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.
When the English enslaved the Irish and the Scottish it wasn't THEIR people. And yes they sold them as virtual slaves to their colonies in North America and the Caribbean. The fact that you would call them all British is irrelevant.
When the Yoruba empire imploded and the various subsets went to war and sold off those of their enemies it wasn't their people. Igbo was an imposed definition for those who spoke related languages. The Igbo ethnicity was a colonial imposition. So the various so called clans didn't see themselves as the same people. When they attacked each other and captured people for sale as slaves it wasn't their people who they sold off.
So very few sold off their own people. They sold off other groups.[/quote]
Where is your sources to back up the Yoruba Empire, there is NO SUCH THING, are you making up stuff AGAIN.its actually called the Oyo Empire and it imploded when they sold off each other .
Read again I clearly stated Igbo were selling off Igbo , the Scottish and Irish don't ,never have and never will see themselves as the same as British. Thats why they were always trying to break free.
But you being very feeble minded negro would think that Europeans nations make people the same.
And they weren't subsets, they were Yoruba clans,and again Yoruba is a Yoruba no matter what clan, so a Yoruba selling off a Yoruba was sellong there own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
An African selling his people means that he went into the villages over which he had direct domain and sold his people. That was very rare and it was very rare because it would have been destructive to his villages. He would deprived his area of domain of labor that it needed to produce items that it consumed. It would have deprived his area of people who he needed to defend it from neighboring groups.
Get out of here and read a book, they did sell they own,I've provided numerous sources that most African tribes sold people from their own tribe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
Its is this simple. African kingdoms waged war against various groups and enslaved many of those who lived there.
It is also simple that if an empire sells off its labor force it cannot survive. These were mainly self sufficient agrarian societies so if they didn't produce most of what they needed to consume then they would die. And prior to the Industrial Revolution of the 19th C this was based on human labor and not machines.
If an Igbo from one clan attacked and sold an Igbo from another clan then they were NOT selling their own peoples. They were selling another people. The fact that they were both black and both spoke the same language is immaterial.
Do you understand that Europeans arrived in many places in East Asia,Middle East,the Indian Sub Continent,South America,North America, and even Australia these people never sold their own as slaves.
I know have very low IQ, but do you understand that Igbo from different clans and villages nominate all voted to nominate a leader Igwe or Eze.
I know you don't understand how clans or tribes work, but being from a different clan doesn't in a tribe doesn't mean you are not the same at all,that's like saying Scots of different clans are not the same people. Even in todays times Ibibio Igbo will tell you they are kin with an Aro Igbo.
Stop it, if your pushing that African weren't selling their own (because they were from a different tribe or clan),than you need to stop with this fake fist pumping black power rhetoric you are on.
When the English enslaved the Irish and the Scottish it wasn't THEIR people. And yes they sold them as virtual slaves to their colonies in North America and the Caribbean. The fact that you would call them all British is irrelevant.
When the Yoruba empire imploded and the various subsets went to war and sold off those of their enemies it wasn't their people. Igbo was an imposed definition for those who spoke related languages. The Igbo ethnicity was a colonial imposition. So the various so called clans didn't see themselves as the same people. When they attacked each other and captured people for sale as slaves it wasn't their people who they sold off.
An African selling his people means that he went into the villages over which he had direct domain and sold his people. That was very rare and it was very rare because it would have been destructive to his villages. He would deprived his area of domain of labor that it needed to produce items that it consumed. It would have deprived his area of people who he needed to defend it from neighboring groups.
So very few sold off their own people. They sold off other groups.
Thank you and 1,000 points for you. Someone understands the diverse groups and their history with each other
Thank you and 1,000 points for you. Someone understands the diverse groups and their history with each other
LOL this coming from another person who said Bantu is a tribe/ethnicity the other guy said there was a Yoruba empire, you guys clearly don't know African history.
Pull up sources to say that most of the slaves taken away in the Atlantic slave trade were mostly captives of war.
Many tribes like the Yoruba, Igbo, Akan,Fulani etc were big and controlled big swaths of West Africa.No way they can just allow other smaller tribes to invade and sell them off.
Its a shame you guys have no grasp of history, thinking African chiefs wouldn't of sold their own because it would of depleted their own labor doesn't mean anything, African chiefs and African rulers don't think about the long run, African chiefs and rulers sell their the resources in their country everyday for very little.
Slavery was a common practice in African villages and households,
In many African cultures, slavery was an accepted domestic practice, but it was slavery of a different kind. In Africa, the slave usually had rights, protection under law, and social mobility.
"Many house owners would call their slaves as their daughters or sons," says Perbi. "They became part of the kin or family or lineage of the owners."
African kings were willing to provide a steady flow of captives, who they said were criminals or prisoners of war doomed for execution. Many were not, but this did not prevent traders posing as philanthropists who were rescuing the Africans from death and offering them a better and more productive life.
When France and Britain outlawed slavery in their territories in the early 19th Century, African chiefs who had grown rich and powerful off the slave trade sent protest delegations to Paris and London. Britain abolished the slave trade and slavery itself against fierce opposition from West African and Arab traders.
Last edited by PrizeWinner; 02-14-2019 at 09:53 PM..
Listen I gave you a source and it said NOTHING about chiefs selling their own people.
If a group goes to war with another they are not enslaving their own people. They are enslaving people who they see as enemies. The fact that they may speak the same languages matters not.
This is like you saying that the Bosnians and the Serbs are the same people just because they are both Slavs. Or that the Germans bombed their own fellow Anglo Saxons when they bombed London in WWII.
These groups saw themselves as DISTINCT groups and so waged war on each other, and much of the motivation was to derive wealth through the sale of the people who they captured. Yes the slave trade was lucrative enough so it did motivate wars and smaller groups were victimized by bigger and more powerful groups as they couldn't defend themselves.
I suggest that you read this and stop believing lies told by racists who painted the African slave trade as run by a bunch of pot bellied stupid chiefs who arrested people living in their village in exchange for beads.
This was based on a set of complex trading systems where enslaved peoples were the commodity, just as gold also was. Some kingdoms like the Dahomey became huge trading empires based on selling people captured from weaker groups.
There was no Igbo empire. In fact it was AFTER Nigeria was colonized by the British the notion of a large Igbo ethnic group. During the era of the slave trade there were clans who lived in autonomous communities and no doubt periodically wage war to secure enslaved people for sale. The Efik peoples of the southeast Nigerian/southern Cameroon border were huge slave traders.
Listen I gave you a source and it said NOTHING about chiefs selling their own people.
Why do you lie so much, nothing in your quote said nothing about slave raids you don't read the sources you post please sit down and go somewhere any one clicking back to the post will see that, stop throwing a tantrum.
Here is what I like from your quote though it says European went to Africa because the Amerindians didn't supply them with slaves and died in large numbers dude to resistance were as Europeans out of many nations and 6 continents went to Africa.
The trans-Atlantic slave trade therefore grew from a strong demand for labor in the Americas, driven by consumers of plantation produce and precious metals, initially in Europe. Because Amerindians died in large numbers, and insufficient numbers of Europeans were prepared to cross the Atlantic, the form that this demand took was shaped by conceptions of social identity on four continents, which ensured that the labor would comprise mainly slaves from Africa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
If a group goes to war with another they are not enslaving their own people. They are enslaving people who they see as enemies. The fact that they may speak the same languages matters not.
Africa in general didn't have the same amount of wars before the Europeans arrived ,same case to a lesser extent before the Arabs arrived,there were not much to little wars in any regions.Many African elites and chiefs got greedy and the rest is history.
Africans knew Europeans many areas were decimated and become ghostowns before Europeans arrived, they just didn't care.
African chiefs have always done this though, especially since the Arab slave trade happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
This is like you saying that the Bosnians and the Serbs are the same people just because they are both Slavs. Or that the Germans bombed their own fellow Anglo Saxons when they bombed London in WWII.
These groups saw themselves as DISTINCT groups and so waged war on each other, and much of the motivation was to derive wealth through the sale of the people who they captured. Yes the slave trade was lucrative enough so it did motivate wars and smaller groups were victimized by bigger and more powerful groups as they couldn't defend themselves.
No its not , since you are a Special Ed drop out , you might find it hard to fathom THAT IGBOS sold other IGBOS period. Bosnian hardly if ever sold other Bosnians ,Serbs hardly if any time sold other Serbs.Bad analogy.They were indeed Slavs sold in slavery but this was because of the Pope and Roman Catholic interest fighting for power in the Eastern Orthodox Christian territories of Eastern Europe.
Keep in mind even regions like Fulani Empire weren't supposed to let any subject (even if they were of another tribe) SELL ONE OF THEIR SUBJECTS. Kings were supposed to protect theirs at all cost.
Lest we forget Fulanis as Muslims were not supposed to sell other muslims, its not Haram.
I suggest that you read this and stop believing lies told by racists who painted the African slave trade as run by a bunch of pot bellied stupid chiefs who arrested people living in their village in exchange for beads.
This was based on a set of complex trading systems where enslaved peoples were the commodity, just as gold also was. Some kingdoms like the Dahomey became huge trading empires based on selling people captured from weaker groups.
Bro please, in your last reply you said the Yoruba Empire now you come late and utilize google to quote h the Oyo Empire like you know the history of what happened there ,give it up.
Has nothing to do with racism , its about what happened, the bottom line even if we go by your narrative that chiefs decided to do slave raids they did it on the account of ''their white overlord'' to do slave raids on their account, to be stupidly manipulated like that is a poor excuse to be a plastic chief.
The bottom line is with out the horse slave raids into villages of different ethnic groups weren't happening, especially when they had to journey back miles and miles in regions.
To be clear, the many African airhead chiefs sold gold so frivolously for salt ,because like their own sons and daughters they didn't know the value of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
There was no Igbo empire. In fact it was AFTER Nigeria was colonized by the British the notion of a large Igbo ethnic group. During the era of the slave trade there were clans who lived in autonomous communities and no doubt periodically wage war to secure enslaved people for sale. The Efik peoples of the southeast Nigerian/southern Cameroon border were huge slave traders.
Duh , I never said there was an Igbo Empire, I said Igbos sold their own. But there is a reason why people Igbos stick together and want their own state in Nigeria called Biafra.
It would be disingenuous to say Igbos don't see themselves as one , and don't have Igbo pride.Once again you speak as outsider and lack little knowledge of peoples cultures.
The slave was an industry just as was the gold trade and African elites became quite wealthy as a result.
Too bad these elites became poor and so did their country. In fact many African chiefs have their power dwarfed compared to elected officials and politicians in Africa today.
Although the total number of Africans enslaved remains unknown, available estimates suggest that about 637,500 Igbo slaves, amounting to 75 percent of
the total shipments from the Biafran hinterland, landed in the Americas between 1640 and 1800 (see Oriji 1986).
Furthermore, ex-slaves of Igbo ancestry constitute a majority of the population in Bonny, Okirika, and many other
eastern delta states that served as depots and exchange centers for European
merchants.
Slaves were mostly sold in exchange for guns and rum.
Cult Slaves, Exiles, and Escapees
Cult slavery is probably one of the most ancient forms of enslavement in Igboland.
Its genesis lies in the holistic cosmology of agrarian Igbo societies dominated by
the earth deity (Ala/Ana), in which there was no separation between religious
power and the judicial and other arms of government. Major laws that were of
common interest to a society were then ritualized with the earth force to transform
them into the sacerdotal realm. Thus, individuals who violated the sacred laws of
Ala involving homicide, incest, and stealing of farm crops were accused of committing acts of sacrilege (Iru Ala) and held liable and responsible for their actions.
Northern Igboland
The organization of the Aro trade network and the symbiotic relationship that existed between Aro traders and their Abam warriors have been examined by many
researchers (e.g., Oriji 1980; Ekejiuba 1972; **** 1956). It is necessary, however,
to point out that the Aro adopted diverse methods in recruiting slaves, including
their oracle (Ibini Ukpabi), and the Okonko (Ekpe) society, which served as major
judicial institutions in the hinterland. But recent historiography con¤rms that the
Abam constituted the primary organ of violence the Aro used in dominating the
slave trade during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A majority of the slaves
they recruited were obtained by raids, kidnapping, and at times, slave wars involving the Abam.1
The success the Abam achieved in warfare lies primarily with the
skillful guerilla tactics they adopted during an incursion, and is not due to their
superior weapons. Lightning raids were often conducted at night against an unsuspecting community, enabling the Abam to return safely to their base. As this
study will show, there were some cases when vigilant communities that caught
Abam spies or had inklings of an impending invasion routed the invaders.
Indeed they were slave raids but these slave raids weren't people from different ethnicities these were people of the elite and slave trading societies looking to make a profit.
The best you chance you had of another Igbo not raiding another Igbo was if they had formed a pact with one another.
Abam raids in southeastern Igboland are relatively few because the Aro discouraged military incursions in their homeland to avoid the disruption of trade and
the large number of pilgrims and others who were visiting Arochukwu to consult
their oracle. In addition, the Abam and other communities in the so-called Aro
confederacy are said to have formed a pact not to raid one another.
The Ekpe Secret Society were known to be notorious slave traders and enslaved other Igbos.
They also
used the Ekpe/Okonko society associated with the Aro to promote their commercial interests. According to Jones, Ekpe evolved during the eighteenth century among the trading elite of the Ekoi and the E¤k-Ibibio of the Cross River
region. Ekpe later diffused into nearby Arochukwu communities, whose leading
traders were the ¤rst Igbo people to be initiated into the society.
Last edited by PrizeWinner; 02-15-2019 at 01:20 AM..
I'm done with this conversation with you. You have a fixated point of view of the Transatlantic Slave Trade and your recent remarks toward caribny is highly belligerent.
I know you can't think well but the British never bombed the British in WWII for the most part,you understand, neither did Germans bomb the Germans.British never had British prisoners of war,if we place the British in the Igbo kingdom of Nri, the British would be selling the British.
And your statement about African deprivement is dumb, I never really mentioned that but since you brought it up, yes they did rob themselves of labor.
What do you mean they needed to survive by selling off labor power, do you understand after the slave trade,African kingdoms were so depleted and poor no wonder they ran to white massa to be European colonies.
The slave trade lasted from 1520 until 1860. 12.5 million people were sold to the Europeans and this doesn't include those killed in wars or who died prior to sale to the Europeans. So how were these kingdoms able to survive, with some even becoming quite wealthy (the Oyo empire) if they sold off their own workers, leaving no one to plant food, build and repair buildings, wage wars, or weave textiles and make metal goods?
Prior to 1820 the vast majority of the people arriving in the Americas from across the Atlantic were from Africa. Why then did it take until the late 19th century for Europeans to conquer Africans?
Europeans first began to encounter the Akan speaking peoples in 1482. It took FOUR HUNDRED years for the British to eventual get a permanent foothold in Ghana. And it was only after a 30 years war was Ghana finally fully brought under British control.
In the space of a century over 1.3 million people were shipped from the Gold Coast. Were your narrative true a starving Akan people would have had to beg the Europeans to feed them within a few decades of the slave trade beginning. This because all of those workers who would have supported these kingdoms would have been cutting cane in Jamaica, Suriname, or Barbados.
If you think that every African is the same then why cannot everyone of Germanic ancestry be the same.
The various Igbo clans and the various Yoruba empires and the various Akan speaking kingdoms saw each other as being as different as the English saw the Scottish and the Germans saw the British.
You sound like a white person who says "these blacks all look alike".
Wrong! Up until 1880 Brazil and Cuba still had imported slaves from the Atlantic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
12.5 million people were sold to the Europeans and this doesn't include those killed in wars or who died prior to sale to the Europeans.
Wrong again you googled the wrong number for those shipped to the US, but the overall number of slaves shipped from Africa to America was about 100 million to 200 million.
Estimates of how many blacks were lost at sea in the roughly 400 years of the slave trade in the Americas vary wildly. Some, like Mr. Akeem, place the figure between 100 million and 200 million. Others say perhaps as many as 14 million people perished. Whichever is true, many historians note that the numbers of enslaved Africans who died at sea were so great that sharks learned to follow the slave routes because they fed on the bodies thrown overboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
So how were these kingdoms able to survive, with some even becoming quite wealthy (the Oyo empire) if they sold off their own workers, leaving no one to plant food, build and repair buildings, wage wars, or weave textiles and make metal goods?
Bro you just googled the name Oyo empire and didn't know anything about it. Surviving doesn't mean they were strong or wealthy at all, its no coincidence after the slave trade Europeans came in and were able to conquer Africa so easily. Its a known fact African kingdoms were depleted of manpower after the slave trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
Prior to 1820 the vast majority of the people arriving in the Americas from across the Atlantic were from Africa. Why then did it take until the late 19th century for Europeans to conquer Africans?
Exactly because they didn't have enough soldiers as a matter of fact,especially when Europeans were wary of going into the interior of Africa for fear of all kind of ailments, European trades didn't even stay on the slave coast that long.Its a known fact that African societies were exhausted after the slave trade.
As a result for generations Negro Africa lay dazed, helpless, and exhausted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
Europeans first began to encounter the Akan speaking peoples in 1482. It took FOUR HUNDRED years for the British to eventual get a permanent foothold in Ghana. And it was only after a 30 years war was Ghana finally fully brought under British control.
That's complete bull, the Europeans had quarters at the slave castles on the Gold coasts ,Bight of Biafra.and other places. There was no need for them to conquer lands to get slaves in the first place.
You completely contradicted yourself too, you said a war 30 years war with Asante Confederation yet they some how took 400 years to get a foothold.The Asante had relations with both Dutch,Portguese,and English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
In the space of a century over 1.3 million people were shipped from the Gold Coast. Were your narrative true a starving Akan people would have had to beg the Europeans to feed them within a few decades of the slave trade beginning. This because all of those workers who would have supported these kingdoms would have been cutting cane in Jamaica, Suriname, or Barbados.
First of all you're wrong about the number of slaves taken,its 10s of millions if not hundreds of millions shipped from the Gold coast.
Secondly you just exposed yourself as person that can't comprehend very well, the Akan societies weren't so much industrious farmers, they were subsistence farmers which means the farms on the Western African coast were for grown to feed the family and villages not all the people.
Third you don't understand that all the slaves taken from the Coast Africa DIED , 10s of millions did and many died in the fields in the Caribbean and South America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
If you think that every African is the same then why cannot everyone of Germanic ancestry be the same.
The various Igbo clans and the various Yoruba empires and the various Akan speaking kingdoms saw each other as being as different as the English saw the Scottish and the Germans saw the British.
You sound like a white person who says "these blacks all look alike".[/color]
Once again you fail to comprehend that I am not talking about a West African selling a West African genius, I am talking about Igbos selling Igbos, Yorubas selling Yorubas, and etc.
I POSTED ABOVE OF PROOF OF IGBO ELITES RAIDING OTHER IGBO VILLAGES SELLING THEM OFF.
There was no way a opposing kingdoms can come in and raid villages constantly. First of all the kings would of made sure to send their footsolders there to wait and dare opposing kingdoms to come in and raid the borders, thats not happening.
And you are contradicting yourself yet again, saying A Scot is not the same as an Englishman but saying the Igbo selling another Igbo because the aren't same people is disingenous. The Irish would never sell another Irish out to the English. Neither did the Scots who were very clannish, never sell each other off for slavery,yes they are all British today but even Scots and Irish have a problem with that identity.
And as I told you the Igbos today see themselves as one and hardly fight each other today neither do Asante, the Igbos WANT THEIR OWN COUNTRY CALLED BIAFRA.You're welcome.
So knock it off.You are just making my point no matter how you try to ignorantly grasp for straw, if it wasn't any sense of African kinship then it shouldn't be now, so your fake Pan Africanism and cries for victimization of racism are useless.
Last edited by PrizeWinner; 02-15-2019 at 09:47 PM..
I'm done with this conversation with you. You have a fixated point of view of the Transatlantic Slave Trade and your recent remarks toward caribny is highly belligerent.
Peace , "Bro".
First of all this guy said learn facts before you babble, and had the nerve to say there was a Yoruba empire, yet you call me being belligerent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
Please learn some facts before you babble.
Its not a fixated view, I brought you clear information that Igbos raided other Igbo villages .And like I told the guy above me who has a problem with comprehending, that if Africans having no sense of brotherhood in the past should be useless for African people and African people ,this selling other people from other tribes is a poor excuse,and feeds the stereotype of corrupted and demented black people are.
Now keep in mind this is the same guy that is belligerent and rude to black Americans.
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.
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.
