muafrika:
Which Africans? In between migrating and conquering new lands, my people and most other Africans had no time for writting classes. Even in Europe, writting was a preserve of the nobility untill the Industrial revolution when the same nobility decided increase their supply and choice of labour. They created labour production factories that we now call school and take pride blindly in. So, Ancient Africans, writting for what purpose?

Yemen still has African slaves. Just like Morroco, Sudan, and India.

They wrote all the time.
https://www.nairaland.com/189030/african-script

Even their own history
[img]http://raai.library.yale.edu/web/art/4/61933_images_image_467_medium.jpg[/img]
Publication: 1894. Verneau, R. "Statues des rois de Dahomé. Le trône de Béhanzin et les portes des palais d'Abomé, par Maurice Delafosse" [book review]." l'Anthropologie, Vol. 5.

Original language: French

Caption translation: Other bas-reliefs from the palaces of Abomé. (According to the watercolors of Captain Fonssagrives.)

Text translation: “These bas-reliefs, written in a language and with known ideographic and symbolic characters of the only priests of Afa, hold the annals of the Dahomé. It is very curious to find, in a black country, a system of historic hieroglyph that had been thought to have been located in Egypt and in America. The deciphering of these inscriptions, beginning with Captain Fonssagrives, has been continued by one of his colleagues with the aid of the priests of Afa and the princes of the royal family.” (p. 365)

Illustrator: Dietrich; Fonssagrives, signed in LR; Dietrich (engraver), Fonssagrives (artist)

Illustration technique: studio engraving; after watercolor

kingston277:

There was a large internal slave system going on, they even enslaved some Arabs and even Europeans in the 11th century as well as other Africans. It was this large, well established system that Europeans joined in on an gradually took control of over time.

You are probably referring to a different part of Africa than the parts more directly involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Outside the northern coast of Africa, I don't know of any other part of the continent that held European slaves in any significant number.

The mode of production in much of Africa (especially the Guinea and the Congo-Angola regions: areas more directly involved in the trans-Atlantic traffic) simply didn't allow for a large internal slave system pre European contact; there were few true slaves in those parts before the coming of the Europeans. In those parts, Europeans did not simply join in and gradually take control of the trade. They actually influenced the trade's development, growth and spread.

The Ijaw people on the Nigerian Coast (for example) most certainly did not have a flourishing slave-procuring and slave-owning society before the 15th century. They were small communities of fishermen. There was practically no place for a slave economy in their type of society. Yet by the end of the 18th century, the Ijaw city-state of Bonny was one of West Africa's busiest slave port. Slave demands in Europe and the New World was directly responsible for that. The Bonny example was repeated in many places throughout West and Central Africa's coast.

Only the large empires of the Sudan and a few other places had what could be described as 'a large internal slave system' (supplying the local elite as well as the Arab-Berber north) that pre-dated the trans-Atlantic traffic. And those states played little direct roles in the trans-Atlantic traffic, hence why I wasn't thinking of them when I made that comment.

Radoillo:


You are probably referring to a different part of Africa than the parts more directly involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Outside the northern coast of Africa, I don't know of any other part of the continent that held European slaves in any significant number.

Several states all the way down to even Nigeria have been documented to house a few.
http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/68815-slaves-brought-into-sub-saharan-africa.html

Radoillo:

The mode of production in much of Africa (especially the Guinea and the Congo-Angola regions: areas more directly involved in the trans-Atlantic traffic) simply didn't allow for a large internal slave system pre European contact; there were few true slaves in those parts before the coming of the Europeans. In those parts, Europeans did not simply join in and gradually take control of the trade. They actually influenced the trade's development, growth and spread.
The Ijaw people on the Nigerian Coast (for example) most certainly did not have a flourishing slave-procuring and slave-owning society before the 15th century. They were small communities of fishermen. There was practically no place for a slave economy in their type of society. Yet by the end of the 18th century, the Ijaw city-state of Bonny was one of West Africa's busiest slave port. Slave demands in Europe and the New World was directly responsible for that. The Bonny example was repeated in many places throughout West and Central Africa's coast.

Only the large empires of the Sudan and a few other places had what could be described as 'a large internal slave system' (supplying the local elite as well as the Arab-Berber north) that pre-dated the trans-Atlantic traffic. And those states played little direct roles in the trans-Atlantic traffic, hence why I wasn't thinking of them when I made that comment.

As has been specified ealier in the thread, there are different definition of what constitutes a 'slave'. I suppose you are probably alluding to western type slavery which is why you said to 'true slaves'. I'm referring to any kind of low-social class individuals who work for free and can be bough and sold. The amount of slaves owned by any one kingdom depended on the frequency they went to war which was moderate, but there. There are sources stating Europeans simply only took advantage of what was already in place, no influence aside from increased motivation to slave raid occurred via them. If the internal slave system was weak, they likely would've skipped over those areas.

How does it make you feel that your ancestors sold you?

Do you think, that you believing your African ancestors sold you as slave affects the relationship you have with Africa and Africans?

kingston277:

Several states all the way down to even Nigeria have been documented to house a few.
http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/68815-slaves-brought-into-sub-saharan-africa.html


As has been specified ealier in the thread, there are different definition of what constitutes a 'slave'. I suppose you are probably alluding to western type slavery which is why you said to 'true slaves'. I'm referring to any kind of low-social class individuals who work for free and can be bough and sold. The amount of slaves owned by any one kingdom depended on the frequency they went to war which was moderate, but there. There are sources stating Europeans simply only took advantage of what was already in place, no influence aside from increased motivation to slave raid occurred via them. If the internal slave system was weak, they likely would've skipped over those areas.

GenBuhari:
How does it make you feel that your ancestors sold you?

Do you think, that you believing your African ancestors sold you as slave affects the relationship you have with Africa and Africans?

Why did other races - Asians, Arabs etc not also sell their own people massively as SLAVES to the whites

@kingston277 Actually, I was surprised to find that even some things like patterns on calabashes had meaning. I just never considered such things as writtings. I have also recently seen a traditional ordaining ceremony where a person was expected to dribble some stuff in ash to prove they were a skilled medicine woman. Then the women elders of the village elders read and approve it. I thought they were just being vain and mischevous. I think traditional medicine men and diviners still have an ancient writting knowledge which elders can decipher. I will be looking at some of these things with a different eye.

GenBuhari:
How does it make you feel that your ancestors sold you?

Do you think, that you believing your African ancestors sold you as slave affects the relationship you have with Africa and Africans?

"Ancestors" is a strong word. Even "tribe", as they are both innocent blood relations and about the only social support system of that time. By selling ones relative, they would be making themselves vulnerable to other foreign tribal interests.

anonimi:


Why did other races - Asians, Arabs etc not also sell their own people massively as SLAVES to the whites

Probably because Africans are not "one" people. There are more diverse interests at play here than on the rest of the entire world stage. Other than colour and and a continent, I do not think anything else unites the entire Africa into a single point of reference.

kingston277:

There is no evidence anywhere that any African society sold their own kinsmen, only neigbours they went to war with.

Agreed.

It is illogical that any race would sale themselves to another race. That is one of many reason I know it did not occur.

It is a lie written into the history books by the white historians.

anonimi:


Why did other races - Asians, Arabs etc not also sell their own people massively as SLAVES to the whites

So is kingston277 telling us that he has verifiable evidence independent of the white man that Africans sold their prisoners of war to the white man?

Well I look forward to see the evidence he has.

muafrika:
Agreed.

This thread has reached 6 pages yet relatively few views because the mods deliberately moved it to the culture section from the politics section where I had posted it. The mods likely did this to bury it.

Africans are still suffering from the effects of genocide committed by white man against us and get scared if they see their oppressor being challenged in anyway. This is why the NL mods have tried to bury this thread and why you would never see a thread critical of the white man or about neo-colonialism ever make the front page.

It is also the reason we have so many Africans (including descendants of those stolen from Africa by the Europeans) running in here to defend the white man's version of history despite the fact that they have not bothered to seek out or learn whether our own ancestor's version of history that is independent of white man's influence can verify it.

GenBuhari:
So is kingston277 telling us that he has verifiable evidence independent of the white man that Africans sold their prisoners of war to the white man?

Well I look forward to see the evidence he has.

I hope he knows it has to be a continental, black African source.

It must have been a massive war to generate 11 million prisoners, the est. number of trans-Atlantic slaves.

anonimi:


Why did other races - Asians, Arabs etc not also sell their own people massively as SLAVES to the whites

Any way it's the other way, Arabs caliphet has Asia slaves(Turks),Asian Turks sultanite of delhi in India has both white,mullato and black Indias as slaves the same with Mughul empire in India and both empire where saleing them to the Moors/Arabs,while white Europeians where been inslave by Moors/Arbs.

letu:
Any way it's the other way, Arabs caliphet has Asia slaves(Turks),Asian Turks sultanite of delhi in India has both white,mullato and black Indias as slaves the same with Mughul empire in India and both empire where saleing them to the Moors/Arabs,while white Europeians where been inslave by Moors/Arbs.

The Indian caste system is also an institutionalized form of slavery.

GenBuhari:
How does it make you feel that your ancestors sold you?

Do you think, that you believing your African ancestors sold you as slave affects the relationship you have with Africa and Africans?

Again, I cannot come to a position on why my ancestors sold slaves because there is no African source relaying what incentives they were given to do so. There are just as much evidence pointing to reluctant slave trading on the merchants part as there is evidence that they sold slaves from greed.

muafrika:
@kingston277 Actually, I was surprised to find that even some things like patterns on calabashes had meaning. I just never considered such things as writtings. I have also recently seen a traditional ordaining ceremony where a person was expected to dribble some stuff in ash to prove they were a skilled medicine woman. Then the women elders of the village elders read and approve it. I thought they were just being vain and mischevous. I think traditional medicine men and diviners still have an ancient writting knowledge which elders can decipher. I will be looking at some of these things with a different eye.

Any communication device that can be read like a letter is writing.

"However, such systems are also found in areas where Muslim influence has been less strong or is unlikely. Thus, among the Ashanti and other Akan-speaking peoples of Ghana and Cote D'Ivorie, where gold was of great political, economic and symbolic significance, many goldweights bore signs that indicated their precise ponderal value; other signs corresponded to proverbs, while others represented concepts (for example, certain aspects of the Supreme Being). The nsibidi system of the Ekoi, Igbo and Ibibio peoples of the Cross River area of present-day Nigeria used over a thousand signs to represent a considerable number of concepts as well as some sounds. Nsibidi was used to record court cases and convey complex messages, including warnings in wartime, and for summarizing folktales and personal narratives; its pictograms thus constituted a true writing system. As with the Malian systems of graphic signs, knowledge of nsibidi was often acquired within the initiation societies, but unlike the Malian ones, nsibidi signs were often tattooed on the body or dramatically enacted through gestures."
--Kevin Shllingford (2004) "Literacy and Indigenous Scripts: Pre-colonial West Africa" - Encyclopedia of African History

@Kingstone277 Makes sence. If they could communicate complex details of messages using drums beats, like identity of persons the subject matter, writting down detailed messages would not be so insummountable, if not easier a task.

You never answered my questions which I quote below

kingston277:

Again, I cannot come to a position on why my ancestors sold slaves because there is no African source relaying what incentives they were given to do so. There are just as much evidence pointing to reluctant slave trading on the merchants part as there is evidence that they sold slaves from greed.

GenBuhari:
How does it make you feel that your ancestors sold you?
Do you think, that you believing your African ancestors sold you as slave affects the relationship you have with Africa and Africans?

GenBuhari:
You never answered my questions which I quote below

kingston277:

Again, I cannot come to a position on why my ancestors sold slaves because there is no African source relaying what incentives they were given to do so. There are just as much evidence pointing to reluctant slave trading on the merchants part as there is evidence that they sold slaves from greed.

What is it about this response that didn't get my point across? Everybody's ancestors did things to each other. Many even sold each other aswell.
The question is what made them do it, greed, pressure or something else?

From my simple question below, you have now responded to the question twice and on each occasion have avoided answering the question by giving very vague and generalised answers.

I can only therefore speculate that your inability to face the question that I have put to you stems from your (erroneous) belief that you were sold to Europeans as slaves.

You are deeply hurt and angry at Africans and most likely very hostile towards Africans and it has crushed your self esteem. You cannot quite forgive your African ancestors for this ghastly act of betrayal that you (wrongly) perceive was done against you.

Well this exactly the intention of the white man's strategy of divide and rule. By educating you that you were sold and educating us (who did not descend from those Africans stolen from Africa by Europeans) that we sold ourselves. They have managed to build a barrier of anger, hostility and distrust between us and you.

I believe you have been nurturing this hostility and anger towards Africans for so long that you do not want to let it go and allow yourself to even begin to entertain the possibility that you may have been mislead all these years into wrongly believing you were sold.

In fact in reality there is no difference between us we are you and you are us. The barrier was placed between us by the same criminals who committed genocidal atrocities against us all (both the home Africans and those stolen and shipped abroad).

If you think about colonialism you would soon realise that us home Africans were also enslaved at home. I feel the same pain that you feel and before thinking more deeply about the European version of history and realising that it couldn't possibly be true. I considered it as a very negative and shameful dark episode in our history.

I notice that you are seeking answers as to why you were sold. Well you were not sold; all common sense, all logic and all independently verifiable evidence free of influence of Europeans (or rather lack of) leads to the conclusion that you were not sold. We Africans did not sell ourselves.

Stop seeking the reason for something that did not occur (Africans did not sell you); otherwise you may waste your life searching for that elusive reason and being angry with yourself because to be angry at Africans is just like being angry at yourself because you are African. You do not have any other motherland.

It is well brother. It is well.

GenBuhari:
@ Kingston277
How does it make you feel that your ancestors sold you?
Do you think, that you believing your African ancestors sold you as slave affects the relationship you have with Africa and Africans?

kingston277:

What is it about this response that didn't get my point across? Everybody's ancestors did things to each other. Many even sold each other aswell.
The question is what made them do it, greed, pressure or something else?

kingston277:

Again, I cannot come to a position on why my ancestors sold slaves because there is no African source relaying what incentives they were given to do so. There are just as much evidence pointing to reluctant slave trading on the merchants part as there is evidence that they sold slaves from greed.

what did Europeans offer Africans for their people?

According to Europeans they offered us guns. Ever thought that perhaps as they offered us the guns, they were pointing those guns at us?

Why would people that came in peace to do trade be carrying guns?

Why would Africans require guns for if they were so already successful in war to have acquired so many enemy slaves?

The more you think about the European version of African history the less credible it becomes.

GenBuhari:
what did Europeans offer Africans for their people?

According to Europeans they offered us guns. Ever thought that perhaps as they offered us the guns, they were pointing those guns at us?

Why would people that came in peace to do trade be carrying guns?

Why would Africans require guns for if they were so already successful in war to have acquired so many enemy slaves?

The more you think about the European version of African history the less credible it becomes.

And mirrors, imagine that. In African society it was taboo to count ones children, even count reared animals or subject plants to human measurements, just for respect of the sanctity of life, and God. These same people took a whole human to the market, and exchanged them for a stupid mirror? Please!

GenBuhari:
what did Europeans offer Africans for their people?

According to Europeans they offered us guns. Ever thought that perhaps as they offered us the guns, they were pointing those guns at us?

Why would people that came in peace to do trade be carrying guns?

Why would Africans require guns for if they were so already successful in war to have acquired so many enemy slaves?

The more you think about the European version of African history the less credible it becomes.

If they gave us any guns, we would have used them to blow them off the continent once they started misbehaving. 11 million guns, assuming one slave, one gun. That's a good supply of weapons. Yet by the time they took over our land we were fighting with arrows and bows? Ethiopians had guns. They showed them. We too took their own guns in battle, and from their home guards. Thats when the tables started turning.

GenBuhari:
From my simple question below, you have now responded to the question twice and on each occasion have avoided answering the question by giving very vague and generalised answers.

I can only therefore speculate that your inability to face the question that I have put to you stems from your (erroneous) belief that you were sold to Europeans as slaves.

[quote author=GenBuhari post=28296403]
You are deeply hurt and angry at Africans and most likely very hostile towards Africans and it has crushed your self esteem. You cannot quite forgive your African ancestors for this ghastly act of betrayal that you (wrongly) perceive was done against you.

Well this exactly the intention of the white man's strategy of divide and rule. By educating you that you were sold and educating us (who did not descend from those Africans stolen from Africa by Europeans) that we sold ourselves. They have managed to build a barrier of anger, hostility and distrust between us and you.

I believe you have been nurturing this hostility and anger towards Africans for so long that you do not want to let it go and allow yourself to even begin to entertain the possibility that you may have been mislead all these years into wrongly believing you were sold.

In fact in reality there is no difference between us we are you and you are us. The barrier was placed between us by the same criminals who committed genocidal atrocities against us all (both the home Africans and those stolen and shipped abroad).

If you think about colonialism you would soon realise that us home Africans were also enslaved at home. I feel the same pain that you feel and before thinking more deeply about the European version of history and realising that it couldn't possibly be true. I considered it as a very negative and shameful dark episode in our history.

I notice that you are seeking answers as to why you were sold. Well you were not sold; all common sense, all logic and all independently verifiable evidence free of influence of Europeans (or rather lack of) leads to the conclusion that you were not sold. We Africans did not sell ourselves.

Stop seeking the reason for something that did not occur (Africans did not sell you); otherwise you may waste your life searching for that elusive reason and being angry with yourself because to be angry at Africans is just like being angry at yourself because you are African. You do not have any other motherland.

It is well brother. It is well.

You seem to have comprehension issues, so I'll reiterate. It is beyond my comprehension why you refuse to accept my direct and honest answer to your question, I am now left only to assume that you refuse to accept any answer aside from those pre-manufactured to fit within your expectations (I agree with everything you say vs. I believe my ancestors sold slaves, therefore I hate my ancestors).

I'm also guessing you're new to the culture section and still haven't come across my(or Radillio's) previous contributions here. If you have, you would've known that since I joined NL, I have spent 70% of my time here, more than what I've come to expect of locals, defending Africa's history and culture from a barrage of self-hating inhabitants and outsiders alike. Not to mention as committing to research(as much as my internet/library skills can allow) to provide new info for topics.

Unlike several people here, I actually respect my ancestors for their impressive accomplishments but I also try to remain aware and unbiased to certain aspects of history. I'm seeking proper answers from others for the motivation of local participation in the slave trade because I honestly don't see enough current evidence to conclude that the selling of fellow Africans was done as an act of selfishness as some may have you belive. muafrika made a good point:

muafrika:
And mirrors, imagine that. In African society it was taboo to count ones children, even count reared animals or subject plants to human measurements, just for respect of the sanctity of life, and God. These same people took a whole human to the market, and exchanged them for a stupid mirror? Please!

I don't think that this is evidence against the notion of whether they sold slaves in the first place or not, but I do think its an interesting point that should be looked into by well-meaning historians.

GenBuhari:
what did Europeans offer Africans for their people?

Guns, gold, textiles, etc. Aswell as wine and Mirrors (allegedly).

According to Europeans they offered us guns. Ever thought that perhaps as they offered us the guns, they were pointing those guns at us?

They had surplus that they used as incentive.

Why would people that came in peace to do trade be carrying guns?

For sale

Why would Africans require guns for if they were so already successful in war to have acquired so many enemy slaves?

Because angry gun-toting Europeans are a more dangerous threat than crossbow-toting Africans/Arabs.

The more you think about the European version of African history the less credible it becomes.

leave the question of local involvement in the slave trade out of that, and you are certainly correct.

muafrika:
If they gave us any guns, we would have used them to blow them off the continent once they started misbehaving.

Seems thats not automatically the case.

kingston277:


Seems thats not automatically the case.

Go on. You also mentioned participation of an African Navy regimen. Whats your understanding?

Africa exported (still does) gold, not the other way around. For those who bothered dresssing up, they made their own fabric.

We also make our own wine, and any other potent drink needed.

Why would people eying a land for conquest supply it with weaponry?

I'd like to commend muafrika,GenBuhari igbo2011 and Kingston77...…

My question now remains how did this thread move to the Culture Section ?
i just noticed it and it was not where it usef to be.

thoth:
I'd like to commend muafrika,GenBuhari igbo2011 and Kingston77...…

My question now remains how did this thread move to the Culture Section ?
i just noticed it and it was not where it usef to be.

Thanks.

Unless we choose to believe that our ancestors where savages who have never seen their reflection and do not know how to value things i.e. that they have the cognitive and reasoning skills of a toddler, we cannot believe that they would have exchanged human slaves who could create enormous wealth for the owner for objects that you do not need like mirrors , textiles etc.

Before offering human beings wouldn't African Kings with any common sense have offered to barter with other products other than human slaves?

Offering to sell guns to Africans is so odd and incredible that it would be reasonable to conclude that it is not true.
If the Europeans are saying that they came in peace just for honest and fair trade why did they come with guns?

What type of peaceful traders would come to offer sophisticated deadly weapons of war, to a bunch of war-hungry savages (who have never seen their reflection in mirrors and enslaves their enemies for a hobby) in their own land?

If Europeans were just there to trade peacefully why were they trading in the bounty of war (i.e slaves) ?

Did you speculate that Africans were buying guns as a future defence against dangerous angry gun-toting Europeans?
So if the Africans did not trust them why would they be giving them humans - men women and children to ship away for a relatively few guns which may or may not have come with bullets which they would have to get from their future enemy.

If we accept that Europeans did not come to trade peacefully then we have to question their version of history where they imply that the buying of slaves was purely clean honest trade.

You seem to agree that with me that the more one thinks about the white man's version of African history, the less credible it appears, but you make an exception for part where they say we kept and sold ourselves as slaves to them. That part you believe is true.
What is the evidence you have seen (that is independent of the influence of the white man) to make you certain that Africans did truely keep and trade themselves as slaves?

Did you forget to address the issue of the pain and betrayal felt by Africans like yourself ( who are descendants of Africans shipped out of Africa by Europeans) that believe that you were sold to as slaves Europeans by your African ancestors?

kingston277:

Guns, gold, textiles, etc. Aswell as wine and Mirrors (allegedly).


They had surplus that they used as incentive.


For sale


Because angry gun-toting Europeans are a more dangerous threat than crossbow-toting Africans/Arabs.


leave the question of local involvement in the slave trade out of that, and you are certainly correct.

This is another example of the mods on NL trying to hide or bury any threads that is critical of the white man or tries to enlighten NL'ers about neo-colonialism.

thoth:
I'd like to commend muafrika,GenBuhari igbo2011 and Kingston77...…

My question now remains how did this thread move to the Culture Section ?
i just noticed it and it was not where it usef to be.