A lot of material to read, spoken with the arrogance of presumed racial superiority.
Your typical fake argumentation - and falsely trying to interpret stating FACTS as being presumed racial superiority.
1. Tribal Systems
Much of the world is governed by tribal suystem. It is human nature as a social hierarchical species. Tbe concept of nations is simply a more expansive tribe where nationalism replaces tribal or ethnic or religious identity. Many nations that were the product of colonialism were the product of “divide and conquer” pitting tribes against each other in order to control a large area. Modern boundaries were drawn without regard to local ethnic/tribal groups. The result is often a weak federal system that cannot or will not represent or protect all its citizens, and a high degree of corruption. When the central government cannot offer security then allegiances shift to ethnic, tribal or religious ties over state. This is not. Unique to Africa by a long shot. Look at Iraq, the Balkins, Indonesia…
Unlike Africans - those other countries plagued by tribal systems are and were ABLE to control it - see Brazil, see White Rhodesia, Apertheid South Africa - Portuguese Angola and Mozambique.
And e.g. Iraq, Syria, Balkan isn't tribal - it's an ethnic issue - so is e.g. Indonesia - you don't even understand the difference between tribal and ethnicity - as such a discussion with you is factually MEANINGLESS.
2. Malaysia and Tanzania. Tanzania, pre-colony, was a thriving center of trade with Arabs, Persia, China and India. one of its major trade cities was among the first to use money. In 1525 they were conquered by the Portuguese and then later the Arabs gained a foothold. That is when Zanzibar became a center for the slave trade.
Tanzania was NEVER a thriving center of trade, - the trading posts erected by the Arabs - e.g. Dār al-Sālam, Zanzibar, Malindi (Kenya) and Mogadishu (Somalia) were thriving trading centers, all developed by ARABS - the Portuguese never held any influence in Tanzania. despite having taken possession of Zanzibar. The same goes for Malacca - the Portuguese controlled the city of Malacca - they never controlled or held influence in the rest of the Malayan world.
That would be like ridiculously claiming that the British controlled and held influence over Germany due to possessing the island of Helgoland.
The Arabs had erected their first trading posts within Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe already since the 10th century - when they encountered traditional African slavery by the people they called Kaffirs. Start to read up some Arab literature about Africa.
India, Persia and China NEVER had own trading posts in Tanzania - but made use of the known Arab trading harbors and after the Portuguese had conquered Zanzibar. - another false claim by you. If e.g. Admiral Zheng He ever reached Tanzanians shore lines isn't even proven - he might have anchored at Zanzibar or Dār al-Sālam since these places were known.
To state that slavery started to come into play upon the Portuguese taking Zanzibar - is utterly ridiculous and simply false.
It's obvious that you don't know anything about the Arabs and Africans and simply keep-on stating false claims.
Slavery existed in Malaysia.
Swettenham referred to two distinct forms of slavery in Malaya. First, there was slavery in the traditional sense involving the capture and enslavement of individuals by the chieftains of a rival clan as booty or the random seizure of the inhabitants. This was particularly the case with the indigenous people, the Orang Asli, who, if they could not escape, were virtually powerless to resist capture.
The second form of slavery was debt-bondage which arose where a person usually went to the Rajah, or person of rank or wealth, requesting a loan of money or goods and if he failed to comply with the terms of repayment he was forced to enter their service until the debt was repaid. The debtor’s wife and children also entered into bondage, and all became the property of the creditor who was free to commit cruelty and abuse. Work performed by the debtor did not count as repayment of the debt. Even if repayment was offered by the debtor or a third party the creditor could refuse and release could be denied indefinitely. The Rajah who administered the laws had the power to impose fines on his subjects for perceived offences which if unpaid also resulted in bondage.
First off all - serfdom or debt-bondage is NOT slavery and is NOT slave trade. A typical Lefty&Lib try - you failed.
Secondly - I had clearly stated that Malays never took Malays as slaves nor traded them - an Orang Asli is NOT a Malay - neither is a Dayak or Iban from East-Malasia or a Batak from Ajeh or a Sasak from Lombok.
Unlike Africans who traded even their own tribes-folks - again you failed.
The only ones who traded Malay's as slaves were the Colonialists - e.g. those Malays enslaved by the British and send to South-Africa until today termed as Cape-Malay's.
The vast majority of illegal slaves were due to Piracy - with Pirates having their own ports and forts outside the Malayan world. E.g. Palawan or Brunei (especially during the reign of the notorious WHITE Sultan of Brunei - aka Sir James Brooke - another Raffles) or Celebes and the Moluccas and Ajeh - right down to Timor.
Thirdly - Today's West-Malaysia aka part of the Malay culture did not posses tribal chieftains, and especially not tribal clans from the 8th century onward - only the indigenous uncivilized Orang Asli in today's West-Malaysia beheld that. The Malayan world since around 700 A.D. was ruled by Rajahs (Kings) and Sultans (Kings&Dukes) who appointed their respective village heads and partially raised them to be aristocrats, e.g. the title Dato or Tan Sri. Such as e.g. Dato Maharaja Lela - not a chief, and especially not a tribal chief as described by the British, but a regional Lord aka a Pembesar (dignitary) who had been appointed by the Sultan of Perak.
The Malayan world's governing and ruling system was ensured by a very strict and professional bureaucratic system. (Imported from India). which the British desperately tried to destroy from 1805 onward.
The cited Swettenham or people like Raffles, or Mrs. Bird, - never understood the Malayan world - they factually destroyed it with utmost persecution and used amongst many other fake accusations e.g. debt-bondage to highlight supposed slavery. To disempower Sultans who objected their overlord claim - just like you. It's really mind-boggling when a Lefty&Lib racist uses known British racists like Swettenham or Raffles or Mrs. Bird, trying to make a point.
East-Malaysia aside from the former large Brunei Sultanate - was NEVER a part of the Malayan world. Its main population aka indigenous population until today are NOT Malayan people - but belong to the same group as those indigenous people who live on Taiwan right down to the Southern Philippines and Eastern-Indonesia.
You don't even know who and what the Malayan world was. But cite some racist garbage from known Colonial imperialists.
There is more but I am out of time this morning and will come back to it.
No need - since you obviously don't know what you talk about (see above) - and simply enjoy forwarding false statements to support your obvious Left&Lib racism.
You and your pals - don;t even know and understand as to WHY slavery played such an important role in the African culture - and that is why you and your pals keep blaming it ignorantly onto the Arabs and Europeans.
Aside from some lucky African tribes that possessed minerals such as salt and gold - they had nothing of worth to trade with each other - because they never manufactured anything of worth or in quantity that other African tribes wouldn't have. So in order to pay tribute (to pay for a lost war or mostly in order to prevent a war), the only commodity of value they ALL had to offer, were their own people - therefore paying and trading with slaves became a standard feature of their culture.
Long before any Arabs or Europeans ever arrived.
