Responsibility for Slave trade is African?

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Let use common sense. It took six months to get from Africa to Americans. Most ships could only carry 150 people. Have of which died. They said 12.5 million African were sold. Do the math. Doesn't add up. Look at record it just doesn't add up.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
You keep bringing out these figures that have no basis in reality.

Sailing time from Angola to Brazil is about 30 days, to the Caribbean is about 40 days and to North America about 60 days, thats part of the reason why 90% of slaves went to South America and the Caribbean and why south Americans were so casual about mortality rates compared to the USA, because dead slaves could be replaced far more easily.
The only way a voyage would take three months is if you had been becalmed or hit very bad storms and been blown off course.

A ship of about 350 tonnes could carry about 450 people, although owners with any sense would limit the actual numbers to 350, it meant less expense in buying slaves from the African slave states and more space allowed greater survival rates and greater profit.

If you do any reading about slavery you will zee the diagrame of the Brookes, a slave ship that was supposed to be restricted to carrying 454people and had in one incident carried 609 in appalling conditions.

The Brookes was an outlier, conditions were so bad it disgusted even the slave traders but it gives you some idea on the transport capacity of the time.

Tulius

erinshavonne34

You keep bringing out these figures that have no basis in reality.

Sailing time from Angola to Brazil is about 30 days, to the Caribbean is about 40 days and to North America about 60 days, thats part of the reason why 90% of slaves went to South America and the Caribbean and why south Americans were so casual about mortality rates compared to the USA, because dead slaves could be replaced far more easily.
The only way a voyage would take three months is if you had been becalmed or hit very bad storms and been blown off course.

A ship of about 350 tonnes could carry about 450 people, although owners with any sense would limit the actual numbers to 350, it meant less expense in buying slaves from the African slave states and more space allowed greater survival rates and greater profit.

If you do any reading about slavery you will zee the diagrame of the Brookes, a slave ship that was supposed to be restricted to carrying 454people and had in one incident carried 609 in appalling conditions.

The Brookes was an outlier, conditions were so bad it disgusted even the slave traders but it gives you some idea on the transport capacity of the time.
So either your delusional or you ignore facts. Angola is in Africa and it took six months to get to America from there. The pictures they show in history about slave ship's are actually from Quaker news letter.. my other question where a slave ship's

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

erinshavonne34

So either your delusional or you ignore facts. Angola is in Africa and it took six months to get to America from there. The pictures they show in history about slave ship's are actually from Quaker news letter.. my other question where a slave ship's

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Another fact the word Indios means black skin people. So why did Columbus call the people he meant that. And why did the pope tell him it was ok enslave the people of America? Why did he say we where the descendants of ham. Look it up. The told Columbus it was ok to enslave us because we where cursed. Another question? Why is California name after s black woman? Skin color is nothing white people make it something! I wonder why?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

erinshavonne34

“The fact is” that you didn’t provide me facts, or sources, as requested many, many, many, many times. Historical sources adequately analysed approach us to the historical truth.

I will provide you again a link that explains how to quote sources in history, and we are in a history forum: https://historum.com/content-guidelines/#citing-sources

The fact is that you provide me your opinions. So, thanks for sharing.

I don’t have problems to accept anything, independently of the skin colour of the people, don’t bring some racist argument here. Skin colour is not a problem to me. Sources are the problem. Find sources and then we will talk.

I didn’t request you to provide “evidence of superiority complexity”, I requested you simple, simple sources. Sources that support your “truth”, not sources that go against it, like the ones you already mentioned in previous posts and even in previous threads.

History is made of much more than basic common sense, so we will get back to the… Sources!!!

Sciences are made of much more than basic common sense.

Rationality and reasoning are made of much more than basic common sense.

We are in a history forum… so sources are needed. Sources!!!

First of all don’t turn this personal: You don’t know what kind of person I am!

Second, find me a historical source that prove your statement about Jesus and Mary paintings. Let me recall to you that usually the people tend to paint their anthropomorphic gods and divinities with their own features.

Look to the Greek and Roman representations of Zeus/Jupiter and look to the first representations of Jesus in the Greco/Roman world.

Ok.

Good for you. Try to read a history book for once. You may find it surprising. If you can’t buy one, go to a public library. Even online there are already many good history books available for free. By history, I really mean history, not para-history or pseudo-history. And I say this because we are in a… history forum. So… books and sources are a must!

erinshavonne34, it really doesn’t bother me if Jesus and Mary had black, brown, white, red, yellow, pink skin… if they really existed. Well... I confess that it would shock me if they were green!!!

You really didn’t look to the site that I provided you, did you?

First, from Africa to America the voyage doesn’t take 6 months.

The first ships in the 15th and 16th centuries could would carry some 15 or 20 slaves tighter with other goods. We have documents of this. Documents from the 16th century. Documents of buying and selling. Documents (sources) that are analysed by the historical researchers, some of them contribute to the site that I linked to you.

Later, in the 17th and particularly in the 18th century the ships were much bigger and more slaves could be carried.

Death rates were hight, but not that high as we see on fantasy videos on YouTube.

See their methodology, because you can’t criticize what you don’t know (and this is common sense):

Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade - Understanding the Database

If you have critics to their methodology, please share them with use, because, as any methodology, their isn’t exempt of criticism.

If the documents prove your words, please provide the source.

EDIT:
Some typos were corrected.
Even if I did your mind doesn't have the compacity to believe

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Do you have a favourite subject perchance?

sparky

Ad Honorem
six months to travel from the gulf of guinea to the West indies is unreasonable

one of the factor limiting the loading of purchased slaves was not only the crowding but also the amount of food and water which had to be carried
a slaving ship becalmed would have the stark prospect of loosing most of its human cargoe , just to save the crew

a six months journey is simply financially unrealistic
the shortest ones were from the gulf to Brazil , it was also those with the least losses and took anything from a week to two
the longest transports were some from Mozambique , tapping into the Muslim market where slaves were cheaper ,
the trip took two months with stops to water and refresh the slaves and was quickly abandoned
though there is a legend that some Ethiopians slaves were purchased there which prided themselves in being true Coptic Christians
Rastafarians claim descendance from them ( a tall claim )

sometimes a slaving ship found the slaves entrepots emptied by preceding traders and had to travel along the coast and wait to get a full load
that was bad , increasing the chance of unacceptable fatalities
on the whole the triangular trip from home port to home port was about a year ,
this include time to purchase and load the sugar , tobacco molasses or rum
do some repairs and refitting before the return
a slaving ship could do five or six voyages before deteriorating to a floating hulk , a new ship needed to be purchased and fitted

a successful voyage was very profitable but quite a lot weren't , some saw the investors loose their investment

Tulius

Ad Honorem
So either your delusional or you ignore facts.
Facts that you never provided were ignored?

Angola is in Africa and it took six months to get to America from there.
Source? (about the six months of travel. It is not needed to source that Angola is in Africa).

Even if I did your mind doesn't have the compacity to believe
My “mind doesn’t have the compacity” [capacity]?

I hope you are not calling me something like “idiot”, or “retarded”. Because if you explain and present your sources like I requested in the previous post, I think I still have a bit of brains and “compacity” to analyse them.

Even if history is not really a question of believing. That part is more adequate to the religious field.

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
So either your delusional or you ignore facts. Angola is in Africa and it took six months to get to America from there. The pictures they show in history about slave ship's are actually from Quaker news letter.. my other question where a slave ship's

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Civility is not an option on Historum. Attack the argument, not the person. This is your warning.

Tulius

Ad Honorem
Another fact the word Indios means black skin people. So why did Columbus call the people he meant that.
As already mentioned “Indios” in Castilian and Portuguese means people from India. At the time, India was a vague concept quite equivalent to Orient.

I would advise you to consult a Spanish-English dictionary on this, so you won’t make such an uninformed statement.

six months to travel from the gulf of guinea to the West indies is unreasonable

one of the factor limiting the loading of purchased slaves was not only the crowding but also the amount of food and water which had to be carried
a slaving ship becalmed would have the stark prospect of loosing most of its human cargoe , just to save the crew

a six months journey is simply financially unrealistic
the shortest ones were from the gulf to Brazil , it was also those with the least losses and took anything from a week to two
the longest transports were some from Mozambique , tapping into the Muslim market where slaves were cheaper ,
the trip took two months with stops to water and refresh the slaves and was quickly abandoned
though there is a legend that some Ethiopians slaves were purchased there which prided themselves in being true Coptic Christians
Rastafarians claim descendance from them ( a tall claim )

sometimes a slaving ship found the slaves entrepots emptied by preceding traders and had to travel along the coast and wait to get a full load
that was bad , increasing the chance of unacceptable fatalities
on the whole the triangular trip from home port to home port was about a year ,
this include time to purchase and load the sugar , tobacco molasses or rum
do some repairs and refitting before the return
a slaving ship could do five or six voyages before deteriorating to a floating hulk , a new ship needed to be purchased and fitted

a successful voyage was very profitable but quite a lot weren't , some saw the investors loose their investment
Indded.

Here I will mostly follow a study (and a book) by Arlindo Manuel Caldeira, “Escravos e Traficantes no Império Português” / “Slaves and Traders in the Portuguese Empire”:

Usually the voyages were direct. There was no stopping to refit water.

The big ships were from the 18th century (the ones that we generally see showed in teen students books), in the previous centuries the ships were quite smaller. In 425 ships (that indicated tonnage) that made the trade between 1616 and 1640 between Africa and the Spanish colonies, 240 (56.5%) had less than 100 tons. Splitting, between 1616 and 1630 there were 71,4 with less than 100 tons, between 1630 and 1640 the ones with less than 100 tonnes were less than 28,6% and the ones with more had risen from 28.6% to 73.2%. Here Caldeira follows: Enriqueta Vila Vilar, “Hispano-America y el comercio de esclavos, Los asientos portugueses”, 1977, p.130.

Caldeira quotes Enriqueta Vila Vilar that says a ship with 60 tonnes can transport 120 to 200 slaves.

A law from 1684 established a limit of 5 to 7 heads for 2 tonnes in the upper deck and 5 in the lower. And this give us a number a bit higher than the one stated by Enriqueta Vila Vilar.

But the numbers could differ: The São Francisco of 30 tonnes, in 1619, was authorised to transport 150 slaves.

In the 17th century the shipbuilders had a formula that a ton was the same of 3 adults and the ship’s tonnage was measured often that way. So, for 1685 we had ships between 200 and 1000 slaves. That is similar to the 18th century. (all from Caldeira, pp.117-118, similar information is given on page 128).

From Congo or Angola to Brazil a ship could take some 25 days. Caldeira mentions a hazardous trip in 1668 that took 50 days due to the lack of winds and many died because there was no water of food enough on board (they had provisions for 30 days). (p.138 and following)

About the profits today they are estimated between 5% and 10%. (p.157)

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
As already mentioned “Indios” in Castilian and Portuguese means people from India. At the time, India was a vague concept quite equivalent to Orient.

I would advise you to consult a Spanish-English dictionary on this, so you won’t make such an uninformed statement.
Do you think it might also mean 'indigenos' my friend?

Similar History Discussions