"Xplain like I'm 3 years old: Ignorant but honest question about slavery" Tue Apr-04-17 04:14 AM by Firecracker
How come Europe were able to overtake and transport so many slaves from Africa in ancient times? What in history brought about the advanced developments in weaponry or whatever that caused these caucasian intruders to be able to carry out such horrible deeds for close to one thousand years?
When and how in history was this «upper hand» in technology, weaponry and/or society brought about that enabled this to go down the way it did?
I know this question is dumb and poorly phrased but I'm reading a book on the Libyan boat refugees and they're still traveling by the same trans-Saharan route that was used for slave trades for almost a millenium. And I wonder when did the world evolve from (ALL of) our ancestors chillin in the seas and trees to this division in race, which then later advanced to the point that certain European countries were able to carry out this shit and strongarm a whole continent for almost a 1000 years
1. "All good questions" In response to Reply # 0 Tue Apr-04-17 06:28 AM by denny
Firstly, the characterization of our ancestors 'chilling in the seas and trees' is problematic. My worldview is that human civilization was always built from slavery or forced labor, tribal warfare, land and resource disputes and exploitation. It's not like the world was a peaceful place before European colonialism. Skin color and physical attributes like facial features were used as a basis in distinguishing social hierarchies and slavery/exploitation thousands of years before Christ was born.
There's undoubtedly many people on this board who've studied this in-depth so I'm just as keen to hear some perspectives as you. My impression is that the Trans-atlantic slave trade is differentiated from previous forms of slavery mostly for it's scale and sophistication. It was big enterprise commerce with legal and economic infrastructure. Before this time...indentured servitude was woven into cultural fabrics. The Europeans turned it into big business on a macro level that was highly organized. Also...European slavery took on a new form commonly called 'chattel slavery' which meant that a slave was a piece of property that could be bought, sold, inherited and it was a LIFETIME designation. The traditional forms of slavery before that time were less rigid. They weren't necessarily life-long sentences and they were often employed for debts or the spoils of a successful war or punishments for crime.
The question of How they did it? That's what I'd like to hear more about. Like all forms of imperialism....the Europeans exploited pre-existing conflicts between different ethnicities. I'd be interested in hearing from someone who's studied this at length...but I would guess we have to remember that there was not a unifying 'black' identity amongst African people. So from our current perspective we say 'How did only a few Europeans get away with doing this while being so outnumbered?' That presumes a shared identity amongst different African ethnicities which wasn't applicable back then. My impression is that this is much bigger factor than advanced weaponry.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79620 posts
Tue Apr-04-17 08:24 AM
2. "It's all about the money" In response to Reply # 0
I started watching Taboo and they do a good job of showing the mindset of one of the shipping companies in England.
We weren't people, we were cargo. Like spice, sugar, etc...
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
4. "Guns Germs Steel might be the book on you on this point" In response to Reply # 0 Tue Apr-04-17 09:03 AM by BigReg
>How come Europe were able to overtake and transport so many >slaves from Africa in ancient times? What in history brought >about the advanced developments in weaponry or whatever that >caused these caucasian intruders to be able to carry out such >horrible deeds for close to one thousand years?
Seen by dozens of wearing personality frames in Looks like PBS did a documentary on it as opposed to reading that long ass book
Long story short (did I say the book was needlessly long) harsher climate/less resources forced Europe to push forward warlike tech and see natural resources as the ultimate commodity since they had none. That said, and Buddy discusses above, don't sleep on Ancient african cilvizations...the big leap forward happened during the middle ages into the industrial era when shit really got real environment wise for the so called white man (c) with "Germs" totally upending their way of life and the leap forwards in war tech (the "Guns" and "Steel" part)
>>How come Europe were able to overtake and transport so many >>slaves from Africa in ancient times? What in history brought >>about the advanced developments in weaponry or whatever that >>caused these caucasian intruders to be able to carry out such >>horrible deeds for close to one thousand years? > > >Seen by dozens of wearing personality frames in Looks like PBS >did a documentary on it as opposed to reading that long ass >book > >http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/ > > >Long story short (did I say the book was needlessly long) >harsher climate/less resources forced Europe to push forward >warlike tech and see natural resources as the ultimate >commodity since they had none. That said, and Buddy discusses >above, don't sleep on Ancient african cilvizations...the big >leap forward happened during the middle ages into the >industrial era when shit really got real environment wise for >the so called white man (c) with "Germs" totally upending >their way of life and the leap forwards in war tech (the >"Guns" and "Steel" part) >
27. "Anglos vs Saxons vs Gaul, vs Italians, vs Goths vs Huns vs" In response to Reply # 25
vs vs vs
their greatest tool is political organization for the colonization of other people. The so called world wars were their in fighting over the spoils of their colonization.
11. "In addition to GunGerms&Steel, as Reg mentions above, this series..." In response to Reply # 0
From PBS and Skip Gates, Africa's Great Civilizations - http://www.pbs.org/show/africas-great-civilizations/ Might also provide some insight for you, as it really delves into the majesty of the entire continent, providing a framework for the origins of Europe's "Scramble for Africa".
(All parts of the series are available for free on the PBS website.)
15. "There weren't that many slaves brought from Africa..." In response to Reply # 0 Tue Apr-04-17 11:45 PM by Boogie Stimuli
One of the biggest lies we're told is that "millions of slaves were brought from Africa." The truth is that the slave breeding industry is what created more slaves. A great book on that subject is "The America Slave Coast" by Ned and Constance Sublette. Actually I highly recommend that book. (It's probably much more advanced reading than a 3 yr old can handle tho lol, but do tell them the truth you find it.) Btw, here's a quote from the beloved American, Thomas Jefferson in reference to slavery.
"I know of no error more consuming to an estate than stocking farms with men almost exclusively. I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm. What she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption."
Please note that he uses the word "stock" there as if to reference livestock.
This is an estimate between the years of 1501 - 1875, by multiple European Nations to multiples places in the Americas.
"Although the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database includes all slave voyages that have been documented up to now, it cannot claim to be complete. Records of many voyages have disappeared, in some cases irretrievably, while other documents remain to be discovered in public and private archives. The “Estimates,” on the other hand, provide an educated guess of how large the slave trade actually was. Altogether, the estimates are about 25 percent higher than unadjusted numbers in the main database. They raise the final totals to over 12,500,000 Africans forced to undertake the Middle Passage and around 10,700,000 who completed it, the largest forced migration in modern history." http://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/
-- the untold want by life and land ne'er granted now voyager sail thou forth to seek and find
just want to understand the logic behind the wording being used....
for you exactly how many would it need to be to quantify as "that many"?
say it wasn't 10+million (see) and only 300K (the number mentioned in another reply)....300K isn't a lot (enough)?
for grins, consider the comparison to the population of Europeans who came over
check this:
Over the period of the Atlantic Slave Trade, from approximately 1526 to 1867, some 12.5 million slaves had been shipped from Africa, and 10.7 million had arrived in the Americas. The Atlantic Slave Trade was likely the most costly in human life of all of long-distance global migrations.
The first Africans forced to work in the New World left from Europe at the beginning of the sixteenth century, not from Africa. The first slave voyage direct from Africa to the Americas probably sailed in 1526.
The volume of slaves carried off from Africa reached thirty thousand per year in the 1690s and eighty-five thousand per year a century later. More than eight out of ten Africans forced into the slave trade made their journeys in the century and a half after 1700.
By 1820, nearly four Africans for every one European had crossed the Atlantic. About four out of every five females that traversed the Atlantic were from Africa.
The majority of enslaved Africans were brought to British North America between 1720 and 1780. The decade 1821 to 1830 still saw over 80,000 people a year leaving Africa in slave ships. Well over a million more – one tenth of the volume carried off in the slave trade era – followed within the next twenty years.
Africans carried to Brazil came overwhelmingly from Angola. Africans carried to North America, including the Caribbean, left from mainly West Africa.
Well over 90 percent of enslaved Africans were imported into the Caribbean and South America. Only about 6 percent of African captives were sent directly to British North America. Yet by 1825, the US had a quarter of blacks in the New World."
22. "Internal conflicts, divide and conquer, political organization (Berlin 1..." In response to Reply # 0 Wed Apr-05-17 10:33 AM by Musa
Europeans were on the coast of Africa especially west Africa from mid 1400s till late 1800s before they were able to get 50 miles inside of coast.
Ethnic conflicts between groups is nothing new its called divide an conquer. Benin kingdom along with Ki Congo were notorious slave traders and the Ashanti. The fought neighboring groups and sold them to Europeans.
The Zulu for their great military skill cleared Southern Africa in what was called the Mfecane(scattering or forced dispersal) of other ethnic groups and unintentionally left it open for Europeans.
NO big EUROPEAN army came in and colonized African nations, not even in Sudan and Egypt they always used mercenaries, local conflicting groups and recruited them. The British rifle regiments in modern day Nigeria were 90% African with the 10% being European generals.
Europeans were a beastly people and for all the so called technological advancement their "old world" diseases were the determining factor in clearing out many of the so called indigenous Americans.
and like Boogie Stimuli said breeding humans in the western colonies was really the cause for the numbers in the Western colonies. Less than 5% of the people stolen from Africa came to the USA mainland a majority were transported before 1700s to South America especially the former Portuguese colony currently known as Brazil.
The USA gained a strong hold on the slave trade from Portuguese and Spanish and implemented their breeding techniques. The British pushed for the abolishment of slavery not because of a conscious because of how dangerous and pricey it had become. The British were going to abolish slavery in their colonies.
The American revolution was not really about taxes but slavery too.
Also the "dominance" these European countries currently have only comes from the agreement in treaties and laws/paper plus ethnic/tribal conflicts other groups cannot get past.
The biggest baddest EUROPEAN ARMY of its time NEAPOLEAN and his french army got their asses handed to the by a small island that was called Hispanola (Haiti).
In the USA revolutionary war the British recruited roughly 17,000 "Africans" to help them fight against the American colonist.
The USA went to war with BLACK maroons for over 50 years in what is misnomer the Seminole wars. Many "Africans" ran to Florida which was a Spanish colony and warring against the British.
Africans and "natives" liberated many of the colonies see MEXICO and COLUMBIA.
The Confederate army with less technological advancement was winning or at least coming to a draw with the UNION army until 200,000 plus "Africans" joined the UNION and kicked the shit out of the UNION.
for all the military might the only true advantage europeans have had is playing on divide and conquer, political organization, disease, and our agreement with their political ideals.
23. "Copy and paste divide and conquer in the Americas" In response to Reply # 22
Cut and paste this scenario in the Americas because the slave trade actually started here and different ethnic groups were in conflict siding with different european groups when it "benefited" them see the French and "Indian" war over colonial rule in the USA. Many indigenous groups joined with the British to fight the French colonist.
35. "Thanks I definitely will check it out" In response to Reply # 32
from what I know i thought Toussaint's motto was your either anti colonization/slavery or your the enemy. The French used their mixed "class" closer to French and sympathizers as a sort of social stratification.
Also from what I read in Black Jacobins Toussaint's downfall was he wanted to be accepted by the Frenchmen rather than keeping a healthy skepticism of them trusting them enough to meet with them in private causing his capture and death.
42. "Toussaint is an interesting case" In response to Reply # 35 Fri Apr-07-17 08:29 AM by magilla vanilla
Because he started out going along to get along, and Rigaud and the other slave leaders inland considered him practically a white dude. Although the way Haiti broke from colonization wasn't purely on racial lines- more on class lines.
Atillah Moor Member since Sep 05th 2013 13825 posts
Thu Apr-06-17 12:31 PM
36. "Continued mastery of shipbuilding post Rome and studied gunpowder " In response to Reply # 0
once they established a trade route into China. That brought about muskets and cannons and then once slavery took hold in the Americas fear of a justified and still long over due reprisal from the people they were abusing led to the development of rifles and handguns.
That's how the technology advanced in order to keep the abuse going
Atillah Moor Member since Sep 05th 2013 13825 posts
Sat Apr-08-17 09:32 AM
43. "those Africans didn't promote the trade via doctrine and ideaology" In response to Reply # 41 Sat Apr-08-17 09:34 AM by Atillah Moor
and are trading and selling the same thing? Not sure how you can disagree when the Pope of that day has written statements completely condoning the trade as Gods will
40. "evil men & "naive" families selling others/children in africa right now " In response to Reply # 0
and all other parts of the world, honestly
so the supply never dried up, just the demand was outlawed. if there are buyers, there will be sellers.
explaining it to a 3 year old, i'd mention it wasnt africans selling each other to europeans (how we see it now), as much as it was country A selling war prisoners/generational enemies from country B to traders/pirates from country C. and then raids/kidnappings to keep the supply going.
as for tactical, technical, technological advances europe had 500 years of practice in warfare and subjugation in their quests for power and african nations were ripe for division and manipulation in their internal quests for power
another common misleading thought is that "europe enslaved all of africa" in the sense of some white dudes steamrolling thru an entire continent, when really they never made it far inland. to this day some places in the interior talk like they barely knew slavery happened, like it was just a rumor of something far far away
)))--####---###--(((
bunda <-.-> ^_^ \^0^/ get busy living, or get busy dying.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
