Responsibility for Slave trade is African?

Naima

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
2,321
Venice
#61
indeed not only before but in the same time. There was hardly any time from the antiquity until the 19th century when slavery was not practiced in Italy, it was continued without much interruption for more than 2000 years...

Also there is a delicate issue for example where do we count these folks, Europeans or Africans? ship owners in Algiers in 1581 according to Diego de Haedo (i wonder if similar detailed infos also exist from other major ports of North Africa)

1. governor Jafar, Hungarian convert
2. Mami Arnaout, Albanian convert
3. Mourad, French convert
4. Dali Mami, Greek convert (owner of Cervantes)
5. Mourad Reis the Great Albanian convert (owner of two ships)
6. Ferou Reis, Genovese convert
7. Mourad Reis Maltrapillo, Spanish convert
8. Issa (Aïssa) Reis, Turk
9. Arapsa Reis, Turk
10. Amissa Reis, Turk
11. Mourad Reis the Little, Greek convert
12. Sinan Reis, Turk
13. Yusuf Reis, Spanish convert
14. Agibali, Turk
15. Hassan Genovese, Marabout convert
16. Kaid Daoud, Turk
17. Kaid Khader, son of a convert
18. Kaid Giger, Turk
19. Marjamami, Genovese convert
20. Mamidja, Turk
21. Kaid Mohammed, Jewish convert
22. Mamidja, Genovese convert
23. Mami Rei, Venetian convert
24. Mami Gancho, Venetian convert
25. Marri Corso, Corsican convert
26. Mami Calabres, Calabrian convert
27. Paduan Reis, son of a convert
28. Kadi Reis, Turk
29. Donardi, Greek convert
30. Jafar Montez, Sicilan convert of Mt. Trapana
31. Hassan Ginoes Fornaro, Genovese convert
32. Kari Reis, Turk
33. Kaur Ali, son of a convert
34. Yusuf Remolar, Napolitan convert
35. Jafar, Genovese convert

That is false, there was no Slavery in Italy since centuries , and surely Italy didn't partecipate in the mass african slave trades or picked them from Africa to use in plantations like did UK , France , Belgium and others.
 
Nov 2011
8,864
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
#62
That is false, there was no Slavery in Italy since centuries , and surely Italy didn't partecipate in the mass african slave trades or picked them from Africa to use in plantations like did UK , France , Belgium and others.
On the contrary, Italian city-states (there was of course no Italy as a country) were major players in the slave trade up to the late 15thC--in fact Venice and Genoa were THE major players right up to the late medieval period with Slave trading stations throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and dotted around the Black Sea and their trade stretched well into Central Asia, the Baltics, the Caucasus and modern-day Russia. While the sources of supply began to dry up in the 14thC as Christianity spread to the further reaches of Europe, Venice especially received a bonus when its merchants became the exclusive agent for the Golden Horde who sold almost the entire population of Muscovy into slavery. The Venetian slave market in Cyprus is a modern day tourist attraction.
After the Ottoman conquests and the closure of most Eastern Mediterranean ports the trade in European slaves declined drastically and in Florence there were only 400 domestic slaves recorded in 1427. However Venice, like Genoa maintained slaves as state labour, especially in their navies as did Muslim powers. After the Battle of Lepanto the victorious Western navies freed 12,000 Christian galley slaves from the Muslim fleet--but not their own 14,000 oarsmen who remained shacked.

If your argument is that Italian City States did not get involved in the Transatlanic slave trade, that was purely lack of opportunity, although it was Northern Italian finance that initially kicked off the Spanish involvement and it would be surprising if Lombard money was not used to finance Elizabethan-era English slaving exhibitions.
 
Jan 2018
43
Yopaw
#63
The truth. Africans have no knowledge of slave trade. Why because it is deception.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
You should go to modern-day Benin, where the pre-colonial kingdom of Dahomey existed. They know VERY well about the slave trade, there is even a museum about it there. You will see that they know about it in details

You should also go to South America to talk to Santeria believers, who are the descendants of Yoruba people captured by Dahomey amazons.

You can also read Cudjoe Lewis story.
https://www.amazon.com/Barracoon-Story-Zora-Neale-Hurston/dp/1538519291

You don't really know what you are talking about.
 

Naima

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
2,321
Venice
#64
On the contrary, Italian city-states (there was of course no Italy as a country) were major players in the slave trade up to the late 15thC--in fact Venice and Genoa were THE major players right up to the late medieval period with Slave trading stations throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and dotted around the Black Sea and their trade stretched well into Central Asia, the Baltics, the Caucasus and modern-day Russia. While the sources of supply began to dry up in the 14thC as Christianity spread to the further reaches of Europe, Venice especially received a bonus when its merchants became the exclusive agent for the Golden Horde who sold almost the entire population of Muscovy into slavery. The Venetian slave market in Cyprus is a modern day tourist attraction.
After the Ottoman conquests and the closure of most Eastern Mediterranean ports the trade in European slaves declined drastically and in Florence there were only 400 domestic slaves recorded in 1427. However Venice, like Genoa maintained slaves as state labour, especially in their navies as did Muslim powers. After the Battle of Lepanto the victorious Western navies freed 12,000 Christian galley slaves from the Muslim fleet--but not their own 14,000 oarsmen who remained shacked.

If your argument is that Italian City States did not get involved in the Transatlanic slave trade, that was purely lack of opportunity, although it was Northern Italian finance that initially kicked off the Spanish involvement and it would be surprising if Lombard money was not used to finance Elizabethan-era English slaving exhibitions.
No , The slaves they traded came mostly from Eastern Europe and Central Asia and were acquired from slave markets or by raiding the unprotected coastlines of the Black Sea and the disintegrating Byzantine Empire.It was a very minimal part and were treated at best as servants rather than the classical plantation fields slaves, Little is recorded about slavery in Medieval Italy and historians have had to piece together its history and prevalence from scant documents. However, slave labour never played the significant role in the Italian economy that it did in Ancient Rome or the Americas. The numbers of slaves in Italy were never high.Italians had no slave trade relation with Black Africans.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2011
8,864
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
#65
No , The slaves they traded came mostly from Eastern Europe and Central Asia and were acquired from slave markets or by raiding the unprotected coastlines of the Black Sea and the disintegrating Byzantine Empire.It was a very minimal part and were treated at best as servants rather than the classical plantation fields slaves, Little is recorded about slavery in Medieval Italy and historians have had to piece together its history and prevalence from scant documents. However, slave labour never played the significant role in the Italian economy that it did in Ancient Rome or the Americas. The numbers of slaves in Italy were never high.Italians had no slave trade relation with Black Africans.
How can you say "No" and then confirm the facts? As for slaves being treated as "part of the family" that is as much bulls's testicles as the same African excuse--maybe all those Venetian galley slaves or the poor bastards who built all those castles and fortifications on the Greek islands under the lash thought of their slavemasters as "Daddy".
 

Naima

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
2,321
Venice
#66
How can you say "No" and then confirm the facts? As for slaves being treated as "part of the family" that is as much bulls's testicles as the same African excuse--maybe all those Venetian galley slaves or the poor bastards who built all those castles and fortifications on the Greek islands under the lash thought of their slavemasters as "Daddy".
None of the Italian city states collected slaves in Africa under any Italian flag and then transported them across the Atlantic for sale.
 
Jun 2015
5,686
UK
#67
Weren't Africans aware of the existing Arab slave trading, which was pretty cruel too?

Also weren't Africans aware of the deplorable conditions in which slaves were held at the ports before shipment?
No, since the Arab slave trade existed in northern, central, and Eastern Africa.

The trans-atlantic trade was largely from Western and West-central Africa. There is little way that people in what are now Angola, Congo, or Benin, could have known about what was happening in what are now Sudan or Tanzania.

The common view is that Africans didn't know, and if they did, they would not have sold them. I think is this BULL. and on several counts:

- The Asante, Dahomey, Benin, Kongo, etc. were all large kingdoms, and in some ways more advanced than quite a few early modern societies in Europe or beyond (there were French serfs until 1789, and no Asante serfs...) To have any large kingdom requires contacts and localised knowledge and rule. If a chief who had sworn allegiance to the Asantehene (the Asante king) who lived near the coast knew about the slave forts and how horrible they were, it had to be transmitted to the Asantehene eventually. Or some other Asante official with power.

- The King of Kongo at one point wanted the trade to end, since he knew how badly slaves were being treated. There were some Queens of Kongo who fought the Portuguese to stop it, but failed.

To say they didn't know means either they were all incompetent, or they did know and didn't care. They were getting guns, cloth, rum/spirits, and other things they never had access to before, so there is no way they would have stopped.

Africans were fully complicit in slavery, and I doubt there are many if any people from West Africa today who would or could deny it. Ghana and Nigeria offered apologies for the slave trade, since it's common knowledge that Africans did trade other Africans freely. I don't see how Europeans cold have forced Africans' hand.
 
Jun 2015
5,686
UK
#68
The blame should land squarely on those who drove the market: middle-Eastern Arabs (who were even more cruel) and Europeans.
Those culprits basically turned small scale slavery (which has existed everywhere legally or illegally and still exist today) into a grotesque trade of proportion never seen in human history.

You can't simply put the blame on Africans for being exploited by technologically and more advanced civilizations. These civilizations systematically magnified what was already wrong within SOME African cultures. They didn't come to trade and exchange ideas but to exploit and divide. No such thing as innocence but only different degree of guilt.
I don't agree that Africans were exploited. The Arab trade was seperate from the trans-Atlantic trade. Arabs often raided towns and villages to get slaves, or got local contacts to do this.

But the trans-Atlantic trade required contact with African kingdoms to do this. There is no record of them being forced to provide slaves. How could they have been forced? When Europeans first went to Africa, they found large kingdoms like Kongo, and saw that hey had slave markets (which were not slaves as we would know them, more like indentured workers or debtors). So they bought these slaves, and gave them goodies in return like guns and alcohol. Or a fancy hat for the king or something (it's not a joke, since fine clothes and tailored goods were also exchanged for slaves).

As the demand for slaves grew, they brought more goods, and this fuelled more slave trading in Africa. at no point were Africans truly forced, since they knew they were getting something in return. It was all about greed, on BOTH sides.

If in 1750, at the heignt of the slave trade, the African kingdoms made a multilateral halt on trading. It's unlikely they would have done this, but if they did, then the Europeans could not militarily force them to do it. If they did, they would have died of malaria or yellow fever, without access to quinine.

It was trade in the truest sense, and a mutual exchange. the Africans and Europeans both knew what they were doing.
 
Jun 2015
5,686
UK
#69
The truth. Africans have no knowledge of slave trade. Why because it is deception.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
nonsense. There are forts, castles, etc. still standing. There are actual markets and towns still existing from the period.

Do you also believe the trade was fabricated since there are no slave ships from the time? it's like saying there are no silver or tobacco cargo ships from 1790, so it must all be fake, they never shipped silver rom the Americas to Europe! Not many things that are wooden still exist from nearly 300 years ago. For obvious reasons like decay, parasites, etc. And cargo ships like metallic ships today, got torn apart and scrapped once they lived out their usefulness. Slave ships especially would have, since even after they were emptied and clean, they'd probably still stink of **** (literally).
l
 
Last edited:
Nov 2011
8,864
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
#70
Many slaves came from Kongo. I don't think there were many Arabs there.

Other slaves were sold or resold in the Americas. Also not many Arabs there.

As for the changes of names what do you suggest? European names? Arab names? Berber names? West African names? All these peoples were responsible for the slave trade. This is more a tragedy than a comedy, I think. Especially when slavery still exists in the world today and these convicts are not exactly free people.
Do look up and research Tippu Tip and his activities in the Congo--he was so famous he was even featured in the Illustrated London News and dealt with Livingstone, Stanley and King Leopold. His lineage, a mix of Coastal Bantu and Arab is also of interest. Although he was a relative latecomer to the slave trade, he is typical of the enterprising slavers of the Swahili Coast.