U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-01-2017, 01:15 AM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,923,923 times
Reputation: 3799

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
Ok let start here

False, not that there isn't chattel slavery in Africa or even today, hell there slaves in the US Human trafficking etc.

Non of this has much to do with the vast numbers of the transatlantic slave trade, The majority came by war captivity. Rival kingdoms fought each other and raid villages and etc.

Also just because there might have some instance chattel slavery does not change the fact of the commonly indentured servitude.


indentured servitude is when you working for someone pay off a debt or loan,


You really should read this stuff
Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives | PBS



False 2#

1. Slavery in Americas center around racism, in Africa it wasn't. Slavery wasn't a new concept to European, there was white on white slavery with in the Roman empire, The viking and Nordic countries, Germanic tribes and etc.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozAPmRun8GU


By the late middle Churches supposedly ban slavery, they didn't really ban slavery they ban slavery to Christians, Who were over whelming were white. This slowly change to European exploiting slave markets with people of color.

European went to Africa because of color, African where not selling slaves of their color. Africans did not know they was being target because of these color.

African rulers and etc did not go to the Americas. They had no idea of the condition in the Americas. or again people where being target because of their color.

Also The Slaves that returning came near or was after the British empire outlaw slavery. the damage was already done Even America outlaw the importing of slaves in 1807. For instance ex slaves didn't start going to Sierra Leone until 1787 Liberia until the 1822. When the Portuguese started the trade back in 1502, With British and etc later.



Think deeply about it


imagine...... if white Americans went to Germany and Ireland, took their land and form colonies..... Do think you German the Irish would think kindly of this?.....



Not excusing

I'm using logic, Of course I have critizism towards The slave trading kingdoms those Kings failed to see the larger picture, That was puppets

It's bizarre Rival kingdoms would have the same Europeans sponsor to fight each other.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...hedebateonslav

The National Archives | Exhibitions & Learning online | Black presence | Africa and the Caribbean
1. The Africans were fully familiar with high volume slavery as well as its economic benefits. Before they traded over the Atlantic the trade was over the Sahara. The more involved was an empire in this trade the richer that it became. Were these stooges of the Europeans they would have been reduced to mere laborers with scanty rewards.

2. African kingdoms were fully aware of the conditions of slavery in the Americas. Maybe not in the beginning but certainly after some of the descendants of these people began to be involved in the anti slave trade movement and Sierra Leone and Liberia were established. Some of those who acquired freedom did also return and would have brought news of slavery in the Americas.

So the notion that African kings didn't know about the slave trade is nonsense. In fact not every slave sold to the European was taken out of Africa. All they had to do was to observe how the slaves who remained in the slave forts were treated by the Europeans.

3. The various African kingdoms, most significantly the Asante were able to hold off the Europeans until the late 19th century. The Europeans would have loved to directly acquire their slaves, cutting their costs by removing the middle man but couldn't. The African kings forced them to remain on the coast in their forts.

4. The fact that in the long run the slave trade benefitted the Europeans more than it did the Africans who engaged in it is irrelevant. It is a fact that slaves were taken mostly from regions where the locals actively engaged in slave trading and less from regions where they were less enthusiastic about it.

Think of this. The Senegambia/Guinea region is closer to the Americas than is the Bights of Biafra yet supplied a mere 750k enslaved peoples between 1501 and 1850.

This compares with 1.6 million people from the Bight of Biafra. Various kingdoms and empires in the Upper Guinea coast were less enthusiastic about involvement in the trade than were those in the southeast Nigeria/Cameroon region.

Involvement of the slave trade was determined by AFRICANS. The only exception to this will be the trade that occurred in the Congo/Angola regions where it was totally dominated by the Portuguese
.

Even Africans now accept their role in the slave trade and many have apologized for this. The fact England, France and Germany benefitted more from the Spanish colonies than Spain did itself benefit is analogous to the fact that the African didn't benefit in the long run from the slave trade which he eagerly participated in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-01-2017, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Historic West End
4,216 posts, read 3,583,095 times
Reputation: 4024
I think the bigger question should be when will tribal wars end and strife be dealt with so those nations can become stronger. It is impossible to advance when you war against yourself and own people. I think that has been the ultimate goal of the oppressor to create conditions that gender strife and a download cycle of life perpetually. Europe is still winning in this case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2017, 04:48 PM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,923,923 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlwarrior View Post
I think the bigger question should be when will tribal wars end and strife be dealt with so those nations can become stronger. .


Interesting that in Africa its "tribal warfare" but this description wasn't used to describe Yugoslavia, which quickly became "tribal" when Tito died. The Middle East is about "tribal warfare".


Most African nations are just like Yugoslavia prior to its dissolution. We know that Yugoslavia dissolved with ample bloodshed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2017, 10:32 PM
 
6,551 posts, read 9,065,861 times
Reputation: 2832
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumisgood View Post

Europeans come and divide the land into countries that disregard tribal considerations, and Africans go along with it. Yet, some of these tribes are ancient...from the 11th centuary. Europeans disrupt the process for 100 years and all of a sudden we are supposed to forget our tribes? Our ancestors would be ashamed. They died and killed for us to even be here, it's disrespectful to your ancestors to forsake them.

Instead of doing away with the nation states, we should incorporate them into our system of governance. How that would work exactly, I am not sure. You tell me. But, leave the Europeans to rule themselves how they wish, we have to do what works for us. We have our system, why are we abondoning it?

So, when do we go back to our natural tribal system?
Is this why African countries are poor?

I think African countries have issues bigger than tribalism caused by borders. Too many African governments aren't utilizing the best economic approaches for their countries. Education needs to be improved. Illiteracy is still a problem in too many African countries. These things I'd put more focus on with improving African countries.

Regardless of your borders you can implement better economic policies and improve literacy.

Red tape and trade barriers costing Africa billions | International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development

IRIN | Combating world's lowest literacy rates
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2017, 01:03 AM
 
349 posts, read 606,991 times
Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny View Post

Involvement of the slave trade was determined by AFRICANS. The only exception to this will be the trade that occurred in the Congo/Angola regions where it was totally dominated by the Portuguese.
Not totally dominated by the Portuguese. Spanish, French, English and Dutch settlers also brought slaves from this region but not the same volume I agree
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2017, 12:19 PM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,923,923 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash XY View Post
Not totally dominated by the Portuguese. Spanish, French, English and Dutch settlers also brought slaves from this region but not the same volume I agree
They bought these slaves from elements controlled and/or connected by/to the Portuguese.

This is unlike what occurred in the Bights of Benin, and Biafra and the Gold Coast, where local interests were 100% in control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2017, 01:42 AM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
4,363 posts, read 1,657,079 times
Reputation: 7925
Nationalism, globally, is a Caste System. Every child is assigned a nationality, which is virtually impossible to break free of. Your fate is that of your nationality.

Humanity really, really needs to break this mould. Wouldnt it be interesting if Africa were to lead us into the new non-nationalistic world, where everyone is free to flourish according to his own merits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2017, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,620 posts, read 16,419,369 times
Reputation: 6347
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny View Post
1. The Africans were fully familiar with high volume slavery as well as its economic benefits. Before they traded over the Atlantic the trade was over the Sahara. The more involved was an empire in this trade the richer that it became. Were these stooges of the Europeans they would have been reduced to mere laborers with scanty rewards.

2. African kingdoms were fully aware of the conditions of slavery in the Americas. Maybe not in the beginning but certainly after some of the descendants of these people began to be involved in the anti slave trade movement and Sierra Leone and Liberia were established. Some of those who acquired freedom did also return and would have brought news of slavery in the Americas.

So the notion that African kings didn't know about the slave trade is nonsense. In fact not every slave sold to the European was taken out of Africa. All they had to do was to observe how the slaves who remained in the slave forts were treated by the Europeans.

3. The various African kingdoms, most significantly the Asante were able to hold off the Europeans until the late 19th century. The Europeans would have loved to directly acquire their slaves, cutting their costs by removing the middle man but couldn't. The African kings forced them to remain on the coast in their forts.

4. The fact that in the long run the slave trade benefitted the Europeans more than it did the Africans who engaged in it is irrelevant. It is a fact that slaves were taken mostly from regions where the locals actively engaged in slave trading and less from regions where they were less enthusiastic about it.

Think of this. The Senegambia/Guinea region is closer to the Americas than is the Bights of Biafra yet supplied a mere 750k enslaved peoples between 1501 and 1850.

This compares with 1.6 million people from the Bight of Biafra. Various kingdoms and empires in the Upper Guinea coast were less enthusiastic about involvement in the trade than were those in the southeast Nigeria/Cameroon region.

Involvement of the slave trade was determined by AFRICANS. The only exception to this will be the trade that occurred in the Congo/Angola regions where it was totally dominated by the Portuguese
.

Even Africans now accept their role in the slave trade and many have apologized for this. The fact England, France and Germany benefitted more from the Spanish colonies than Spain did itself benefit is analogous to the fact that the African didn't benefit in the long run from the slave trade which he eagerly participated in.
I'm Asante this is true and we were raised on tales of how our ancestors fought the British. Must say it does do something to the psyche.

You're 100% right, the Africans knew exactly what they were doing an we have reports of them being savvy, brutal traders. One tactic was to kill slaves, rejected by European traders, in gruesome fashion in front of the Europeans. The traders being nominally Christian would relent and take on the reject slaves.

There are letters from African chiefs at the British Museum imploring Queen Victoria to restart the slave trade since the chiefs lost a vital source of income. Human beings exploit other human beings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top