locdiva
Craftsperson
#1 locdiva
Posts: 65
|
Post by locdiva on Aug 24, 2014 18:52:08 GMT -5
On Facebook Runoko Rashidi posted about African kingdoms not being involved in the slave trade. He stated that even on the African continent it was a completely Euro-centered enterprise. I believe I know the answer but I want to to know what others thin, because that is completely ridiculous to me. For one, I cannot see any of these empires allowing whites to roam their countries willy-nilly without their control. I've read where some kings collected duty from anybody passing through, so how were whites able to profit from the slave trade, without Africans giving them the privilege?
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Aug 24, 2014 22:59:01 GMT -5
On Facebook Runoko Rashidi posted about African kingdoms not being involved in the slave trade. He stated that even on the African continent it was a completely Euro-centered enterprise. I believe I know the answer but I want to to know what others thin, because that is completely ridiculous to me. For one, I cannot see any of these empires allowing whites to roam their countries willy-nilly without their control. I've read where some kings collected duty from anybody passing through, so how were whites able to profit from the slave trade, without Africans giving them the privilege? As the descendant of a high ranking official whose family made a living by trading enemy captives as slaves.... Yeeeesss..... I'm descended from one of his sons who was kidnapped by the enemy and sold into slavery as revenge. The dynamic here was that Africans didn't have a collective identity as "black people", or "Africans" in those days, anymore than the English saw the Irish as being their "white brothers" when they were colonizing their country, stealing the land and selling the resisters into slavery in the Americas. You are correct that Europeans didn't walk into Africa willy nilly with shopping carts and filled them up with Africans. By the time they had the military strength and ability to do that, slavery had been abolished in the Americas. The World's economy was moving from agriculture to industry and what the World powers needed was raw materials and markets for their manufactured goods, not slaves. Although, inorder to get those raw materials working conditions for the natives could be extreemly brutal, differeing from actual slavery only in name as was the case in the Belgian Congo.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Aug 25, 2014 5:32:43 GMT -5
On Facebook Runoko Rashidi posted about African kingdoms not being involved in the slave trade. He stated that even on the African continent it was a completely Euro-centered enterprise. I believe I know the answer but I want to to know what others thin, because that is completely ridiculous to me. For one, I cannot see any of these empires allowing whites to roam their countries willy-nilly without their control. I've read where some kings collected duty from anybody passing through, so how were whites able to profit from the slave trade, without Africans giving them the privilege? As the descendant of a high ranking official whose family made a living by trading enemy captives as slaves.... Yeeeesss..... I'm descended from one of his sons who was kidnapped by the enemy and sold into slavery as revenge. The dynamic here was that Africans didn't have a collective identity as "black people", or "Africans" in those days, anymore than the English saw the Irish as being their "white brothers" when they were colonizing their country, stealing the land and selling the resisters into slavery in the Americas. You are correct that Europeans didn't walk into Africa willy nilly with shopping carts and filled them up with Africans. By the time they had the military strength and ability to do that, slavery had been abolished in the Americas. The World's economy was moving from agriculture to industry and what the World powers needed was raw materials and markets for their manufactured goods, not slaves. Although, inorder to get those raw materials working conditions for the natives could be extreemly brutal, differeing from actual slavery only in name as was the case in the Belgian Congo. Not only that but African royals and ex royals readily admitted the role their fore-bearers played in the slave trade matter of fact their roll was even more insidious than you might think,for they had their trade reps and agents in both Europe and across the Atlantic making sure business was being taking care of,and if the Europeans ruffled their feathers they could and did turn it on or off until satisfied,it an ugly fact be we have to acknowledge it deal with it and move on hopefully learning something about basic human nature. The above showed Lisbon in late medieval/early renascence times 1500 is showing multiple layers of Blacks from slaves to knights,it was during this era that Portugal and Angola were close allies exchanging embassies and the like, the knights were more likely Angolan high borns who traveled to Portugal for adventure or fortune just like their Portuguese counter parts would do in Africa it is certainly within these class that would help facilitate the slave trade of folks of rival states but not exclusively so,the history of Angola tells of corruption,of Angolan and Portuguese business men undermining the authority of the king who sought to have it banned. Btw Truthteacher what a great idea for a book.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Aug 25, 2014 14:15:18 GMT -5
As the descendant of a high ranking official whose family made a living by trading enemy captives as slaves.... Yeeeesss..... I'm descended from one of his sons who was kidnapped by the enemy and sold into slavery as revenge. The dynamic here was that Africans didn't have a collective identity as "black people", or "Africans" in those days, anymore than the English saw the Irish as being their "white brothers" when they were colonizing their country, stealing the land and selling the resisters into slavery in the Americas. You are correct that Europeans didn't walk into Africa willy nilly with shopping carts and filled them up with Africans. By the time they had the military strength and ability to do that, slavery had been abolished in the Americas. The World's economy was moving from agriculture to industry and what the World powers needed was raw materials and markets for their manufactured goods, not slaves. Although, inorder to get those raw materials working conditions for the natives could be extreemly brutal, differeing from actual slavery only in name as was the case in the Belgian Congo. Not only that but African royals and ex royals readily admitted the role their fore-bearers played in the slave trade matter of fact their roll was even more insidious than you might think,for they had their trade reps and agents in both Europe and across the Atlantic making sure business was being taking care of,and if the Europeans ruffled their feathers they could and did turn it on or off until satisfied,it an ugly fact be we have to acknowledge it deal with it and move on hopefully learning something about basic human nature. The above showed Lisbon in late medieval/early renascence times 1500 is showing multiple layers of Blacks from slaves to knights,it was during this era that Portugal and Angola were close allies exchanging embassies and the like, the knights were more likely Angolan high borns who traveled to Portugal for adventure or fortune just like their Portuguese counter parts would do in Africa it is certainly within these class that would help facilitate the slave trade of folks of rival states but not exclusively so,the history of Angola tells of corruption,of Angolan and Portuguese business men undermining the authority of the king who sought to have it banned. Btw Truthteacher what a great idea for a book. Even more interesting is what he did after he got to Jamaica. I have to track down some relatives to find the whole story. It would make a great story. Maybe one day I'll write a novel based on it Slavery itself, no matter where it happened, was always facilitated by people in those areas who collaborated for their own gain. There's a movie that you can find on youtube about the beginning of the importation of indentured Indians to Guyana after the abolition of slavery. They were slaves in all but name. The interesting part of the movie is how it shows the Indian recruiters who trickedpoor peasants into signing away their lives. You can also find mini docs that tell of people who were kidnapped in India and sold to the British. There are still people alive who ended up in Jamaica, Trinidad and Guyana in this way. It really does say a lot about human nature. Race is really incidental and this is what a lot of us miss. We've been conditioned to see the world in black and white, black angles and white devils. What we fail to realize is that quite often the devil comes to us wearing a black face. Kidnappers and corrupt kings in Africa, informants during slavery, FBI informants during the Civil Rights Era and the drug dealers and hustlers today. In every society there are predetors who prey on the vulnerable in their own communities for the sake of their personal gain.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Aug 25, 2014 14:41:44 GMT -5
On the Facebook page, among a mass of head-nodders, one commenter asked Runoko Rashidi to offer sources as proof of his assertion. 60 comments later Rashidi has yet to provide any credible proof, or scholarship. Its sad that such pseudo-history is getting propagated. Yes Africans participated in the slave trade- no need to deny it, or treat it as some big exemption of the white man either as some do. Numerous peoples for millennia worldwide traded in slaves. And African slavery was different in some important ways to plantation slavery in the Americas which of course is not an excuse for dismissing the suffering of those who were slaves in milder form. This does not excuse the European imperialists, or African slavers, but neither does it have to be denied. It is pathetic to see people talking bout "self-hate" for just recognizing the facts. www.amazon.com/Routes-Remembrance-Refashioning-Slave-Trade/dp/0226349756/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408994770&sr=1-1&keywords=9780226349756Truthteacher says: You are correct that Europeans didn't walk into Africa willy nilly with shopping carts and filled them up with Africans. By the time they had the military strength and ability to do that, slavery had been abolished in the Americas. The World's economy was moving from agriculture to industry and what the World powers needed was raw materials and markets for their manufactured goods, not slaves. Agreed, though would just add that several scholars show slavery, relative to other contemporary systems for pumping out industrial crops like sugar, cotton etc was profitable. When slavery ended the British paid off slave owners in their colonies, taking up 2% of Britain's GDP. They got paid. In contrast the ex-slaves got nothing or very little. (ROthschild 2004- Bury the Chains). Just pointing this out because there are some on the web claiming how slavery was so unprofitable, and it was on its way out anyway, and black slavery didn't contribute much to building the US and so on.. Also as the book below shows, the North benefitted heavily from slavery. It pointed fingers at the south but the north was eating like greedy hogs from a profitable trough. www.amazon.com/Complicity-Promoted-Prolonged-Profited-Slavery/dp/0345467833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408996513&sr=1-1&keywords=complicity+how+the+north+promoted+prolonged+and+profited+from+slaveryAnansi says: There's a movie that you can find on youtube about the beginning of the importation of indentured Indians to Guyana after the abolition of slavery. They were slaves in all but name. The interesting part of the movie is how it shows the Indian recruiters who tricked poor peasants into signing away their lives. You can also find mini docs that tell of people who were kidnapped in India and sold to the British. There are still people alive who ended up in Jamaica, Trinidad and Guyana in this way.Hmm do you have the Tube link Anansi?
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Aug 25, 2014 14:52:16 GMT -5
On the Facebook page, among a mass of head-nodders, one commenter asked Runoko Rashidi to offer sources as proof of his assertion. 60 comments later Rashidi has yet to provide any credible proof, or scholarship. Its sad that such pseudo-history is getting propagated. Yes Africans participated in the slave trade- no need to deny it, or treat it as some big exemption of the white man either as some do. Numerous peoples for millennia worldwide traded in slaves. And African slavery was different in some important ways to plantation slavery in the Americas which of course is not an excuse for dismissing the suffering of those who were slaves in milder form. This does not excuse the European imperialists, or African slavers, but neither does it have to be denied. It is pathetic to see people talking bout "self-hate" for just recognizing the facts. Anansi says: There's a movie that you can find on youtube about the beginning of the importation of indentured Indians to Guyana after the abolition of slavery. They were slaves in all but name. The interesting part of the movie is how it shows the Indian recruiters who trickedpoor peasants into signing away their lives. You can also find mini docs that tell of people who were kidnapped in India and sold to the British. There are still people alive who ended up in Jamaica, Trinidad and Guyana in this way.Hmm do you have the Tube link Anansi? I'm not Anansi. Give me some time and I'll see if I can find it again.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Aug 25, 2014 14:52:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Aug 25, 2014 14:58:08 GMT -5
Thanks- well check them out.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Aug 25, 2014 15:03:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Aug 25, 2014 15:07:04 GMT -5
|
|
locdiva
Craftsperson
#1 locdiva
Posts: 65
|
Post by locdiva on Aug 25, 2014 22:34:15 GMT -5
What I also find so insidious in denying African participation is that it also implies they were not clever, enterprising people, individually, and collectively. To say that they were not involved also says that they were lacking in political and military skills. That whites were beating them regularly in war. Both of these assumptions I know are not true. I don't want to blast Rashidi wholesale, but as a historian/researcher, he makes me think I'm missing crucial details while reading his work.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Aug 26, 2014 0:51:11 GMT -5
Rashidi is off on this particular point whatever his other work. What is sad is most of the comments on his page more or less just agree- 'amen brother' type. Africans participated fully in the trade- they were not mere puppets or gofers for Europeans. IN some areas the Europeans promoted wars between tribes to generate conflict and thus more slaves. But there is also info that shows various African rulers even when they had enough strength to resist, pushed the trade forward so they could profit. The trade would have collapsed without the energetic work of African middlemen- Europeans often could not venture inland due to disease and local opposition. Maybe someone has more detailed info on this but the bulk of what they got was guns (mostly obsolete castoffs from European wars- or cheap trade muskets that malfunctioned sometimes), whisky/rum and other cheap consumer goods. Europeans also brought in cowrie shells from India and the Indian ocean as currency to pay for the human cargo. In local context where there was a surplus of manpower to trade (captives etc) the exchange was deemed worth it. It pains to think about it, but by the calculus of the time it was just business to many. Human bodies were just another commodity. Doesnt let Europeans off the hook for the approx 2 million lying dead at the bottom of the Atlantic. They always had the option of NOT doing slaves.
Course slavery was nothing special to Europeans - they enslaved their own over the centuries. Read some reference which said bout 20-25% of the Roman Empire were slaves. Constant wars in Greek ties and Roman times filled the Medit area with slaves. Then there are the Eastern Europeans- some of them talk racist these days, but back then they were often enslaved- the "Slavs" from which we get the word slaves of course.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Aug 26, 2014 11:42:31 GMT -5
What I also find so insidious in denying African participation is that it also implies they were not clever, enterprising people, individually, and collectively. To say that they were not involved also says that they were lacking in political and military skills. That whites were beating them regularly in war. Both of these assumptions I know are not true. I don't want to blast Rashidi wholesale, but as a historian/researcher, he makes me think I'm missing crucial details while reading his work. Very good point. The idea that Europeans walked into Africa and kidnapped millions of people carries with it a implied notion of African inferiority and European superiority. Neither was true. The African societies that Europeans came in contact with were highly organized and complex as attested to by their own admission. The notion of the backward savage was a myth created after the fact to justify the barbarity of their business. People often ask, why didn't Africans fight back? The reason is because they did not perceive of themselves as "Africans". There was no collective sense of identity as there is now. They perceived them as members of their own particular ethnic group of community. The people across the river were a different group of people and so on. Therefore, when Europeans showed up they didn't have any concept of All us Africans and them. They saw them as just another different group of people. I can make war on those people we never got along with AND make money too? SWEET! It wasn't till much later that they would come to realize that Europeans did not see them as distinct peoples and therefore, were a common enemy. And even to this day there are still tensions due to peoples who traditionally did not get along, being thrown together in one political state. Well how do you have a state when the ethnic identity is much stronger tgan a notion of a common identity? The agitation of Azawad in Mali is only one such example. The Europeans did not conquer anyone, except perhaps the Taino by military superiority. The conquest of the Aztecys and Incas was only possible because they exploited internal conflicts and had the assistance of hundreds of thousands of native troops from ethnic groups hostile to the ruling Aztec and Inca elite. Once defeated, they often married into the families of the local nobility cementing their legitimacy. The involvement of Africans was short sighted and tragic. But at the time, none of them had the ability to look beyond their own short sighted gains to see the bigger picture. Human beings on a whole seldom ever do.
|
|
locdiva
Craftsperson
#1 locdiva
Posts: 65
|
Post by locdiva on Aug 26, 2014 12:55:48 GMT -5
Rashidi is off on this particular point whatever his other work. What is sad is most of the comments on his page more or less just agree- 'amen brother' type. Africans participated fully in the trade- they were not mere puppets or gofers for Europeans. IN some areas the Europeans promoted wars between tribes to generate conflict and thus more slaves. But there is also info that shows various African rulers even when they had enough strength to resist, pushed the trade forward so they could profit. The trade would have collapsed without the energetic work of African middlemen- Europeans often could not venture inland due to disease and local opposition. Maybe someone has more detailed info on this but the bulk of what they got was guns (mostly obsolete castoffs from European wars- or cheap trade muskets that malfunctioned sometimes), whisky/rum and other cheap consumer goods. Europeans also brought in cowrie shells from India and the Indian ocean as currency to pay for the human cargo. In local context where there was a surplus of manpower to trade (captives etc) the exchange was deemed worth it. It pains to think about it, but by the calculus of the time it was just business to many. Human bodies were just another commodity. Doesnt let Europeans off the hook for the approx 2 million lying dead at the bottom of the Atlantic. They always had the option of NOT doing slaves. Course slavery was nothing special to Europeans - they enslaved their own over the centuries. Read some reference which said bout 20-25% of the Roman Empire were slaves. Constant wars in Greek ties and Roman times filled the Medit area with slaves. Then there are the Eastern Europeans- some of them talk racist these days, but back then they were often enslaved- the "Slavs" from which we get the word slaves of course. yes, I laugh when I read traditional Roman/Greek historians talk about them 'implementing democratic' systems. How can democracy be possible in a society that depends so heavily on slavery?
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Aug 26, 2014 20:25:31 GMT -5
Yeah that's what I don;t understand LocDiva. But you will find no end of gushing claims as to how enlightened they were. I have no problem with Greece having SOME democratic elements but they were not a democracy in the modern sense.
Only a minority could vote in Greece. The "democracy" of Sparta did not extend to the bulk of the population, the helots. Of the vaunted Athenians, only about 10% of the population were eligible for any democratic privileges. And that ancient "democracy" was closely linked with the particular tribal background culture of its practitioners.
And if partial elements make a democracy then Africa too had democracy. The "gada" system of the East African Galla for example had an orderly rotating republican system where holders of power were freely elected based on age-grade election populations. Furthermore as in the gada, age and gender were also influential factors on the antiquarian "democracy."
|
|