Post by franklin on Apr 3, 2010 19:17:39 GMT -5
The epicnes of the African slave trade was not in the profits of it, but it’s expenses. It was not the vulnerability of Africans but rather their resilience and mastery of many trades and industries that made them targets. In fact, far from being hopeless victims or primitives who greedily sold their countrymen for rubbish, many industries in Europe developed to meet the demands of the African consumer. (1.) On top of this is a glaring contradiction that many of the products sold to Africa were in fact about the same quality as, or in fact even inferior to what Africans themselves had been producing for themselves for centuries. (2.) This seems to be against the view of Africans being savvy merchants and consumers because how poor of a policy is it to import things you were already producing. In fact, while Africa faced ceaseless wars to furnish Europeans with captives the Europeans themselves were waging economic warfare against Africa, if it was not a war of the quality of products it was a war of quantity and price. It was not that the items were more expensive, it was that the items were cheaper. This was a war of industries. To illustrate further that the Europeans were bringing products already made by Africans themselves, it is seen in the fact that very specific merchandise was demanded in different parts of Africa. If the slave trade was about bringing all together new merchandise to Africa, then the same European products should have been equally in demand in all places that the slave trade occurred. If the Africans were so bewildered by little knickknacks and toys of the Europeans, such products would have been equally foreign, and thus equally sought after in all parts of Africa. The different demand for different merchandise throughout Africa can only be explained by the fact that Europeans were simply supplying things that the Africans were already using before the Europeans ever came. (An exception to this is of course firearms which I will speak on tomorrow, however Africans obviously had deadly weapons long before European firearms reached Africa). A merchant could not simply bring anything to the coast, they had to bring the correct merchandise while the same merchandise that would buy kingdoms in one part of Africa would be worthless in another part of Africa. (3). The reality of the situation is that Europeans were brining this merchandise in such numbers that they were actually flooding these goods in and manipulating African economies. (4). Such policies, however, would only seem to suit the interests of a few, especially the producers of any of the merchandise annually shipped to Africa. After all European producers would also make the things that paid for the cowry shells that were sold to Africa. However these were not the policies of a nation of manufacturers, it was the policies of a nation whose government was greatly influenced by such manufacturers. The system was not suited for the consumers of nations like Great Brittan, it was a system developed by the producers. After all, the home consumers were burdened with the whole expense of carrying on this holocaust to Africa. (5). The African slave trade underdeveloped the Western Hemisphere, diverted the industries of Europe at the expense of the home consumers, and suppressed the wealth of Africa, only for the benefit of a few.(6).
(1.)
“Africans and the industrial revolution in England” By J. E. Inikori
books.google.com/books?id=f6VfsgHVk40C&lpg=PA470&pg=PA470#v=onepage&q=&f=false
(2.)
Robert Norris in his defense of the slave trade says that the wars in Africa had no connection with the slave trade or “commerce” with Europeans. He perhaps is right when he says that the European products were not more coveted than local products, a modern example is Haiti where “national” rice has been described as superior to imported rice, and yet the country is devastated by cheap imports
Page 173 Robert Norris
docsouth.unc.edu/neh/norris/norris.html
Also see “With cheap food imports, Haiti can't feed itself” for an illustration on how a people can be devastated by imports that are actually of an inferior quality than what the locals can produce
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/with-cheap-food-imports-h_n_507228.html
(3.)
From "Kongo Slavery Remembered by Themselves: Texts from 1915" by MacGaffey, Wyatt:
An illustration of what I mean by a flood of merchandise
(4.)
“The Atlantic slave trade” by Herbert S. Klein
books.google.com/books?id=1rHLyC2yHQ8C&pg=PA100&dq=onepage&q=&f=false#v=onepage&q=&f=false
It is of the highest significance to understand that much of the damage of the slave trade was due to the loss of revenue from the flooding of goods, so other things were imported to make up for this loss of revenue. In this case demand for new European products, or products from other continents, came about only because of Europeans causing inflation
Saint Mary's University on Dahomey
stmarys.ca/~wmills/course316/7Dahomey.html
- Dahomey had a monetary system: cowry shells were the basic currency, but trade goods were used also—guns, bolts of cloth etc.
- Europeans tried to take advantage of this currency; they brought so many cowry shells that the shells lost value (inflation). As a result, European trade goods became the basic currency used in the purchase of slaves.
(5.)
While not referring specifically to the slave trade this statement clearly can be applied to the African slave trade
Adam Smith:
books.google.com/books?id=70759KjSs0sC&pg=PA253#v=onepage&q=&f=false
To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight, 'appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers.
To further illustrate that this was to the expense of the European consumer is that industries developed that were only fit for the African market. Since the very products were similar to what Africans had been producing themselves, or much of it was to augment the lost revenue from the flood of merchandise, it did not really benefit the Africans either
“Africans and the industrial revolution in England” By J. E. Inikori
books.google.com/books?id=f6VfsgHVk40C&lpg=PA470&pg=PA470#v=onepage&q=&f=false
(6.)
Trade with the Americas and the plantations were essential to the development of Europe but policies were in place to actually under develop these places. Adam Smith did state that the colony trade was essential but also specifically stated that the monopoly hurt the home country, which was supposed to benefit, as will as hurt the colonies and all other countries.
Adam Smith
books.google.com/books?id=70759KjSs0sC&pg=PA404#v=onepage&q=&f=false
This illustrates what Adam Smith meant by “not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine” as the trade with the home country continued to suppress local development. It is obvious that the effect of this trade on the southern states was similar to what was happening in Africa for centuries
“The South, Slavery and Free Trade” by Frederic W. Henderson
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/fwhfree2.htm
While it would be obvious that the southern states suffered in the manufacturing sector there was also a backward agricultural system due to the fact that they were in debt to the mother country of Great Brittan. The underdevelopment as illustrated here still goes on today as less developed countries are at the mercy of more developed countries
While cotton, and rice were still produced in the states of the old south, they generated such low yields, that they no longer were economically viable without massive increases in labor intensity. With little or no investment in any other form of economic activity, by 1860 these areas of the old south were themselves enslaved to a slave based economy, with their productive capacity at feudal levels, and the indebtedness to British "factors" reaching astronomical proportions
(1.)
“Africans and the industrial revolution in England” By J. E. Inikori
books.google.com/books?id=f6VfsgHVk40C&lpg=PA470&pg=PA470#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The English producers employed a simple method of advertisement. They requested officials of English companies resident on the African coast to promote among the inhabitants of the coastal states a comparison of English imitation with the Indian originals, noting the reaction of the African consumers
(2.)
Robert Norris in his defense of the slave trade says that the wars in Africa had no connection with the slave trade or “commerce” with Europeans. He perhaps is right when he says that the European products were not more coveted than local products, a modern example is Haiti where “national” rice has been described as superior to imported rice, and yet the country is devastated by cheap imports
Page 173 Robert Norris
docsouth.unc.edu/neh/norris/norris.html
That the wars which have always existed in Africa, have no connexion with the slave trade, is evident from the universality of the practice of it between communities in a savage state. The oldest writers, as Leo, and others, have represented the Africans as living in a continual state of war, and rapine, long before the commerce with Europeans was introduced among them….
Page 174
….Lured by the love of plunder, before he ever saw an European commodity (as the value of an article depends upon the estimation it holds in the fancy of him who covets it), the rude productions of the country, the trinkets of gold, or ivory, &c. were as much the objects of his desire formerly, as the acquisition of European manufactures can be at present
Page 174
….Lured by the love of plunder, before he ever saw an European commodity (as the value of an article depends upon the estimation it holds in the fancy of him who covets it), the rude productions of the country, the trinkets of gold, or ivory, &c. were as much the objects of his desire formerly, as the acquisition of European manufactures can be at present
Also see “With cheap food imports, Haiti can't feed itself” for an illustration on how a people can be devastated by imports that are actually of an inferior quality than what the locals can produce
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/with-cheap-food-imports-h_n_507228.html
"National rice isn't the same, it's better quality. It tastes better. But it's too expensive for people to buy," said Leonne Fedelone, a 50-year-old vendor.
(3.)
From "Kongo Slavery Remembered by Themselves: Texts from 1915" by MacGaffey, Wyatt:
It is quite a false idea," reported Sir Harry Johnston, "that you can go anywhere in Africa with any sort of bead or any kind of cloth. Each district has its peculiar tastes and fancies to consult, and you might starve in one place with bales of goods that would purchase kingdoms in another. Between Vivi and Isangila you will find red handkerchiefs, striped cloth, brass 'tacks,' gin and wire useful. At Manyanga blue beads rule the market; at Stanley Pool brass rods."[ 38] In Vungu, a piece of cloth called bela was highly regarded; "it was about the size of your hand, and worth about 50 centimes. One bela would buy an iron cleaning-rod for a gun; rods were valued, because they could be bent and worn as bracelets."
An illustration of what I mean by a flood of merchandise
(4.)
“The Atlantic slave trade” by Herbert S. Klein
books.google.com/books?id=1rHLyC2yHQ8C&pg=PA100&dq=onepage&q=&f=false#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The goods exported to Africa to pay for the slaves were costly manufactured products or high-priced imports from other countries or even other continents, and were the single most expensive factor in the outfitting of the voyage, being more valuable than the ship, the wages for the crew, and food supplies combined. An officer in the Royal Navy presented a typical cost estimate to Parliament in the late 1780s, which noted that the cargo taken on board a typical slaver leaving Liverpool was close to double the combined costs of the ship, its insurance, and the wages of the crew of twenty months. Even when all the final commissions to the captian, other officers, and agents from the final slave salves, the interest on loans, and the port fees were included, the costs of the outbound cargo used to purchase the slaves still represented the single largest expense incurred by the owners and over half of total costs of the entire enterprise. Two-thirds of the outfitting costs of the French slavers in the eighteenth century were also made up of goods used to purchase the slaves
It is of the highest significance to understand that much of the damage of the slave trade was due to the loss of revenue from the flooding of goods, so other things were imported to make up for this loss of revenue. In this case demand for new European products, or products from other continents, came about only because of Europeans causing inflation
Saint Mary's University on Dahomey
stmarys.ca/~wmills/course316/7Dahomey.html
- Dahomey had a monetary system: cowry shells were the basic currency, but trade goods were used also—guns, bolts of cloth etc.
- Europeans tried to take advantage of this currency; they brought so many cowry shells that the shells lost value (inflation). As a result, European trade goods became the basic currency used in the purchase of slaves.
(5.)
While not referring specifically to the slave trade this statement clearly can be applied to the African slave trade
Adam Smith:
books.google.com/books?id=70759KjSs0sC&pg=PA253#v=onepage&q=&f=false
To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight, 'appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers.
To further illustrate that this was to the expense of the European consumer is that industries developed that were only fit for the African market. Since the very products were similar to what Africans had been producing themselves, or much of it was to augment the lost revenue from the flood of merchandise, it did not really benefit the Africans either
“Africans and the industrial revolution in England” By J. E. Inikori
books.google.com/books?id=f6VfsgHVk40C&lpg=PA470&pg=PA470#v=onepage&q=&f=false
the petionioner and his partner have laid out a capital of 70,000, and upwards, to establish themselves in the aforesaid manufactories, which are entirely for the African market, and not saleable for any other
(6.)
Trade with the Americas and the plantations were essential to the development of Europe but policies were in place to actually under develop these places. Adam Smith did state that the colony trade was essential but also specifically stated that the monopoly hurt the home country, which was supposed to benefit, as will as hurt the colonies and all other countries.
Adam Smith
books.google.com/books?id=70759KjSs0sC&pg=PA404#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of on empire ; not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shewn, are to the great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit
This illustrates what Adam Smith meant by “not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine” as the trade with the home country continued to suppress local development. It is obvious that the effect of this trade on the southern states was similar to what was happening in Africa for centuries
“The South, Slavery and Free Trade” by Frederic W. Henderson
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/fwhfree2.htm
What little industry that existed was rudimentary and primitive in character. The southern economy was totally dependant on outside markets for the sale of its two major export commodities, raw, unfinished cotton and to a lesser degree rice; it was similarly totally dependant on outside markets for the bulk of its foodstuffs, almost all consumer goods, and virtually all capital goods. Almost no other of the extensive mineral and natural resources in these southern states were developed or harnessed
While it would be obvious that the southern states suffered in the manufacturing sector there was also a backward agricultural system due to the fact that they were in debt to the mother country of Great Brittan. The underdevelopment as illustrated here still goes on today as less developed countries are at the mercy of more developed countries
While cotton, and rice were still produced in the states of the old south, they generated such low yields, that they no longer were economically viable without massive increases in labor intensity. With little or no investment in any other form of economic activity, by 1860 these areas of the old south were themselves enslaved to a slave based economy, with their productive capacity at feudal levels, and the indebtedness to British "factors" reaching astronomical proportions