Atlantic slave trade vs. Old world slaves trades, Afro-American narrative vs. Histori

Atlantic slave trade vs. Old world slaves trades (Indian-Pacific , Black sea slave trades) , Afro-American narrative vs. Historical facts. Ancient Egypt , numbers, maps, links
other questions;
1) was the Atlantic slave trade something extraordinary?winners and losers
2) which of them was the most inhuman
3) compensation or restitution
4) role slavery in the west development
5) role east African development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Khanate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mali
http://med-slavery.uni-trier.de/min...iobits/articlereference.2007-07-27.3233996517

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#British_slave_trade

 

From your source; slavery in Mali only became an integral part of the economy AFTER the Mali Empire(native afrikan) collapsed.

 

As far as the winners and losers in the Atlantic slave so-called trade, the europeans were the undoubted short term winners. What makes this episode in history so extraordinary is the fact that the bible foretold it.

 

No it says :

and

http://maliempiretechnology.blogspot.se/

 

http://maliempire-emma.blogspot.se/

 

http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/songhai-african-empire-15-16th-century

 

http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/songhai-african-empire-15-16th-century

http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/songhai-african-empire-15-16th-century

 

http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/songhai-african-empire-15-16th-century

 

http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/songhai-african-empire-15-16th-century

 

No it states from your own source Following the collapse of the Mali Empire (c. 1600 AD), slave raiding increased and the slave trade became a key part of the economy .

Also, someones blog is not an accepted source, especially as we know how racist europeans are and have been.

 

key word here : increased

PS please, read what i fond for you....
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=343813&p=1063620475#post1063620475

 

key word 'key' part of the economy.

Also, im not particularly interested in what white south afrikkkans have to say about afrika. This is the bulk of your blogs, SA history. Its not SA history, its west afrikan history. So much eurocentric propaganda in those blogs its silly. You have to remember one thing and that is; it is in europeans prime interest to STRESS the role played by afrikan kings in the trade AND at the same time dismiss the brutality of the europeans role. This then gives the false impression that europeans simply stumbled upon an economic opportunity as opposed to instigating it and acting as 'what was to become known' satans seed.

 

like istated before and to refute all of your blogs (that you wont let me quote) it wasnt slavery, it was prisoners of war. EUROPEANS PRACTICED SLAVERY, AFRIKANS DIDNT. Its pretty simple litwin.

 

oh man , its all well-known facts

blog?

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=343813&p=1063620475#post1063620475

 

i was reading the same information in my first language (which has nothing to do with colonialism) , 5 years ago. its not SA history, its academical historiography of the Western A. , which (of cos´) are very different from the armature African American youtube narrative which you are pitching here whole day

 

You are being foolish. Slavery always existed. It started when people realized it was more profitable to enslave an enemy than to kill him. In Athens the majority of people were slaves, and in Sparta the majority of people were slaves, and I'm sure the same thing existed throughout the Greek as well as the rest of the ancient world. Let's not forget it was the slaves who manned and rowed the ships, and in the Roman Empire they were chained together and forced to go down with the ship.

In the Middle Ages slavery existed because children had to be fed, and not everyone could afford to feed many mouths. Later in the Renaissance, they were bought from the Turks and Arabs by the Italian colonists. These slaves were not blacks, they were Greek, Circassian, Slavs, etc.

Slavery ended in the West with the industrial revolution when jobs became available, and believe me it was better to be a slave in the Near and Middle East than a factory or a mine worker in Britain who never saw the light of day.

Of course this does not diminish what the blacks suffered, especially in the Caribbean, I only wanted to put it in context.

 

Its a well worn myth perpetuated by europeans to deflect the blame, look in the mirror instead of pointing fingers all the time. Your 'sources' are just opinion pieces backed up by nothing.

 

im pitching music videos for entertainment and providing an alternative soundtrack to eurocentric propaganda. There is nothing academic you have posted so far on this forum.

[video=youtube;NReT4f1bXY0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NReT4f1bXY0[/video]

 

Let's just say that slavery until relatively recently was not a mater of race .

 

Excellent point.

 

my friend, this is worst come back ever , you said that my academical sources are $ucks, and in order prove it you posted video of your gurus , who (much possible) did not graduated from elementary school (the worst one in the "west")

the continental historiography has been (at last 70 years) influenced by left ideas (Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc) , internationalism, anti-colonialism , anti-racism, humanism is redline for the continental historiography.

problem here that your position is based on the Afro-ameircan narrative. it has has roots in Afro-ameircan mythology - fairytale , American pop-culture , sublimated in an alternative historiography (black historiography) by people graduated from back college institution (very marginal by any means) , which makes Afro-ameircan narrative useful only for discovery Chanel . side by side with this sort of "documentaries "
[video=youtube;AW1aC-fVRwk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW1aC-fVRwk[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmZ5FGgZsPg

if you disagree with, its ok, just post your opinion with a decent link
PS may i ask you about your education?

 

Black historians believe there is simply no comparison between the transatlantic slave ships and plantations, with all its’ torture and humiliation, and mere servitude within African societies.

Much mainstream debate at during the bicentenary of so-called abolition has failed to draw this distinction.

Some commentators, such as Daily Mail writer Melanie Phillips, have actively sought to put the Maafa and African “slavery” on the same level.

Yet while Europeans whipped, raped and boiled their captives, stripping them of their names and history, many African “slaves” were often indistinguishable from the wider community.

Generally they were well clothed and fed, and had decent living quarters. In fact many Africans came to be “slaves” not just as a result of tribal wars, but sometimes as a punishment for heinous crimes like murder.

Anyone convicted of killing a child, for example, was handed over to a life of servitude to the village of the victim. Other “slaves” were simply widows or people who had left their village of birth, perhaps out of shame or disgrace, and settled in a new society.

The Fulani and Kerebe peoples were known to “adopt” orphaned children from other tribes and the children obliged to fill a servitude role.

In the Malinke Empire, covering present-day Gambia and Guinea, slavery was sometimes a means to connect individuals where no biological or marriage bond existed.

And while African “slaves” were frequently at the bottom of the social order they had rights and could refuse to be sold to an owner they objected to, or complain to elders if they were beaten by their master.

Atlanta-based African studies expert Omowale Za said these types of social order were world’s apart from the raw brutality of chattel slavery and the Middle Passage.

‘What we were subjected to was a war of enslavement by the Europeans where the enslaved person does not have any human value.

‘Other forms of slavery did not seek to dehumanise. Actually I don’t even consider other kinds of slavery to be slavery.’

Esther Stanford, from the Pan-Afrikan Reparations Coalition, added: ‘There is a problem when we use English words like “slavery” which don’t reflect the concept of servitude in African society, which is not dehumanising.

‘We need to look at African servitude not through a European lens, but an African one, and unlearn the lies and half truths we’ve been told.’

Unlike African servitude, European transatlantic slavery reduced the slave as existing only for the purpose of physical labour.

And while whites nurtured race hatred towards their captives, in Africa masters valued their servants as equal human beings.

It was also not uncommon for “slaves” to marry into the village and shake off their former lowly status, not least in the Kanem Bornu Empire, covering Chad and Nigeria.

The ability to marry non-slaves shows that these “slaves were part of the fabric of the society they lived in. Such social mobility was completely absent in chattel slavery.

In Africa there are several notable examples of how “slaves” within society rose to become great kings and army chiefs.

The revered 19th century King Jaja, who ruled over Igboland in modern-day Nigeria, was a sold to a chief as a twelve year old boy, but later ruled a breakaway kingdom that became rich trading powerhouse.

At the height of his rein King Jaja (pictured above) was captured by the British, who desperate to get their hands on his land and wealth as the colonial scramble for Africa followed the ending of transatlantic slavery.

The British lured him to a meeting and shipped him to St. Vincent in the Caribbean. Another towering figure was Mansa Sakura, who was born as a “slave” into the royal household of Sundiata Keita in 13th Century Mali.

He became an army general and seized power amid a succession squabble. Such slaves have little, if anything, in common with slaves seized by traders from Britain and Europe who perpetrated the African Holocaust, taking between 20 and 50 million lives.

As white plantation owners inflicted terrible violence on chained Africans in order to subjugate them, Africans who were “slaves” to other Africans were free to go as they pleased.

Slaves in the 15th Century Songhai Empire, which superseded the Mali Empire, used to pay a share of their harvest to their master but were able to eat and trade with the rest.

Many were paid wages and were able to accumulate property. They often bought their own freedom and could then achieve social promotion.

African slavery was more akin to an arranged marriage; whereas chattel slavery was part of an organised economic machine with no benefit whatsoever for the slave.

Pennsylvanian historian, professor Igor Kopytoff, in his book African Slavery as an Institution of Marginality, argues that there was very little difference between the free workers and slaves.

He wrote: “There were many types of involuntary servitude, which varied from tribe to tribe, but the common feature was respect for life and dignity.”

In many respects, what we saw in Africa was similar to the feudal systems that existed in Europe, with peasants and landowners – and in lots of ways was worse.

With the British media continuing to perpetrate the line that African-against-African ‘slavery’ was equal to the transatlantic slave trade and middle passage, we need to be setting our own parameters for debate regardless of what is happening in the mainstream.

Western African “slavery” may have been related to agriculture, but in Ethiopia it was essentially domestic, yet both forms allowed the slave to keep their own religion and culture AND NAME. Not all African servitude was benign, though.

http://cllrlesterholloway.wordpress...-africa-before-the-transatlantic-slave-trade/

 

Another excellent point about Afrikan 'slavery' is that so-called 'afrikan slaves' could become rulers of the country. The most obvious example is joseph who became ruler of Egypt.

In 400 years, has a descendant of the european slave so-called trade become a ruler of America? Of course they havent.

 

backed up by archives (whites keep all records) , and academical historiography
my friend , your "kings"/chieftains sold your race , your men to foreigners its a fact, but nothing is new in this story , my "kings"/chieftains did it too( on lesser scale but still...)



bunch of links to academical sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashanti_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Dahomey

and

^ Atmore, Anthony and Oliver (2001). Medieval Africa, 1250–1800. p. 171.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo#cite_note-15