The African Role In The Slave Trade (travel, country, influence)

[SLIMMACKEY]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

I've brought you truth and facts in context; if I had posted anything but ---- you would have brought to me your research on the subject ...

You need me to write a thesis on the Transatlantic slave trade to substantiate the fact that Africans did not perpetuate CHATTEL slavery? Nor did they base it off of skin color and enforce it in a heritable fashion? Aand that they were not the creators of oppressive social systmes in the past or present such as Aparthied and Jim Crow?

For clarification.

[SLIMMACKEY]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

I've brought you truth and facts in context; if I had posted anything but ---- you would have brought to me your research on the subject ...

"The people who were kidnapped were the victims of a rival tribe's slave raid, many were killed during the raids. I doubt seriously they were too concerned with those that made it to the European ships, to care what happened to them after that.

OK, your doubts are based on what substantiation?

In later years as late as the 80s in Africa, Necklace (maybe even as late as in 2011) was still being practiced on those who were deemed an enemy. Africa is a violent continent with many spiritual and religious customs, that are still practiced present day.
And as many were of European culture, their wives were chattel to the husbands.

Are you comparing toxic colonial masulinity to the perpetual, heritable ownership of people and their offspring subgigated to forced free labor based solely on their race? OK....again based on what substatiation?

It was the culture of the era. The men (some of the men, I don't guess all were brutes) beat their wives, their children and probably kicked the dog too, for good measure. (many still practice the same today and it can be found all around the world)"

What was the culture of the era? Men looking at women as their possessions? Hate to tell you, but its still a little prevalent today cher. Its called Conservative values to most. Also, most womens rights, specifically in the US, are a 20th century phenomenon. So what point are you trying to make?

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

I've brought you truth and facts in context; if I had posted anything but ---- you would have brought to me your research on the subject ...

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

You need me to write a thesis on the Transatlantic slave trade to substantiate the fact that Africans did not perpetuate CHATTEL slavery? Nor did they base it off of skin color and enforce it in a heritable fashion? Aand that they were not the creators of oppressive social systmes in the past or present such as Aparthied and Jim Crow?

For clarification.

Slavery existed for 4000 years before the Atlantic Slave Trade you know that right? Open a Bible, it's all there in the oral history accounts of those in that time. It was government (God) ordained, socially accepted custom to get people out of debtor's prison. They paid their tax debt and took them to live with them. Everyone had chores to do and they had theirs.

The Atlantic Slave Trade is what made it a peculiar Institution. As the Lords of Africa sold the ones they were in rival with to the Europeans for them to become their slave laborers. As Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani writes:

"Long before Europeans arrived, Igbos enslaved other Igbos as punishment for crimes, for the payment of debts, and as prisoners of war. The practice differed from slavery in the Americas: slaves were permitted to move freely in their communities and to own property, but they were also sometimes sacrificed in religious ceremonies or buried alive with their masters to serve them in the next life. " My Great-Grandfather, the Nigerian Slave-Trader

They may not have based if off of skin color, but for sure they based it off what tribe one belongs to and if they have a beef with that tribe. So what difference does skin color make? As for as heritable fashion ... it still is. That's not changed over the last thousands of years and current today.

What is descent-based slavery

"Descent-based slavery describes a situation where people are born into slavery because their ancestors were captured into slavery and their families have ‘belonged’ to the slave-owning families ever since. Slave status is passed down the maternal line.

This form of slavery can still be found across the Sahel belt of Africa, including Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Chad and Sudan. Many other African societies also have a traditional hierarchy where people are known to be the descendants of slaves or slave-owners."

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

"The people who were kidnapped were the victims of a rival tribe's slave raid, many were killed during the raids. I doubt seriously they were too concerned with those that made it to the European ships, to care what happened to them after that.

OK, your doubts are based on what substantiation?

In later years as late as the 80s in Africa, Necklace (maybe even as late as in 2011) was still being practiced on those who were deemed an enemy. Africa is a violent continent with many spiritual and religious customs, that are still practiced present day.
And as many were of European culture, their wives were chattel to the husbands.

Are you comparing toxic colonial masulinity to the perpetual, heritable ownership of people and their offspring subgigated to forced free labor based solely on their race? OK....again based on what substatiation?

It was the culture of the era. The men (some of the men, I don't guess all were brutes) beat their wives, their children and probably kicked the dog too, for good measure. (many still practice the same today and it can be found all around the world)"

What was the culture of the era? Men looking at women as their possessions? Hate to tell you, but its still a little prevalent today cher. Its called Conservative values to most. Also, most womens rights, specifically in the US, are a 20th century phenomenon. So what point are you trying to make?

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

OK, your doubts are based on what substantiation?

Based on the fact that they killed their rivals ...

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

Are you comparing toxic colonial masulinity to the perpetual, heritable ownership of people and their offspring subgigated to forced free labor based solely on their race? OK....again based on what substatiation?

I'm not drawing a comparison --- but it looks like you are trying to have me to, and those no comparison to make on what is ...

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

What was the culture of the era? Men looking at women as their possessions? Hate to tell you, but its still a little prevalent today cher. Its called Conservative values to most. Also, most womens rights, specifically in the US, are a 20th century phenomenon. So what point are you trying to make?

I've already summarized it isn't any different today than it was then; all you've done with that paragraph is repeat what I have posted. The culture of the era --- Sociably acceptable practice. Today we hide it --- back then there wasn't anything to hide as there was no shame in it.

The only difference between today and yesterday is --- we have better toys to play with, that's all.

Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani:
The Descendants of Slaves in Nigeria Fight for Equality

"On a sunny morning in November, 2018, twelve men and two women gathered in a lavishly furnished living room in Oguta, a town in southeastern Nigeria, with the air-conditioning at full blast. They had come to discuss the caste system that persists among the Igbo people in the region."


(2022) Caste System? How is that different from Jim Crow and Apartheid? Because it's the same skin color? Get real.


"In the nineteenth century, the abolition of slavery in the West inadvertently led to a glut of slaves in the Igbo markets, causing the number of ohu and osu to skyrocket. "Those families which were really rich competed with one another in the number of slaves each killed for its dead or used to placate the gods," Adiele Afigbo, an Igbo historian, wrote in "The Abolition of the Slave Trade in Southeastern Nigeria, 1885–1950." The British formally abolished slavery in Nigeria in the early twentieth century, and finally eradicated it in the late nineteen-forties, but the descendants of slaves—who are also called ohu and osu—retained the stigma of their ancestors."


Today's slave trade out of Africa or the history of slave trade out of Africa --- very little differences between the two. And the only real difference I can think of is --- governments no longer tax people as property. People can still be owned and they are property of another and no one is doing a damn thing about it.

Where is the out cry Slimmackey, on the 40 million enslaved today? Their human bondage pays for weapons. Ghana is still the main export in human trafficking as it was 400 years ago ... In the history of slavery ancient and modern, there are more people enslaved today than ever before. Now's the time to have that 'real' conversation; that's not black and white and what the hang up is between the people and their government in how they treat one another with no respect.


PS: Slimmacky, without the African role in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, it wouldn't have existed.

[treemoni]

At this point their role in the "transatlantic slave trade" matters less than these nations' current foreign policies and alliances. So-called African-Americans should pay closer attention to what European countries key African nations have and had throughout their history. That tells more of the story than the "slave trade".

[SLIMMACKEY]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Slavery existed for 4000 years before the Atlantic Slave Trade you know that right? Open a Bible, it's all there in the oral history accounts of those in that time. It was government (God) ordained, socially accepted custom to get people out of debtor's prison. They paid their tax debt and took them to live with them. Everyone had chores to do and they had theirs.

The Atlantic Slave Trade is what made it a peculiar Institution. As the Lords of Africa sold the ones they were in rival with to the Europeans for them to become their slave laborers. As Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani writes:

"Long before Europeans arrived, Igbos enslaved other Igbos as punishment for crimes, for the payment of debts, and as prisoners of war. The practice differed from slavery in the Americas: slaves were permitted to move freely in their communities and to own property, but they were also sometimes sacrificed in religious ceremonies or buried alive with their masters to serve them in the next life. " My Great-Grandfather, the Nigerian Slave-Trader

They may not have based if off of skin color, but for sure they based it off what tribe one belongs to and if they have a beef with that tribe. So what difference does skin color make? As for as heritable fashion ... it still is. That's not changed over the last thousands of years and current today.

What is descent-based slavery

"Descent-based slavery describes a situation where people are born into slavery because their ancestors were captured into slavery and their families have ‘belonged’ to the slave-owning families ever since. Slave status is passed down the maternal line.

This form of slavery can still be found across the Sahel belt of Africa, including Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Chad and Sudan. Many other African societies also have a traditional hierarchy where people are known to be the descendants of slaves or slave-owners."


Based on the fact that they killed their rivals ...

I'm not drawing a comparison --- but it looks like you are trying to have me to, and those no comparison to make on what is ...

I've already summarized it isn't any different today than it was then; all you've done with that paragraph is repeat what I have posted. The culture of the era --- Sociably acceptable practice. Today we hide it --- back then there wasn't anything to hide as there was no shame in it.

The only difference between today and yesterday is --- we have better toys to play with, that's all.

Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani:
The Descendants of Slaves in Nigeria Fight for Equality

"On a sunny morning in November, 2018, twelve men and two women gathered in a lavishly furnished living room in Oguta, a town in southeastern Nigeria, with the air-conditioning at full blast. They had come to discuss the caste system that persists among the Igbo people in the region."


(2022) Caste System? How is that different from Jim Crow and Apartheid? Because it's the same skin color? Get real.


"In the nineteenth century, the abolition of slavery in the West inadvertently led to a glut of slaves in the Igbo markets, causing the number of ohu and osu to skyrocket. "Those families which were really rich competed with one another in the number of slaves each killed for its dead or used to placate the gods," Adiele Afigbo, an Igbo historian, wrote in "The Abolition of the Slave Trade in Southeastern Nigeria, 1885–1950." The British formally abolished slavery in Nigeria in the early twentieth century, and finally eradicated it in the late nineteen-forties, but the descendants of slaves—who are also called ohu and osu—retained the stigma of their ancestors."


Today's slave trade out of Africa or the history of slave trade out of Africa --- very little differences between the two. And the only real difference I can think of is --- governments no longer tax people as property. People can still be owned and they are property of another and no one is doing a damn thing about it.

Where is the out cry Slimmackey, on the 40 million enslaved today? Their human bondage pays for weapons. Ghana is still the main export in human trafficking as it was 400 years ago ... In the history of slavery ancient and modern, there are more people enslaved today than ever before. Now's the time to have that 'real' conversation; that's not black and white and what the hang up is between the people and their government in how they treat one another with no respect.


PS: Slimmacky, without the African role in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, it wouldn't have existed.

TLDR.....and you still havent quite understood that your stance is quite obtuse. Again, stating that if African tribes had not sold slaves to Europeans there would be no Transatlantic slave trade is utterly ignorant. And you should have to substantiate that since even the Spanish and English have outrighly acknowledged their theivery of souls from the continent of Africa. Its even very well documented that the aristociricies AND the church, whose bible you want to thump, deemed "BLACK" people as soulless beings thus warranting their perpetual enslavement and sub human treatment. I mean the cognitive dissonance of it all is astounding....you clearly like to obfuscate and reach....so I ask you, name the West and Central African tribes documented by participating nations that sought out the Spanish, Portuguese, and English, just to start, to engage in the heritable enslavement of their rivals. Since it would not have existed had Africans not started it. Also, please answer my question as to the derivatives of the Transatlantic slave trade...you know like Aparthied, Jim Crow, etc. If African tribes created an architype for heritable slavery, which they DID NOT even engage in, did they also cfreate a blueprint for the systems created in the societies these black individuals would have to exist in and endure that heritable chattel slavery, socioeconomic, educational, psychological, and spriritual brutalities, etc?

And if so many others were deemed as worthy of slavery, (you note its existence of over 4000 years) why is it that multiple countries exclusively went to Africa?

The other conjecture is all white noise to me. Because your'e starting to sound a lot like Bolsonaro here in Brazil..." The Portuguese never stepped foot in Africa, the blacks themselves handed over the slaves". Muito loca and very incorrect.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

TLDR.....and you still havent quite understood that your stance is quite obtuse. Again, stating that if African tribes had not sold slaves to Europeans there would be no Transatlantic slave trade is utterly ignorant. And you should have to substantiate that since even the Spanish and English have outrighly acknowledged their theivery of souls from the continent of Africa. Its even very well documented that the aristociricies AND the church, whose bible you want to thump, deemed "BLACK" people as soulless beings thus warranting their perpetual enslavement and sub human treatment. I mean the cognitive dissonance of it all is astounding....you clearly like to obfuscate and reach....so I ask you, name the West and Central African tribes documented by participating nations that sought out the Spanish, Portuguese, and English, just to start, to engage in the heritable enslavement of their rivals. Since it would not have existed had Africans not started it. Also, please answer my question as to the derivatives of the Transatlantic slave trade...you know like Aparthied, Jim Crow, etc. If African tribes created an architype for heritable slavery, which they DID NOT even engage in, did they also cfreate a blueprint for the systems created in the societies these black individuals would have to exist in and endure that heritable chattel slavery, socioeconomic, educational, psychological, and spriritual brutalities, etc?

And if so many others were deemed as worthy of slavery, (you note its existence of over 4000 years) why is it that multiple countries exclusively went to Africa?

The other conjecture is all white noise to me. Because your'e starting to sound a lot like Bolsonaro here in Brazil..." The Portuguese never stepped foot in Africa, the blacks themselves handed over the slaves". Muito loca and very incorrect.

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

TLDR.....and you still havent quite understood that your stance is quite obtuse. Again, stating that if African tribes had not sold slaves to Europeans there would be no Transatlantic slave trade is utterly ignorant.

Nope it's just logic. You need to offer up something here, you know that right? Like how it would have existed without the African Lords participation in it.

Explain it to me, because as it is, I'm the only one doing any explaining. You've got documentary on it somewhere right that shows a different 'stance'? Or are they all in the TLDR category for you.

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

And you should have to substantiate that since even the Spanish and English have outrighly acknowledged their theivery of souls from the continent of Africa.

And you get that from where? Not to mention --- How? From my understanding Malaria kept everyone on their ships at port, least the contract the diseases in Africa and succumb to their deaths. Not to mention how did they navigate through the ruff terrain and get past the huge wild animals of the African jungles?

If that's wrong, show me where it is wrong. Show your homework on how they conducted their thievery. Inquiring minds want to know.

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

Its even very well documented that the aristociricies AND the church, whose bible you want to thump, deemed "BLACK" people as soulless beings thus warranting their perpetual enslavement and sub human treatment.

That's your interpretation in your attempt to bastardize ancient history documentations. King Solomon was a black man; so you're going to try and tell me he was a subhuman, as well as, the Egyptian Pharaohs? It was debtor's prison; people being sentenced who owed taxes and the law of the land, that brought about the Institution of Slavery within the first century of historical documentation. For your timeline --- that's before, during and after the fall of Ancient Rome and the Church was a group of people.

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

so I ask you, name the West and Central African tribes documented by participating nations that sought out the Spanish, Portuguese, and English, just to start, to engage in the heritable enslavement of their rivals.

Igbos, for one as I've already showed you in the 'my great-grandfather the Nigerian Slave Trader, article which you have yet to read. I know you haven't read it as you're not bringing up anything that hasn't already been asked and answered. His name was Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, and he kept his slaves chained up with heavy chains. They buried six-slaves with him alive, when he died.

Additional documentation (don't know why I bother)
"The transatlantic slave trade was fed by the emergence of these Volta Kingdoms and the Asante Empire." Africans Before the Atlantic Slave Trade

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

Also, please answer my question as to the derivatives of the Transatlantic slave trade...you know like Aparthied, Jim Crow, etc.

I can't until you explain to me how their cultural 'caste system' is any different, from Apartheid, Jim Crow laws and the black codes of the Northern u.s. I guess you forgot about the later, just as you skipped their caste system in my post above.

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

If African tribes created an architype for heritable slavery, which they DID NOT even engage in, did they also cfreate a blueprint for the systems created in the societies these black individuals would have to exist in and endure that heritable chattel slavery, socioeconomic, educational, psychological, and spriritual brutalities, etc?

Says you and no one else except maybe the ones who brainwashed you into believing it --- so therefore you will have to answer that question.

However, they never did get away from the caste system, so the answer to that question I suspect lays there and since their spiritual religious ceremonies included cutting off people's heads; planting the heads in flower pots and burying them alive --- wouldn't you call that a spiritual brutality? Gotto love Voodoo.

[ADOSwarrior]

A lot of denial in West-Central Africa's part in the slave trade typical. lol. Nowhere in history has a group sold a significant amount of their OWN human capital to their own group. Nowhere....

[SLIMMACKEY]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Nope it's just logic. You need to offer up something here, you know that right? Like how it would have existed without the African Lords participation in it.

Explain it to me, because as it is, I'm the only one doing any explaining. You've got documentary on it somewhere right that shows a different 'stance'? Or are they all in the TLDR category for you.
And you get that from where? Not to mention --- How? From my understanding Malaria kept everyone on their ships at port, least the contract the diseases in Africa and succumb to their deaths. Not to mention how did they navigate through the ruff terrain and get past the huge wild animals of the African jungles?

If that's wrong, show me where it is wrong. Show your homework on how they conducted their thievery. Inquiring minds want to know.
That's your interpretation in your attempt to bastardize ancient history documentations. King Solomon was a black man; so you're going to try and tell me he was a subhuman, as well as, the Egyptian Pharaohs? It was debtor's prison; people being sentenced who owed taxes and the law of the land, that brought about the Institution of Slavery within the first century of historical documentation. For your timeline --- that's before, during and after the fall of Ancient Rome and the Church was a group of people.
Igbos, for one as I've already showed you in the 'my great-grandfather the Nigerian Slave Trader, article which you have yet to read. I know you haven't read it as you're not bringing up anything that hasn't already been asked and answered. His name was Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, and he kept his slaves chained up with heavy chains. They buried six-slaves with him alive, when he died.

Additional documentation (don't know why I bother)
"The transatlantic slave trade was fed by the emergence of these Volta Kingdoms and the Asante Empire." Africans Before the Atlantic Slave Trade
I can't until you explain to me how their cultural 'caste system' is any different, from Apartheid, Jim Crow laws and the black codes of the Northern u.s. I guess you forgot about the later, just as you skipped their caste system in my post above.
Says you and no one else except maybe the ones who brainwashed you into believing it --- so therefore you will have to answer that question.

However, they never did get away from the caste system, so the answer to that question I suspect lays there and since their spiritual religious ceremonies included cutting off people's heads; planting the heads in flower pots and burying them alive --- wouldn't you call that a spiritual brutality? Gotto love Voodoo.

The mere fact that you believe that Europeans/Spanish/Portuguese never left their ships due to malaria and wild jungle animals is some sort of historical fact or even a talking pont saying a lot about this conversation. As well as your constant tap dancing around social racial systems put in place by those same groups of people to continually suppress and oppress descendants of slavery. I mean a simple study of the Royal African Company would have assisted you from making the obtuse former statement about them staying on their ships...lmao. This cannot be real. But we have to start there....then i will systematically address the other statements you made. But ony after we discuss that..all of your points are pure conjecture. Heres a start for your education from English sources.

"Slavery was paying dividends. Other European powers such as the Spanish and Portuguese had begun to exploit the New World. Since the 1560s the English had been eyeing the prizes brought back with envy. They had not, however, shown much interest in the emerging transatlantic trade in slaves. A few slave ships under John Dawkins had been sent to English colonies in the 16th century. The West Coast of Africa was not, until the mid 17th century, of much interest to the British.

Interest in the West African Slave Trade grew as a result of the Anglo-Dutch War of 1652-54. The Dutch had a large mercantile fleet operating in the Atlantic off the coast of West Africa. It had posed a threat to the Royal Navy during this entirely sea based war. Following the restoration of King Charles II this threat was identified and an opportunity noted. Among Charles’ closest advisors were Prince Rupert, who was from the Rhineland, and Richard Holmes, an Anglo-Irish mercenary. Rupert had visited parts of West Africa. Holmes was keen to take on the Dutch.

Prince Rupert learnt of the riches that African leaders were acquiring from the interior of the continent. He persuaded Prince James, Duke of York (Future James II), to lobby for an English interest to be established in the area. This lobbying led to the authorisation of a mission, led by Holmes, to Gorée."

[reneeh63]

There's certainly a lot of blame to go around. Why does anyone think that pointing out others' involvement does anything at all to absolve them of their OWN?

[SLIMMACKEY]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Nope it's just logic. You need to offer up something here, you know that right? Like how it would have existed without the African Lords participation in it.

Explain it to me, because as it is, I'm the only one doing any explaining. You've got documentary on it somewhere right that shows a different 'stance'? Or are they all in the TLDR category for you.
And you get that from where? Not to mention --- How? From my understanding Malaria kept everyone on their ships at port, least the contract the diseases in Africa and succumb to their deaths. Not to mention how did they navigate through the ruff terrain and get past the huge wild animals of the African jungles?

If that's wrong, show me where it is wrong. Show your homework on how they conducted their thievery. Inquiring minds want to know.
That's your interpretation in your attempt to bastardize ancient history documentations. King Solomon was a black man; so you're going to try and tell me he was a subhuman, as well as, the Egyptian Pharaohs? It was debtor's prison; people being sentenced who owed taxes and the law of the land, that brought about the Institution of Slavery within the first century of historical documentation. For your timeline --- that's before, during and after the fall of Ancient Rome and the Church was a group of people.
Igbos, for one as I've already showed you in the 'my great-grandfather the Nigerian Slave Trader, article which you have yet to read. I know you haven't read it as you're not bringing up anything that hasn't already been asked and answered. His name was Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, and he kept his slaves chained up with heavy chains. They buried six-slaves with him alive, when he died.

Additional documentation (don't know why I bother)
"The transatlantic slave trade was fed by the emergence of these Volta Kingdoms and the Asante Empire." Africans Before the Atlantic Slave Trade
I can't until you explain to me how their cultural 'caste system' is any different, from Apartheid, Jim Crow laws and the black codes of the Northern u.s. I guess you forgot about the later, just as you skipped their caste system in my post above.
Says you and no one else except maybe the ones who brainwashed you into believing it --- so therefore you will have to answer that question.

However, they never did get away from the caste system, so the answer to that question I suspect lays there and since their spiritual religious ceremonies included cutting off people's heads; planting the heads in flower pots and burying them alive --- wouldn't you call that a spiritual brutality? Gotto love Voodoo.

Cultural caste system is equal to social racial oppresive systems? And you want me to expound on the differences bewtenn the 2 to prove you wrong? LMAO

Apartheid and Jim crow were not based upon social class or economics cher. They were socially constructed institutions created to oppress a particular race of people solely based on their color. The Dutch did not apply Apartheid to the English. They applied it to the African. Jim Crow was not applied to Scots or Irish, it was applicable to what all white people called "Coloered" or Black". This is too simple. Black codes were not created to limit poor blacks from access to everything america had to offer bbefore or after the Emancipation Proclamation, they were made to limit ALL black people. Hence the name......

"The Black Codes, sometimes called Black Laws, were laws governing the conduct of African Americans (free and freed blacks). In 1832, James Kent wrote that "in most of the United States, there is a distinction in respect to political privileges, between free white persons and free colored persons of African blood; and in no part of the country do the latter, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites, in the exercise of civil and political rights."Although Black Codes existed before the Civil War and many Northern states had them, it was the Southern U.S. states that codified such laws in everyday practice. The best known of them were passed in 1865 and 1866 by Southern states, after the American Civil War, in order to restrict African Americans' freedom, and to compel them to work for low wages.

Since the colonial period, colonies and states had passed laws that discriminated against free Blacks. In the South, these were generally included in "slave codes"; the goal was to suppress the influence of free blacks (particularly after slave rebellions) because of their potential influence on slaves. Restrictions included prohibiting them from voting (although North Carolina had allowed this before 1831), bearing arms, gathering in groups for worship, and learning to read and write. The purpose of these laws was to preserve slavery in slave societies." James Kent, a white man wrote the Commentaries on American Law. I swear it shouldnt be this hard.....imperical fact.....

The Igbo are ONE ethnic group in the region now known as Nigeria. Their history is very well known, so I challenge you to name on etribal leader as I asked before, that even the Portuguese dealt with in the manufactured capture and trade of slaves. It should be easy as Brazil imported more slaves than anyone. These are all very simple and easy questions yo should be able to easily answer. Also, which other countries had Apartheid or Jim Crow level socially sonstructed laws?

You havent explained anything actually. Ive had to explain to you the context on the subject as you are completely off base.