Why did blacks get enslaved in the first place
- Thread starter Cel 510 kid ados forever
- Start date
Which of the following points do you dispute and why:
1) African kingdoms/tribes at that time were no match for the Europeans in terms of military strength and were thus easy to subdue
2) Europeans acquired their military supremacy through a long history of tribal/ethnic/religious warfare which caused an arms race.
The Transatlantic slave trade was based on race though. You cannot deny that there was a racial component to it.
The Odum of Ala Igbo
Hail Biafra!
Aside from the Kingdom of Kongo, most African polities were not subdued during the period of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Europeans didn't gain absolute military dominance over Africans south of the Sahara until the invention of quinine, machine guns and repeating rifles.
We agree generally, where we disagree is that I don't believe intra-european warfare necessarily lead to a 'European arms race' per se. The industrial revolution and ensuing benefits to military,society etc, ingenuity of contemporary European thinkers and inventors in developing new forms of political and societal subjugation, the benefits of wealth ammassed from colonialism and imperialism, etc, all played a more significant role in Europe being in a more dominant position.
They could not raid the interior, you're right. My post is conflating slavery and colonialism.
I was supposed to be addressing the period before industrialization (which is what this thread is about) but I ended up making a general statement which conflated Transatlantic slavery and the colonial period. My post was worded very poorly.
My point is, if you study the history of how Europeans gained supremacy as seafaring nations, you'll find that much of that was the result of intra-European warfare. The Anglo-Spanish wars, for instance, forced both nations to upgrade and modernize their naval fleets.
Even during industrialization (particularly in the latter half of the 19th century), wars and conflicts across Europe created ample opportunities for experimentation with and testing of new weapons as well as new strategies for warfare. There's a close relationship between war and technological advances. We saw it happen again after the world wars.
I hear you... But on the flip side, Africans have also been warring with each other since antiquity... As have Asians and basically any other large groups of people. War and ethnic conflict is universal, but the massive and disproportionate militaristic and naval advances definitely werent universal. Make of that what you will.
The Odum of Ala Igbo
Hail Biafra!
African states did undergo military innovations. Peoples in the Horn of Africa adopted European-made rifles. States like Oyo (arguably in tropical West Africa) created cavalry armies. Peoples in South Africa like the BaSotho adopted horses too. The list goes on. However, those military innovations often couldn't compete with the rapid changes going on in European societies.
One disadvantage which is often missed is the low population density and size of Africa compared to European states by 1870. Especially in West Africa, the Slave Trade took tens of millions of prime-age people from their societies. Also, the disease burden in Africa made large population density (aside from coastal North Africa, the Nile, Ethiopian Highlands and presumably along the Lower Niger/Benue river axis aka modern day Nigeria) made large population density an undesirable thing.
Europe was more densely populated though. After the collapse of Rome in the 5th century, you had countless tribes fighting over land, resources, etc.. plus technically speaking, Europe is part of that giant landmass called Asia which was home to a very wide range of different tribes/nations who have had cultural exchange for millennia. This made it easier to acquire new knowledge. I mean, the barbaric tribes of Northern Europe learned a lot from the Romans and Greeks (and later from the Islamic empire in Iberia) who in turn were influenced by the Persians, the Babylonians, Ancient Egyptians, India, China etc.. it's this access to the accumulated knowledge from past civilizations (which was then modernized and developed) coupled with fierce economic and military competition (resulting from scarcity of resources due to overpopulation) which gave them an advantage over other civilizations IMO.
What do you think?
Of course these are all factors. Who knows what would have happened if Africa wasn't depopulated so severely by the slave trade. & I agree that Europeans benefitted extensively from amalgamating and exploiting the knowledge of the previous civilisations that came before. It's not such a straight forward cut and dry issue, and as with most debate in this forum, rather than realistically and holistically assess a situation, people will rather find any way to undermine the roles of Europeans in world history, to suit their own empty and racist worldviews. Karbaash I've not noticed you post in the root before so that isn't directed at you.
There is definitely no straight forward answer. I agree, there were many different factors involved. The bottom line is that the Europeans made good use of and developed the knowledge that was available at the time, and the resources which they acquired from colonizing the world. It was brutal - savage even -but they were looking out for their own best interests. Hopefully we would've done the same if the roles were reversed.
Too many people of African descent dwell too much on the history of slavery as if it's what defines Africans. I understand the necessity of knowing history in order to understand the current condition of your people. But dwelling too much on this also creates a victim/loser mentality. Some Africans miss no opportunity to bring up this part of history. It's as if they're hoping to shame and guilt trip the white man into giving up his power and privileges.
History is not over yet, so there's no reason why Africans and other civilizations cannot become even more advanced than the Europeans (who are on a decline) if the right opportunity arises sometime in the future. Too many people have passively accepted that triumphalist European "end of history" rhetoric. History fluctuates and conditions change over time, sometimes very drastically. At the height of pax Romana, nobody could've imagined what was to come a mere few centuries later.
/Rant
Too many people of African descent dwell too much on the history of slavery as if it's what defines Africans. I understand the necessity of knowing history in order to understand the current condition of your people. But dwelling too much on this also creates a victim/loser mentality. Some Africans miss no opportunity to bring up this part of history. It's as if they're hoping to shame and guilt trip the white man into giving up his power and privileges.
History is not over yet, so there's no reason why Africans and other civilizations cannot become even more advanced than the Europeans (who are on a decline) if the right opportunity arises sometime in the future. Too many people have passively accepted that triumphalist European "end of history" rhetoric. History fluctuates and conditions change over time, sometimes very drastically. At the height of pax Romana, nobody could've imagined what was to come a mere few centuries later.
/Rant