The complicity of African Negroes in the Slave Trade

[Hector12]

I have noticed an irritating and spreading convention which I fear may be enforced by government decree. This is to refer to a man's slaves as the people he enslaved. For example, one will not write, "Thomas Jefferson owned one hundred slaves." One will write "Thomas Jefferson enslaved one hundred African Americans."

The intention of this convention is to deny the complicity of Negroes in the slave trade. Thomas Jefferson did not enslave anyone. He inherited some of his slaves. He bought others, The final number were born on his plantation to slaves he already owned.

The French Encyclopedia was published in France between 1751 and 1772. Famous French writers contributed to it, including Diderot, d'Alembert, and Voltaire.

It includes an essay entitled "Negroes," by Le Romain. Liker many whites at the time, he disapproved of slavery, and described it as "this loathsome commerce, which is opposed to natural law."

He also described how African Negroes contributed to the slave trade. He wrote:

"There are those Negroes who ambush each other while the European vessels are lying at anchor; and they bring those they have captured to the vessels to sell them and have them loaded on board against their wills. Then one sees sons selling their fathers, fathers their children,. Still more frequently one sees Negroes who are not linked by family ties put a price of a few bottles of brandy or bars of iron on each other's freedom."

Shortly after the end of the American Revolution the British Navy took the lead in suppressing the slave trade. While this happened, an African chief traveled to London to protest the actions of the British Navy, complaining that his tribe had made a fortune in the slave trade.

While the European trade in Negro slaves continued, the Arab trade in European wgutes existed. European whites did not contribute. Eventually European military actions crushed the Arab slave trace in whites. The passage "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine's Hymn celebrated efforts by the United States Marines to stop the trade in white slaves. Algeria was conquered by the French to stop the Arab slave trade in whites.

After slavery was outlawed by whites in European empires and the United States the Arab slave trade in Negroes continued. This was crushed by European military action.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, Hector, let's take this nonsense apart.

I have noticed an irritating and spreading convention which I fear may be enforced by government decree. This is to refer to a man's slaves as the people he enslaved. For example, one will not write, "Thomas Jefferson owned one hundred slaves." One will write "Thomas Jefferson enslaved one hundred African Americans."

The intention of this convention is to deny the complicity of Negroes in the slave trade. Thomas Jefferson did not enslave anyone. He inherited some of his slaves. He bought others, The final number were born on his plantation to slaves he already owned.

How does that make it any better? The point is that the man spoke about "All Men Are created equal" and then proceeded to live in luxury on the labor of enslaved people. This includes one Sally Hemmings, a woman who, despite being 3/4 White, Jefferson started raping when she was 15 because she looked like his dead wife (She was his wife's half-sister, but her mother was an enslaved woman.)

Slavery is America's original sin. The fact that so many of the "Founding Fathers" owned slaves and made provisions for its continuation is something we need to address in schools.

It includes an essay entitled "Negroes," by Le Romain. Liker many whites at the time, he disapproved of slavery, and described it as "this loathsome commerce, which is opposed to natural law."

He also described how African Negroes contributed to the slave trade. He wrote:

"There are those Negroes who ambush each other while the European vessels are lying at anchor; and they bring those they have captured to the vessels to sell them and have them loaded on board against their wills. Then one sees sons selling their fathers, fathers their children,. Still more frequently one sees Negroes who are not linked by family ties put a price of a few bottles of brandy or bars of iron on each other's freedom."

The point is, they wouldn't have done this had the Europeans NOT created a market for it. Slavery existed because white people didn't want to pay a fair rate for labor. Those big plantations don't pay for themselves.

Shortly after the end of the American Revolution the British Navy took the lead in suppressing the slave trade. While this happened, an African chief traveled to London to protest the actions of the British Navy, complaining that his tribe had made a fortune in the slave trade.

Do you have a source for this? Link?

The British didn't suppress the slave trade because they had a sudden outbreak of decency; they suppressed it because they lost their main market for slaves and wanted to weaken their rivals who still benefited from it (The US, France, and Spain).

While the European trade in Negro slaves continued, the Arab trade in European wgutes existed. European whites did not contribute. Eventually European military actions crushed the Arab slave trace in whites. The passage "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine's Hymn celebrated efforts by the United States Marines to stop the trade in white slaves. Algeria was conquered by the French to stop the Arab slave trade in whites.

So, slavery was bad when it was inflicted on white people? Why didn't France and the UK invade the Confederacy, then?

Your whole argument is that "He did it, too!" which frankly is what a five-year-old does when he's caught stealing cookies. It's not an excuse in a historical debate.

 

[Hector12]

Wow, Hector, let's take this nonsense apart.



How does that make it any better? The point is that the man spoke about "All Men Are created equal" and then proceeded to live in luxury on the labor of enslaved people. This includes one Sally Hemmings, a woman who, despite being 3/4 White, Jefferson started raping when she was 15 because she looked like his dead wife (She was his wife's half-sister, but her mother was an enslaved woman.)

Slavery is America's original sin. The fact that so many of the "Founding Fathers" owned slaves and made provisions for its continuation is something we need to address in schools.

* In a previous comment I have agreed with you. *


The point is, they wouldn't have done this had the Europeans NOT created a market for it. Slavery existed because white people didn't want to pay a fair rate for labor. Those big plantations don't pay for themselves.

* Slavery already existed among African Negroes. Negro slaves in Africa were sometimes the victims of cannibalism and human sacrifice.

Do you have a source for this? Link?

*

The Royal Navy and the Battle to End Slavery​

By Huw Lewis-Jones
Last updated 2011-02-17

With peace in Europe from 1815, and British supremacy at sea secured, the Navy turned its attention back to the challenge and established the West Coast of Africa Station, known as the 'preventative squadron', which for the next 50 years operated against the slavers.

BBC - History - British History in depth: The Royal Navy and the Battle to End Slavery

The suppression of the slave trade, by Huw Lewis-Jones

www.bbc.co.uk

The British didn't suppress the slave trade because they had a sudden outbreak of decency; they suppressed it because they lost their main market for slaves and wanted to weaken their rivals who still benefited from it (The US, France, and Spain).



So, slavery was bad when it was inflicted on white people? Why didn't France and the UK invade the Confederacy, then?

Your whole argument is that "He did it, too!" which frankly is what a five-year-old does when he's caught stealing cookies. It's not an excuse in a historical debate.

France and Great Britain did not invade the Confederacy because the Confederates were not enslaving people in France and Great Britain.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The intention of this convention

Nice rap, Negro!

 

[JoeB131]

The Royal Navy and the Battle to End Slavery​

By Huw Lewis-Jones
Last updated 2011-02-17

With peace in Europe from 1815, and British supremacy at sea secured, the Navy turned its attention back to the challenge and established the West Coast of Africa Station, known as the 'preventative squadron', which for the next 50 years operated against the slavers.

Doesn't take away from my point that the British only did this to undermine her economic rivals that still benefited from slavery. And it worked. The Spanish Empire collapsed, and the US cotton industry was supplanted by Cotton from India.

The British Empire was not a force for good. They destroyed India, changing it from one of the richest countries in the world to one of the poorest.

France and Great Britain did not invade the Confederacy because the Confederates were not enslaving people in France and Great Britain.

So you are making my point. Slavery was bad if it happened to you.

I think we should have a rule that if you argue that slavery wasn't that bad, you should be forced to work for one year as a slave under the same conditions. This will include whipping if you don't work hard enough, rape if the master takes a liking to you, and hobbling if you try to escape.

 

[Lisa558]

From a legal perspective, we hold people who make a product available for sale more culpable than those who purchase it. That is why drug dealers get stiffer charges and sentences than drug users.

The same concept applies to the slave trade. Had Africans not trapped and sold their own people, there would have been no slaves for purchase by Americans. That doesn’t excuse the purchasers, but it does mean that the entire nasty business was initiated by blacks.

 

[Hector12]

Doesn't take away from my point that the British only did this to undermine her economic rivals that still benefited from slavery. And it worked. The Spanish Empire collapsed, and the US cotton industry was supplanted by Cotton from India.

The British Empire was not a force for good. They destroyed India, changing it from one of the richest countries in the world to one of the poorest.

The legacy of the British Empire, except in Africa, where nothing works well, and certainly in India, has been representative democracy and Reasonably well functioning economies.

When the British ruled India they ended the practice of suttee. In suttee a widow would throw herself on the funeral pyre of her husband and burn to death.

So you are making my point. Slavery was bad if it happened to you.

I think we should have a rule that if you argue that slavery wasn't that bad, you should be forced to work for one year as a slave under the same conditions. This will include whipping if you don't work hard enough, rape if the master takes a liking to you, and hobbling if you try to escape.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The point is that the man spoke about "All Men Are created equal" and then proceeded to live in luxury on the labor of enslaved people. This includes one Sally Hemmings, a woman who, despite being 3/4 White, Jefferson started raping when she was 15 because she looked like his dead wife (She was his wife's half-sister, but her mother was an enslaved woman.)

Oh Sally, can't you see that "You remind me of my dead wife" is a complement?!

 

[JoeB131]

When the British ruled India they ended the practice of suttee. In suttee a widow would throw herself on the funeral pyre of her husband and burn to death.

This is what the British did to India.





I used to work with a lot of Indian people. They HATE the British to this day.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh Sally, can't you see that "You remind me of my dead wife" is a complement?!

I don't think her feelings came into play.

She was 15 when he started his relationship with her, and he was 43. (The original "Groomer"?)
She was his property, so she had no ability to consent or any agency in any meaningful way.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't think her feelings came into play.

She was 15 when he started his relationship with her, and he was 43. (The original "Groomer"?)
She was his property, so she had no ability to consent or any agency in any meaningful way.

In any case, you remind me of my dead wife will never work as a pick up line, lol. For me, "enslaved" and "started raping [her] when she was 15" already covered "she had no ability to consent or any agency in any meaningful way" -- but that's another great way to put it. Too many here look upon those as the good old days. Men resort to violence because they know women are generally way smarter emotionally. Better shop around and make lots of money if you just want barefoot and pregnant.

 

[whitehall]

Warring African tribes sold their enemies to the British, French, Portuguese, Arabs and anyone else for a handful of beads.

 

[JoeB131]

Warring African tribes sold their enemies to the British, French, Portuguese, Arabs and anyone else for a handful of beads.

And so?

What did Europeans do to each other for thousands of years?

 

[Hector12]

Warring African tribes sold their enemies to the British, French, Portuguese, Arabs and anyone else for a handful of beads.

Warring European nations never sold their enemies to Arab slave traders.

 

[whitehall]

And so?

What did Europeans do to each other for thousands of years?

And so?

 

[yidnar]

And so?

What did Europeans do to each other for thousands of years?

the same thing every other race has done ..

 

[longly]

This is what the British did to India.





I used to work with a lot of Indian people. They HATE the British to this day.

India was not even a nation when the British arrived, no more than Europe. It was the British who make India by uniting it in conquest, and mostly by accident. India was no richer than any other region of the time; there were a few rich people, but the vast majority of the population was desperately poor. Check out the life of the Buddha.

 

[Kruska]

He also described how African Negroes contributed to the slave trade. He wrote:

Lefty&Libs have been faking/altering history to a massive extend in the past 40 years - e.g. to promote racist anti-European sentiments and to raise "guilt" feelings.

As such one can't simply rely onto the internet and it's faked/diluted contents) - but if one has the possibility, to check onto 'original" historic reports - written in the respective times.

The Portuguese naturally were aware about the prospering Arab slave trade with Negros. However their primary objective was to trade European goods with those Negro tribes they knew off and further discovered during their sea-exploration voyages. The Portuguese immediately recognized that Negros had nothing of worth to trade with. (Aside from objects made of precious metals). The Portuguese did not posses the military strength to conquer these new discovered lands in Africa or Asia - but simply took control of existing trading ports and started to fortify them, e.g. Goa or Malacca.

Not being able to control/explore the hinterland areas - also meant - that they could not undertake e.g. the exploitation/mining of minerals. Therefore ensuring a supply of trading goods of interest coming from Negros - didn't exist to any satisfying extend. In contra to e.g. the Arabs who had conquered and had control of the hinterland - thus being able to control - direct and ensure the exploitation of mineral resources - e.g. Mali or Mozambique/Zimbabwe.

Negros however were enthusiastic about European goods - especially when it involved weapons. Therefore in order to pay/trade for these goods - they offered the only plentiful resource they had, Slaves.

Initially the Portuguese were not very interested in this kind of trade e.g. from 1450 - 1520. The Portuguese also never took or got involved in Slave-trading in e.g. India or Asia. There was far more profit to be made with e.g. spices, textiles or chinaware. There are numerous contemporary accounts and paintings describing live in e.g. Lisbon at e.g. 1470. Alongside Negro slaves - were also plenty of Free-Negros (merchants & craftsmen) - depending on their native social status - Negros were even elevated into the aristocracy of Portugal. - there is no such thing as a documented racism towards Negros in e.g. Portugal at the time.

Negros either came to Portugal as slaves (being held as slaves already by the Negros themselves) or as freeman, being freeman in their own Negro tribes.

This changed drastically from around 1500 onward due to the Portuguese & Spanish discovering new lands growing SUGAR. A huge and profitable trade started - replacing Negro tribes and lands with South-American lands, the Caribbean and it's native population. Due to diseases, rigid extermination of the local people and the huge increasing demand of SUGAR in Europe - people were needed to work these plantations.

Africa totally lost it's attractiveness for trading commercial goods from 1520 onward - but Negro slaves were in abandoned local supply and urgently needed for those SUGAR plantations. This is when Africa started to become solely an interest for obtaining Negro-Slaves, since any other trade with goods didn't pay off, or simply couldn't meet the demand.

Due to this vast influx of neolithic Negros (millions) onto the new colonies and it's European society (settlers) - their culture and behavioral habits were inadvertently recognized as being totally inferior to Europeans and other cultures/races. Something the Arabs had already concluded 700 years before.
This was the starting point for Europeans to realize Racial Inequality in regards to Negros compared with Europeans and other e.g. Asian races. - today falsely being termed by Lefty&Libs to be racist. Aka, citing: ALL people are equal because they all got two legs, two arms and a head.

As for Asia and Asians - this European superiority thought was applied towards them as well. In order to prevent e.g. Asians form further developing their existing advanced culture (partially even on parity with Europeans) right onto systematically destroying those Asian cultures and ethnic customs. That indeed was a pure racial motivated policy conducted by ALL the Colonial powers to simply forcefully subject the local inhabitants. Unfortunately this superiority thought and method was also applied towards the indigenous population of the Americas - simply in view and greed for land control and ownership.

With Negros this never happened - since there was no culture or civilization standard that could threaten European society in the least. Negros weren't even exterminated - but simply brushed aside via treaties, conducted with their own tribal chieftains - obtaining land for European settlers - that in vast majority wasn't even cultivated by Negros. Due to the impassibility of Africa's nature/geography (no infrastructure) and a vast amount of diseases - the Europeans never even "entered" Africa realistically before 1870. Building infrastructure and necessary institutions (schools/hospitals/plantations and mining, towns and cities in order to go inside and to take possession/control, and thus to make/gain a profit out of their Negro colonies.

Totally in contra to Asian e.g. South-East-Asian countries who obtained independence from the 50'ies onward, making use of their previous developed cultures and partially in-cooperating European aspects of civilization - Negro countries until today are a chaos and totally underdeveloped - (since they had no culture to build on) and also lack the capability to realize and in-cooperate e.g. European values and developments.

So much for Racial Equality in regards to Negros in comparison with e.g. Asians, Middle-East, South-Americans and Europeans.

 

[JoeB131]

India was not even a nation when the British arrived, no more than Europe. It was the British who make India by uniting it in conquest, and mostly by accident. India was no richer than any other region of the time; there were a few rich people, but the vast majority of the population was desperately poor. Check out the life of the Buddha.

Your ignorance of history is almost as amazing as Kruska's.

Totally in contra to Asian e.g. South-East-Asian countries who obtained independence from the 50'ies onward, making use of their previous developed cultures and partially in-cooperating European aspects of civilization - Negro countries until today are a chaos and totally underdeveloped - (since they had no culture to build on) and also lack the capability to realize and in-cooperate e.g. European values and developments.

So much for Racial Equality in regards to Negros in comparison with e.g. Asians, Middle-East, South-Americans and Europeans.

As always, your history is confused..

First, South East Asia is still incredibly poor.

Second, the Portuguese were ALWAYS the weakest of the colonial powers. They pretty much had to be GIFTED their empire by the Pope and propped up by the British to annoy Spain. Ironically, it was the last colonial empire to fall because it took everyone a while to remember it was there.

The problem with your view of history is that it's EuroCentric. You ignore that great nations in Asia, Africa, and the Americas were destroyed by European colonization, whether the Aztecs, the Mali Empire, or the Mughal Empire. White European civilization is in decline, and no one will miss us.

 

[alang1216]

Warring European nations never sold their enemies to Arab slave traders.

Historical note: Vikings were big on taking their European captives to Istanbul and selling them to the Ottoman Turks.