British & European slavery

[Osem]

We all know a bit about the African/Caribbean slave trade but the scale of this was a complete surprise to me:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...laves_01.shtml

....for the 250 years between 1530 and 1780, the figure could easily have been as high as 1,250,000 - this is only just over a tenth of the Africans taken as slaves to the Americas from 1500 to 1800, but a considerable figure nevertheless....

I don't recall it ever being mentioned when we studied the history of the slave trade at school.

Well they say you learn something new every day....



ps. I'm not sure if this is the right place for this thread but, if it isn't, will some kind soul please find a decent home for it.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Osem

I don't recall it ever being mentioned when we studied the history of the slave trade at school.

What wasn't mentioned either I bet was the fact most of the capturing and selling was done by other Africans to the white man.

[Osem]

Correct, they skirted around that bit (and we all know why).

My post however relates to the trade in white Europeans being taken to North Africa and forced into slavery which I had no idea existed on the scale estimated and seems to have been largely overlooked by historians. I've just been asking my eldest about his school's coverage of the slave trade at and he's heard nothing about this aspect of it either.....

[Niles Crane]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

What wasn't mentioned either I bet was the fact most of the capturing and selling was done by other Africans to the white man.

The vast majority of slaves sold to Europeans by African rulers were already slaves, prisoners of war or criminals within society and refusal by the local powers to collaborate with the colonialists would see them captured along with their people anyway - as happened with any Kings who refused. In addition, to fulfil the European demand, enslavement became almost an inevitable consequence of crime or capture during war - to such an extent, war between kingdoms was sponsored and encouraged by colonialists.

"Sell to the Europeans or be sold to the Europeans"

Your simplification is misleading scape-goating, which is no better than ignoring the indigenous involvement and laying all the work at the hands of Europeans. On that and the original subject of this thread:

The viewpoint that “Africans” enslaved “Africans” is obfuscating if not troubling. The deployment of “African” in African history tends to coalesce into obscurantist constructions of identities that allow scholars, for instance, to subtly call into question the humanity of “all” Africans. Whenever Asante rulers sold non-Asantes into slavery, they did not construct it in terms of Africans selling fellow Africans. They saw the victims for what they were, for instance, as Akuapems, without categorizing them as fellow Africans. Equally, when Christian Scandinavians and Russians sold war captives to the Islamic people of the Abbasid Empire, they didn’t think that they were placing fellow Europeans into slavery. This lazy categorizing homogenizes Africans and has become a part of the methodology of African history; not surprisingly, the Western media’s cottage industry on Africa has tapped into it to frame Africans in inchoate generalities allowing the media to describe local crisis in one African state as “African” problem

– Dr. Akurang-Parry, Ending the Slavery Blame

---------- Post added at 22:44 ---------- Previous post was at 22:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Correct, they skirted around that bit (and we all know why).

My post however relates to the trade in white Europeans being taken to North Africa and forced into slavery which I had no idea existed on the scale estimated and seems to have been largely overlooked by historians. I've just been asking my eldest about his school's coverage of the slave trade at and he's heard nothing about this aspect of it either.....

I knew about it. But then i also know about the prosperous pre-colonial African kingdoms like Mali, Ashanti, Carthage, Ethiopia, Nubia etc.

Your son hasn't heard anything about it because he's being taught about the Atlantic slave trade not slavery in general or every period through history. The same reason, i assume, he's not being taught about the prevalent contemporary slavery or African history outside of the Atlantic slave trade, besides perhaps a bit about Ancient Egypt.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Niles Crane

I knew about it. But then i also know about the prosperous pre-colonial African kingdoms like Mali, Ashanti, Carthage, Ethiopia, Nubia etc.

So do I - I just didn't know the 'white' slave trade was as extensive as it was.

Originally Posted by Niles Crane

Your son hasn't heard anything about it because he's being taught about the Atlantic slave trade, not slavery or African, Middle-Eastern history. The same reason, i assume, he's not being taught about the prevalent contemporary slavery or African history outside of the Atlantic slave trade or maybe a bit of Ancient Egypt.

I'd have thought he (and I) ought to have been taught about all forms of slavery, especially that which directly affected his country of origin - it's all equally abhorrent after all and it's still going on so such lessons would be far from wasted.

[Niles Crane]

Originally Posted by Osem

So do I - I just didn't know the 'white' slave trade was as extensive as it was.



I'd have thought he (and I) ought to have been taught about all forms of slavery, especially that which directly affected his country of origin - it's all equally abhorrent after all and it's still going on so such lessons would be far from wasted.

The Atlantic slave trade directly effected his country of origin and many many others, unquestionably more so than the trans-Saharan. That's why, if preference is a must, he's being taught about that.

Though i do agree, that all forms and occurrences should be taught. Ideally. But that's not realistic and for every school subject, there's an endless wealth of knowledge which isn't taught.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Niles Crane

The vast majority of slaves sold to Europeans by African rulers were already slaves, prisoners of war or criminals within society and refusal by the local powers to collaborate with the colonialists would see them captured along with their people anyway - as happened with any Kings who refused. In addition, to fulfil the European demand, enslavement became almost an inevitable consequence of crime or capture during war - to such an extent, war between kingdoms was sponsored and encouraged by colonialists.

"Sell to the Europeans or be sold to the Europeans"

Your simplification is misleading scape-goating, which is no better than ignoring the indigenous involvement and laying all the work at the hands of Europeans. On that and the original subject of this thread:

Perhaps my post was a little simplistic, one line posts generally are, however time wasn't on my side then so I am glad you took the opportunity to make those points. I am certainly not trying to absolve Europeans of blame but places like Zanzibar grew very wealthy of the back (literally) of trading the continents indigenous peoples and when we tried to impose sanctions against the slave trade it helped lead to war in the Sudan and its reimposition by the Mahdi, this as you point out shouldn't be forgotten either imo.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Niles Crane

The Atlantic slave trade directly effected his country of origin and many many others, unquestionably more so than the trans-Saharan. That's why, if preference is a must, he's being taught about that.

Though i do agree, that all forms and occurrences should be taught. Ideally. But that's not realistic and for every school subject, there's an endless wealth of knowledge which isn't taught.

I agree that it's not possible to teach every aspect of a subject in depth but my point is that not even a mention seems to be made of the fact that white people also suffered from slavery on a large massive scale. Yes it's important to acknowledge that wrongs have been done but it seems rather odd that our educators should seemingly want to reduce the wider perception of slavery to a white v. black issue. I don't think any group should be excluded from criticism if it's due and the danger of being selective about the facts is that it allows all the blame for a horrific abuse of power to be levelled on one group (in this case white Europeans) which is clearly inaccurate and does nothing to bring communities together.