Is that what you were told? You believe that? Cuz I don't.
Europeans came to Africa on many ships to buy slaves cuz Africans were selling them. Ask West Africans to tell you about slavery and they will show you were ports were to ship off slaves, and other places were slaves were rounded up. Never will they mention that Africans gathered up an army with weapons to fight Euros from buying slaves. They were not opposed to slavery for the most part. It was business. Nice try TSA.
You don't have to believe in your own mother's existence, your capacity to understand anything is not my concern. What I will do I balance your diatribe with truth
Up until the latter phase of the Transatlantic slave trade, the people that were sold were prisoners. In coastal west africa, if you commit a crime, all legal systems in place aren't designed to punish but to instead balance out your crime's burden on the victim until the victim forgives you or their family usually after taking a spiritual oath that would lead to a fucked up life if you lie.
Now,there were crimes in particular cultures that without question there was no retribution. In my culture they're called Osunala (crimes against the land) by which the only thing that can balance your crime with the spirit of the ancestors of the land is to excommunicate you. This would lead to your enslavement and being sold.
These crimes include Incest, Cannibalism, and Murder. These were crimes considered so heinous that allowing you to die on the land would mean your spirit sticks around for the rest of history, reincarnating and re-manifesting your crimes.
Slavery was a life sentence in jail. Towards the end of the practice it had become so profitable that kidnapping had become a primary method of acquiring slaves. More effective than kidnapping was the selling of POWs from defeated tribes. This was the primary method for acquiring slaves in the last few decades of the practice.
we gohn need a part II
Now for you to believe that everyone was collaborating in selling slaves is ridiculous but you seem to be speaking for a position of emotion so such can be expected. As in europe, there were abolitionist in africa who were not only against any involvement with europeans, but actively fought europeans as they entered the continent and their slave trading vassal states on the coast that were not only constantly attacking them but also kidnapping them, as my story alludes to.
I want you to remember that the same people telling you there was no resistance to slavery in africa are the same ones telling you there was no black resistance to slavery in the Americas. Except you're in the Americas and know better.
For example. King Jaja of Opobo was a slave captured as a boy and held at the slave trading island kingdom on Bonny upon reaching adulthood he was so politically crafty that he was able to make himself the king of the entire island where he not only wasn't a citizen of but was able to improve it's military standing and begin fighting slave traders in the Niger Delta. He was finally captured by the british and exiled in 1887
Now, this brings me to another point. Nobody sold 'their own people'. The concept of 'blackness' which is really panafricanism that says that all people that are 'black' are 'black' gained way in africa in the 1940s-50s, there was no such a thing as 'black' in Africa. If you were going to enslave someone you were going to enslave a different ethnicity of whom you were at war with, if you weren't selling someone that committed an abomination.
Through the whole of europe I can use the root word die to find words in all western european languages that allude to God or Diety and these are 'different people' that war with each other constantly. A 2 hour drive in Africa and Chineke becomes Osa and then Eledumare two more hours later and these are nations of 10s and millions of people that have absolutely not visible traditional cultural or political link, where as a spaniard says hola and an english man says hello and the Spanish Armada wasn't attacking 'their own people'.
In the continent you'll learn that not only are the different ethnicities, in their own eyes, different races, but the concept of 'black people' and 'white people' has a different dynamic where some tribes that are as black as coal consider themselves white and others black. This is typically exclusive to the Sahel and horn of africa.
where this woman is from
She's not black. Nor are these kids
The concept of 'black' only exists when one group calls themselves white, as the experience in africa illustrates. White isn't a race, it's a declaration, and after that declaration, you call another group black and begin to break them down in order to benefit from what that group has while promoting yourself. The groups that are labeled black typically don't know wtf just happened until it's too late but they never start off calling themselves black.
and I point this out because it illustrates the ridiculousness of the racial concept. You can't accuse me as a member of one tribe, of selling 'my own people' for example when the person I sold is literally more genetically different from me as a white person to an Asian. The level of genetic variation in africa in a patch of land the size of New York is greater than the level of genetic variation from Sweden to Turkey. Yet if a swede attacks a turk he's not fighting 'his own people'.
I think black people are way to emotional about history to be objective about it. I really don't think someone should be ashamed of their ancestors being slaves to tell you the truth, or believe that 'your ancestors were slaves'. A successive chain of your ancestors were slaves, but you weren't grown from a pot in 1612 and you have ancestors far before that, and after. I understand the disadvantages slavery has brought about to the progeny of those that underwent it, but it's this obnoxious american mentality that sees life beginning in the US that would lead someone to decide their history started at 'slavery'.
Last edited by TSA; 03-05-2014 at 09:11 AM.
also, don't be surprised if the 'arab' that wrote about black africans looks like this
because in his world, this guy isn't black.
DROPPING KNOWLEDGE TSA.
I've read that some slaves were sold by african kings. It was in all likelihood a mix of both buying and kidnapping depending on each slave trader. Neither of you were there so you're just believing the story that you prefer for your worldview. This part of history isn't documented that well so its difficult to say.
"Caucasians" have convenient explanations for everything if you havent noticed. They Caucaus mountain russians and germans somehow became Jews also and invented Abraham and Jacob aka Isreal and a whole religion so they may be worshipped and be able to pillage the world as they still do to this day. But we now know the truth...
﴿†﴾ lıʌǝp ǝɥʇ ƃuıǝǝs uǝɥʇ ǝsɹoʍ sı lıʌǝp ǝɥʇ ʇnoqɐ ƃuıʞuıɥʇ ﴿†﴾
nobody cares about jews
Were you alive during slavery to know there was slavery to begin with? That logic makes no sense. Where did I say that there went kings that sold and facilitated slavery? Most slave trading was done by african secret societies that were traditionally trade guilds. As the slave trade proved to be extremely lucrative they became more weaponized than the actual kings of the places they're from and started taking over their respective kingdoms and expanding into empires. As the wars increase the POW count would increase and they would sell the POW, and men capable of being a threat to their dominion.
Originally Posted by ShaDynasty
In africa it's self there were people that were just straight up slaves that had to work off a debtor were slaves as children because of a crime their parents committed. Families had slaves, there was no patch of earth with a moral objection to slavery or that exempted it's self from participation in enslavement and slave trading when it was possible (and it always was).
A lot of tribes such as my own that didn't have monarchies suddenly gained monarchies from the politics of slavery. Marked people couldn't be sold as slaves as each mark was unique to a specific lineage and geographic origin. It became a way to keep your kids from getting kidnapped or sold after conquest.
That part of history is documented very well if you're willing to realize that humans and time exist outside of the United States of America
Last edited by TSA; 03-05-2014 at 10:42 AM.
The trade eventually died down due to Christianity, a decreased demand and it's replacement with the palm oil, gold and/or ivory trades that boomed in response to industrialization in europe and america. Many of the slave holding companies were the fiercest resisters of colonialism because they didn't want white people infringing on their monopoly. These secret societies had central shrines that they would pray to and use to hold a rule of fear over the people they encountered and thus they went unchallenged. When people stopped believing in the power of their shrines, they lost their power.
(Keep that in mind all you black mother fuckers trying to prove you're jews and egyptians and shit)
I know the american brain has no capacity to understand context or plurality but these are the living breathing histories of actual people that have shaped societies today so why reject someone that can tell it from the other side unless you had no intention of being objective to being with. Nothing is BLACKKHHhk and WHOIGGHT like the Marvel comics ass brain of the people in this country need it to be in order to ingest it without thought.
I don't get what you're arguing with diggy about. I think he was making a generalization.
The impact of africans co-operating with slavery was bigger than the impact of the ones that fought it.
Originally Posted by TSA
So you are telling me the Trans Altantic SLAVE TRADE (keyword: Slave trade), you are telling me it had nothing to do with making money, but everything to do with punishing the slaves? So what is your explanation for the European going to Africa to get slaves? Did the Euros have some agreement with the Africans that he (the Euro) would play a part in African culture by making sure the slaves were punished by being lifelong slaves? Is this your version of history?
Remember, it is called TransAtlantic Slave Trade, not TransAtlantic African Criminal Excommunication Process. Common sense please!
Originally Posted by TSA
Didn't you say the slaves were criminals like canibals and murderers and such? Well, which crime did Jaja commit if he was enslaved for a crime? Oh, wait, this only proves my point that people were enslaved for no reason other than money, not a crime like you are trying to prove.
And your whole, well, they are not black explaination is stupid. That whole tribalism thing in Africa is what allows you to see people as others and commit crimes against them. Tribalism is nothing to be proud of. It is a sickness.
Originally Posted by ShaDynasty
I don't think you get it. I'm objective. You can disagree with me but that fact remains. I don't know what Jaja did to be enslaved, he probably ate someone's dick, I don't care. The historic fact is he was a slave, became a king, fought slavery, lost, and died in colonial prison.
Originally Posted by diggy
Where do you see that I even imply the it wasn't about making money?
he said that africans didn't fight it, i said some did some didn't and he said they 'sold their own people' and i said his concept of own people isn't their concept of own people because his concept of own people has only being in existence for 100 years and he needs to stop thinking everywhere is america, but this type of statement will never make sense to an american because..idk.
Originally Posted by ShaDynasty
mADE SENSE TO ME AND MAKES A LOT OF SENSE