So basically everyone knows that Africans sold other Africans into slavery, right? And everyone basically knows that some people try to use this to justify that slavery shouldn't be considered so bad because of this fact, right? Okay, this is not what this post is about.

So in my Precolonial Africa class, my professor said that he believed that if the Africans had not sold these slaves to Europeans that the slave trade wouldn't have been as effective as it was. Do you agree with this? He also said that had Africa been a more wealthy continent and more technoligically advanced, that then also the slave trade would not have been so effective.

Now, if you agree with the idea that had the Africans not been so willing to sell (by the by I should say that the reason they were so willing was because they didn't look at it as selling their fellow brother or sister, but as selling neighbors and people they didn't know) then would you agree with the idea that parts of Africa should be held responsible for the atrocity that is slavery in America? If so, how should they be held responsible?

A couple of things I found interesting from what my professor told us was that the Africans (hard to generalize, I know) basically thought as of the Europeans as weak because they were always getting Yellow Fever and Malaria, so therefore it's not that they were intimidated by the Europeans and felt forced to sell slaves to them, it was that they saw the great potential profit aspect of it. Apparently there were some places Europeans wouldn't venture into because they didn't know the land, and this is contrary to the idea that they just came in and started snatching people up.

I thought it was interesting that of the Africans that did the selling of slaves to Europeans, they not only did that but had slaves of their own and sold slaves to other Africans.

Oh I should mention as I did before that it is tough to generalize, as of course there were Europeans that *did* venture into unknown territory and there were Africans who of course were totally against slavery. I'm not trying to paint some picture of "Hey, the it's all the Africans fault, if they had been stronger people the Europeans wouldn't stand a chance" That's not what I'm trying to say at all...

Anyway, thoughts?

*gone*

Holocaust/Hellcaust not Slave Trade

Second...Stop confusing the perpetrator, the collaborator & victim. Amerikkkans and Europeans have combined the collaborators and the victims into one entity....During Hitler's reign...there were some Jews who collaborated with the Nazis, Should we then blame the Jews for their own genocide??

Wat picture are u tryin to potray???????

in meaning, practice, and levels of brutality than european slavery.

******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

They just had a different outlook on how to express wealth. Now, I got Armah all in my head and i'm thinking of the power grab. I'll come back to this post later, after work.

This can be good.

******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

this will be the overwhelming response: its ok for africans to sell africans but its not ok for europeans or american to buy africans.

come on man. You better than that, why you had to get down to the LCD?


******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

um...im not saying these things, im saying that will be the overwhelming response by you all.

with a comment like that

www.hiphopmusic.com

"What I don't like is Negro elders finally taking a stand for cultural ethics by way of Caucasian vomit. What this now shows young people is that white guilt is still more powerful than black unity." - Star

>So basically everyone knows that Africans sold other Africans
>into slavery, right?

yup

>And everyone basically knows that some
>people try to use this to justify that slavery shouldn't be
>considered so bad because of this fact, right?

huh ?

>So in my Precolonial Africa class, my professor said that he
>believed that if the Africans had not sold these slaves to
>Europeans that the slave trade wouldn't have been as effective
>as it was. Do you agree with this?

yup.

> He also said that had
>Africa been a more wealthy continent and more technoligically
>advanced, that then also the slave trade would not have been
>so effective.

no

>Now, if you agree with the idea that had the Africans not been
>so willing to sell (by the by I should say that the reason
>they were so willing was because they didn't look at it as
>selling their fellow brother or sister, but as selling
>neighbors and people they didn't know) then would you agree
>with the idea that parts of Africa should be held responsible
>for the atrocity that is slavery in America?

hmmm depends on what you consider the crime.
Is it the middle passage ?
Is it the act of selling ?
Is it the conditions Slaves in America lived under for 400 years ?

> If so, how should they be held responsible?

good question.
i wish i knew.

>A couple of things I found interesting from what my professor
>told us was that the Africans (hard to generalize, I know)
>basically thought as of the Europeans as weak because they
>were always getting Yellow Fever and Malaria, so therefore
>it's not that they were intimidated by the Europeans and felt
>forced to sell slaves to them, it was that they saw the great
>potential profit aspect of it.

is it proven ?

Are the early years really documented ?
Do we know who took those decisions ?
Do we know what game was played ?
Who was in power ? Who got out of power ?

too many questions are unanswered.

>Apparently there were some
>places Europeans wouldn't venture into because they didn't
>know the land, and this is contrary to the idea that they just
>came in and started snatching people up.

no they didn't just snatch people up...
Now WHO ventured into the land ?
Why ? How ?
are questions unaswered too..
on both sides.

>I thought it was interesting that of the Africans that did the
>selling of slaves to Europeans, they not only did that but had
>slaves of their own and sold slaves to other Africans.

We should define slavery.
Because even WITHIN precolonial african societies, there were HUGE differences between the status of people who were yet called slaves.

And the internal slave trade involved every nations.

Now did it involve every person ?
i wish i knew the answer.

>there were Africans who of course were totally against slavery.

Can you prove this ?
I mean it depends on what we call "slavery".
And depends on what you mean by "being totally against it".

I seriously doubt there were that many that were against the idea of a relationship of dominance and submission, whereby one person owns another and can exact from that person labor or other services no matter what level of ownership and the difficulty of the labor and services are.


>"Hey, the it's all the Africans fault, if they
>had been stronger people the Europeans wouldn't stand a
>chance" That's not what I'm trying to say at all...

That's true though.
Useless NOW but still true.

______________________________

*TWINNING*

Because it meant very different things to many different peoples even within Europe and Afrika themselves.




******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

we face today. If it were not for our infighting division with religion Islam Christianity etc. we would not be in a majority of the problems we see today.

Yes African people are the main reason europeans transported so many Africans shit AFRICAN PEOPLE ARE THE REASON EUROPEANS COLONIZED THE CONTINENT.

Had it not been for slave trading nations like Benin, Angola, Congo who sold rival cultural groups into the cultural genocide slavery would not have became the monster it did. Europeans were taking control of coastal regions by overpowering smaller cultural groups but for the most part a majority of the people did not live within 50 miles of the coast. For 400 years Europeans(portugal spain etc.) were never allowed to gain access to the interior of West Africa. Not until infighting affects of slave trade did europeans begin to explore the interior of Africa in the late 1800s.

<--- The lovely Ms Hill when she wasn't thrown off.

LOOK WHOS RAPPIN NOW
http://www.myspace.com/quil215

check Firebrand's response

______________________________

*TWINNING*

If Europeans didn't go into the interior of Africa...then how did they figure that Slavery existed in the whole of West Africa.

******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

http://www.cabinda.net/1776.html

And how going THERE equals HAVING POWER there ?

______________________________

*TWINNING*

Africa. If you look at the interactions with european groups and African groups it was strickly coastal until the late 1800s early 1900s. This is why especially in West Africa the slave castles were all on the coast. These slave castles were basically forts and trading post where europeans were allowed to settle.

<--- The lovely Ms Hill when she wasn't thrown off.

LOOK WHOS RAPPIN NOW
http://www.myspace.com/quil215

this is why Europeans called it the dark continent. A majority of the major coastal cities are former european forts or fairly new African settlements in central and Southern Africa.

<--- The lovely Ms Hill when she wasn't thrown off.

LOOK WHOS RAPPIN NOW
http://www.myspace.com/quil215

found that they were selling sex-slaves...would you buy?

how about the local day-care selling Children? Or, maybe the housecleaning service that sells maids?

I don't know you...but I bet you'd pass on all 3 purchases.

So to White racists who attempt to justify and psyche-out their mentals regarding the Greatest Crime against Mankind;

If nobody's BUYING------then absolutely positively NO ONE will be selling!

Its amazing that they attempt to pawn off their negligence of enslaving a race of People----with, "Afrikan tribes sold Blacks to us, so there!". Apply that sorry-A$$ philosophy to ANY SCENARIO today featuring negligence when perpetrating criminality? What do you get? Its called accountability----something Whites have avoided for CENTURIES regarding Slavery.

And thats from its 'carefully avoided mentioning' in the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution----up through----Bill Clinton REFUSING to apologize on behalf of America, to Blacks, for Slavery...when he occupied The Oval.

____ _____ _____

*--> www.soundclick.com/blaXXX <--*

*~* Go ahead! EXPERIENCE the latest non-Profit joint!*~*

____ _____ _____

blaXXX' breviaries: 2005---And we coulda saved more...if they ONLY KNEW they were Slaves
____

buys, what do you say to the idea that if African slave trader merchants refused to sell slaves then no one could buy them?

I guess you could say that then there would more kidnapping then there already was...

(I should say this is all to get dialouge, I'm not actually saying this is how I think, but what of the idea of "two to tango", in that it isn't wholly the Europeans fault, that they forced the Africans to sell them slaves just based on the fact that they were in fact buying)

*gone*

seems that's the type of generalization that you are after..Again..I blame the 4 jews who sided with Hitler for the Jewish Holocaust....

>He also said that had Africa been a more wealthy continent

How is wealth measured in the context of this analysis of slavery?

>and more technoligically advanced, that then also the slave trade
> would not have been so effective.

Were the Europeans(portuguese and spanish) anymore advanced than the West Africans they came in contact with in the 15th century?

******************************
http://profiles.myspace.com/users/1281849
******************************
"me as a black man will not
stand here and allow you to
talk dumb shit about white
women that simply is not true"
SouthPhillyMan

"If I see

******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

That was the most dominant weapon, the portuguese got their ass whipped on the east and west. Not so sure they even had superior weapons at that point.

******************************
http://profiles.myspace.com/users/1281849
******************************
"me as a black man will not
stand here and allow you to
talk dumb shit about white
women that simply is not true"
SouthPhillyMan

"If I see

>Now, if you agree with the idea that had the Africans not been
>so willing to sell (by the by I should say that the reason
>they were so willing was because they didn't look at it as
>selling their fellow brother or sister, but as selling
>neighbors and people they didn't know) then would you agree
>with the idea that parts of Africa should be held responsible
>for the atrocity that is slavery in America?

hmmm depends on what you consider the crime.
Is it the middle passage ?
Is it the act of selling ?
Is it the conditions Slaves in America lived under for 400 years ?


______________________________

*TWINNING*

>>Now, if you agree with the idea that had the Africans not
>been
>>so willing to sell (by the by I should say that the reason
>>they were so willing was because they didn't look at it as
>>selling their fellow brother or sister, but as selling
>>neighbors and people they didn't know) then would you agree
>>with the idea that parts of Africa should be held
>responsible
>>for the atrocity that is slavery in America?
>
>hmmm depends on what you consider the crime.
>Is it the middle passage ?
>Is it the act of selling ?
>Is it the conditions Slaves in America lived under for 400
>years ?

(Edit: I had a much longer response typed out and went to post it and an error message came up, hence I lost it all. I retyped what I remembered so hopefully it is coherent)

I consider all those to be 'the crime' but I thought those were always thought of as such.

Like, if I had to percentage it, I'd say Americans and Europeans are responsible for 90% of the whole slave trade and subsquent slavery beause they continued to opress people from the moment the ships left various African ports until when slavery ended.

I mean, I just know that people sometimes say that African slavery wasn't as bad as American and European slavery and that is SO TRUE, so I'm not trying to debate that. I just wonder how that argumnet holds up if someone were to say, "Yes, but did the Africans think that the Europeans were just going to treat the slaves like the Africans did?" If they did, then does that absolve them of their crime? If not, then what? I mean if that's the case, does it matter? Isn't the act of selling them any bad enough?

Then one could rightfully wonder if perhaps the Europeans lied to the Africans and said that they would be treated humanely. I mean, is that how they got them to sell? If that's the case then that would open an interesting box....

So going back to the percentage thing, then I would say that Africans are like 10% responsible for what happened and even though that is a small number, and the Middle Passage, the selling of slaves that went on for years in the States and the conditions that were so deplorable for 400 years totally outweighed, you could say, however bad it was that the Africans *just* sold them, I still wonder if one could hold them responsible for their part of the deal.

*gone*

>(Edit: I had a much longer response typed out and went to post
>it and an error message came up, hence I lost it all. I
>retyped what I remembered so hopefully it is coherent)

ok

>I consider all those to be 'the crime' but I thought those
>were always thought of as such.

well..In France a 2001 law considers the Transatlantic Trade and the Slavery a crime against Humanity.

That is legally a big deal (though the media brilliantly ignored it).

Now The Transatlantic Slave trade (and the years of slavery following it) are not the only time slavery existed on earth..
What makes it a crime against humanity ?
- The fact that people were indeed sold, bought and traded ?
that would mean the whole world was probably criminal. i mean people started thinking THAT aspect of slavery was morally wrong quite recently.. And many still don't think it's THAT wrong.
- The fact that a MASS of people were DEPORTED to a foreign land as slaves ?
That's probably more unique althought there are other cases (Arabian slave trade, indian "voluntary" immigration to Mauricius)
- the conditions they lived under ? hmmm.. the fact that they were considered as non-humans (legally) ?


>Like, if I had to percentage it, I'd say Americans and
>Europeans are responsible for 90% of the whole slave trade and
>subsquent slavery beause they continued to opress people from
>the moment the ships left various African ports until when
>slavery ended.

hmmm

>I mean, I just know that people sometimes say that African
>slavery wasn't as bad as American and European slavery and
>that is SO TRUE, so I'm not trying to debate that.

I would.
There is mucho revisionism in those studies.
Of course there are many cases in which it was immenselly different and not as bad but can we generalize ?

> I just wonder how that argumnet holds up if someone were to say,
>"Yes, but did the Africans think that the Europeans were just
>going to treat the slaves like the Africans did?" If they did,
>then does that absolve them of their crime?

if you think that selling and buying and trading human beings is a crime then no it doesn't.

>If not, then what?

good question too.

>I mean if that's the case, does it matter? Isn't the act of
>selling them any bad enough?

that would bother me..
Not because I want to make up apologies for my people or anything.
but because considering that selling and buying and trading human being is criminal enough would put intra-european slavery (Russia ?) or any other slavery in history at the same level as the transatlantic slave trade. And that would mean disrespecting the Victims of the Transatlantic slave trade, IMHO.

>Then one could rightfully wonder if perhaps the Europeans lied
>to the Africans and said that they would be treated humanely.
>I mean, is that how they got them to sell?

could anybody prove that though ?

>If that's the case then that would open an interesting box....

there are many boxes many things could open.
the criminal thing for instance ? that's a huge box.

>So going back to the percentage thing, then I would say that
>Africans are like 10% responsible for what happened and even
>though that is a small number, and the Middle Passage, the
>selling of slaves that went on for years in the States and the
>conditions that were so deplorable for 400 years totally
>outweighed, you could say, however bad it was that the
>Africans *just* sold them, I still wonder if one could hold
>them responsible for their part of the deal.

probably.
but then you'll probably hold *them* responsible for the slave trade that has been going on INSIDE the continent for century, if not milleniums.

by Africans versus how many were captured?

Perhaps I question is odd at best, since I know none of us were there, but I'm wondering if anyone knows of any research done that concluded a guesstimate on amounts. Or, if one would like to venutre their own guesstimate on this.

I ask because although it has previously be stated that had Africans not sold slaves to Europeans the trade would not have been as big (come to think of it, to make such a statement seems to imply a knowledge of a potential guesstimate of what I ask), I wonder how concrete that is. Is it that 50% were sold and 50% taken against their will (i.e kidnapped)? Is it more so 70%, 30% in either direction? It would be from this that I would form more of a concrete opinion (for my own thinking and analysis) on what blame I put on Africans for slavery (of course, I'd take into account the idea that European and American involvement far exceeded African involvement when slavery is view in its entirety).

Anyone know?

*gone*

he mentions a few books with estimates of the slave trade.

www.hiphopmusic.com

"What I don't like is Negro elders finally taking a stand for cultural ethics by way of Caucasian vomit. What this now shows young people is that white guilt is still more powerful than black unity." - Star

excerpt from slave trader John Newton's book "Thoughts upon the african slave trade":

"The african law punishes some species of theft and slavery; and in cases of adultery, both the woman and the man who offends with her are liable to be sold for slaves. I believe many of the slaves puchases in Sherbo, and probably upon the whole Windward coast, are convicts, who have forfeited their liberty, by breaking the laws of their country. I judge, the principal source of the slave trade, is the wars which prevail among the natives.

another slaver named Captain Theophilus Conneu wrote "how to free black becomes a slave":

"In africa, where coin is not known, the slave is made a substitute for this commodity. Therefore, if a man wants to purchase a wife, he pays the amount in slaves; another wishes to purchase a quantity in cattle, he tenders the payment in slaves. Fields of cassava, rice, or yams are paid in slaves. The African court also taxes all forfeiters and pecuniary penalties in slaves."

you can read the whole piece "African roots: slavery was widespread on the African continent long before Europeans appeared - and, indeed, is still practiced there" here:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n4_v49/ai_19208900

>So basically everyone knows that Africans sold other Africans
>into slavery, right? And everyone basically knows that some
>people try to use this to justify that slavery shouldn't be
>considered so bad because of this fact, right? Okay, this is
>not what this post is about.
>
>So in my Precolonial Africa class, my professor said that he
>believed that if the Africans had not sold these slaves to
>Europeans that the slave trade wouldn't have been as effective
>as it was. Do you agree with this? He also said that had
>Africa been a more wealthy continent and more technoligically
>advanced, that then also the slave trade would not have been
>so effective.>>

Speculative. No one knows how Africa was doing at that point. Africa had no written records of their own save oral folklore.


>Now, if you agree with the idea that had the Africans not been
>so willing to sell (by the by I should say that the reason
>they were so willing was because they didn't look at it as
>selling their fellow brother or sister, but as selling
>neighbors and people they didn't know) then would you agree
>with the idea that parts of Africa should be held responsible
>for the atrocity that is slavery in America? If so, how should
>they be held responsible?>>

I don't think its fair to hold parts of Africa responsible. Selling of slaves as on an individual basis. For the most part chiefs of villages were involved, some kings were involved and of course there were those who made it their business at the time. Why punish an entire region for one man's mistake?


>A couple of things I found interesting from what my professor
>told us was that the Africans (hard to generalize, I know)
>basically thought as of the Europeans as weak because they
>were always getting Yellow Fever and Malaria, so therefore
>it's not that they were intimidated by the Europeans and felt
>forced to sell slaves to them, it was that they saw the great
>potential profit aspect of it. Apparently there were some
>places Europeans wouldn't venture into because they didn't
>know the land, and this is contrary to the idea that they just
>came in and started snatching people up.>>

Yep, Europeans never forced their way in initially.


>I thought it was interesting that of the Africans that did the
>selling of slaves to Europeans, they not only did that but had
>slaves of their own and sold slaves to other Africans.

Selling and owning slaves in Africa was commonplace. Slaves were the result of victories in wars and caste systems, status in society.


>Oh I should mention as I did before that it is tough to
>generalize, as of course there were Europeans that *did*
>venture into unknown territory and there were Africans who of
>course were totally against slavery. I'm not trying to paint
>some picture of "Hey, the it's all the Africans fault, if they
>had been stronger people the Europeans wouldn't stand a
>chance" That's not what I'm trying to say at all...
>
>Anyway, thoughts?>>

I don't know how slavery was looked at in Africa but I do know that it was wrong to be unjust or treat one's slave unjustly at the time.

Again what is known about Africa pre-colonial and pre-european arrival is oral info, nothing really written.

"Do to others what you would others have done unto you." - The Lord Jesus Christ

SB Video: http://www.youtube.com/soulbrothavideo
SB tweet:www.twitter.com/soulb

------
"Ladies and gentlemen, what you are seeing is a total disregard for the
things St. Patrick's Day stand for. All this drinking, violence,destruction
of property. Are these the things we think of when we think of the Irish?"

- Kent O'Brockman

I see your point.

I really just wanted to comment on your the Snowy Day Icon - I love that book. E.J. Keats makes me smile.
I grew up on the west coast but have lived in the Northeast for 10 years and I enjoy the first snowy days of winter (of course I hate this Ish around March LOL) that book makes me smile. It's just a kid being a kid, damn that was fun back in the day wasn't it?

Should a person do good, let him do good over and over again. Let him find pleasure therein, for blissful is the accumulation of good ~ Buddhist teachings

Av: was taken in January. I've got a bit more hair now.

:)

*gone*