See why African Americans do not want stolen African treasures to be returned back to Africa

[Uachet]

He's correct...the National Geographic article and the Britannica articles are misinformation (the author of the Britannica article is not a historian of Africa but instead just some person with a degree in music), as are most of the claims in Mrs. Farmer-Paellman's statements, her lawsuit, and the claims of one of the professors (Seck) she got to respond to her inquiries.

I can provide a more detailed explanation later, if you can wait a few days...for now, please read the Wikipedia talk page on the Kingdom of Benin (Talk:Kingdom of Benin - Wikipedia) where some of the things being discussed in the thread have already been partially addressed...including the (incorrect and misleading) article on researchgate by Dmitri Bondarenko that you quoted from. There is more to say on this, but it would take a while to write up.

If so, put up articles that prove that is the case. Also, one blurb from a test is not enough to me. I went deeper and found more info that states they participated.

 

[Lost1]

Thank you. It is one excerpt, but it is more than what was shown before.

I see it is for an exam. I've looked at the references, and none on this issue were shown. I went looking for more and this is what I got.



From the late 16th to the late 17th century, Benin never sold its own
citizens, but only female captives (including Igbo, Sobo, Ijaw, and others) captured in war
or purchased from neighboring peoples. From the mid-17th to 18th centuries, however,
slaves became the principal trade “goods” acquired by Europeans, and foreign male
prisoners and eventually citizens of Benin itself were also sold abroad. In the heyday of the
slave trade, Benin supplied 3,000 slaves a year. A contemporary related that “The West
India planters prefer the slaves of Benin … to those of any other part of Guinea…”

the claim in bold just is not true...the principal trade good of Benin to Europeans during that time was ivory. See this article about the huge quantity of ivory that the kingom of Benin exported to Europeans during that time:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3647167

Civil War in the Kingdom of Benin, 1689-1721: Continuity or Political Change?

also the 3000 slaves a year thing really is false, as mentioned on the wikipedia talk page..the author of the researchgate article you're citing didn't correctly interpret or understand his source. In Hugh Thomas's book The Slave Trade: the Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, on p. 361 in the 2013 edition, Thomas mentions how the 3000 slaves a year scheme that a French slave trader tried to set up in that area failed

 

[Lost1]

If so, put up articles that prove that is the case. Also, one blurb from a test is not enough to me. I went deeper and found more info that states they participated.

The kingdom of Benin particpated in the slave trade...I don't think anyone actually denies that. The degree and extent of their participation is nothing like what is being claimed in these more recent articles and statements online however. Their involvement was pretty low in overall numbers exported and their kingdom's leadership deliberately placed heavy restrictions on it for long periods of time. Since you asked for articles, one article that might make it clearer what I mean is this (if you can ignore the poor formatting):

https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol20-issue8/Version-2/B020820412.pdf

The current wave of articles online (newspapers, pop history sites etc) trying to make the extent of their participation in the slave trade seem way beyond what it was are a reaction to the books on looted Benin art that were published in the last few years...

 

[invalid]

 

[Samori Toure]

The kingdom of Benin particpated in the slave trade...I don't think anyone actually denies that. The degree and extent of their participation is nothing like what is being claimed in these more recent articles and statements online however. Their involvement was pretty low in overall numbers exported. Since you asked for articles, one article that might make it clearer what I mean is this (if you can ignore the poor formatting):

https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol20-issue8/Version-2/B020820412.pdf

The current wave of articles online (newspapers, pop history sites etc) trying to make the extent of their participation in the slave trade seem way beyond what it was are a reaction to the books on looted Benin art that were published in the last few years...

The confusion stems from modern writers not knowing the difference between the Empire of Benin and the modern Country of Benin, which is where Dahomey is.

 

[Lost1]

They did via the Jekri (Itshekiri) on the coast. The only reason why their participation wasn’t that elaborate was cos the Benin empire was landlocked. The Jekri acted as the middlemen between Benin & Europeans.

This is really a misconception, which I've seen stated by some other people of Nigerian background online. I can explain why this is wrong with multiple sources and written evidence, but it would take time to write it all out. I can send you a PM with a detailed write-up about this when I'm finished, if you'd like.

 

[boskey]

Okayafrica should be ashamed for even sharing this obvious bullshyt.

 

[Lost1]

The confusion stems from modern writers not knowing the difference between the Empire of Benin and the modern Country of Benin, which is where Dahomey is.

That's definitely a big part of it as well. There are also certain people who know where it really was and aren't confusing it with the modern country, but simply refuse to believe a major west African kingdom could have heavily restricted and limited its participation in the slave trade. I think if those people read more of the sources and the academic articles on the kingdom they might change their perspective.

 

[Bonk]

This is really a misconception, which I've seen stated by some other people of Nigerian background online. I can explain why this is wrong with multiple sources and written evidence, but it would take time to write it all out. I can send you a PM with a detailed write-up about this when I'm finished, if you'd like.

I’ll like to read it & hopefully it’s not written by a Nigerian. Just saying that cos most articles I have seen online by Nigerian historians are trash & most of them are idiots who can’t hide their bias & politics. They love revelling in revisionism rather than telling history how it actually happened.

My posts are based on journals written by the European explorers who visited those places. And they’re based on what they saw & what they were told by the different groups from the 16th century to the 19th century.

 

[Uachet]

The kingdom of Benin particpated in the slave trade...I don't think anyone actually denies that. The degree and extent of their participation is nothing like what is being claimed in these more recent articles and statements online however. Their involvement was pretty low in overall numbers exported. Since you asked for articles, one article that might make it clearer what I mean is this (if you can ignore the poor formatting):

https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol20-issue8/Version-2/B020820412.pdf

The current wave of articles online (newspapers, pop history sites etc) trying to make the extent of their participation in the slave trade seem way beyond what it was are a reaction to the books on looted Benin art that were published in the last few years...

So you admit that they did participate, which was my original point. I have finished reading the PDF. The focus was mainly proving Benin was rich before the slave trade, Here are some quotes from what you sent me.

There is no evidence that Benin ever engaged or organized a great slaving campaign similar to those organized by tribes of Eastern Delta. That the Rainbow had wait for four and half months collecting 261 slaves indicates that supply was no more plentiful in the mid 18thcentury than it had been early in the 16thcentury. In 1798 for example, English ships were sent to buy 19, 450 slaves from Eastern Delta as against only 1,000 from Benin River and most of these were bought from the Itsekiris. Benin either would not or could become a slave trading state on a grand scale. (Donnan, 1931: 496).

Benin did contribute to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, though in a little way. Her supply of slaves was rather insignificant when compared with the supplies from the Eastern Delta, Lagos, Badagry and other groups along the West Coast.

However, the little contributions of Benin to the slave trade and the enormous contribution of those other ethnic groups of the West Coast of Africa have gone on to change the human map of the world. The seeds of those Africans who were carted away as human merchandise during the four hundred years of the slave trade have gone on to flourish in the New World, emerging into a new ethnic group, the Afro-Americans. They constitute 13% of the USA, 50% of Brazil and 80% of the Caribbean Islands

The statement that The Benin Kingdom got rich from the Slave Trade is debunked by your source, but your source also admits that they participated in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade even if it was as a minor player all the way up to 1798.

 

[Samori Toure]

That's definitely a big part of it as well. There are also certain people who know where it really was and aren't confusing it with the modern country, but simply refuse to believe a major west African kingdom could have heavily restricted and limited its participation in the slave trade. I think if those people read more of the sources and the academic articles on the kingdom they might change their perspective.

You are right people are convinced that large African Empires would not try to stop the trade, but the evidence is clear that the Empires of Benin, Kongo, Angola and the Mossi of modern day Burkina Faso all tried to stop it and outright resisted until they were overtaken by neighboring people and internal strife that caused their collapse. Other groups that had no interest in the trade were the Akan people, specifically the Ashanti. They were interested in trading gold, but the Dagomba people that they had defeated in war could not pay tribute in gold so the Ashanti let them pay tribute in slaves who the Ashanti then sold in the forts on the Gold Coast.

So there were whole African Kingdoms that did not want to be engaged in slave trading, but circumstances overtook them.

 

[Elim Garak]

They should be returned.

 

[Uachet]

I’ll like to read it & hopefully it’s not written by a Nigerian. Just saying that cos most articles I have seen online by Nigerian historians are trash & most of them are idiots who can’t hide their bias & politics. They love revelling in revisionism rather than telling history how it actually happened.

My posts are based on journals written by the European explorers who visited those places. And they’re based on what they saw & what they were told by the different groups from the 16th century to the 19th century.

Their doing that is pretty much no different than what many American Historians have done with US history. The PDF I read does not seem to be biased beyond the normal amount on an issue people are interested in doing normally. So I accept what was written until something substantial proves it wrong.

 

[Samori Toure]

I’ll like to read it & hopefully it’s not written by a Nigerian. Just saying that cos most articles I have seen online by Nigerian historians are trash & most of them are idiots who can’t hide their bias & politics. They love revelling in revisionism rather than telling history how it actually happened.

My posts are based on journals written by the European explorers who visited those places. And they’re based on what they saw & what they were told by the different groups from the 16th century to the 19th century.

It depends though, because I have read things from some Nigerian researchers and they give details on the internal workings and pressures faced by groups and Kingdoms. I understand what you are stating about the revisionism and blame game stuff, but it is only from Nigerian writers that you understand why the Aro Confederacy had dispute with Nri; or why the Aro used mercenaries like the Abame and Mbaise; or the underpinnings of the collapse of Oyo; or what steps the people took to resist slave trading when the governments failed.

 

[Bonk]

You are right people are convinced that large African Empires would not try to stop the trade, but the evidence is clear that the Empires of Benin, Kongo, Angola and the Mossi of modern day Burkina Faso all tried to stop it and outright resisted until they were overtaken by neighboring people and internal strife that caused their collapse. Other groups that had no interest in the trade were the Akan people, specifically the Ashanti. They were interested in trading gold, but rather Dagomba people that they had defeated in war could not pay tribute in gold so the Ashanti let them pay tribute in slaves who the Ashanti then sold in the forts on the Gold Coast.

So there were whole African Kingdoms that did not want to be engaged in slave trading, but circumstances overtook them.

This is true.

However, I’m sure the Fante are also Akan & they’re the stewards of the slave coast as middlemen.

And Ashanti went to war with Oyo/Dahomey in 1763 over Akyem & their trading post on the coast which led to the removal of the incumbent Asantethene.

Anyway, the whole slave trading history is much more complicated/complex than the simplistic way people love to tell it.