Was Africa rich in terms of population numbers during the years of slavery, or where they just silly?
This is what boggled my mind for a long time trying to observe African minds. In terms of economics and social science. Slavery was an industry created due to demand for cheaper plantation workers.
Since it was African warlords who wilfully subjugated other African tribes until they succumbed to the disgusting trade of slavery. Did these warlords ever wondered whether they needed such ppl in the future to possibly work for the benefit of Africa rather than in another continent?
Originally posted by lilkitten: Was Africa rich in terms of population numbers during the years of slavery, or where they just silly?
This is what boggled my mind for a long time trying to observe African minds. In terms of economics and social science. Slavery was an industry created due to demand for cheaper plantation workers.
Since it was African warlords who wilfully subjugated other African tribes until they succumbed to the disgusting trade of slavery. Did these warlords ever wondered whether they needed such ppl in the future to possibly work for the benefit of Africa rather than in another continent?
Well, it seems to me that 'Africans', rather like 'Europeans', didn't feel any particular loyalty to people outside their group. The destruction of a tribe miles and miles away wasn't a big deal, any more than a French valley conquered by a German army would upset the inhabitants of a Welsh village. What would upset them would be the fear that the German army would come for THEM next!
The concept that all black people should be brothers came about as a result of the oppression of Africans by Europeans. It wasn't innate, any more than the love of British people for all other Europeans. Look at the number of wars that Europeans have fought amongst each other, after all!
The trouble in Africa is that it all spiralled out of control. Some individual tribes soon realised that they were no longer in control of events. It was either, enter into agreements with Europeans/ African slave traders and provide them with slaves, or run the risk of being conquered and enslaved yourselves. And of course, it would be easy to develop a taste for the goods they aquired as a result of the trade - guns, textiles, spirits, tools, utensils, etc.
The people involved wouldn't have been thinking of the long term consequences for other people's communities, and as for their own, they could only see the riches and power that involvement in the trade seemed to bring.
I suspect that as in Europe and America, there were voices in Africa that spoke out against this trade. I'd like to know more about them. In fact, I don't think the current abolition commemorations are saying enough about Africa.
What do you mean? - slavery existed in China and India for millenia. It even existed in europe several hundred years ago.
Slavery exists to the present day in India both unofficially and officially as 'bonded labour'. The same is true of China. Do you really believe that working fourteen hours a day at a sewring machine or assemby bench and then sleeping under the same bench, for a tiny wage, is a choice - or is not slavery?
China and India prefer to keep the slaves and trade the goods they make which is the most profitable. You start trading slaves and quickly slavery becomes the only trade you can make because the slaves you trade will be used to make the normal goods you trade but cheaper.
I sort of prefer the "managed slavery" of the Chinese & Indians.
But as you suggested that it is more "profitable". Then I had to give it to the Chinese & Indians since they realised something the Africans could not do so but traded for meagre resources such as cotton and alcholic brands.
Are we responsible to a certain extent for supporting modern day slavery by buying products made from nations where workers are treated under such conditions? Or are we infact helping these workers by giving them some kind of pitiful income which otherwise they would not be able to earn?
Slavery is the simplest power structure, one person has complete power over another. Here are 3 major factors which explain why China/India not sell their own ppl to slavery?
Firstly Africa was closer to europe and it's colonies.
Secondly access to military technology was pretty evenly spread throughout India and China and not too far from European technology, whilst in Africa coastal tribes could trade for european weapons and inland tribes could not. As a result Africans without access to European weapons could do little to resist those with European weapons.
Thirdly Africa's economy was based on cattle, you don't need many people to tend herds of cattle that can feed 100s yet populations had grown to fit the food available, conquerring chieftains had no need for many of the labourers they had complete power over. Whilst in India and China you needed many labourers to work the fields in order to make the most of the land, lowerring the human population would lower taxes.
Fourthly, again because populations had grown to fit the food available, when the climate fluctuated and there wasn't enough food for everyone the excess population had to migrate. Before there was access to the new world most would have died or been killed by neighbouring territorial tribes. Afterwards such powerless hungry refugees would be enslaved by those with access to european traders. The same happenned in Europe except instead of being enslaved and transported they migrated.
Actually, since first reading this thread, I've heard that the Chinese have actually sold people into slavery. It even happens today, apparently.
However, I'm thinking particularly about the Chinese indentured labourers of the 19th and 20th c., many of whom were treated as slaves by their own govt, and had very little say in where they were sent, or what their conditions of employment should to be. Their rights were often completely ignored by the people they went to work for around the world - principally in the Americas.
The questions posed by educated fools like Curtis Mayfield would say, can be beyond beliefs sometimes.
Can anyone tell me the practices which China employed among its Chinese workforce in sweatshops, if that is not Slavery?
Forcing your workers to graft for 50p an hour over a 24 hours period, is that not Slavery?
Forcing the female staff to have sex with you against their will, so that they can keep their sweatshop job in the factory or else you will sack them. Is that not slavery?
Forcing the workforce to sleep at the factory and work 48hours shifts on 50p an hour, to meet orders from the western world, is that not slavery?
Trafficking Chinese people into Europe and having them sell pirate DVD's (yes, I am guilty oneself of buying these DVD's from the Chinese man/bird. Sorry its a bargain. Don't you dare judge, as most of yous on here buy it too, hypocrites ) or else you will kill their folks back home in china, is that not slavery?
Trafficking Chinese birds to work as sex slaves in europe or else you will kill their family back home, is that not slavery?
The list is endless, I could go on, but I won't.
Also, there's economic slavery in the Third world today, often imposed on them by our government and the USA plus other western states, which funny enough is of no interest to many on here and in society in general.
Originally posted by lilkitten: Was Africa rich in terms of population numbers during the years of slavery, or where they just silly?
This is what boggled my mind for a long time trying to observe African minds. In terms of economics and social science. Slavery was an industry created due to demand for cheaper plantation workers.
Since it was African warlords who wilfully subjugated other African tribes until they succumbed to the disgusting trade of slavery. Did these warlords ever wondered whether they needed such ppl in the future to possibly work for the benefit of Africa rather than in another continent?
The chinese are treading a fne line in Africa at the moment with their companies that refuse to employ the locals and instead create compounds where their imported workers from China are not allowed to leave.
Originally posted by lilkitten: Was Africa rich in terms of population numbers during the years of slavery, or where they just silly?
This is what boggled my mind for a long time trying to observe African minds. In terms of economics and social science. Slavery was an industry created due to demand for cheaper plantation workers.
Since it was African warlords who wilfully subjugated other African tribes until they succumbed to the disgusting trade of slavery. Did these warlords ever wondered whether they needed such ppl in the future to possibly work for the benefit of Africa rather than in another continent?
Well, it seems to me that 'Africans', rather like 'Europeans', didn't feel any particular loyalty to people outside their group. The destruction of a tribe miles and miles away wasn't a big deal, any more than a French valley conquered by a German army would upset the inhabitants of a Welsh village. What would upset them would be the fear that the German army would come for THEM next!
The concept that all black people should be brothers came about as a result of the oppression of Africans by Europeans. It wasn't innate, any more than the love of British people for all other Europeans. Look at the number of wars that Europeans have fought amongst each other, after all!
The trouble in Africa is that it all spiralled out of control. Some individual tribes soon realised that they were no longer in control of events. It was either, enter into agreements with Europeans/ African slave traders and provide them with slaves, or run the risk of being conquered and enslaved yourselves. And of course, it would be easy to develop a taste for the goods they aquired as a result of the trade - guns, textiles, spirits, tools, utensils, etc.
The people involved wouldn't have been thinking of the long term consequences for other people's communities, and as for their own, they could only see the riches and power that involvement in the trade seemed to bring.
I suspect that as in Europe and America, there were voices in Africa that spoke out against this trade. I'd like to know more about them. In fact, I don't think the current abolition commemorations are saying enough about Africa.
Great post Miss Dee, What I find interesting about the debate of slavery is that naughty europeans get that rap for this, as should....to some degree.
What i find interesting is that Arabs started using black slaves a 1000 years before Europeans used them. Also that Saudi Arabia only gave up the practice of using black slaves in 1962.
However, in any History books I read at school about slavery, inferred it was just white Europeans on Black Africans. It never even referred to the Barbary Coast and Muslims enslaving over a million white Europeans.
So I find it interesting that the topic always centres on white oppressor slave owner type rotters, Black oppressed victims. As opposed to
Arab enslaving = White & Black Not just White european Enslaving= Black.
P.S. the Viking are the only ethnic group know to have owned Arabs as slaves. These chaps from Scandinavian did get around didn't they.
Originally posted by lilkitten: Was Africa rich in terms of population numbers during the years of slavery, or where they just silly?
This is what boggled my mind for a long time trying to observe African minds. In terms of economics and social science. Slavery was an industry created due to demand for cheaper plantation workers.
Since it was African warlords who wilfully subjugated other African tribes until they succumbed to the disgusting trade of slavery. Did these warlords ever wondered whether they needed such ppl in the future to possibly work for the benefit of Africa rather than in another continent?
The chinese are treading a fne line in Africa at the moment with their companies that refuse to employ the locals and instead create compounds where their imported workers from China are not allowed to leave.
If the Chinese painted a line with a very big fat brush it would solve the problem of the very fine line.
The Chinese probably use one of those calligraphy type brushes, not the big fat cheapo house painting brushes.
Great post Miss Dee, What I find interesting about the debate of slavery is that naughty europeans get that rap for this, as should....to some degree.
What i find interesting is that Arabs started using black slaves a 1000 years before Europeans used them. Also that Saudi Arabia only gave up the practice of using black slaves in 1962.
However, in any History books I read at school about slavery, inferred it was just white Europeans on Black Africans. It never even referred to the Barbary Coast and Muslims enslaving over a million white Europeans.
So I find it interesting that the topic always centres on white oppressor slave owner type rotters, Black oppressed victims. As opposed to
Arab enslaving = White & Black Not just White european Enslaving= Black.
P.S. the Viking are the only ethnic group know to have owned Arabs as slaves. These chaps from Scandinavian did get around didn't they.
Thanks for that.
I suppose that Arabs enslaving Africans could not easily be slotted into any area of history that would be taught in schools. The transatlantic slave trade is taught because it impinges on British history, but African history and Middle Eastern history are not taught at school level, as far as I am aware.
As for the trade in Europeans on the Barbary Coast, that does seem to have faded very much from British popular history and the British psyche. I suspect one reason is that it rather contradicts the notion that 'Britons never never ever shall be slaves'. The self-image that British people have is that they were almost always the victors, the champions on the world stage. Talking about Barbary slaves contradicts that image.
Secondly, according to what I've read, the problem mostly affected people living in remote coastal areas - remote, that is from London. The problem never really engaged the powers that be very much. At the time it was treated as a diplomatic matter, but it didn't really excite the mass of the British people much, unless they were living in the areas plagued by the Barbary pirates.
I sort of prefer the "managed slavery" of the Chinese & Indians.
But as you suggested that it is more "profitable". Then I had to give it to the Chinese & Indians since they realised something the Africans could not do so but traded for meagre resources such as cotton and alcholic brands.
How can you "prefer" ANY type of slavery?
China still enslaves now, we are all partly to blame.
I think I meant such people you are concerned about are at least contributing to the building of China. Unlike the Africans who were just packed to build other continents.
) or else you will kill their folks back home in china, is that not slavery?
