They admit to all those atrocities against native Americans etc because they have already succeeded in almost completely wiping those people out so there is no political or economic risk in telling the admitting the genocide.

However they still in the process of trying to destroy Africa with neo-colonialism and economic exploitation and to achieve that they need to keep us misinformed.

Again everything you said about Africans having a tradition of taking slaves could have only have come from European historians. Unless you can direct me to historical records kept by our African ancestors that showed that they kept slaves before the arrival of the Europeans.

Radoillo:


History books written by them readily admit to genocide committed against Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, the Herero people, but won't admit they were the one doing all the slave raiding in Africa? Doesn't make sense to me.

In any case, forget the European books. African peoples themselves have traditions of raiding one another for slaves and selling the slaves to white people. No single community (at least in Nigeria) have traditions of white people raiding their villages for slaves.

If they had admitted to all those atrocities against Native Americans etc., it may be because they have already succeeded in almost completely wiping those people out, so there is no political or economic risk in admitting the genocide against them.

However they are still in the process of trying to destroy Africa with neo-colonialism and economic exploitation and to achieve this, they need to keep us misinformed and divided.

Again everything you said about Africans having a tradition of taking slaves could have only have come from European historians.

Unless you can direct me to historical records kept by our ancestors that showed that they kept slaves before the arrival of the Europeans we would have to reject everything we heard about our ancestors trading themselves as slaves, it would have to be deemed unreliable seeing that it was written by Europeans who are known to be great liars.

Radoillo:


History books written by them readily admit to genocide committed against Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, the Herero people, but won't admit they were the one doing all the slave raiding in Africa? Doesn't make sense to me.

In any case, forget the European books. African peoples themselves have traditions of raiding one another for slaves and selling the slaves to white people. No single community (at least in Nigeria) have traditions of white people raiding their villages for slaves.

GenBuhari:
They admit to all those atrocities against native Americans etc because they have already succeeded in almost completely wiping those people out so there is no political or economic risk in telling the admitting the genocide.

However they still in the process of trying to destroy Africa with neo-colonialism and economic exploitation and to achieve that they need to keep us misinformed.

Again everything you said about Africans having a tradition of taking slaves could have only have come from European historians. Unless you can direct me to historical records kept by our African ancestors that showed that they kept slaves before the arrival of the Europeans.

Really? So the well corroborated traditions in the Southeast of the Aro and the Cross River raiders entered oral traditions via European history books? That's just funny. The Mobee family in Badagry that still preserves relics from when they used to hold captives who were then sold to Europeans, just forged those relics because they were bored and needed something to amuse themselves and entertain Nigerians with? Really?

What about the African victims of the slave trade who documented their experiences both in European and African languages? Olaudah Equiano? Cugoano? Granniosaw? etc. And a few from the Islamised regions who wrote in Arabic script? What about the Efik slave dealer Antera Duke who wrote a memoir about his slaving activities? White men told them what to write? They were all part of a grand scheme by Europeans to keep our history from us?

I get when Africans try to reclaim their history et cetera. But to lie to ourselves? *smh*

Yes really!
Provide the ancient historical records of our ancestors to prove your point!
Do not forget Africans have had hundreds of years of Europeans controlling the history we teach in our schools so oral traditions are very meaningless. Can you present "oral tradition" as evidence in a court of law? have you heard of "chinese whispers"?

Because the Mobee family want to make money from tourism they can say whatever they want. Forget their relics, let them produce authentic historical records that show that they kept slaves before the arrival of the first white man.

The accounts of the Africans who were shipped can only be relevant if these account are from the first few shipments of Africans i.e from around the 15th Century. Because if they were from after Africa had been conquered, you cannot say a colonised people can freely sell slaves to their colonial masters.

Who is telling lies? I am simply saying that version of history we have been told must be rejected unless it is coming from our own authentic ancient historical records.

Who allows their enemy to write their history for them?

If you have any authentic source of ancient African historical records kept by our ancestors then drop the link here and let us check it out.

Radoillo:


Really? So the well corroborated traditions in the Southeast of the Aro and the Cross River raiders entered oral traditions via European history books? That's just funny. The Mobee family in Badagry that still preserves relics from when they used to hold captives who were then sold to Europeans, just forged those relics because they were bored and needed something to amuse themselves and entertain Nigerians with? Really?

What about the African victims of the slave trade who documented their experiences both in European and African languages? Olaudah Equiano? Cugoano? Granniosaw? etc. And a few from the Islamised regions who wrote in Arabic script? What about the Efik slave dealer Antera Duke who wrote a memoir about his slaving activities? White men told them what to write? They were all part of a grand scheme by Europeans to keep our history from us?

I get when Africans try to reclaim their history et cetera. But to lie to ourselves? *smh*

GenBuhari:
Yes really!
Provide the ancient historical records of our ancestors to prove your point!

I did. Cugoano, Granniosaw, Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, etc etc. They are our ancestors. They were enslaved. And they wrote about it.

Do not forget Africans have had hundreds of years of controlling the history we teach in our schools so oral traditions are very meaningless. Can you present "oral tradition" as evidence in a court of law? have you heard of "chinese whispers"?

I hope you know that this section of your comment is an admission that Africa has no history. Remember that when next you want to talk about the glories of the African past. There was no African past since all we know came from either traditions (which you just described as 'meaningless') and European records (which you have rejected as sources of the African past. The enemy can't write our history after all.)

Because the Mobee family want to make money from tourism they can say whatever they want. Forget their relics, let them produce authentic historical records that show that they kept slaves before the arrival of the first white man.

Remember this too. Relics are meaningless and useless in reconstructing history. By the way, I never said the Mobees and the people of Badagry were keeping slaves before the first white man came. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. I don't know. It's not relevant to this discussion. What I said is that they sold slaves to Europeans.

The accounts of the Africans who were shipped can only be relevant if these account are from the first few shipments of Africans i.e from around the 15th Century. Because if they were from after Africa had been conquered, you cannot say a colonised people can freely sell slaves to their colonial masters.

I don't know what this means. Are you saying Africa was colonised immediately after the 15th century? 16th - 18th century Africa was under European colonial rule? Really? With the exception of a few coastal possessions, Africa was not colonized until after the major European slave dealers had abolished slavery. So what exactly is this section of your comment supposed to mean?

Who is telling lies? I am simply saying that version of history we have been told must be rejected unless it is coming from our own authentic ancient historical records.

And since those 'authentic ancient historical records' don't exist, you get to fill this supposedly historical vacuum with your own conjectures, right?

GenBuhari:
Yes really!
Provide the ancient historical records of our ancestors to prove your point!
Do not forget Africans have had hundreds of years of Europeans controlling the history we teach in our schools so oral traditions are very meaningless. Can you present "oral tradition" as evidence in a court of law? have you heard of "chinese whispers"?

Because the Mobee family want to make money from tourism they can say whatever they want. Forget their relics, let them produce authentic historical records that show that they kept slaves before the arrival of the first white man.

The accounts of the Africans who were shipped can only be relevant if these account are from the first few shipments of Africans i.e from around the 15th Century. Because if they were from after Africa had been conquered, you cannot say a colonised people can freely sell slaves to their colonial masters.

Who is telling lies? I am simply saying that version of history we have been told must be rejected unless it is coming from our own authentic ancient historical records.

Who allows their enemy to write their history for them?

If you have any authentic source of ancient African historical records kept by our ancestors then drop the link here and let us check it out.

tarikh al sudan, written by a berber of timbuktu and Tarikh al fattash ,written by a sonninke of timbuktu all mention slavery. It was a real commonplace.

Radoillo:


History books written by them readily admit to genocide committed against Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, the Herero people, but won't admit they were the one doing all the slave raiding in Africa? Doesn't make sense to me.

In any case, forget the European books. African peoples themselves have traditions of raiding one another for slaves and selling the slaves to white people. No single community (at least in Nigeria) have traditions of white people raiding their villages for slaves.

I strongly object this generalization of African tradition. My tribe has no, never had slaves. The concept of slavery is non existent. We assimilated all communities we defeated in war. We even welcomed strangers and shared the throne with them. This slave raiding was not a norm. May be in the coasts of West Africa. All Bantu descendants (E1b1a) should rest assured that we would never sell our own blood. Can't vouch for muslims. Theyr merciless.

muafrika:
I strongly object this generalization of African tradition. My tribe has no, never had slaves. The concept of slavery is non existent. We assimilated all communities we defeated in war. We even welcomed strangers and shared the throne with them. This slave raiding was not a norm. May be in the coasts of West Africa. All Bantu descendants (E1b1a) should rest assured that we would never sell our own blood. Can't vouch for muslims. Theyr merciless.

There is no need to dwell on that little point. Anyone familiar with the European slave trade from Africa knows the communities involved. I didn't think making the distinction between communities affected by the trade and the communities not affected by it was necessary in a short Nairaland comment.

Radoillo:


There is no need to dwell on that little point. Anyone familiar with the European slave trade from Africa knows the communities involved. I didn't think making the distinction between communities affected by the trade and the communities not affected by it was necessary in a short Nairaland comment.

Then refrain from the word "African" because some of us Africans have a reputation to maintain.

muafrika:
Then refrain from the word "African" because some of us Africans have a reputation to maintain.

I fail to see what your problem with my comment is. The OP and other people who have commented here have consistently said 'Africa' and 'African' in connection with slavery. Can you calmly explain to me why my using the same word(s) others have used has been particularly upsetting to you? Why single out my own comment?

Parts of West Africa, Central Africa and East Africa were sources of slaves to Europeans. If I should refrain from using 'African', can you suggest an alternative all-encompassing term for the parts of the continent that supplied slaves?

What are we even dragging here? I simply do not understand.

When was it written? To be valid it has to before the arrival of the first Europeans Before tht 15th Century. It must state categorically that Africans had and traded slaves. This is the only way of authentically proving whether Africans kept and traded slaves because any records after the Europeans arrival may be influenced by the Europeans. also the actions of a captive people may not be carried out on their free will.

Where are your source web links? or are you expecting me to waste my time searching for your evidence that you claim you want to present?

Since you are presenting the evidence, show me an extract of a documents kept by Africans before the arrival of he white man which proves that we kept and traded slaves before Europeans arrived around 15th Century.

PAPAAFRICA:
tarikh al sudan, written by a berber of timbuktu and Tarikh al fattash ,written by a sonninke of timbuktu all mention slavery. It was a real commonplace.

@ Radoillo,

First they do not appear to be amongst the earliest Africans shipped, they were shipped at least 300-400years after the intial shipment of Africans.

To be valid your writings need to be from amongst the very first few shipments of Africans so they can truely say whether they were already enslaved by Africans before the arrival of the Europeans.

Please provide proper web links and extracts of the relevant section of their writings.

Radoillo:

I did. Cugoano, Granniosaw, Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, etc etc. They are our ancestors. They were enslaved. And they wrote about it.

What makes you so sure that Africans never kept their own written records of history? Has any African bothered trying to search for such records? Even if they did and found it, would clueless, miss-educated Africans in power accept the records and alter the white man's version of history that we are taught in our schools?
Even if it turns out that no historical records kept by our ancestors before the arrival of he white man can be located, does that then mean it is ok to allow the same caucasians who committed such atrocities and genocide against us, to write our history for us?

Is that wise?

Would a court of law allow an accused in a murder case to write the police report for the prosecution?

I hope you know that this section of your comment is an admission that Africa has no history. Remember that when next you want to talk about the glories of the African past. There was no African past since all we know came from either traditions (which you just described as 'meaningless') and European records (which you have rejected as sources of the African past. The enemy can't write our history after all.)
Remember this too. Relics are meaningless and useless in reconstructing history.

Well then we can dismiss there case as valid evidence, unless they can prove that they kept slaves before the arrival of the Europeans.

By the way, I never said the Mobees and the people of Badagry were keeping slaves before the first white man came. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. I don't know. It's not relevant to this discussion. What I said is that they sold slaves to Europeans.

I am also unsure what you are confused about. I do not know when Europeans first came to Africa, I think it is 15th Century so if it can be shown that Africans enslaved and traded each other before the white man came, then I would accept the version of history that says that Africans sold themselves to Europeans as slaves.

I don't know what this means. Are you saying Africa was colonised immediately after the 15th century? 16th - 18th century Africa was under European colonial rule? Really? With the exception of a few coastal possessions, Africa was not colonized until after the major European slave dealers had abolished slavery. So what exactly is this section of your comment supposed to mean?

What makes you so sure that authentic ancient historical records do not exist. If they do not exist have you wondered why not? Is it because our european colonial masters wanted to ensure that the only version of history that we learn is theirs?
I would much rather say I do not know my history, than accept a distorted and dishonest version that aims to humiliate, demean and divide my people.

And since those 'authentic ancient historical records' don't exist, you get to fill this supposedly historical vacuum with your own conjectures, right?

At this point, I think you need to clarify for me what we are discussing, 'cause it looks like you have shifted considerably from your earlier thesis.

Is your argument that Africans didn't buy and sell slaves before Europeans arrived, or is your argument that Africans throughout the pre-colonial period NEVER captured (or buy) and sell people to the Europeans?

Or is your argument that Europeans formerly raided for slaves (when they first arrived in the 15th century), but after the 15th century, they colonised Africa, and then coerced the Africans to capture and sell slaves to the Europeans under a colonial structure?

GenBuhari:
Yes really!
Provide the ancient historical records of our ancestors to prove your point!
Do not forget Africans have had hundreds of years of Europeans controlling the history we teach in our schools so oral traditions are very meaningless. Can you present "oral tradition" as evidence in a court of law? have you heard of "chinese whispers"?

Because the Mobee family want to make money from tourism they can say whatever they want. Forget their relics, let them produce authentic historical records that show that they kept slaves before the arrival of the first white man.

The accounts of the Africans who were shipped can only be relevant if these account are from the first few shipments of Africans i.e from around the 15th Century. Because if they were from after Africa had been conquered, you cannot say a colonised people can freely sell slaves to their colonial masters.

Who is telling lies? I am simply saying that version of history we have been told must be rejected unless it is coming from our own authentic ancient historical records.

Who allows their enemy to write their history for them?

If you have any authentic source of ancient African historical records kept by our ancestors then drop the link here and let us check it out.

Oral history is meaningless. you fool in ur bid to make blacks look good and ridicule caucasians u jst embarrassed the entire sub-Saharan Africa that strives on orally told history to preserve our legacy and heritage

If oral history is meaningless then what evidence do u have that Africans weren't active slave traders? Ur own history?
Lol these racists have started again...thinking they making the black race better by bashing caucasians with lies..you no better than the white man you so accuse of treachery

As a Yoruba man, I can tell u the Ooni is descended from a slave woman owned by Oduduwa's household
even Odu Ifa speaks of this...there's ur authentic history there of a period when Caucasians only dreamt of West Africa

macof:


If oral history is meaningless then what evidence do u have that Africans weren't active slave traders? Ur own history?

Beats me, too. He rejects traditions; he rejects written records. Yet he takes a firm stance that no African ever sold a slave to a European, but that Europeans themselves raided into the interior. I wonder what his sources for the raiding-whiteman theory are, then. His Caucasian-hating imagination?

All you have said, you got from history books written for you by the European historians.

All said about the Ooni descending from slaves is also meaningless without written historical records from our ancestors to verify this was before the arrival of the white man.

Sorry but oral history cannot be deemed reliable. Anybody could claim they heard anything also it does not record the dates of events. nothing passed down orally is verifiable evidence. That is why it is meaningless

macof:

Oral history is meaningless. you fool in ur bid to make blacks look good and ridicule caucasians u jst embarrassed the entire sub-Saharan Africa that strives on orally told history to preserve our legacy and heritage

If oral history is meaningless then what evidence do u have that Africans weren't active slave traders? Ur own history?
Lol these racists have started again...thinking they making the black race better by bashing caucasians with lies..you no better than the white man you so accuse of treachery

As a Yoruba man, I can tell u the Ooni is descended from a slave woman owned by Oduduwa's household
even Odu Ifa speaks of this...there's ur authentic history there of a period when Caucasians only dreamt of West Africa

It is very clear.
White historians who told us our ancestors were enslaving themselves and trading slaves when they arrived have failed to provide any verifiable evidence to support this view. So if you want to prove to me they were indeed correct, then you should provide the evidence that they have failed to provide.

This is evidence that show that before the arrival of the white man and the earliest shipments of our ancestors to white man's lands; our ancestors were already enslaving and trading themselves as slaves.

We cannot accept as reliable any cases of African collusion which occurred after the European has already conquered and ruling Africa, because
that cannot be deemed to be Africans doing it by their own free will.

It is like armed robbers enter your home wanting to rape your sister and after raping her they ordered you with a gun to your head, to rape her also. When they are eventually captured they now say that they are only 50% responsible because you were also involved in raping your sister.

Do you get it?

Radoillo:
At this point, I think you need to clarify for me what we are discussing, 'cause it looks like you have shifted considerably from your earlier thesis.

Is your argument that Africans didn't buy and sell slaves before Europeans arrived, or is your argument that Africans throughout the pre-colonial period NEVER captured (or buy) and sell people to the Europeans?

Or is your argument that Europeans formerly raided for slaves (when they first arrived in the 15th century), but after the 15th century, they colonised Africa, and then coerced the Africans to capture and sell slaves to the Europeans under a colonial structure?

True


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEtDLBGGQeQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po1RGmzfnNY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL7-Y4_3QMs

They did whitewash history though...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3JRXWQR3ko

There are whites who tell the truth though...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ge7Xm-CfTY

Taf records history from 1493 to 1599 and the Tas records history from roughly the same time as Taf to 1613. Tas was started around the end of the 1500s and taf iirc around the end of the 1400s and was finished in the early 1600s(begun by the original author, mahmud kati, and completed by his descendants). They werent written before the 15th century but these sahelian africans had never had any real contact with europeans, they were too deep inland, most of the people in the sahels first contact with large amounts of europeans would be during the morracan invasion of the songhay empire being that most of the morrocan army were spanish mercenaries. Taf even mentions the spanish mercenaries being the first europeans the songhay elite had seen. I would give you the things that you asked for but i own a physical copy of Taf and a digital version of Tas but i dont have access to a computer, only a phone. When i can get on a computer ill probably give you some screen shots but to give you an idea of the magnitude of slavery in the sudan at the time heres a quick qoute. "When he(a jurist)entered the home of the askia he found him holding his friday audience, according to the regular ceremony. The eunuchs of the askiya, who numbered around seven hundred stood at attention behind him, each of them dressed in a garment of silk" pg.202 Of Taf.

So roughly 700 eunuchs(these men were slaves incase your wondering) stood behind him in his palace while he gave friday audience. Taf also mentions a story about one of the askiyas slaves dying and leaving behind 500 slaves of his own, a merchant(most likely a berber or arab) wanted to buy them all for 5000 mithqals of gold.

Radoillo:


I fail to see what your problem with my comment is. The OP and other people who have commented here have consistently said 'Africa' and 'African' in connection with slavery. Can you calmly explain to me why my using the same word(s) others have used has been particularly upsetting to you? Why single out my own comment?

Parts of West Africa, Central Africa and East Africa were sources of slaves to Europeans. If I should refrain from using 'African', can you suggest an alternative all-encompassing term for the parts of the continent that supplied slaves?

What are we even dragging here? I simply do not understand.

I think he is right in his objection to your choice of words because first you and othe posters including the OP are not supporting the same idea and your line of argument(very preposterous indeed) cannot be sanely applied to the whole that is under that classification.
its likened to OP saying Africans live in Africa and you saying Africans are white because some few north African Arabs has a lighter complexion.
secondly, you failed to factor the origin of the said African(Arab) writers when you refer to their writings, THEY ARE ARABS, and if we should be blunt they are not Africans, mind you they brought the first wave of barbarism into Africa during their invasion on Egypt, They also introduced slavery into the African phenomena by conquest and by religious ideologies. i have read many books of which just like the European they expressed strong racist views against people of darker complexions, the same people whom build world renowned civilizations that they invaded out of greed and opportunity to pillage it's wealth, the same Arabs which civilized Africans of the era knows as barbarians.

As a friend once said, the Arabs are not pure white so their barbarism is not top notch, it took the coming of the Europeans to elevate the misery of the African man to unimaginable levels.
I have always thought along the same line with GenBuhari on this issue but the absence of certain references has always held me from expressing it, The whole European Narrative of African History has never made any sense to begin with.

thoth:


I think he is right in his objection to your choice of words because first you and othe posters including the OP are not supporting the same idea and your line of argument(very preposterous indeed) cannot be sanely applied to the whole that is under that classification.
its likened to OP saying Africans live in Africa and you saying Africans are white because some few north African Arabs has a lighter complexion.

This is becoming absurd. Can we get over this non-issue already. It is unnecessary digression. There are European nations that never sent slave ships to Africa . They don't raise a storm when we talk about the 'European slave trade from Africa'. They do not go about insisting we do not use 'European' because they were never involved. Same goes for the Arabs. Not every Arab nation raided or traded in Africa. They don't lose it when we say 'Arab raiders' or 'Arab traders'. I can go on. Eastern Europe (except maybe for Russia) was not involved in the 19th-century European Imperialism. Thy don't protest when people say 'European imperialism', because they were not involved. Parts of Africa supplied slaves. Its right to call those slaves 'African slaves'. If you protest calling them 'African' because your part of Africa never supplied slaves, then suggest an alternative adjective. You do not expect writers to enumerate the names of the thousands of African groups that supplied slaves each time they say 'slaves'.

secondly, you failed to factor the origin of the said African(Arab) writers when you refer to their writings, THEY ARE ARABS, and if we should be blunt they are not Africans, mind you they brought the first wave of barbarism into Africa during their invasion on Egypt, They also introduced slavery into the African phenomena by conquest and by religious ideologies. i have read many books of which just like the European they expressed strong racist views against people of darker complexions, the same people whom build world renowned civilizations that they invaded out of greed and opportunity to pillage it's wealth, the same Arabs which civilized Africans of the era knows as barbarians.

Where, oh where, did I refer to Arab writers? Cugoano (Akan), Equiano (Igbo), Granniosaw (from Bornu), Ayubba Suleiman Diallo (Fulani) were the African writers I referred to who experienced slavery and documented their experiences. How are they Arabs?

GenBuhari:
It is very clear.
White historians who told us our ancestors were enslaving themselves and trading slaves when they arrived have failed to provide any verifiable evidence of this fact. So if you want to prove to me they were indeed correct, then you should provide the evidence that they have failed to provide.

This is evidence that show that before the arrival of the white man and the earliest shipments of our ancestors to white man's lands; our ancestors were already enslaving and trading themselves as slaves.

OK. This part is clear. But why would you think Africans had to already have an existing internal slavery (and I believe they did have an internal slavery system, albeit small - but let's agree they didn't) before they could be driven by gain to capture and sell slaves to Europeans?

We cannot accept as reliable any cases of African collusion which occurred after the European has already conquered and ruling Africa, because
that cannot be deemed to be Africans doing it by their own free will.

It is like armed robbers enter your home wanting to rape your sister and after raping her they ordered you with a gun to your head, to rape her also. When they are eventually captured they now say that they are only 50% responsible because you were also involved in raping your sister.

Do you get it?

No, I don't get this part. Because, frankly there is nothing to get here. Europeans conquered and began to rule Africa only in the late 19th century. And by then most of the Europeans had already outlawed slavery, and were exploiting the continent in other forms. All the African writers I have pointed out produced their work before the conquest and (supposed) collusion of Africans. Equiano, Cugoano, Antera Duke, Granniosaw produced their writings in the 18th century before European colonization.

Explain to me why you think their testimonies are not valid.

Arabs and Jews were the biggest benefactors of the slave trades. The Arab and jews don't like Africans and were the middle men during slave trade. Africans should stop practising the Jewish , Christianity and Arab religion. We need to focus back on our ancestors religion. Worshiping the Arab God called Allah and Jewish God called Jehovah has done Africa no good instead it has brought more killing and division among us. A perfect example is the boko haram killing their fellow African in the name of a foreign Arab diety. and christain pastors making money off illiterate followers. We Africans need to embraced culture and our own religion.

True.
What practical steps can we take individually to re-engage with our ancient religions?

Raiders:
Arabs and Jews were the biggest benefactors of the slave trades. The Arab and jews don't like Africans and were the middle men during slave trade. Africans should stop practising the Jewish , Christianity and Arab religion. We need to focus back on our ancestors religion. Worshiping the Arab God called Allah and Jewish God called Jehovah has done Africa no good instead it has brought more killing and division among us. A perfect example is the boko haram killing their fellow African in the name of a foreign Arab diety. and christain pastors making money off illiterate followers. We Africans need to embraced culture and our own religion.

Just a question: are you a black African?

PAPAAFRICA:
Taf records history from 1493 to 1599 and the Tas records history from roughly the same time as Taf to 1613. Tas was started around the end of the 1500s and taf iirc around the end of the 1400s and was finished in the early 1600s(begun by the original author, mahmud kati, and completed by his descendants). They werent written before the 15th century but these sahelian africans had never had any real contact with europeans, they were too deep inland, most of the people in the sahels first contact with large amounts of europeans would be during the morracan invasion of the songhay empire being that most of the morrocan army were spanish mercenaries. Taf even mentions the spanish mercenaries being the first europeans the songhay elite had seen. I would give you the things that you asked for but i own a physical copy of Taf and a digital version of Tas but i dont have access to a computer, only a phone. When i can get on a computer ill probably give you some screen shots but to give you an idea of the magnitude of slavery in the sudan at the time heres a quick qoute. "When he(a jurist)entered the home of the askia he found him holding his friday audience, according to the regular ceremony. The eunuchs of the askiya, who numbered around seven hundred stood at attention behind him, each of them dressed in a garment of silk" pg.202 Of Taf.

So roughly 700 eunuchs(these men were slaves incase your wondering) stood behind him in his palace while he gave friday audience. Taf also mentions a story about one of the askiyas slaves dying and leaving behind 500 slaves of his own, a merchant(most likely a berber or arab) wanted to buy them all for 5000 mithqals of gold.

Why did the mods move this thread to the culture section?

This thread should have been left under the politics section where it was created.

What has culture got to do with subject matter of this thread?
mukina2, seun please reclassify this thread to a more appropriate section.

Radoillo:


This is becoming absurd. Can we get over this non-issue already. It is unnecessary digression. There are European nations that never sent slave ships to Africa . They don't raise a storm when we talk about the 'European slave trade from Africa'. They do not go about insisting we do not use 'European' because they were never involved. Same goes for the Arabs. Not every Arab nation raided or traded in Africa. They don't lose it when we say 'Arab raiders' or 'Arab traders'. I can go on. Eastern Europe (except maybe for Russia) was not involved in the 19th-century European Imperialism. Thy don't protest when people say 'European imperialism', because they were not involved. Parts of Africa supplied slaves. Its right to call those slaves 'African slaves'. If you protest calling them 'African' because your part of Africa never supplied slaves, then suggest an alternative adjective. You do not expect writers to enumerate the names of the thousands of African groups that supplied slaves each time they say 'slaves'.




Where, oh where, did I refer to Arab writers? Cugoano (Akan), Equiano (Igbo), Granniosaw (from Bornu), Ayubba Suleiman Diallo (Fulani) were the African writers I referred to who experienced slavery and documented their experiences. How are they Arabs?

It will be really hard to get you out of that corner you are stuffed in, Europeans whom did not take part in the raid did take part in the booty, African wealth developed Europe, they would not object from the term being used because due to the docility of Africans after colonialism they(Europeans) whose nations did not directly take part in the raids stands to benefit much from adopting such status, just like if you are called a king, and tributes being paid to you with all the respects that is accorded a king even without you ruling any kingdom you will never object, but when you are called a thief that is when you may object.
So Africans object while Europeans have no reason to.
Apart from Equiano ,i don't believe you do clearly understand the context on which all the other accounts were written, A well informed reader whom has read those works would shudder at your reference to them in this discussion.
Equiano on the other hand clearly described the circumstances on which he was kidnapped, and sold, he also clearly stated that slavery in African terms is totally different from slavery in the hands of a European, he said that slaves do no more work than their masters, has family,feeds well,and may even have slaves whom were also accorded those right which his master gave him, the only difference from a slave to freeborn is during traditional festival whereby representatives of families were the true sons of the male head of the family.
Many other African writer made almost similar inferences and all were astounded by the concept of European slavery.
Mind you that those who kidnapped Equiano has a well detail history of how the Europeans aided and armed them to kidnap slaves from the hinterland, You may have read yourself of many chiefs whom were deposed of their thrones by British funded and armed fugitives because they objected against slavery.

Does anybody know whether a word exists for slavery in any African language , prior to the arrival of Europeans?

thoth:

It will be really hard to get you out of that corner you are stuffed in, Europeans whom did not take part in the raid did take part in the booty, African wealth developed Europe, they would not object from the term being used because due to the docility of Africans after colonialism they(Europeans) whose nations did not directly take part in the raids stands to benefit much from adopting such status, just like if you are called a king, and tributes being paid to you with all the respects that is accorded a king even without you ruling any kingdom you will never object, but when you are called a thief that is when you may object.
So Africans object while Europeans have no reason to.
Apart from Equiano ,i don't believe you do clearly understand the context on which all the other accounts were written, A well informed reader whom has read those works would shudder at your reference to them in this discussion.
Equiano on the other hand clearly described the circumstances on which he was kidnapped, and sold, he also clearly stated that slavery in African terms is totally different from slavery in the hands of a European, he said that slaves do no more work than their masters, has family,feeds well,and may even have slaves whom were also accorded those right which his master gave him, the only difference from a slave to freeborn is during traditional festival whereby representatives of families were the true sons of the male head of the family.
Many other African writer made almost similar inferences and all were astounded by the concept of European slavery.
Mind you that those who kidnapped Equiano has a well detail history of how the Europeans aided and armed them to kidnap slaves from the hinterland, You may have read yourself of many chiefs whom were deposed of their thrones by British funded and armed fugitives because they objected against slavery.

It is either you do not understand what I've been saying or you needlessly want to perpetuate an argument that honestly doesn't have a point.

I'll try and clear you: The OP says that Africans did not capture and sell slaves to Europeans; that Europeans were the ones who went into the interior to raid villages and capture slaves. I say this is not true, and that there are documented evidence of Africans capturing and selling other Africans.

How does your comment above factor into this argument? How does what Equiano say about enslavement of Africans within Africa and enslavement of Africans outside Africa concern what I'm saying here? If anything, it strengthens my position that there was internal slavery within Africa.

What context are you talking about? All the people whose works I mentioned were captured by other Africans and never saw a white man until they had been marched to the coast by their African captors. What context are you talking about - and what does that context have to do with my basic premise that these people were captured by other Africans?

If you want to talk about Europe's role in the slave trade (selling arms to African rulers so they could equip their armies for more effective raids, etc), then that would be a different topic. My argument from the beginning here has been against the suggestion that Africans did not play a role in the trade. But you appear to be more interested in conflicting the issues.

Radoillo:


No, I don't get this part. Because, frankly there is nothing to get here. Europeans conquered and began to rule Africa only in the late 19th century. And by then most of the Europeans had already outlawed slavery, and were exploiting the continent in other forms. All the African writers I have pointed out produced their work before the conquest and (supposed) collusion of Africans. Equiano, Cugoano, Antera Duke, Granniosaw produced their writings in the 18th century before European colonization.

Explain to me why you think their testimonies are not valid.

You have clearly formed your arguments, based your conceptions, and has drawn your perceptions entirely from the European distorted history and this is exactly what GenBuhari was warning about, it is also evident in the way you patch your argument through, your choice of words and what those words MEAN to YOU which you dogmatically tries to impose on others as well.

Europeans outlawed Slavery eh? where did you learn that from ? the same Europeans i believe taught you that and you believed and celebrated it right ? Sorry Slavery was never outlawed rather it was instituted, the Europeans decided among leading families backed by their respective nations that in order to keep a helm on the mass exploitation that was going on that it was best to stop the export of labor resources and export resources instead since that is cheaper rest stressful and stupendously profitable so they organised and ENSLAVED THE WHOLE CONTINENTAL AFRICA!!!
God!! for someone who does not know his history you should not be in this discussion at all, have ever read about Congo under Belgium ?? the mass slaughter!! the amputations!! the extraditions !!! A whole kingdom turned into a PERSONAL PROPERTY of the sadist King Leopold!! A kingdom of slaves!!
You never heard of the area now known as Nigeria under the British domination ?? what really happened to the likes of Jaja of Opobo to name a few ?
Isn't this the same issue the OP was trying to raise, the whole European narrative does not make sense at all,we(i and you) need to dig deeper to the times before that or choose other narrative that at least is acceptable to common reason.

Radoillo:


It is either you do not understand what I've been saying or you needlessly want to perpetuate an argument that honestly doesn't have a point.

my stance since creation of this thread is to observe and hopefully could learn and get new infomation from many whom are more enlightened on this particular issue ,but their are grave assumptions which cannot just be allowed to slide or else we will be trapped in that same quagmire which we are seeking to be free of.
First our forefathers were not barbarians, they built great societies and such cannot possibly play the role the Europeans ascribed to them.
Secondly slavery in African terms is different from slavery in European terms so it is important that the two never be considered the same and for clarity sake;factoring what the term "slavery" has come to mean(Entirely European concept) it is acceptable to say that MOST of Africa never practiced slavery and the concept is entirely European.

thirdly, that slavery in the real European context would have never been known in Africa if we never had any contact with Europeans , no market exists without a demand (2nd statement still applies), syllogically Slavery, the market, the sustainance was entirely a European creation and such systems never existed before the advent of Europeans.

now tell me among all the references you made that which did not agree with at least two of the above statements and by extension the OP.