WSJ: When the Slave Traders Were African

Again, Bullshit.

>> It is hard, after so many bad movies and so many encrusted lies, to think of them as urban, and it is hard for a Western mind to conceive of “tribal” and “urban” together; yet as late as the mid-nineteenth century the Yoruba city of Abeokuta ran six miles along the bank of the Ogun River and had a population estimated at 200,000. Its craft industries thrived – ironwork, carpentry, tailoring, farming, tool-making, textiles. And this urban culture had been thriving for centuries, a city probably older than, say, New York is now.

Here, intact, a little more than a century ago, was a mature culture which had not chosen to go the way of monotheism and the father gods, but had, like India, kept its polytheistic pantheon rooted in the Great Mother religions – or rather, in the religious impulse we now identify with the Great Mother. They shared with the Hopi, with the ancient Irish and Welsh and all Druid peoples, as well as with the Chinese and the Eygptians, the mother symbol of the serpent – as Thompson puts it, “ancient Yoruba image of coolness, peace and power.” And they shared with pre-Christianist Europe – the so-called pagan religions – the conviction that religious worship is a bodily celebration, a dance of the entire community; or, as it would have been called in Euorpe when such belief had been driven underground, a “sabbat.” The mind-body split that governs European thought seems never to have entered African religion, African consciousness – at least not until imported there by missionaries. To meditate was to dance. << -- Michael Ventura, "Hear That Long Snake Moan"
Must be soooooo simple for the simpleminded to draw their history from Hollyweird stereotypes and the bottom-dwelling internet farces of Stürmfront and PragerFuckingU. Saves a lot of brain sweat.

But back up here Twinkles. Number One, "Asians" were never crammed into ships in shackles and sent against their will to a foreign world to be whipped into submission and dehumanized; Number Two, Japanese were not interned for their race, but for their nationality and the suspected loyalties that went with it; Number Three the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima do not constitute "Asia"; Number Four China has been hugely influential for literally millennia -- ask anyone from Mongolia or Thailand or Japan or Vietnam. Ask the Brits, Austro-Hungarians, French, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Russians and Americans who wanted to colonize and/or monopolize it specifically because it WAS big and rich.

Cult of Ignorance sales pitch is about as effective as the Amazing Vegematic from Ronco. If this is your best stuff, you need to find an occupation that doesn't involve "words".
Again, Incomplete and 100% BS anecdote.

Nothing like China's independently developed civilization.
There was no Africa civilization comparable to the West or Asia pre-contact with that West (and Arabs) who made it a trading post not just for slaves, but for gold and trinkets.
And I "presume" you forgot "Dr Livingtone"s 19th Century meeting after MONTHS of traveling through the savage tribal jungles of civilization-free Afrique.

Pre-colonial/Pre-contact Africa was zilch. Unlike NE asia.

Not all of sub-Sahara was raided for slaves either, but All of it is still ungovernable because
avg IQ there is 70.
Hybrid American 'Blacks' - 85... (avg 75% sub-Saharan, 25% 'white'/Euro)
'White'/Euro IQ - 100
NE Asian - 106
(Stormfront wouldn't be happy about NE Asians and Ashkenazi Jews/113 having higher IQs. So save the "White Supremacist".. accusation/EXCUSE)

And That (HARK!) is the way the world looks in accomplishment, domestically and globally.
Reality is always a good plug in!
The world makes sense only looking the the IQ lens.


(PS Abeokuta was founded in 1830, and unlikely 200,000 by 1850.
Even by 1911, Britannica had it at "60,000".
The houses/structures mostly "Mud" despite a profusion of "granite" outcrops.

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Abeokuta - Wikisource, the free online library

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 1
Abeokuta

ABEOKUTA, a town of British West Africa in the Egba division of the Yoruba country, S. Nigeria Protectorate. It is situated in 7° 8′ N., 3° 25′ E., on the Ogun river, 64 m. N. of Lagos by railway, or 81 m. by water. Population, approximately 60,000.
[......])​

`
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that it was a kinder, gentler, slavery before they came to America? Remarkable.

Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.

So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
Of course, we want to have one. We will NOT allow the terms of the discussion to be set by you.
A discussion entails agreed upon histories, sources, and most importantly, a proper perspective in time.

You are correct about one thing. Blacks did not make slavery legal, but neither did Americans. Blacks also did not make slavery illegal, American's did that.

The entire start of this thread was based upon the premise (correctly) that slavery is not a 'whites-only' club, nor was it new when America was founded. In fact, every race has held slaves at one time or another.

Yet here you and the others are, incensed at a bit of truth.
 
Nobody brought up a damn thing about "reparations", Dickhead. OP claimed African slaves first got here in 1619, I proved him wrong. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.

Once AGAIN r e a l s l o w n o w ------- nobody suggested there was a "hook" for any "reparations", Gummo.

OP posted a false history, AND tried to equate the transAtlantic slave trade with intracontinental African slavery, and he got busted on both of those boners. PERIOD.

I get that you're all butthurt because you can't refute my history so you want to change the subject. Tough shit.
I accept your history but not your attitude-it sucks. Leave my butt out of this unless your queer-then really stay away. No subject change-I gotta go-reply if you want to keep arguing, or let it go-up to you.

His attitude is justified, it's yours that needs adjusting. I don't know how you whites think you get to tell us how we are to talk about what's been done to us. I am sure if a Muslim came up to you pointing out how whites have terrorized their homeland so why are white not talking about that, you would not respond kindly. But somehow whites such as yourself seem to believe we have no right to be angry. However whites can be mad about anything they want and if need be they can threaten violence. That's the mentality of white privilege.
Slow down buckwheat. Its his attitude toward ME that needs adjusting. I don't care if you or anybody else is mad-that's your problem.
No wb, it's your attitude that needs to change.
 
Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.

So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
Of course, we want to have one. We will NOT allow the terms of the discussion to be set by you.
A discussion entails agreed upon histories, sources, and most importantly, a proper perspective in time.

You are correct about one thing. Blacks did not make slavery legal, but neither did Americans. Blacks also did not make slavery illegal, American's did that.

The entire start of this thread was based upon the premise (correctly) that slavery is not a 'whites-only' club, nor was it new when America was founded. In fact, every race has held slaves at one time or another.

Yet here you and the others are, incensed at a bit of truth.

What we will no longer have is this discussion based only on your terms. That's what is happening today and there is nothing you can do about it. You have avoided the truth and this entire thread is about that avoidance . Whites had slaves in the feudal system but went into Africa to purchase slaves in the countries they invaded and illegally occupied. That is the truth son, and you are too much of a chickenshit to face it.
 
I'm glad you proved him wrong but you got stuck on a history lesson when I'm just saying since there were AFRICAN slave traders, that lets the US off the hook for reparations-if anything the Spanish should pay them.

Once AGAIN r e a l s l o w n o w ------- nobody suggested there was a "hook" for any "reparations", Gummo.

OP posted a false history, AND tried to equate the transAtlantic slave trade with intracontinental African slavery, and he got busted on both of those boners. PERIOD.

I get that you're all butthurt because you can't refute my history so you want to change the subject. Tough shit.
I accept your history but not your attitude-it sucks. Leave my butt out of this unless your queer-then really stay away. No subject change-I gotta go-reply if you want to keep arguing, or let it go-up to you.

His attitude is justified, it's yours that needs adjusting. I don't know how you whites think you get to tell us how we are to talk about what's been done to us. I am sure if a Muslim came up to you pointing out how whites have terrorized their homeland so why are white not talking about that, you would not respond kindly. But somehow whites such as yourself seem to believe we have no right to be angry. However whites can be mad about anything they want and if need be they can threaten violence. That's the mentality of white privilege.
Slow down buckwheat. Its his attitude toward ME that needs adjusting. I don't care if you or anybody else is mad-that's your problem.
No wb, it's your attitude that needs to change.
Who is WB?
 
Feel free to refute anything I posted there. Until then, it stands.
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.

So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
Of course, we want to have one. We will NOT allow the terms of the discussion to be set by you.
A discussion entails agreed upon histories, sources, and most importantly, a proper perspective in time.

You are correct about one thing. Blacks did not make slavery legal, but neither did Americans. Blacks also did not make slavery illegal, American's [sic] did that.

You actually wrote "American is did that". SMH. Literacy is a lost art.

Americans did that, but only after the British did that and the the French did that (twice), as did Spain, Portugal, Holland and Denmark, amazingly without the use of superfluous apostrophes. And none of them needed a war to do so.


The entire start of this thread was based upon the premise (correctly) that slavery is not a 'whites-only' club, nor was it new when America was founded. In fact, every race has held slaves at one time or another.

Yet here you and the others are, incensed at a bit of truth.

That isn't the premise at all and nobody claimed any of your strawman, Peewee. Get the fuck outta here.
 
Last edited:
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.

So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
Of course, we want to have one. We will NOT allow the terms of the discussion to be set by you.
A discussion entails agreed upon histories, sources, and most importantly, a proper perspective in time.

You are correct about one thing. Blacks did not make slavery legal, but neither did Americans. Blacks also did not make slavery illegal, American's did that.

The entire start of this thread was based upon the premise (correctly) that slavery is not a 'whites-only' club, nor was it new when America was founded. In fact, every race has held slaves at one time or another.

Yet here you and the others are, incensed at a bit of truth.

What we will no longer have is this discussion based only on your terms. That's what is happening today and there is nothing you can do about it. You have avoided the truth and this entire thread is about that avoidance . Whites had slaves in the feudal system but went into Africa to purchase slaves in the countries they invaded and illegally occupied. That is the truth son, and you are too much of a chickenshit to face it.
You need to have discussions within your communities. The teenage sex and baby discussions would help all of us a lot. Babies and abortions are terrible when teenagers are involved.
 
You would have to be open to a real discussion.

I know that you are not. Since you did not refute my observation, enjoy your closed mind.

So you *CAN'T* refute anything I said.

There's a fuckin' surprise.
Well, look at you.

Now, reread what I said before.
And what exactly constitutes a real discussion? Because whites have not really ever wanted to have one. That is why threads like this exist. Africans did not make slavery legal in America. Africans did not come over to America with shiploads of slaves to sell. And the bottom line here is that whites bought the slaves. Whites did not have to buy slaves from Africa. Under the feudal system at that time, whites had serfs. They decided that serfs could sign agreements to work off their passage if they wanted to go to the so-called new world.

So what exactly constitutes a real discussion?
Of course, we want to have one. We will NOT allow the terms of the discussion to be set by you.
A discussion entails agreed upon histories, sources, and most importantly, a proper perspective in time.

You are correct about one thing. Blacks did not make slavery legal, but neither did Americans. Blacks also did not make slavery illegal, American's did that.

The entire start of this thread was based upon the premise (correctly) that slavery is not a 'whites-only' club, nor was it new when America was founded. In fact, every race has held slaves at one time or another.

Yet here you and the others are, incensed at a bit of truth.

What we will no longer have is this discussion based only on your terms. That's what is happening today and there is nothing you can do about it. You have avoided the truth and this entire thread is about that avoidance . Whites had slaves in the feudal system but went into Africa to purchase slaves in the countries they invaded and illegally occupied. That is the truth son, and you are too much of a chickenshit to face it.
So, you do not want to have a conversation at all. I knew this though.

No one is denying whites have gone into Africa to purchase slaves. The truth is, every race has done so, including the black race.

I fear nothing. I knew your reply would be this. So much for that.
 
Somehow all the Revisionist history has been about how bad us 'White Colonialists' were.
Nothing about untold Milennia of genocide and slavery in Africa.
Sorry but can't post whole artilce. Alas No exception is made for subscription sites either.

When the Slave Traders Were African
Those whose ancestors sold slaves to Europeans now struggle to come to terms with a painful legacy
By Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani
Sept. 20, 2019 - Wall Street Journal
When the Slave Traders Were African

This August marked 400 years since the first documented enslaved Africans arrived in the U.S. In 1619, a ship reached the Jamestown settlement in the colony of Virginia, carrying “some 20 and odd Negroes” who were kidnapped from their villages in present-day Angola. The anniversary coincides with a controversial debate in the U.S. about whether the country owes reparations to the descendants of slaves as compensation for centuries of injustice and inequality. It is a moment for posing questions of historic guilt and responsibility.​
...Africans are now also reckoning with their own complicated legacy in the slave trade, and the infamous “Middle Passage” often looks different from across the Atlantic......The organization of the slave trade was structured to have the Europeans stay along the coast lines, relying on African middlemen and merchants to bring the slaves to them,” said Toyin Falola, a Nigerian professor of African studies at the University of Texas at Austin. “The Europeans couldn’t have gone into the interior to get the slaves themselves.”​
The anguished debate over slavery in the U.S. is often silent on the role that Africans played. That silence is echoed in many African countries, where there is hardly any national discussion or acknowledgment of the issue. From nursery school through university in Nigeria, I was taught about great African cultures and conquerors of times past but not about African involvement in the slave trade. In an attempt to reclaim some of the dignity that we lost during colonialism, Africans have tended to magnify stories of a glorious past of rich traditions and brave achievement..... But there are other, less discussed chapters of our history. When I was growing up, my father Chukwuma Nwaubani spoke glowingly of my great-grandfather, Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, a chief among our Igbo ethnic group who sold slaves in the 19th century. “He was respected by everyone around,” he said. “Even the white people respected him.” From the 16th to the 19th centuries, an estimated 1.4 million Igbo people were transported across the Atlantic as slaves.​
Some families have chosen to hide similar histories. “We speak of it in whispers,”....​
[.....]​
[.....]​

Slave traders --- which existed everywhere --- in Africa, were still not cramming their human commodities into vessels to send them to another continent where the victims would have no connection with the land or the culture. What you're trying to refer to here without saying it, because it's inconvenient, is TransAtlantic slave traders. That --- the bold part --- was what made this particular slavery different from all others. That, and the concept of "slave for life" by simple virtue of one's race. NONE of that was present in previous slavery systems in Africa, Asia, Europe or Native America.

To be transported in chains to a foreign shore that may as well have been another planet, utterly unfamiliar in climate, culture, language, etc, was the ultimate control-freak subjugation of human chattel. Slavery over the millennia of human history derived from the spoils of war, not from cockamamie ideas of "race". That latter idea began with Columbus (who tried to enslave Indians and sent them back to Europe as "specimens") and left the launchpad of reason with the Spanish, French, British and Portuguese merchants dealing in human lives --- in other words, it derives from the greed of profit.

And by the way this part here:

>> This August marked 400 years since the first documented enslaved Africans arrived in the U.S. In 1619, a ship reached the Jamestown settlement in the colony of Virginia, carrying “some 20 and odd Negroes” who were kidnapped from their villages in present-day Angola. <<​

... is off by 93 years. The first enslaved Africans were brought to (what is now) the US, South Carolina specifically, in 1526. The happy ending is that this particular group revolted and escaped to live among the Native Americans. Needless to say, the US did not exist in 1526 or 1619, so it's erroneous on that basis as well.
Your main point was that in American Slavery they were [uniquely] "Transported", and to unfamiliar surroundings with a different language.

What an idiotic leftist/PC take. (and I am generally a bit left of center)
Africans genocided and enslaved each other for probably the last 50,000 years
They took each other as slaves, and many groups also had "different languages."
You think all sub-Saharans speak "Black"? LOL

And the American South is NOT that much a different climate than equatorial Africa.
Much closer than ie, Arabia was.
The American South was like their Jungle without the dangerous wildlife, in fact.

`
There were also millions of slaves taken from Italy and the Med and as far north as the English Channel and transported to North Africa to exist in a very brutal slavery, not knowing the language and customs, never to return to their homelands.
 
Lol! And exactly what does this have to do with making slavery legal in America, the Jim Cow Apartheid after slavery called the Great Nadir, and todays modern form of white racism?
 
Actually the history exists. But trying to justify what happened here with this false equivalence is pathetic.

America has never been governed by any concept of African law. Africans did not create the apartheid laws that were in effect from the end of slavery until the civil rights act.

Non racist whites understand these things. Only the dumb low IQ racist white INDIVIDUAL keeps trying to revise history in order to deny personal responsibility.
What personal responsibility? Since your ancestors are from Africa, it would seem you would be as upset over the African slave trade as well as the African who had slaves. Sure, SOME white Americans were to blame, but not near as many as other races from other countries in the history of slavery. Nothing justifies slavery. You just refuse to admit that some people other than whites were also evil and treated people horrendously.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top