Responsibility for Slave trade is African?

Jun 2015
5,636
UK
#71
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.
He was talking about the trans-Atlantic trade, not the Arab trade.

Hardly any Arabs were involved in the trans-Atlantic trade. at best as middlemen in procuring slaves to sell to Europeans. Even then, it was just as much non-Arabs or Muslims who did this.
 
Oct 2015
5,112
Matosinhos Portugal
#72
It must be pointed out that everybody was enslaving everybody. But as far as I know, people from West Africa never raided Europe to capture slaves... So, again, what is your point? 
I just wanted to point out that Africans, when they had the ability, enslaved others. The West Africans simply lacked the ships to visit European shores and haul European slaves away. The North Africans, who had the ships, did do that. If the flow of Atlantic Slave Trade was one way, it was in part due to technological factors - the West Africans lacked the ships to do what the Europeans did.




The accounts of Portuguese explorers of kidnapping a few slaves did not invovled large number of slaves, and the loses the Portuguese suffered in the process would have made the entire slaving venture rather unprofitable in a short time. You read about the Portuguese capturing a handful of slaves/ but losing a man or 2 in the process. If capturing a half dozen slaves you lose a man, that is not going to be sustainable over the long haul.



Actually, the Portuguese did need African support. The numbers of slaves they could kidnap, and the losses suffered during the process, would have most likely restricted the number of slaves to insignificant levels.[/QUOTE]
_____________________________

I found this site on the slavery practiced by Portugal only that the Link is in Portuguese, is it of interest?


A última escrava portuguesa morreu em Lisboa nos anos 1930 - Renascença


The last Portuguese slave died in Lisbon in years 1

"Slaves of Portugal" gathers stories of slaves. Portugal is a pioneer in the abolition of slavery, but it would, in fact, end only long after 1761, says historian Arlindo Manuel Caldeira.


Portugal had long been a republic when the last slave of the empire died in Lisbon. It was in the 30's of last century. The newspapers of the day said they would be 120 years old. He was well known in Bairro Alto, where he sold peanuts. She had been a slave until 1869, when the decree abolishing slavery was published throughout Portugal.

Portugal was the first state in the world to do global trade in slaves from Africa. Between 1450 and 1900, it will have trafficked about 11 million people. Although national historical mythology likes to display the first world country's award to abolish slavery, the decree published in 1761 by the Marquis of Pombal did not, in fact, end with the slaves.

The history of slavery in the Portuguese empire began to be seriously studied only after 25 April.

_

Link in Portuguese with several pages on slavery practiced by Portugal

https://www.google.pt/search?client...+portuguêses&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
 
Oct 2015
5,112
Matosinhos Portugal
#73
national treasure like to display the first country's world award to abolish slavery, the decree published in 1761 by the Marquis of Pombal did not, in fact, end with the slave.

My opinion I do not believe. The slavery practiced by Portugal ended on 25 April 1974
 
May 2018
100
On earth.
#74
Sub Saharan africans didn't use european slaves not because they couldn't obtain any, but because they lacked resistance to many sub saharan african diseases and thus died very quickly, making them a waste of money.
 
May 2018
100
On earth.
#75
since it's common knowledge that Africans did trade other Africans freely. I don't see how Europeans cold have forced Africans' hand.
You're oversimplifying. It was not "Africans selling Africans" as you put its, as they didn't see themselves as "African". They saw each other as Ashante, Dahomey, Kongo, Zimbabwe, etc.
It wasn't "Africans selling africans", it was Ashante enslaving nearby tribes. Nuance.
 
Likes: sparky

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,552
Benin City, Nigeria
#76
It wasn't "Africans selling africans", it was Ashante enslaving nearby tribes. Nuance.
Well it was Africans selling Africans. Just that "African" didn't mean too much then. It was not that important. But building upon this nuance (to add further nuance), when the army of Aowin, an Akan kingdom that was a rival power to Asante in the early 1700s, invaded a part of Asante's territory in 1718, many people were killed, but also, more than 20,000 Asante citizens that were taken as captives in that war were later sold into slavery by the people of Aowin.
 
Last edited:
May 2018
100
On earth.
#77
Well it was Africans selling Africans. Just that "African" didn't mean too much then. It was not that important. But building upon this nuance (to add further nuance), when the army of Aowin, an Akan kingdom that was a rival power to Asante in the early 1700s, invaded a part of Asante's territory in 1718, many people were killed, but also, more than 20,000 Asante citizens that were taken as captives in that war were later sold into slavery by the people of Aowin.
You would not characterize the, say, war of the roses as "europeans killing europeans", because that is disingenuous.
They didn't see themselves as a united "European force", and therefore did not see the war as fighting brethren, so why would we categorize them as so? They were English, French, or whatever.
In the same way, Africans did not see themselves as african. They were not a united force. They were Ashante, Malian, etc.
The reason I make a big fuss about this is because "Africans selling Africans" implies that they were selling their own people, which they were not - and yet Ive seen innumerable amount of people claim so.

It also speaks to a larger issue - Africa, the continent that can fit three europes with ease, is often seen as some sort of single entity. The amount of times Ive heard people say "Country of Africa" unironically, or "President Of Africa" unironically is insane. When people talk any sort of food from the continent, it is "African Food". Ok, where in Africa? You wouldn't see me calling crêpe "European Food". No, we say it's french food.

Stuff like this doesn't help with that issue, hence why I'm typing up a tirade.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2016
76
Užice, Serbia
#78
Slavery is Slavery, is an inhumane barbaric practice. It annoys me to know end when people employ this excuse...
Theft is theft, no matter if a starving boy steals an apple from the marketplace or a mafia boss steals millions of dollars from a bank.

See how ridiculous your viewpoint is?
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#79
You would not characterize the, say, war of the roses as "europeans killing europeans", because that is disingenuous.
They didn't see themselves as a united "European force", and therefore did not see the war as fighting brethren, so why would we categorize them as so? They were English, French, or whatever.
In the same way, Africans did not see themselves as african. They were not a united force. They were Ashante, Malian, etc.
The reason I make a big fuss about this is because "Africans selling Africans" implies that they were selling their own people, which they were not - and yet Ive seen innumerable amount of people claim so.

It also speaks to a larger issue - Africa, the continent that can fit three europes with ease, is often seen as some sort of single entity. The amount of times Ive heard people say "Country of Africa" unironically, or "President Of Africa" unironically is insane. When people talk any sort of food from the continent, it is "African Food". Ok, where in Africa? You wouldn't see me calling crêpe "European Food". No, we say it's french food.

Stuff like this doesn't help with that issue, hence why I'm typing up a tirade.
Europeans did have a sense of an overall common identity when they fought in tnr Crusades, or when Polish forces helped defend Austrian Vienna against the Turks. There was some over all European identity, (i.e., western Christisn identity), but local identity (English, French) was more important of course. Still, while it was ok for Western Europeans to enslave and sell others, it would not have been ok since beyond the early middle ages to do so with fellow Western Europeans because of some sense of common identity.

What you are saying is that Africans didn't have a larger sense of identity beyond their tribe or local kingdom? I agree you can't lump all of Africa together culturally, linguistically, religiously, in clothing styles, or even physical appearance - people from the different regions of African have quite different appeances. But did Africans have no sense of greater regional identity beyond their tribe or local kingdom?

The issue with the Asante selling other Africans is that they were selling neighbors, people would be culturally similar, possibly speaking the same language, and whom they might have even peacefully trade with. They weren't selling distant strangers, like Europeans with Africans; more as if the Dutch were buying and selling French for the slaves
 
Last edited:
#80
We debate things like this all the time... But if people took the time to read they would know truth. Most Atlantic slave ships started there journey right here in America to Europe. So the question it's about Africans selling there own. The question is why do we keep telling this lie as history. Example.... We pretend black people were here when Columbus arrived yet we know the Spanish word for black is indios translation to English Indian. We know that the pigmes a African tribe lived on East Coast yet this isn't taught in history.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk