Responsibility for Slave trade is African?

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,567
Benin City, Nigeria
#81
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
What is the point of making these unusual claims about the same idea repeatedly and then disappearing? Once again:

The last time you were asked by some other posters to provide evidence to prove your arguments about black indigenous Americans, in another thread several months ago, you couldn't. So why bring up the claim again now when you couldn't even prove it then?

Most slaves that were shipped to the Americas were not sent to the U.S.A., so this argument you are making could not even work anyway.
 
Nov 2010
7,540
Cornwall
#82
I regard the transatlantic trade as a very small part of 'slavery' in total as a subject. Though some posters seem to think that is all there was.

Just brushing up on Juber Pasha's conquest of Timbuctoo and all the background the goes with it. Going back some considerable time to 9th and 10th centuries, the Caliphate of Cordoba and powers in the Magreb relied on 'Gold from the Sudan' - not the modern Sudan but West Africa around what was once the Empire of Ghana, then Mali.

The quite extensive trade by the berber desert traders especially from Sijilmassa nvolved salt going south in exchange for gold going north. In some bizarre silent trade routine. Unfortuntely the extraction of salt requires slaves so there was a heavy trade in those to go with it.

Can't remember what the original subject is, but I agree with the sentiment that thinking of this sort of trade as 'Africans selling Africans', in 21st century talk, is utterly bonkers.
 
Mar 2012
378
#83
I see what you are saying but one can eaisly cherry pick situations where slaves had it better in America than Africa. Ive seen it done before by people who sympathize with the confederacy. The fact is Slavery existed in various forms in Africa, some better some worse but at the end of the day you were a slave.










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?
 
Nov 2010
7,540
Cornwall
#84
I see what you are saying but one can eaisly cherry pick situations where slaves had it better in America than Africa. Ive seen it done before by people who sympathize with the confederacy. The fact is Slavery existed in various forms in Africa, some better some worse but at the end of the day you were a slave.
And also in Europe. And.................
 
Feb 2012
3,888
Portugal
#85
The main responsability I see is that I never heard of diplomatic pressure by powerfull kingdoms like Kongo to put an end to the slave trade, by the contrary they were the ones capturing the slaves from local tribes and selling them. Considering that in the 16th century the sons and daughters of Kongolese aristocrats were hanging around in Lisbon and others studying theology in Coimbra they might have done something, they certainly knew the reality of the slaves. The native Brazilians teamed with the Jesuits to pressure the crown to stop abuses, and the Chinese government made the Portuguese crown forbid the chinese slave trade.
 
Last edited:

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,567
Benin City, Nigeria
#86
Yôḥānān;2971979 said:
The main responsability I see is that I never heard of diplomatic pressure by powerfull kingdoms like Kongo to put an end to the slave trade, by the contrary they were the ones capturing the slaves from local tribes and selling them. Considering that in the 16th century the sons and daughters of Kongolese aristocrats were hanging around in Lisbon and others studying theology in Coimbra they might have done something, they certainly knew the reality of the slaves. The native Brazilians teamed with the Jesuits to pressure the crown to stop abuses, and the Chinese government made the Portuguese crown forbid the chinese slave trade.
Actually, Kongo had almost completely ceased the export of slaves by the late 16th century. In that respect it somewhat resembles the kingdom of Benin, which had done that in the early to mid 16th century through a deliberate policy to restrict the sale of slaves.

H-Net Discussion Networks - King Nzinga Mbemba of Kongo on slave trade

John Thornton also mentions how Kongo's participation in the slave trade decreased to a quite small scale by the late 16th century in his book The Kingdom of Kongo: Civil War and Transition, 1641-1718.

The expansion of slavery and the slave trade in that area (west central Africa) had less to do with Kongo (when it was stable, before the civil wars) and more to do with some other polities and peoples in the area. Although after the civil wars started in the mid-17th century the slave trade increased in Kongo itself.
 
Feb 2012
3,888
Portugal
#87
Actually, Kongo had almost completely ceased the export of slaves by the late 16th century. In that respect it somewhat resembles the kingdom of Benin, which had done that in the early to mid 16th century through a deliberate policy to restrict the sale of slaves.

H-Net Discussion Networks - King Nzinga Mbemba of Kongo on slave trade

John Thornton also mentions how Kongo's participation in the slave trade decreased to a quite small scale by the late 16th century in his book The Kingdom of Kongo: Civil War and Transition, 1641-1718.

The expansion of slavery and the slave trade in that area (west central Africa) had less to do with Kongo (when it was stable, before the civil wars) and more to do with some other polities and peoples in the area. Although after the civil wars started in the mid-17th century the slave trade increased in Kongo itself.

Thank you very much, great link. I guess the situation is very complex and cannot be reduced to the Kingdom of Kongo like I was doing.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,567
Benin City, Nigeria
#88
Yôḥānān;2972143 said:
Thank you very much, great link. I guess the situation is very complex and cannot be reduced to the Kingdom of Kongo like I was doing.
Sure, no problem. And yes the situation is complex, particularly in the case of Kongo.

I only came across that link recently, and when I did I realized the situation was a bit murkier than I thought it was. On the one hand, Thornton emphasizes that the export of slaves from the kingdom of Kongo decreased substantially to only a small amount by the late 16th century - a point which he also made in his book about Kongo that I mentioned above - but at the same time he makes it clear that Nzinga Mbemba, at least according to his letters, did not stick to his original policy (as stated in the letter which that excerpt is from) about the slave trade, which would have amounted to banning it completely, but instead settled for a less radical or less complete change. I had once thought that his policy on the slave trade was simply the one described in that particular letter, but after coming across Thornton's comments it seems clear that things are a bit more complicated and that he instead settled on a policy that was not actually complete/total in its restrictions on slave trading. So either this less radical policy that Nzinga Mbemba adopted, or perhaps the impact of the policies of some of his successors, was enough to bring about a substantial decrease in the export of slaves from Kongo, without actually banning slave trading altogether.
 
Feb 2012
3,888
Portugal
#89
Sure, no problem. And yes the situation is complex, particularly in the case of Kongo.

I only came across that link recently, and when I did I realized the situation was a bit murkier than I thought it was. On the one hand, Thornton emphasizes that the export of slaves from the kingdom of Kongo decreased substantially to only a small amount by the late 16th century - a point which he also made in his book about Kongo that I mentioned above - but at the same time he makes it clear that Nzinga Mbemba, at least according to his letters, did not stick to his original policy (as stated in the letter which that excerpt is from) about the slave trade, which would have amounted to banning it completely, but instead settled for a less radical or less complete change. I had once thought that his policy on the slave trade was simply the one described in that particular letter, but after coming across Thornton's comments it seems clear that things are a bit more complicated and that he instead settled on a policy that was not actually complete/total in its restrictions on slave trading. So either this less radical policy that Nzinga Mbemba adopted, or perhaps the impact of the policies of some of his successors, was enough to bring about a substantial decrease in the export of slaves from Kongo, without actually banning slave trading altogether.

I remember having read in this article that the Jagas from whom they captured slaves also seem to have gotten angry and around that time and relations with the Portuguese would deteriorate in the following century.
These particular "jagas" were constant victims of the Kongo slave trade and eventually invaded their western neighbor in 1568. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaga_(Kongo)
And from what I understand, and unfortunately for them, the Kongolese royal succession still had the same problem of the Iberian Goths', which these last had changed during the beginning of the Reconquista to avoid constant party fights at each succession making it a fixed line of succession.
 
Last edited:

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,567
Benin City, Nigeria
#90
That particular claim in the wikipedia article on the Jaga is an interesting notion, and I have come across a similar claim elsewhere though I have not been able to track down the primary source for the idea (that the motivation for the Jaga invasion had to do with fighting against slaving operations from Kongo). Perhaps someone was drawing on something in a primary source when describing it as an anti-slave-trade invasion, but I have not been able to find the original source(s).

Several articles have been written about the Jaga, theorizing about who they really were, where they possibly came from, and what the motivation for their invasion was and it seems that so far their identity and the actual motivations behind their invasions are not exactly clear.

Of the articles that have been written about the Jaga, three of the most interesting are:

"Requiem for the "Jaga" " (1973) by Joseph Miller

https://www.persee.fr/doc/cea_0008-0055_1973_num_13_49_2728


"A Resurrection for the Jaga" (1978) by John Thornton

https://www.persee.fr/doc/cea_0008-0055_1978_num_18_69_2407


"The Jaga Reconsidered" (1981) by Anne Hilton

https://www.jstor.org/stable/181582?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Miller argues that the Jaga were more of a construct, myth, or misunderstanding than an actual foreign invading group, while both Hilton and Thornton disagree with this idea and argue that the Jaga existed and were a real group, but give different identifications for who they were.
 
Last edited: