't care where you from or what country you claim. I believe that those folks in the bible were black just because of where they came from, where they stayed and how the scripture describes them. Also I don't believe black people in America are the true Israel ...not enough proof for that. But Deut 28 is a very compelling argument from the BHI...it makes you pause and think about it.
Africans sold Africans to Europeans, but to what extent?
- Thread starter MaLi
- Start date
I think you have me confused with another poster. I don't segregate black people. If you are black you are black to me...I don't care where you from or what country you claim. I believe that those folks in the bible were black just because of where they came from, where they stayed and how the scripture describes them. Also I don't believe black people in America are the true Israel ...not enough proof for that. But Deut 28 is a very compelling argument from the BHI...it makes you pause and think about it.
Lemme say off top that I don't like or support c00ning, self-hate, or meaningless bickering.
This thread isn't about the Africans that were stolen by Europeans. This is referring to the Africans that were sold or traded by our own.
European Americans favorite phrase when the topic of slavery comes up is "Africans sold other Africans into slavery" like it's some veto for the all the destruction their ancestors inflicted. But I seriously doubt Africans realized how inhumane those Euros would treat slaves in the Americas.
I'd like to address us selling our own, and hopefully learn something from the different perspectives of HL.
African American descendants of the slave trade:
Why do you think we were "picked" out of all the Africans?
Were we criminals and captives of war?
Were we Hebrews with no real connection to the native Africans?
Do you feel any animosity towards our brothers and sisters across the atlantic?
Africans that maintained their family names:
What do your parents and grandparents say about slavery?
Do they feel any guilt for their direct ancestors supposed role in the Euro slave trade?
If you went to school in (West) Africa, what did they teach with regards to human history, and specifically the Euro slave trade?
What did Africans gain by selling their own? It isn't like they needed anything else...
Do you feel African American slaves and their descendants are tainted? Do you look down on us?
Links and references are also welcome
Worry about the present.
Its not like your gonna learn & do something about it.
This whole thread is going to be wasted energy.
Please prove me wrong.
Africans that maintained their family names:
What do your parents and grandparents say about slavery?/ Nothing much really, so I can't say much about this.
Do they feel any guilt for their direct ancestors supposed role in the Euro slave trade??/ My certain ethinic group didn't participate in the slave trade and thought of as a taboo to sale a slave.
If you went to school in (West) Africa, what did they teach with regards to human history, and specifically the Euro slave trade?
What did Africans gain by selling their own? It isn't like they needed anything else... /Guess some gained weapons to fight other groups
Do you feel African American slaves and their descendants are tainted? Do you look down on us?/ I don't look down on a group of people, I look at the individual.
http://www.edoworld.net/Edo_Warrior_Kingdom_Opposed_Atlantic_Slave_Trade.html
Links and references are also welcome
Constantine
Et in Arcadia ego...
West Africans served as middlemen in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. Unforunately there’s not much documentation or research that’s been done on it. Why that's so is because no one black, African, or European to the best of my knowledge seems to want to do any real research into the matter because of how controversial it is. If I’m mistaken please politely tell me so, and point me to any scholarly sources that deal with the subject. Even talking about it is analogous to discussing whether or not 6 million Jews actually died in the Holocaust. Prof. Henry Louis Gates, to the best of my knowledge is the only black scholar of note who broached the topic in the documentary Wonders of the African World, and he was chastised for doing so.
What we do know is that it’s a myth that Europeans came to West Africa and just began raiding African villages for captives. The Portuguese bought land from African kingdoms along the west coast to build slave forts for the slaves they bought, and intended to export to the Americas from African kings, or chiefs. Most of these slaves were prisoners of war it’s believed, and were held in a condition of chattel slavery. When England ended their participation in the slave trade, there were kings/chiefs in West Africa who pleaded with the English not to end the practice, because it was so lucrative for them. Now chattel slavery was different from the slavery system that would be practiced in the Americas, as black people and Africans are wont to point out; perhaps you can say it was analogous to indentured servitude as practiced by Europeans in the New World.
With indentured servitude, say Tommy Flanagan, an Irish man from Belfast, agreed to work in say Boston for a certain time frame, in exchange for his free room and board during his journey to the Americas. But here’s the thing, the reason why Europeans came to Africa for slaves is because so many of their indentured servants were running away, and blending into the population. With Africans, they would be a lot harder to escape, and avoid capture. So if Tommy Flanagan and Brian O’Leary didn’t like being indentured servants, are we really going to pretend that Africans, who were taken as prisoners of war, enjoyed chattel slavery in Africa? I read the book Things Fall Apart by the Nigerian author Chinua Achebe, and the main protagonist ended up taking a young boy as a prisoner of war. It’s been a while since I’ve read the book so I could be mistaken on the circumstances of how the boy came into his household. The boy bonded with the family, but eventually the elders of the village decided the boy had to be killed, and the protagonist did as he was ordered to do. So chattel slavery wasn’t as benign as we’ve been lead to believe.
Black people, and African apologists also say that the Africans had no idea where the Europeans were taking the slaves they were selling. Someone posted a video a few months back showing some African kids who had just met some American Caucasians for the first time, and the kids were touching their skin, and generally shocked by the Caucasians countenances. The Africans who sold other Africans into slavery must have known that these Europeans weren’t from around the way, or from another block. If I’m not mistaken Native Americans thought Europeans were ghosts.
While slavery wasn’t an institution in West Africa, it became an institution once these kings, and chieftains realized how much material wealth they could accumulate from selling slaves/prisoners of war/trading slaves with Europeans for goods, and war became a means to an end, or a raison d’etre for these rulers to go to war, raid their neighbors villages, and enslave their neighbors.
What we do know is that it’s a myth that Europeans came to West Africa and just began raiding African villages for captives. The Portuguese bought land from African kingdoms along the west coast to build slave forts for the slaves they bought, and intended to export to the Americas from African kings, or chiefs. Most of these slaves were prisoners of war it’s believed, and were held in a condition of chattel slavery. When England ended their participation in the slave trade, there were kings/chiefs in West Africa who pleaded with the English not to end the practice, because it was so lucrative for them. Now chattel slavery was different from the slavery system that would be practiced in the Americas, as black people and Africans are wont to point out; perhaps you can say it was analogous to indentured servitude as practiced by Europeans in the New World.
With indentured servitude, say Tommy Flanagan, an Irish man from Belfast, agreed to work in say Boston for a certain time frame, in exchange for his free room and board during his journey to the Americas. But here’s the thing, the reason why Europeans came to Africa for slaves is because so many of their indentured servants were running away, and blending into the population. With Africans, they would be a lot harder to escape, and avoid capture. So if Tommy Flanagan and Brian O’Leary didn’t like being indentured servants, are we really going to pretend that Africans, who were taken as prisoners of war, enjoyed chattel slavery in Africa? I read the book Things Fall Apart by the Nigerian author Chinua Achebe, and the main protagonist ended up taking a young boy as a prisoner of war. It’s been a while since I’ve read the book so I could be mistaken on the circumstances of how the boy came into his household. The boy bonded with the family, but eventually the elders of the village decided the boy had to be killed, and the protagonist did as he was ordered to do. So chattel slavery wasn’t as benign as we’ve been lead to believe.
Black people, and African apologists also say that the Africans had no idea where the Europeans were taking the slaves they were selling. Someone posted a video a few months back showing some African kids who had just met some American Caucasians for the first time, and the kids were touching their skin, and generally shocked by the Caucasians countenances. The Africans who sold other Africans into slavery must have known that these Europeans weren’t from around the way, or from another block. If I’m not mistaken Native Americans thought Europeans were ghosts.
While slavery wasn’t an institution in West Africa, it became an institution once these kings, and chieftains realized how much material wealth they could accumulate from selling slaves/prisoners of war/trading slaves with Europeans for goods, and war became a means to an end, or a raison d’etre for these rulers to go to war, raid their neighbors villages, and enslave their neighbors.
Last edited:
What do you think of this episode on 60 mintues showing DNA testing to not be all true, which means we really can't use it to find our ancestry in it's totality, or even close to it, due to it only providing less than .1% of who was in our family.
Here's the whole segment, it's called "Finding One's Roots":
Last edited:
NZA
LOL
i know that the current state of dna testing is not precise enough to tell you everything.
it does however reveal your common relatives among people in highly tested populations, such as jews living in the western world. if the situation of the lemba was common to african americans, that would have already come out.
How could that be when most never got a dna test? And it doesn't reveal most of your common relatives if it only shows .1%. That is NOTHING.
Even then from what the video tells, I wouldn't put stock into dna test when dealing with such a wide range of people that go into the millions like blacks in the U.S.!. I'm glad I saw that today because, I learned a lot.
NZA
LOL
because the sample size of all western people is actually pretty good. finding who you are currently related to among people living where we live is not difficult. it's finding long term historical links or links to people living in less advanced nations where widespread dna testing is not common that is the issue.
That is when things are perfect.
What happens if you get a paternal testing BUT, someone in you tree never had a male child?. That means you will not find out about a WHOLE bunch of people who could be in your family. and that could be in recent times.
The same can happen if you do a maternal testing, and someone in your family tree never had female children.
Also, blacks, latins, and indigenous people DO NOT have a good sample size when you take into account for hundreds of years that our history isn't accounted for, meaning all the people who mingled together through rape or just having sex consensually. Then when you add the fact of what I mentioned previously, you really have no idea who was in your family. I'm sorry but, now that I know more, DNA testing is just to make you feel good but, it really isn't something good to test where you come from in it's totality or even close to it.
Last edited:
NZA
LOL
men carry the x chromosome too, so you dont need female children
the sample size is about the number of people in any given dna registry, not about your history
it seems like you need to learn even more, breh
I know how it works, and you are seeing what you want. The chromosomes will be mixed up. and not from one pure stock or even close to i, especially in the Americas where everyone is mixed up.
Also, the point was(as I explained) all three groups that I mention have been know to mix together for at least two hundred years, so how can I trace my family roots in those situations if I can only go by such small way to find out?.
EDIT: I realize, I'm posting in a confusing way so, go to 4:50, and listen how he explains it. There is no way we can tell who we come from if we just go by xy Chromosomes.
Last edited:
NZA
LOL
you can do a check for y chromosome as well. nobody's stopping you
i dont even know what the second point is about, but if the people you are concerned about mixing are americans, they probably have lots of dna on file, breh. i dont know if you are still talking about jews, but there are lots of jews you can have your dna compared to.
NZA
LOL
i am talking about comparing yourself to living or recently living people in a database