https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53444752?fbclid=IwAR17nt7cqhr1mXNre8goejh2lUdXslw4srbia2oHYGB4Dmwg1-jvNydcK1g

Can we talk about this? How much do we know about the political climate in Western and Southern/ Central southern Africa from the 1500s till 1884?

Who controlled the currency?

Did religion play a factor.

What tactics to Eurasians use to "entice" various African groups to participate in the slave trade?

Can we sum this up as simply as Africans so you?

And the idea that we should judge slave traders by today's standards is nonsense. There were people speaking out against the slave trade at every stage. Just say your great-grandfather was greedy and go.

but, Accountability.
and we get tight about it.

just saying the word "accountability" over and over isn't a complete thought

what is not happening specifically or what do you think should happen, specifically?

sheesh

d

https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13380076&mesg_id=13380076&listing_type=search#13380089

i can't be responsible for the fact that you lack reading comprehension

and you STILL don't have a coherent point.

*waiting*

d

while you’re *still waiting*

my point was made
and was very clear
but sure, keep playing dumb

to you>

I've always considered reparations from a legal and governmental stand point rather than individual families. I'm honestly still considering how it should look. I'd like to see this family's land (and other property gained through enslaving folks) seized and the profits go into a fund for DOS folks. I would like to see some justice for the osu and lower classes in Nigeria. I've traveled throughout West Africa, but Nigerians treated their poor the worst. It was sickening.


What are your thoughts?

I misinterpreted at first and thought you were referring to reparations from the US, but seeing your exchange with Musa I see you were talking about from Africans/African govs...

I've always wanted to ask folks, if there's any *non-monetary* actions that would interest Black Americans? (*not* saying there's anything wrong with a monetary ask btw, just thinking about different angles)

Like, for me, as a 1st-gen/daughter of African immigrants (and yes I reject the "2nd"-gen label)? I feel sometimes like I can relate to the disconnection 'DOS groups express because I wasn't born or raised back home. Many of us can relate to language barriers, lack of (known/trusted) network, feelings of cultural displacement, etc.

I've always felt that African nations could do a lot more in terms of welcome/re-integration efforts, which I suppose might fall under their tourism sectors. I mean things like expedited visas (possibly even citizenship) for 'DOS, cultural tour programs (less emphasis on slavecastles/barracks), host family networks, concierge services, etc. Even foreign investor programs to allow Black Americans (and other 'DOS) a chance to contribute/collaborate/profit from growing this type of tourism. If designed right, it would/should help the local economies too i.e be a win-win.

In your opinion, do you think such initiatives could appeal to a lot of Black Americans? Or am I totally in a 1st-gen bubble?

African nations are in the condition they are in now.

We all have a moral compass.

people use to justify selling drugs not looking at the bigger picture and damages done in the long term. Selfish gain, and short term linking along with hyper tribalism = ripe pickings for capitalism.

strange climate for her to think "you know who doesn't get enough love? THIS GUY."

used by white people who try to defend slavery.

in reality, every civilization had slaves in one way or another. In ancient Athens most slaves were Athenians themselves.

the british, french, and portuguese just made it a commodity.

and any african "selling" other africans into slavery was most likely out of self preservation.

without the logic leaps or being accused of ulterior motives

we’ll get there one day

we’re not mature enough to talk about it yet

took it to another level though.

Not only did they use religion and pseudo science to try and make it legitimate in their(moral/political and scientific sense)

They went on a 500 year smear campaign media wise to white wash everything(printing press) and actually has a lot of the world believing the lies.

The part you said about self preservation is the part I don't think many people realize.

No one takes into consideration the political climate of Western, central or Southern Africa between 1500s and 1800s.

Many of us in the diaspora have the ancestry of groups on the continent who were fighting each other and enticed (and threatened) by Eurasians to do it. Some people did it(Dahomey(fon) because they were targeted originally and then became good at it, other groups like the Edo refused to participate).

Europeans created a slave trade to rival the dominance of slave trading by Arabians, and so they wouldn't have to trade with them or need them.



"A number of technical and geographical factors combined to make Europeans the most likely people to explore the Atlantic and develop its commerce". He identified these as being the drive to find new and profitable commercial opportunities outside Europe. Additionally was the desire to create an alternative trade network to that controlled by the Muslim Ottoman Empire of the Middle East, which was viewed as a commercial, political and religious threat to European Christendom. In particular, European traders wanted to trade for gold, which could be found in western Africa, and also to find a maritime route to "the Indies" (India), where they could trade for luxury goods such as spices without having to obtain these items from Middle Eastern Islamic traders."

The Europeans did make it a bigger market and more expansive.

nor the sole reason for them to enslave.

Neither was good.

And they actually wanted to dominate the trade in Africa via the gold, salt, and intellectual dominance of the 3 major West African Empires of Mali, Songhai and Ghana.

https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13274711&mesg_id=13274711&listing_type=search

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

.

you have to filter out the bullshit from the miserable folks that frequent this place just to be naysayers and stir shit up

i skipped right past all that side talk

ive been into ancestry research since i was a kid
over the years it seems as if it desensitizes you to the horrors within our history, and after a while i stopped clinching my fists and getting upset over our history

an older cat once asked me, if you got into a fight, you won the fight but took some hard blows, would it be difficult to talk about the fight?
right? you’d talk and laugh about it because you won.
he said, we act like we lost the fight when we won.

our history is what it is, im just reading about it

is definitely true.

I don't think we see ourselves as winning. It's a lot of denial, disconnect and disillusionment when talking about these issues.

If you don't mind you asking what propelled you to research ancestry?

What was the reaction of the majority of people around if you told them about your interest in it?

my uncle, my grandmothers brother

my grandmother was the oldest of 7
my mother the oldest of 5
due to that i didnt have cousins my age and spent alot of time around older elders

my uncle was big into ancestry research, he was the one that organized our family reunions. he even used to reach out to unknown branches on the family tree, introduce himself, and start going to their family reunions

through him as a kid i got an early understanding of who i was and where i came from

i started seriously getting into in my 20’s and got addicted to learning about our history

ha!
shocked, confused, surprised, inquisitive, agitated, mad, and angry

i try to tell people interested in ancestry research that keep putting it off til later. your best resource are the oldest elders in you family. the longer you wait the greater potential for those memories to fade away.

i always asked questions. most often those questions brought out old stories, laughter, or new revelations of how things ended up the way they did. sometimes folks are instantly agitated and confused as to why you’re asking questions about things from 100 years ago.

i give myself an internal chuckle when i visit a state capital records archive, looking for census data, deeds, or old wills, nothing but the 60+ crowd in there. never once seen someone my age or black

To rival the white slave trade market controlled by Muslims of The Ottoman Empire , European countries sought out slaves from other countries. They couldn’t get white slaves because the ottomans took over everything.

Portugal was the first country to engage in the Atlantic slave trade. They went to Brazil and enslaved indigenous people, and then they made slavery deals with West African countries who were already trading and exchanging slaves...Other European countries followed, and it evolved from there.

Also, one thing that people don’t talk about is that there was this huge technology leap with navigation and sailing. Prior, European countries did not have the boats that could handle the waves of the ocean so they could sail to far away continents and countries.

However, The Arab Slave trade of both whites and blacks is something that never gets talked about , but should. They were africa’s first enslavers, and they enslaved millions of Caucasians from European countries for 7 centuries!

So you can say the Arabs started all that shit, the market, monetary value , in and out of Africa and in and out of Europe....and the Europeans expanded off it.

different slavetrade economies is whether we're identifying the right people. (Not directly related to what you've said here, but I guess inspired by it)

So, for example, I've seen some interesting debate about whether it's more accurate to use the term Trans-Saharan Slavetrade v. Muslim Slavetrade when referring to the trafficking and enslavement across North Africa. I guess the role of Arabs is implied if using the term Trans-Saharan (depending on the time period)... but I also think it fails to address regimes that evolved independent of Arab groups or the Sahara desert, like the enslavement of sub-saharan groups by Hausas and Fulanis/Sokoto Caliphate (who are both Black African and enslavers who only differed from their captives by religion and ethnicity).

I think the term Muslim Slavetrade is broader and more inclusive of trafficking done by a variety of racial and ethnic groups... from the Hausa Kingdoms, to Fulani/Sokoto Caliphate, to both the Berber/North African and Eurasian theaters of the Ottoman Empire, and of course Omanis and other Arab traffickers who targeted the East African Indian Ocean coast. But I've also seen the argument that the term Muslim Slavetrade *shouldn't* be used because Islam wasn't the *primary reason* Muslim groups were enslaving non-Muslims (which I'm not sure I agree with... because even if there's never been a specific hadith, and Quranic instruction to enslave is subject to interpretation (at first glance, it at minimum fails to condemn and makes plenty references just like the Bible eg. https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/slavery.html), throughout history non-muslims have always been the target or could at least avoid enslavement by converting. So it definitely still played a significant role).

But even with those two options, neither the Trans-Saharan slavetrade or Muslim slavetrade labels can accurately describe more nuanced trade dynamics such as in the Red Sea slavetrade economy... where Ethiopian and Egyptian traders weren't Muslim (well, in the case of Egypt I guess not until after the muslim conquest/Caliphates, Ottoman era, etc), and trafficking of Nilotic African groups was not Trans-Saharan. Since they were also selling to Arab groups, I suppose you could group these activities under Arab slave trade... but that kind of glosses over the rampant enslavement that took place in those countries too plus you run into similar issues that the Trans-Saharan label causes.

The reason I care is I'm interested in understanding the racial dynamics of slavery as far back as antiquity and ancient times, and by extension (or process of elimination lol) the geneology of all this racial superiority shit. If it's even possible. I definitely have a lot more to learn/understand, and it's just hobby reading of course, but so far it at least seems clear that the greco-roman social order (and more specifically Roman Empire) birthed the Berber/Barbary/Ottoman Empire, Trans-Saharan, and Trans-Atlantic slavetrade economies as well as their industrialized, imperialist, patriarchal, and racist attributes. But there's records of enslavement as far back as the Kingdom of Babylon in Mesopotamia (eg. in their Code of Hammurabi) and elsewhere in the fertile crescent (eg. Canaanites enslaved by the Israelites/Jews i.e. the inspiration behind all that Curse of Ham crap from the Bible (if one believes some of it to be true), but also interesting since the Israelites/Jews were themselves enslaved by Egypt), and archaeological evidence points towards trafficking of Nilotic African groups in the Red Sea slavetrade economy as early as 2900BC (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01440399908575286).

If even these most ancient regimes, which predated Islam and Christianity, display this trend of enslaving darker-skinned people (incl. Black African, whenever they could it seems), then I think I might start to look at anti-black racism as the origin of racial superiority sentiment (and slavery as well) moreso than white supremacy... although the two are hardly mutually exclusive.



>
>The Arab Slave trade of both whites and blacks is
>something that never gets talked about , but should. They were
>africa’s first enslavers, and they enslaved millions of
>Caucasians from European countries for 7 centuries!
>
>So you can say the Arabs started all that shit, the market,
>monetary value , in and out of Africa and in and out of
>Europe....and the Europeans expanded off it.
>

you don't steal that many people without a sizable amount of collabaration from their neighbors.

The author's perspective in this article is horrid, btw

as a Pan African I don't think we grasp the level of tribalism that was going on which is ironic because we have phony levels of tribalism based on countries, languages, cities, neighborhoods and other political borders we didn't define.

It's hard to say they sold us when you look at the level of infighting that was going on.

One primary example is the case of Abdulrahman ibrahim ibn Sori.

Abdulrahman a Pularr(Fulani via modern day Guinea) was captured by Mande enemies(both of who were muslim but were enemies) and sold to Europeans. Now multiply that by dozens if not hundreds of conflicts between cultural groups.

Another example is Queen Nzingha and her conflict with the Portuguese, Kongo and other indigenous cultural groups in Africa.

were taught about slavery from Pan-Africanist teachers and professors. The lack of acknowledgement of tribalism and classism in pre-colonial West Africa never sat well with me, but I didn't have the language to object back then. I think we can all agree that Europeans dominated, spread, and reaped most of the benefits of the slave trade, but it's still painful to know that Africans were involved at any level. When I teach about the slave trade to my students, they don't care about tribes/warfare etc no matter how well I explain it. All they hear is that Africans sold us. They don't say this out loud, but I can see it in their faces. I think this is where Pan-Africanism fails us and y'all (the movement )have to find a better way to address it.

And now that folks are starting to point out the ways Black immigrants are benefitting from policies that Black Americans fought for, but can't seem access, it's a huge dumpster fire. Pan-Africanism has to have solid responses to these issues, and I've yet to hear a cogent one.

Anything Tribalism or Indigenous, they don't want to teach.

I tell people that africa's birth and existence was a tribal one, and then the Arabians and Europeans came, which totally changed the dynamic of the African continent.


Also, Native Americans and Indigenous people had slaves before Europeans came over. However, it was not based on the perception of race inferiority, it was based on war with other tribes. War captives were enslaved, and often used to trade for goods with other tribes, and later on used to trade with Europeans. So native americans did participate in the slave trade, which lead to them being enslaved.....which didn't last for a long time, because they refused to stay enslaved and would constantly rebel.

Slavery has nothing to do with race or what ethnicity you're from. It's simply a country or tribe having the power and resources to conquer and enslave another country or another tribe. It's basically a byproduct of war, and is used as a tool. And slavery was born out of tribalism.

too quick from foreign diseases.

So native americans did participate in the slave
>trade, which lead to them being enslaved.....which didn't last
>for a long time, because they refused to stay enslaved and
>would constantly rebel.
>
>

there's a reason why there's crossover between some WI traditions and natives from the continental US

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The context of the situation was explained to me at a relatively young age and I understood it very well.

Also as far as recent immigrants benefiting from what Africans of the diaspora have worked for who is pulling the strings?

Is there a difference between those that are vetted to immigrate to the states and those in the 60s and 70s AND EVEN 80S?

Context is everything.

I also see efforts being made by a few African nations concerning Pan Africanism. What I don't see is the political, social or longterm benefit of phony Nationalism espoused by Yvette Carnell and Tone talks with Lisp.

Then you must be better than the hundreds of students that I've taught.

>The context of the situation was explained to me at a
>relatively young age and I understood it very well.
>
>Also as far as recent immigrants benefiting from what Africans
>of the diaspora have worked for who is pulling the strings?
>
>Is there a difference between those that are vetted to
>immigrate to the states and those in the 60s and 70s AND EVEN
>80S?
>
>Context is everything.
>
>I also see efforts being made by a few African nations
>concerning Pan Africanism. What I don't see is the political,
>social or longterm benefit of phony Nationalism espoused by
>Yvette Carnell and Tone talks with Lisp.

And these are the same talking points that are simply not persuasive. I like Yvette, but don't agree with many of her assertions on this issue.

>I think this is where Pan-Africanism fails us and y'all (the movement have to find a better way to address it.

>And now that folks are starting to point out the ways Black
>immigrants are benefitting from policies that Black Americans
>fought for, but can't seem access, it's a huge dumpster fire.
>Pan-Africanism has to have solid responses to these issues,
>and I've yet to hear a cogent one.

Right. I definitely understand this injustice to Black Americans, and hopefully reparations efforts include helpful provisions (eg. set-asides specifically for Black American DOS as a distinct protected class). I guess it was hard for the original framers of these policies to envision a future where civil rights efforts were so successful that there would have to be additional efforts to sort out competing interests *among* black people and other underrepresented groups.

It does make me sad when rhetoric descends into straight-up exclusion tho (not saying you are here, just an observation of some of the commentary out there)... which I think almost reinforces the interchangeability/"just swap one in for the other" perspective that's contributed to screwing Black Americans over in the first place. Is it possible for Black Americans to get their due, be nurtured, invested in, and thrive *without* denying other minority groups an opportunity to overcome discrimination? I would hope so... and tbh I sincerely think so. But there seems to be a concerted effort (from both ends of the political spectrums) to paint the situation as zero-sum.

Other thing is, I think we (black immigrants) bear some responsibility too, for sure. It's not just outdated Pan-Africanism imo. I think education and awareness on these issues have not been taken seriously enough across the black diaspora, which has led to a poorly developed black consciousness in some groups. Every black population around the globe lives under some form of post-colonial apparatus, but Black American DOS are truly the only and largest black DOS population still living under the one erected by their majority-holding white neighbors... So Black Americans' leadership in this regard is unsurprising since it was in part pressure-cooked and necessary for survival (tho I guess Black South Africans could argue a similar case, tho in their scenario they were/are breaking out of minority-white oppression). But the downside is it probably leads to some (understandable) frustration with other black groups who are a bit behind.

But ya: agreed, Pan-Africanism 1.0 has its flaws and needs updating asap to confront intra-group trauma. My only concern is I think the other extreme gaining traction, acrimonious balkanization, would end up equally ineffective as 1.0 if not worse. I think the global black diaspora could be powerful beyond measure if we could just find that damn *balance*... i.e. true mutual respect, empathy, solidarity, collaboration, etc. Not giving up on us tho.

saying "africans sold slaves" without context is counter productive. many cultures practiced slavery throughout history but the trans atlantic slave trade was one of the worst iterations, if not *the* worst. I dont think any of the continental africans couldve foresaw that.

they knew what was happening and continued doing it.
Hell, there's primary sourced documents that illustrate that AND document how brutal the African slave raids were.
Nah, no excuses for collaborators.

Many of us have ancestry that may have participated and got victimized.

The MANY African ethnic groups and states that collaborated with European slave traders.
A whole SLEW of Nigerian ethnic groups, Benin, Dahomey, etc...

They sold slaves, including some of thier own people, for trinkets.
It is what it is.

>you don't steal that many people without a sizable amount of
>collabaration from their neighbors.
>
>The author's perspective in this article is horrid, btw

And what's worse is that tribes are still willing to commit genocide to this day on opposing tribes.

It's like they still haven't realized that 'race' now dominates tribes in today's world. Caucasian, Arab, Asian, etc. don't care what tribe of African....they all see them the same....a Black African...not worthy of anything except subjugation.

It makes no sense how Africa is the richest continent yet its inhabitants, compared to the rest of the world, are the poorest. Yet it's Africa's wealth that prop up the so called first world countries.

I mean, yes, the opposing tribe(s) has different language, culture, religion, etc. but c'mon, you'd rather turn on them and get dominated by Anglo Whites, now Chinese on the come up, than sticking together and pulling up the continent?

Tired of Africa being the face of disease, poverty, famine, war, and current slavery.

Africans don't see themselves as a collective on the continent.
& It makes sense that they don't, in a vacuum.
But, that vacuum got busted like 600 years ago, tho.
Pan-Africanism got the same problem it's always has had...Africa.

>Pan-Africanism got the same problem it's always has
>had...Africa.

>Africans don't see themselves as a collective on the
>continent.

And this isn't necessarily true. There's various political,economic/monetary, and trade unions that have developed over time... most notably the African Union (55 member states), but also regional efforts like ECOWAS (15 member states), the CFA Franc Zone (14 member states), and the recently brokered AfCFTA/African Continental Free Trade Area (ratified in 28 member states so far) which when implemented will be the largest free trade area in the world.

But to your point, even if there's no shortage of internal and external challenges with those efforts... isn't it more realistic to expect as much ??(eg. Current tensions between US and NATO)



>& It makes sense that they don't, in a vacuum.
>But, that vacuum got busted like 600 years ago, tho.
>Pan-Africanism got the same problem it's always has
>had...Africa.

infantilizing a bit here tho??

>
>It's like they still haven't realized that 'race' now
>dominates tribes in today's world. Caucasian, Arab, Asian,
>etc. don't care what tribe of African....they all see them the
>same....a Black African...not worthy of anything except
>subjugation.

Do you truly believe the problem is continental Africans just 'haven't realized' racism supersedes tribalism?? Or is it more likely that barriers to progress in many African countries are just super complex, even with majority-black populations?


>
>It makes no sense how Africa is the richest continent yet its
>inhabitants, compared to the rest of the world, are the
>poorest. Yet it's Africa's wealth that prop up the so called
>first world countries.
>
>I mean, yes, the opposing tribe(s) has different language,
>culture, religion, etc. but c'mon, you'd rather turn on them
>and get dominated by Anglo Whites, now Chinese on the come up,
>than sticking together and pulling up the continent?
>
>Tired of Africa being the face of disease, poverty, famine,
>war, and current slavery.

Well.. African countries are only the face of disease, poverty, famine, war, and slavery if that's all one's willing to see, just the same way Black America is only the face of its disparities with respect to disease, poverty, violence, etc if that's all one is willing to see. Someone could take your question about how Africans can struggle on such a resource-rich continent and flip it to also ask how Black Americans can struggle in the wealthiest country in the world. To any of those characterizations I'd say: show me a post-colonial state where the previously-colonized and/or previously-enslaved black population is thriving. It's not so cut and dry, imho.

Other thing is, post-colonialism is insidious af right? One of its weirdest characteristics is an oppressor group doesn't even need to remain a majority (or presence, for that matter) for their apparatus to still shape/stifle society significantly. Dr. Afrikana Chihombori-Quao was removed last year from her post as Ambassador of the AU to the United States for vocalizing this very issue (https://youtu.be/HgMDuL9Ww7Y?t=108 - note: not endorsing or maligning Roland's show by reposting btw, it's just a really good interview).

So sure, there's more obvious colonial remnants that seem relatively benign (tho they're not, tbh) like language (eg. french, english, arabic), religion (Christianity, Islam), and social stratification systems (eg. title/peerage schemes, caste hierarchies, etc). But these just scratch the surface.

I don't see how we can seriously critique/discuss nation-building in Africa without addressing the post-colonial legacy in say... the monetary systems (eg. not just currency, at times monetary policy itself); the political economies (eg. not just who gender-, ethnicity-, and religion-wise has representation and power, but the boundaries shaping a country itself and their dictates in terms of (natural) resource extraction, (financial) resource allocation, inter-regional peace v. instability, etc); the financial economies (eg. not just who gender-, ethnicity-, and religion-wise has access and literacy, but ownership and dominance especially taking into account huge multinationals like Total, De Beers, Shell, Chevron, Vodafone, BP, and others), and foreign relations (eg. Are Black African Heads of State, Ministers, and other top officials taken as seriously on the world stage as others? Are the priorities of African countries and/or their most victimized adequately addressed by multilaterals and other supposed allies? Did independence truly decolonize African countries, or were they roped - under threat of currecy, trade, proxy, regime change and other types of war - into harmful treaties that extended the colonial dynamic?) and so much more. All these factors mix together with intrinsic challenges every ethno-lingustic/-religious group already has and forms post-colonial goo not unlike the post-colonial goo Black Americans have to contend with to advance, except for the fact that race may not be a prime ingredient.


*Not blindly defending all that happens on the continent, mind you... I'm frustrated by many things too. But I do believe barriers to progress are just complex everywhere, especially in African countries.

The way it was doesn’t cut it
Most Africans find it hard to wrap their heads around the idea that their forefathers were participating in something they saw as committed on them.
Humans can reach the depths of depravity towards their neighbors.
No race is excluded.

.

Let me know when it's uncomfortable conversation time so we can address those akata using anti-black American white supremacist pandering filth quick to distance themselves. Yes, I'm still mad over "bob hearts Abishola" as well as Cynthia Erivo's blatant disrespect.

Respect and love to those of yall that are not coons.

All that "it was part of the culture","he was just doing what he knew", "it would be unfair to judge (him) by (today's) principles" stuff is a bunch of bullshit, since she has to grossly misrepresent Igbo culture for her appeal to make sense.


She keeps re-publishing this same family lore about her great-grandfather in different venues and presenting it as archetypal Igbo culture. Her family's story isn't at all common to the vast majority of Igbo families. I actually do support confronting uncomfortable history and culpability (which she did quite evocatively in her New Yorker piece), but now she's throwing in all these sweeping claims and I guess it's too much to expect basic factchecking from the BBC on easily verifiable aspects of West African history. It reads like a descendent of Frank Lucas, 100+ years after the fact, describing how prominent a drug kingpin he was but centering drug dealing as this historical pillar of Black American culture, omitting all important contextual factors yet referencing the staggeringly disproportionate number of Black Americans incarcerated for drug offences as proof of her narrative. It's misleading on so many levels.


Someone made the point in your old post (about her New Yorker piece https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13274711&mesg_id=13274711) that the families/clans participating in this trade with Europeans likely amounted to a 1% Merchant class, and from what I've read so far about this history that's probably the best way to look at it. Nwaubani claims slavery was institutionalized in Igbo culture "long before" contact with other groups... but that just doesn't square with the general (as in, recognizable to Igbos outside her lineage/village group) oral/proverbial history, what's known about how Igbos were organized socio-politically going as far back as the Igbo iron age, or the geographical, geopolitical, regional, social, and even technological factors that shaped how and where Europeans could establish a market (and networks) for human trafficking with the few strategic Igbo communities/regions they did.


There's so much more one could say, and I'll definitely come back to do so, but this is what I think: Some Igbo village groups/families were geographically situated closer to coastal or sahelian areas, major waterways/basins (eg. Niger River, Oguta Lake/lower Niger basin, Cross River), or major market locations/trade posts (eg. Abakaliki, Umuahia,*Enugu (as it's now called, which also doubled as a trafficking hub for Muslim traders from further north)); and this facilitated their exposure to (European-initiated, Trans-Saharan-initiated) human-trafficking networks and enticed some among them to participate (after seeing the resources/wealth available). The one cultural driver that makes sense is that Igbos have an extremely strong entrepreneurial tradition and had been engaging in a fairly sophisticated and non-exploitative form of indigenous capitalism since ancient times (with main commodities being salt, palm produce items, dried fish, woven textiles, etc. depending on a region's local ecology and artisanship). There was already a robust and tightly-coordinated network of markets (led by women actually, who also set local policies to effectively manage trade imbalances, price inflation, competitiveness of local producers, etc.) plus an indigenous business cycle so ingrained that it forms the basis of the Igbo calendar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_calendar). So even though Igbo capitalism lacked the exploitative and mercantilist aspects of European capitalism, upon contact I do believe the indigenous trade system provided turnkey infrastructure that catalyzed Europeans' (and individual Igbo profiteers like Nwaubani's) interests, and that the Igbos' decentralized system of governance helped as well (in contrast to Britain's frequent trade disputes with neighboring monarchs like the King of Benin or King Jaja of Opobo - both of whom Britain deposed as a result). But considering Igbos were and continue to be one of the largest ethnic groups in Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_of_Africa#Major_ethnic_groups) talk less of the region, it just doesn't make sense to insinuate (or assume) that most Igbo families were involved in the TAST or that slavery was central to Igbo culture and that's where Nwaubani loses me for good.


That said... while I find her generalizations offensive, and the elitism in her/her family's unapologetic/proud view of her great-grandfather's trafficking nauseating, I don't actually care what mental gymnastics they need to engage in to stand strong in spite of this history - that's their business. But the entitlement in suggesting/expecting others do the same is completely tone-deaf. Especially considering some readers may come from families negatively impacted by her great-grandfather's enterprise or even descend directly from people he sold.

Her family's probably still rich. If she/they want to confront, share, and use their history for good... why not give back and publicize everything that way?? Like, set up a fund for 'DOS scholarships and grants or something. Or, endow activists and organizations advancing 'DOS liberation/reparations goals in the countries/former colonies your family's victims were sold to. Rather than this lionizing unapology tour. I think the approach is all wrong.

and am kinda blown away by how comprehensive and thoughtful it is

And thx. I don't mind opening up since I poke around Igbo history a lot for personal reasons.

You might regret encouraging me tho bc I'm bout to write some more lol

From the Igbo folk I have talked to Igbos were never centralized and kings (Eze) were not something that was custom until the trans Atlantic trade.

Something I rarely see people touch on is the currency manipulation via cowhie shells and manila.

read this paper (maybe)?

https://www.persee.fr/doc/cea_0008-0055_1985_num_25_97_2185

It's old but one of the best summaries I've seen on the economic dynamics of that region and during that era.

Igbo currency discussion starts on page 59. Some takeaways just in case I'm wrong (about you reading it before) and/or tl;dr :

-The monetary system, like the Igbo system of governance, was mostly decentralized i.e. no central authority, monarchy, etc dictating rules of currency exchange or value

-Cowrie shells (which originate from a type of snail native to the Indian Ocean (i.e. link to Arab Slave Trade) and were first introduced to Western Africa via Trans-Saharan trade, then Igboland specifically via trade around the Niger river basin) were more ubiquitous than metal currencies (archaeological evidence points to limited quantities manufactured by Igbos via a labor-intensive process before introduction of cowries, but later-generation metal curriencies were also imported by Europeans during the TAST)

-Imports were priced according to whatever currency was used at a specific port, forming different monetary zones. I find this to be an interesting contrast to how we normally think about currency... It's like travellers having to use currency A if they fly into JFK, and currency B if they fly into LAX; but New York/JFK only using currency A because it gets so much traffic from country A, and Los Angeles/LAX only using currency B because it gets so much traffic from country B. Weird.

-Early in the TAST, Europeans preferred to trade with their exports instead of currency whenever possible to undercut Africans (it was more expensive for them to use currency). But as they industrialized, currency became easier/cheaper to transport(in the case of cowrie shells) and manufacture (in the case of metal currencies) and they switched to trying to flood the Igbo markets (probably to drive their value down and, again, undercut Africans). Is this the currency manipulation you're alluding to?? Also noteworthy that Igbos responded to these tactics by a) refusing to accept the newer-generation shells and metal rods/bars in their markets (to keep rates stable) and b) withdrawing surplus currency out of circulation by repurposing them as jewellery and other symbolic uses (i.e. quantitative tightening, but also the likely origin of cowrie, bead, and bracelet/anklet accesorizing that accompanies traditional styling even in today's time).

- Just to tie this back to the OP, I find the section characterizing Igbo market networks and their admin (starting from page 63) relevant to countering Nwaubani's claims too. Because it points out how local policies set by the women collectively leading these village market councils included approving and disapproving which other towns/village groups could sell goods in their respective markets and what could be sold. I think this gatekeeping would have significantly limited the number of markets profiteers (i.e. raiders and traders) could use as venues for their trafficking, since slavery and other associated sacrifical practices were not customary across all/most Igbo groups. Furthermore, profiteers had to rely on personal/kin relationships to gain market access in the first place which would have limited the venues available to them even more.