Why did blacks get enslaved in the first place

[MrPentatonic]

Not quite 400 years but for 300 years the Moors enslaved Europeans in Africa. Europeans (mostly women) were taken as slaves by the Moors.

Read up on it here:

This is how the face of North Africa changed. Before the influx of all these white women that the Moors made mulatto offspring with, North Africa looked alot like East Africa. It was mostly black. Even the genetics of North Africans tells this story. On the male side they are the same as the East Africans. On the female side they are European.

Just as African slaves and the influx of Europeans changed the face of Brazil in South America. Similarly, white slaves being brought into North Africa by the Moors changed the face of the Northern part of the continent.

This is why alot of North Africans look like Colin Kaepernick (a mulatto).

The Moors took pawgin to a new level.

 

[desjardins]

Are there any good books on the colonization of Africa?
I think the slavery question is simple to answer, I'm interested in what transpired when the relationship transitioned from slave trading partners to finessing control away from those business partners

 

[Knicksman20]

I think Puerto Rican and especially Dominican Taino Ancestry is overstated. Also Africans were not totally immune to diseases

A lot of them try to claim that ancestry because they're ashamed of being part African. My coworkers wife is like this claiming her father or grandfather was a full blooded Taino Indian

 

[Samori Toure]

slaves were simply the working population of a kingdom/society
not exclusive to individuals of african origin
don't claim that shyt as yours alone every "race" has experienced slavery at some point

*

People that were enslaved were not always from the working population. There were many instances in which they were noblemen men and women; educators; clergy; tradesmen; musicians, etc. It was not uncommon for Kings to throw their political enemies (noblemen) and those enemies entire families and villages into slavery if the King feared that insurrection was being plotted. On other instances noble and wealthy people in Countries would be captured and ransomed back to their families, but if the families didn't pay the kidnapped people would be sold to the slavers.

In Congo the King (ManiKongo) Mvemba a Nzinga (Christian name Afonso) allowed Portuguese Priests to enter his Kingdom to establish Catholic Churches and he allowed Portuguese traders to enter his Kingdom to sale goods to the Congolesse people. Afonso later wrote a letter to the King of Portugal advising him that noblemen and women in Kongo and even members of Afonso own families were captured. Here is Afonso's letter:


"... Moreover, Sir, in our Kingdoms there is another great inconvenience which is of little service to God, and this is that many of our people [naturaes], keenly desirous as they are of the wares and things of your Kingdoms, which are brought here by your people, and in order to satisfy their voracious appetite, seize many of our people, freed and exempt men; and very often it happens that they kidnap even noblemen and the sons of noblemen, and our relatives, and take them to be sold to the white men who are in our Kingdoms; and for this purpose they have concealed them; and others are brought during the night so that they might not be recognized.

And as soon as they are taken by the white men they are immediately ironed and branded with fire, and when they are carried to be embarked, if they are caught by our guards’ men the whites allege that they have bought them but they cannot say from whom, so that it is our duty to do justice and to restore to the freemen their freedom, but it cannot be done if your subjects feel offended, as they claim to be... ."

http://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/54/Letter to the King of Portugal.pdf


Then there was this Prince that captured and enslaved:

In Congo succession issues with the children of the ManiKongo often led to issues of enslavement of noble people.

 

[010101]

People that were enslaved were not always from the working population. There were many instances in which they were noblemen men and women; educators; clergy; tradesmen; musicians, etc. It was not uncommon for Kings to throw their political enemies (noblemen) and those enemies entire families and villages into slavery if the King feared that insurrection was being plotted. On other instances noble and wealthy people in Countries would be captured and ransomed back to their families, but if the families didn't pay the kidnapped people would be sold to the slavers.

In Congo the King (ManiKongo) Mvemba a Nzinga (Christian name Afonso) allowed Portuguese Priests to enter his Kingdom to establish Catholic Churches and he allowed Portuguese traders to enter his Kingdom to sale goods to the Congolesse people. Afonso later wrote a letter to the King of Portugal advising him that noblemen and women in Kongo and even members of Afonso own families were captured. Here is Afonso's letter:


"... Moreover, Sir, in our Kingdoms there is another great inconvenience which is of little service to God, and this is that many of our people [naturaes], keenly desirous as they are of the wares and things of your Kingdoms, which are brought here by your people, and in order to satisfy their voracious appetite, seize many of our people, freed and exempt men; and very often it happens that they kidnap even noblemen and the sons of noblemen, and our relatives, and take them to be sold to the white men who are in our Kingdoms; and for this purpose they have concealed them; and others are brought during the night so that they might not be recognized.

And as soon as they are taken by the white men they are immediately ironed and branded with fire, and when they are carried to be embarked, if they are caught by our guards’ men the whites allege that they have bought them but they cannot say from whom, so that it is our duty to do justice and to restore to the freemen their freedom, but it cannot be done if your subjects feel offended, as they claim to be... ."

http://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/54/Letter to the King of Portugal.pdf


Then there was this Prince that captured and enslaved:

In Congo succession issues with the children of the ManiKongo often led to issues of enslavement of noble people.

yeah it's not where you start it's where you end up
born into the upper class but pushed into the slave class
i dig what your saying though good looks

*

 

[Samori Toure]

Are there any good books on the colonization of Africa?
I think the slavery question is simple to answer, I'm interested in what transpired when the relationship transitioned from slave trading partners to finessing control away from those business partners

Then you are thinking wrong. Slavery was a very complicated issue among the Africans, because early on some of the Kings and Queens began to realize what the Europeans were up to; and despite many of their attempts to stop the slave trade the Europeans efforts with smaller chieftans often destabilized the larger kingdoms.

The colonization of Africa was set into motion because slavery weakened Kingdoms and drove deeper wedges between the various ethnic groups that enslaved one another. Those divisions among those ethnic groups is what later allowed the Europeans to colonize Africa.

 

[Black Panther]

Deuteronomy 28 entire chapter. Last verse of chapter explains our diaspora being sold as slaves all over the world

Uh, no. That's poor Biblical exegesis.

Anyways, Africans were originally sold as slaves because of money and resources. The reasons for African slavery to perpetuate as long as it did changed over time, but mainly it was because many African tribes were willing to sell out rival tribes for resources they didn't have (guns, mostly). Some of those tribes that traded their rivals for resources were captured too.

Africans at that time (and in large part today) didn't organize people according to skin color, but by tribe. The tribal aspect of Africans were extremely important in how African slaves were captured and sold by Europeans. The "every black man is a brother", "we gotta stick together" mentality is a direct result of the diaspora that African chattel slavery caused.

 

[Swagnificent]

breh, what's the name of the book you posted, its not showing up for me.

someone posted it right after I did.

here it is.

 

[Mowgli]

Wh black people out of all other races.

Decree by the catholic church and white people do what the pope tells them

 

[DrBanneker]

A lot of good stuff posted here. Granted global slavery was not limited to Blacks (as has been said already).

To another point, a good analysis of this is by Chancellor Williams in the Destruction of African Civilization. He thinks the turning point from equal opportunity slavery to Blacks primarily came with the Mameluke rebellion in Egypt where White/Arab slaves overthrew the government and their masters. After that Arabs and later Europeans focused on Africa.

African states did sell captives into slavery but you cannot ignore (as was said earlier) how European agents and governments worked against African leaders and kingdoms who tried to disrupt and destroy the trade. Their rivals got guns and support and the good old divide and conquer played out. A lot of the European slaves that went to North Africa or the Middle East were "sold" by their local White brothers but they don't rush to mention that huh

 

[satam55]

@Akan @Swagnificent Do y'all recommend this book?:

 

[Knicksman20]

@Akan @Swagnificent Do y'all recommend this book?:

This is a great book. I have it

 

[Swagnificent]

@Akan @Swagnificent Do y'all recommend this book?:

I'd recommend anything by John Henrik Clarke.

The man is a LEGEND.

 

[Samori Toure]

@Akan @Swagnificent Do y'all recommend this book?:

I have not read that book, but I will put it on my list to read.

 

[mbewane]

Your question has no answer because its based on a fallacy.

Black people were not the only race ever enslaved. Every race has at some point been enslaved. Black people were just the LAST.

A better question would be why were only black people enslaved from the 16th to 19th century in the Western Hemisphere? Cause that is the question you really want answered.

The main answer to that question is because Africans were immune from the diseases of the old world that the Europeans brought with them to the Americas that was killing off the Indians. If you don't remember, the Europeans initially tried to enslave the Indians when they took over the Americas. Especially in places like the Caribbean where Columbus first landed. When the Spanish got to Hispaniola (old name for the island of Haiti and the Domincan Republic) for example, they tried to enslave the Taino Indians that occupied the Island. The Taino had no defense to the diseases the Spanish brought over and they also couldn't withstand the brutality of the work in the plantations that they were almost all killed. You should read Howard Zinn's book "A People's History of the United States." The first few chapters of the book do a great job in covering the brutality of the Spanish in the Caribbean when it came to enslavement of the Taino (who alot of Puerto Ricans and Dominicans claim ancestry from). This is probably the best book on the history of America because it doesn't gloss over the impact of white supremacy on American history.

A second reason Africans were enslaved over the Indians or other races is because of the experience Africans had with farming in a tropical climate. Remember most slaves went to Brazil and the Caribbean. And both those places are very similar to West Africa in terms of climate. This made the transition to working in those fields easier than bringing someone from lets say Europe or Asia who would not be able to withstand working in those brutal conditions. And finally the most important reason only Africans were enslaved in the Americas is LOCATION. West Africa is right across from South America. Sailing from there to the Americas is quick and easy (in terms of travel in that day and age). If Europeans couldn't enslave the Indians to work in the fields, Africans were really the only other choice. Going to Asia or Australia would cost more because of the distance even if Asians and Australians were capable of doing the work.

Not quite 400 years but for 300 years the Moors enslaved Europeans in Africa. Europeans (mostly women) were taken as slaves by the Moors.

Read up on it here:

This is how the face of North Africa changed. Before the influx of all these white women that the Moors made mulatto offspring with, North Africa looked alot like East Africa. It was mostly black. Even the genetics of North Africans tells this story. On the male side they are the same as the East Africans. On the female side they are European.

Just as African slaves and the influx of Europeans changed the face of Brazil in South America. Similarly, white slaves being brought into North Africa by the Moors changed the face of the Northern part of the continent.

This is why alot of North Africans look like Colin Kaepernick (a mulatto).

Yeah it is weird how the average person is just ignorant to the fact that Black people (Africans) had kingdoms and governments and diplomats and ambassadors and treasuries, on and on and on long before the Europeans ever stepped foot in Africa.

People assume that Africans were uncivilized, but they never ask themselves; if the Africans were uncivilized then how where the Europeans able to communicate with them? If the Africans were uncivilized then how did Africans know the quality and the value of the goods that the Europeans were trading and the amount of gold that they would have to pay for the goods? They never ask themselves how did the Europeans know that the Africans farmers produced crops like rice, indigo, cotton, peppers, etc? Or why would the Europeans only want to buy Africans from specific ethnic groups from slave traders in some regions of West Africa (this may not apply to Central Africa)?

Most people are even ignorant to the fact that at least 30% of all slaves were Muslim.

Then you are thinking wrong. Slavery was a very complicated issue among the Africans, because early on some of the Kings and Queens began to realize what the Europeans were up to; and despite many of their attempts to stop the slave trade the Europeans efforts with smaller chieftans often destabilized the larger kingdoms.

The colonization of Africa was set into motion because slavery weakened Kingdoms and drove deeper wedges between the various ethnic groups that enslaved one another. Those divisions among those ethnic groups is what later allowed the Europeans to colonize Africa.

Great stuff @Swagnificent @Akan slavery seems to be the less known of the "well-known" events in western history, and that's by design of course.

Just to answer to @Akan I come from Central African Republic and the little that I know is that that region was already underpopulated because of the Muslim slave trade, and that a fair share of the current population is basically population from the North part of the region that fled to the South to escape the raids.

Also indeed @Swagnificent the whole white slave thing by Muslims is kept on the low, even among Europeans back then slavery existed. And serfdom was basically a form of slavery too.

So all in all like y'all said it was a mix of geographical proximity, available labor and divided african kingdoms in which a form of slavery already existed, thus it took time to understand that Europeans were going for massive dehumanizing slavery. When they understood that, it was too late already. I personnaly believe that modern racism came AFTER slavery, as a way to justify it, and not the other way around. Just like "scientific" racism emerged at the time of the colonization in Africa.