What Stereotypes have you heard about Africa over the years?

Africans are Savages.

Have no Civilization.

Africa sold African American into slavery.

Have made no contributions to world culture.

All African men practice polygamy.

All African men physically abuse women.

African women have no rights.

What stereotypes (if any) do you believe? What have you done to try to educate others against these and other stereotypes able Africa?

True, I've heard stereotypical language such as you described about Africa and Africans, however, I don't believe any of them.

I educate myself by finding reading materials that are not culturally biased nor slanted in ways to support those stereotypes. I also make an effort to associate with people whom I respect for knowing more than I about Africa and not be afraid to ask questions when I don't know. Lastly, I try to be humble, yet generous in sharing information with others that I think might benefit from it.

ok

That was an interesting article you posted poeticdelight; however, it had nothing to do with the subject of this thread. In addition, it is against forum rules to post someone's work without their expressed written consent. Please edit your post.

Africa sold African American into slavery. I just wanted you to read.

That Africa sold African Americans into slavery is one of the most persistant and deceptive stereotypes involving the continent. Africa DID NOT sell African Americans into slavery. Several handful African kings and merchants in a handful of west African countries sold their conquered enemies into slavery. In addition to this millions of slaves were kidnapped and forced into slavery.

An entire country can not be held accountable for the actions of a misguided tyrant, let alone an entire continent. It must also be pointed out that almost every society in the world had some type of slavery. This was not a unique practice native to Africa. What was unique was "chattel" slavery that Europeans practiced in the Americas, where blacks were treated like animals. The participation of "some" Africans in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade is certainly not a proud moment in our history. However the belief that Africans, not Europeans, were ultimately responsible for black slavery is a deceptive tactic by whites to absolve themselves of the responsibility for how "they" treated African American slaves. It saddens me that there are African American who are actually adopt this viewpoint.

Panny,

I think P-Diddy's point (and correct me if I'm mistaken, P-Diddy) is that even if only one "misguided tyrant" participated in any way to chattel slavery that was still one too many. Yes, slavery was not a unique practice in Africa but we weren't sold to other African kings to be servants as was the custom. We were sold to strangers to be taken far, far, away for God knows what.
I saw a program on Channel 13 (maybe HBO) about Henry Louis Gates' journey to Africa to chronicle "the passage" and they spoke to the descendants of one of the Kings who heavily participated in the slave trade. And his descendants spoke of how for generations that family feared for their lives because of their ancestor's involvement in the slave trade. Many saw what he did to be far worse than a betrayal...............

Scorpiolady
Scorp............

Some ways to deal with stereotypes about Africa and Africans -- We should incorporate this lesson plan here at the Pan-African Forum. It's basic, but we all have to start somewhere and with good information. This could even be used in the home and in community-based projects for citizens in our communities.

What do you think? Is this one possible solution for dealing with stereotypes about Africa and Africans?

http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlresources/units/byrnes-africa/aindex.htm

To Monetg: Scorp is that you? Where have you been hiding, and why the name change? You need to return to the voice chat, so I can tease with you again.

Anyway back to the topic. I saw the documentary that Henry Louis Gates did on Africa a few years ago as well, it is was flawed to say the least. I try not to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but Gates is the "whitest" black historian you will ever find. First of all, he is married to a white woman (not that being married to a white person automatically makes you a sellout, but it does raise eyebrows). And most of the conclusions from his research always seems to be conservative, or put black people in a negative light. The only works from Gates that I've enjoyed over the years is his reprinting of slave narratives, and that is not his original writting. His famous or "infamous" African documentary series was the topic of debate in several of my graduate history class. My professors (all experts in black & African history), as well as the students who were from Africa felt that not only did Gates not portray Africa acurately. But he seemed to go out of his way to show anything negative he came across. Therefore I would advise anyone to take anything they see from Mister Gates with a grain of salt.

That being said, I also feel that ONE African selling other Africans into slavery (no matter to who) is one too many. However, I think that we shouldn't blame the entire contient for the actions of a few. That would be like blaming all African Americans for the end of Affirmative Action, Minority Scholarships, and the weakening of other Civil Rights Laws. When the reality is that the movement to end these laws were headed by Ward Connelly, Clarence Thomas, Condolesa Rice, J.C. Watts, and a handful of other black republican conservative idiots (who of course are backed by whites). These individuals have in effect sold out their race for individual gain. Did the African Merchants and Monarchs I previously mentioned do the same? Absolutely! Black History is full of spineless turncoats: Blacks who served as slave overseers; Blacks who ended slave revolts by ratting out their fellow slaves to white slave owners; Blacks who owned black slaves; Black troops who help Europeans conquer and colonize Africa in the late 19th century, etc.

For individuals who do this there is no defense. And I will make no effort to defend them. However, once again we can not condemn the entire black race (in Africa or across the Diaspora) for the actions of these individuals. Because doing so spreads divisiveness among us, and helps to keep us from being a prosperous people. Did you know that there were Africans (in Africa) that fought to end the slave trade? Some went as far as to intercept slave ships and return them to Africa. Just as their are blacks in this country that are fighting to prevent the end of civil rights laws.

Stereotypes created by a race about other race are unavoidable, because prejudice and racism are as old as humankind. However, stereotypes are at their MOST dangerous when people WITHIN a race start to believe the negative stereotypes spread about them. This is happening to black people and we must end it with education.

Henry Louis Gates = Enemy of Black Community.

Hey Panny,

IT IS I, SCORPIOLADY!!! I been hiding in plain sight but keeping a low profile, reappering long enough to throw a glitch in Keme's f**ed-up Matrix. I guess I got chat-warrants and had to assume a new chat identity. I can't get into the new chat formum at work cuz they got me on a Mac and my home computer crashes everytimg i try to get my chat on. How you been Mellow Yellow? How's Babygirl and Wifey?

''Anyway back to the topic. I saw the documentary that Henry Louis Gates did on Africa a few years ago as well, it is was flawed to say the least. I try not to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but Gates is the "whitest" black historian you will ever find. First of all, he is married to a white woman (not that being married to a white person automatically makes you a sellout, but it does raise eyebrows). And most of the conclusions from his research always seems to be conservative, or put black people in a negative light. The only works from Gates that I've enjoyed over the years is his reprinting of slave narratives, and that is not his original writting. His famous or "infamous" African documentary series was the topic of debate in several of my graduate history class. My professors (all experts in black & African history), as well as the students who were from Africa felt that not only did Gates not portray Africa acurately. But he seemed to go out of his way to show anything negative he came across. Therefore I would advise anyone to take anything they see from Mister Gates with a grain of salt.
''


I would recommend you check out the documentaries of Basil Davidson,who is white,but he is a hundread times better than anything Gates could produce.

Gates does not even have the credentials to deal with African history,and should just stick to literary critcism.


The other travestry is the Encylopedia African,which was put out by his mulattoe friend from Ghana named kofi Appiah,and gates himself.

They marginizlie African intellectual accomplishments and even mention the so called Ashanti gold weights was introduced by Arabs.

Welcome Sopdet!!

You wrote: "Gates does not even have the credentials to deal with African history,and should just stick to literary critcism."

I couldn't have said this better myself. In addition Gates had pre-conceived notions of Africa, and looked for proof of his prejudiced views (his wife must have been proud).

It looks like the I's have it.......Gates=sucks!!! However this does raise a point that it is important to know who the author of the information you read (or view) is. Their background is an indication of how credible the information (and sources) and interpretation they provide is.

This is my first time in the forum and I have to say that I am glad to be a part of anything that involves positivity among black people. In response to the topic, I have heard so many ignorant comments about the continent of Africa it is ridiculous. And what saddens me the most is that most of the negative stereotypes i hear,come from black people..how sad...I hear black people talk about people from africa, as if our ancestors are not from there. As if africa is not a part of us .. IT IS!!

This is my first time in the forum and I have to say that I am glad to be a part of anything that involves positivity among black people. In response to the topic, I have heard so many ignorant comments about the continent of Africa it is ridiculous. And what saddens me the most is that most of the negative stereotypes i hear,come from black people..how sad...I hear black people talk about people from africa, as if our ancestors are not from there. As if africa is not a part of us .. IT IS!!

Welcome to the PanAfrican forum QueenWithLockz!! Like all stereotypes, mistaken beliefs about Africa, are due to ignorance. With scholarship comes understanding, and this forum seeks to teach Africans in the Diaspora about their brothers & sisters in Africa (and throughout the world). I hope you can learn much from this forum, and I hope you have much to share with us. :read:

You said...I have heard so many ignorant comments about the continent of Africa it is ridiculous. And what saddens me the most is that most of the negative stereotypes i hear,come from black people..how sad...I hear black people talk about people from africa, as if our ancestors are not from there. As if africa is not a part of us .. IT IS!!

Z: If I may ask...

What are some of the ignorant comments/stereotypes you have heard about Africa?

Have you also heard ignorant comments/stereotypes directed toward AAs?

You say you hear Black people talking about people from Africa, as if our ancestors are not from there - as if Africa is not a part of us.

Are you aware that there are CAs who ...

do not understand slavery, as experienced by AAs in America

feel no ties, whatsoever, with AAs

consider AAs Americans...period

resent AAs for calling themselves African-Americans

and do not understand how AAs can refer to Africa as their 'homeland' when AAs can claim no relatives or ethnic group?

....I believe that no matter how "ugly" a particular truth may be, that truth should still have precedence over all else.....and the truth remains that although they were indeed exploiters, Europeans themselves were not "slave raiding and pillaging Africans" (<<~~a stereotype that blacks promote).....the coastal kings of West Africa didn't even allow many Europeans into the mainland, and most captive slaves never had even seen "white" people untill they were loaded onto the ships.

....these were bloody years in the history of Africa, and many wars were being fought.....and that's where the slaves came from (war captives and slave raids of enemy peoples).....but all said and done, the two main factors were:

1) Europeans mainly being interested in trading only for slaves (and their high demand for those slaves).
2) Numerous ethnic clashes and Muslim jihad's (some wars were even started simply to acquire slaves to sell).

Christopher Columbus in his 1st journey to the Americas, the island of Barbados, brought back food samples, exotic animals, and natives (whom he felt would be perfect slaves) for Queen Isabella of Spain. It was common during this age to take slaves when visiting a foreign land (talk about abusive house guest). It was also common for nations during this period (the 15th century), and periods before, to sell their enemies & undesirables into slavery. Many great civilzations did this Greece, Rome, Spain, and yes some African kingdoms like Egypt, Mali, and Songhai. Hundreds of years before Europeans came to Africa, slavery existed largely through the Arab inspired & controlled Trans-Saharan slave trade. The bulk of these slaves went to the Middle East; however, many went to Europe. Therefore Europeans were familiar with the idea of African slaves before they stepped foot on African soil.

These indeed were bloody years for Africa, but not just Africa, the entire world. What made Spain and Portugal (the two countries that initiated the slave trade) powerful during these years is that they were the first countries to emerge from their struggles, and they did so with very little damage. Portugal was the 1st to go to Africa, and they did take slaves during their initial visits. However, neither became interested in massive efforts to enslave Africans until their efforts to enslave the native people of the Americas failed. When they did become interested, Portugal & Spain came back to West & Central African coast (yes the couldn't go in the interior, but most of the slaves didn't come from there anyway) specifically seeking slaves. Some tribal heads gave them slaves freely, as I already stated many nations got rid of their enemies in this fashion. Other did so under threat, specifically if they did not provide Portugal & Spain with slaves, then they themselves would be enslaved (one would be naive or completely entranced with European perspectives not to believe this happened in the majority of cases). When the participating nations (which were very few) could not provide Europeans with the numbers they wanted, they raided villages on there own (which also took place on many occasions).

So again will it is true that there were some Africans that did sell other Africans into slavery. It is highly unlikely....no it is plain inaccurate that voluntary participation accounted for the estimated 100 million Africans that were taken during these years. Just as it is unlikely that the native Americans participated in their own enslavement & deaths from the same. So will it is true in some respects, it is only a Fraction of the story. It is also white oriented to obsolve them of the blame for their barbaric treatment of us. Again white people also state that African Americans were treated fairly during slavery also. Nazis & anti-semetics claim the Holocaust never happened. Before you champion a view, learn the sentiment behind it.

Numerous ethnic clashes and Muslim jihad's (some wars were even started simply to acquire slaves to sell).

This is very true DreamFunk; however, more POWs sold as slaves to traders & Europeans came through Jihads, than ethnic clashes. This is yet another example of a hidden factor into Africa's history of slavery: The Arab Influence. I have stated on numerous occasions throughout this board that the Arab slave trade has been just as damaging (if not moreso) as the European slave trade. Many of the non-European slave transactions that have been attributed to Africans were instead done by Arabs. Indeed, Arabs continue to promote & practice slavery in Africa to this day. This is why I often cringe when I hear brothers & sisters promote Islam as our "true" religion, and denounce Christianity as the religion of the "white man". Islam came to Africa through the Trans-Saharan trade, of which slavery was a major part. If Christianity is considered a slave religion, than Islam is certainly the same. In fact Christianity had already been in Africa (existed in kingdoms like Axum) over 1000 years before Europeans stepped foot in Africa, the same can't be said of Islam. Arabs are our "original" slave masters, yet many Africans (including the late-great Malcolm X) considers them to be "brothers". Wow, we really need to study our history in greater depth.

Islam came to Africa through the Trans-Saharan trade, of which slavery was a major part. If Christianity is considered a slave religion, than Islam is certainly the same. In fact Christianity had already been in Africa (existed in kingdoms like Axum) over 1000 years before Europeans stepped foot in Africa, the same can't be said of Islam.

....I somewhat hear you panafrica, but I was speaking of West Africa, and because these Muslims in question were native West Africans, "ethnic clashes" and "Jihads" can almost be looked at synonymously.....and Arab influence in West Africa wasn't as prevalent in the West as it was in the North and East....there were several Islamic West African nations during these times, and they were all self-ruled (they were not Arabs).

....Islam has been in West Africa for centuries, and 'we' were Muslims before we were Christians....many slaves that were brought to the Americas were Muslims (none were Christian), and these Muslim Africans were at the center of many (or most) slave-revolts throughout the 'New World'....and just look at today's Nigeria, which is 50% Muslim (and this is AFTER 45-100 years of European colonization).



Indeed, Arabs continue to promote & practice slavery in Africa to this day.

...here are those so-called Sudanese "Arabs"....just as the Lebanese and Iranians aren't really Arabs, neither are they:

http://www.sudan101.com/sud_arabs.htm
http://www.sudan101.com/Jaaliyn.htm


...people have a tendency of equating Muslim to Arab, and statistically, this is usually untrue.....there are more Muslims in Nigeria than there are Arabs in the whole world.

Islam has been in West Africa for centuries, and 'we' were Muslims before we were Christians....many slaves that were brought to the Americas were Muslims (none were Christian), and these Muslim Africans were at the center of many (or most) slave-revolts throughout the 'New World...people have a tendency of equating Muslim to Arab, and statistically, this is usually untrue.....there are more Muslims in Nigeria than there are Arabs in the whole world.

Arabs are more prevalent in North Africa, that is true DreamFunk. However, there was a heavy Arab/Islamic influence in West Africa. Famous centers of learning like the legendary Timbuktu used Arabic text. Legendary West African leaders like Ghana's Mansa Musa made the annual hajj to Meca. During one trip he gave away so much gold that he caused inflation, which lead to the eventual downfall of his kingdom. The overwhelming majority of nations in West Africa are Muslim. It is obvious that not all Muslims are Arabs; however, the point is that Islam is not the "original" religion of Western Africa (no matter how long it has been there). Islam was brought to West Africa by Arabs through the trans-saharan trade. Islam has done untold damage through Africa, which is evident through the Jihads that provided so many slaves (which is obviously Arab influenced).

....ok, this is true, but I was speaking of actual Arabs in the areas....you were giving the impression that Arabs were initiating the Jihads in West Africa, and that isn't true (these nations were self-ruled Africans and they did as they chose)...there was not a substantial Arab presence in the West, and that was the point I was trying to make....and anyway, the Fulani (and Songhai) were mostly responsible for spreading Islam throughout West Africa, not Arabs.



...however, the point is that Islam is not the "original" religion of Western Africa (no matter how long it has been there). Islam was brought to West Africa by Arabs through the trans-saharan trade).

...and Islam isn't the "original" religion anywhere (not even in Arabia)...what denotes an "original" religion (how far must one go back), and must one only and forever be obligated to what he is born into (or once knew)..???

....ok, this is true, but I was speaking of actual Arabs in the areas....you were giving the impression that Arabs were initiating the Jihads in West Africa, and that isn't true (these nations were self-ruled Africans and they did as they chose)...there was not a substantial Arab presence in the West, and that was the point I was trying to make....and anyway, the Fulani (and Songhai) were mostly responsible for spreading Islam throughout West Africa, not Arabs.





...and Islam isn't the "original" religion anywhere (not even in Arabia)...what denotes an "original" religion (how far must one go back), and must one only and forever be obligated to what he is born into (or once knew)..???

Mr. DreamFunk you are quite wrong in your estimations on the impact Arabs have had in Africa. Although Arabs did not carry out jihads deep into sub-Saharan Africa, they did carry out their fair share of 'holy wars' and slave trade to have a monumental impact on the continent that carries on till today. They along with the innumerable Berber tribes and the Fulani were able to spread Islam as far as it has on the continent. The truth is that Islam is the original religion of the Arabs, because it originates from their society. For Gosh sakes the only officially recognized language Koran is Arabic! Perhaps maybe you should really look into the impact Arabs have had on the African continent to understand that the Europeans were not the only ones to have colonized and slave it's Black inhabitants. Thanx.

...Chukwuemeka, I am very familiar with the Arab legacy in Africa, but as I have already said to panafrica, I'm speaking of WEST Africa, not East Africa....of course Islam originally came from an Arab, but the direct negative impact of Arabs in West Africa in no way compares to that of East Africa.

....Arabs were not "rounding up" West Africans and selling them to Europeans, it was West Africans rounding up West Africans and selling them to Europeans....just look at the Asante of Ghana, one of the reasons they became so powerful was because of their heavy slave trading for European weapons.

Arabs were not "rounding up" West Africans and selling them to Europeans, it was West Africans rounding up West Africans and selling them to Europeans....just look at the Asante of Ghana, one of the reasons they became so powerful was because of their heavy slave trading for European weapons.

And I suppose that the extensive quantities of gold that was sold/trader before & during the trans-atlantic slave trade, had nothing to do with the wealth of the Asante? Again DreamFunk, no one (at least not I) is disputing that Africans did sell other Africans into slavery, the dispute is to what extent this took place. The Arab controlled & influenced trans-Saharan trade had much to do with Africa's history of slavery (and this trade centered in West Africa across the Sahara into the Middle East). Arabs continued their influences through the trans-Saharan slave trade till today. As Chuk has stated, as I have stated, you are seriously...severely underestimating the Arab/Islamic influence in this matter.

...Chukwuemeka, I am very familiar with the Arab legacy in Africa, but as I have already said to panafrica, I'm speaking of WEST Africa, not East Africa....of course Islam originally came from an Arab, but the direct negative impact of Arabs in West Africa in no way compares to that of East Africa.

....Arabs were not "rounding up" West Africans and selling them to Europeans, it was West Africans rounding up West Africans and selling them to Europeans....just look at the Asante of Ghana, one of the reasons they became so powerful was because of their heavy slave trading for European weapons.


DreamFunk, you claim to be "very familiar" with the legacy of Arabs in Africa, but yet dismiss the importance of this legacy in Wrst Africa? You are wrong in claming that the "negative impact of Arabs in West Africa in no way compares to that of East Africa." I advise you to take a visit to Mauretania (a North African countriy that borders on West African Senegal) then when you return, could you please tell me if their form of slavery is more 'benign' than that practiced in the Sudan!

DreamFunk, again you are wrong in believing that the Arabs were not selling West Africans. The Arabs in modern day Mauretania, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria etc; were "rounding up" and selling Blacks to Europeans--especially the French. You say that you are aware of the Arab influence in Africa but I'm sure you not aware that this goes back at least three thousand years. Yes, Arabs have been selling Black Africans-along with others-for several millennia. Even prior to the rise of Islam under the Prophet Muhammad the slave trade was active. In fact when ever you read of any "trade" amongst Arabs/Berbers and Blacks in antiquity-that is an indication of slavery being practiced. Have you ever heard about the Zanj rebellion? Well, this was a Black slave revolt, led by a Persian malcontent named Ali Razi, who managed to rebel against oppression and enslavement by their Arab masters between 868-883 AD.

The only reason why the Arabs were unable to penetrate western Africa as easily as they did East Africa was due to considerably different climates of the two regions and their closeness to the Arabian Peninsular. The sheer size of the Sahara Desert meant that any invading force coming form the North would have to be so impossibly organized as to present a logistic nightmare for any serious would be conquerors. Coupled with the dense rain forest of the Sub-Saharan region, where disease like malaria would have killed many of the horse/camels--and a good number of soldiers to boot--meant that the Arabs could not seriously mount an attempt to conquer the Blacks to the south (although they tried).


Whilst the close proximity of Eastern Africa to the Arabian Peninsular via the Indian Ocean, meant that the Arabs could simply sail to the East African coast and mount their invasion or they could descend along the Nile River. It is from these conquests and the subsequent domination of Arabs over African that led to the rise of the Swahili culture. In fact Swahili can be said to be the slave master’s language forced upon the native, yet interpreted slightly differently by that oppressed group. In the way that the Black people of Haiti speak Creole, a mixture of French mixed with African vernacular and the West Indian speaks English mixed with an African dialect; so is the same with Swahili. The spread of Kiswahili along East Africa is only indicative of the spread of Arab domination and influence. Thanx.

Well stated & argued Chukwuemeka! :read:

DreamFunk, you claim to be "very familiar" with the legacy of Arabs in Africa, but yet dismiss the importance of this legacy in Wrst Africa? You are wrong in claming that the "negative impact of Arabs in West Africa in no way compares to that of East Africa." I advise you to take a visit to Mauretania (a North African countriy that borders on West African Senegal) then when you return, could you please tell me if their form of slavery is more 'benign' than that practiced in the Sudan!

....I don’t understand how you believe that the direct (you 'forgot' that word) negative Arab impacts in West Africa are comparable to that in the East....I'm sure that we both agree that Arabs straight up raped and RAVAGED East Africa, but do you also feel that this same level of Arab destruction took place in the West..???



DreamFunk, again you are wrong in believing that the Arabs were not selling West Africans. The Arabs in modern day Mauretania, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria etc; were "rounding up" and selling Blacks to Europeans--especially the French.
....I've never said that Arabs didn't deal in black slaves, but I do think it's careless to try and make West Africans out to merely be 'pure' and 'sinless victims' in this matter of how we came to the "New World"....do you believe that Arabs "captured" more West Africans as slaves than did West Africans themselves...????



You say that you are aware of the Arab influence in Africa but I'm sure you not aware that this goes back at least three thousand years. Yes, Arabs have been selling Black Africans-along with others-for several millennia.
...you are only speaking of East Africa right..???....if not, what Arabs were in West Africa 3000 years ago...???



In fact when ever you read of any "trade" amongst Arabs/Berbers and Blacks in antiquity-that is an indication of slavery being practiced.
...well that should be a given, and can be safely said about most (if not all) ancient trading.






The only reason why the Arabs were unable to penetrate western Africa as easily as they did East Africa was due to considerably different climates of the two regions and their closeness to the Arabian Peninsular. The sheer size of the Sahara Desert meant that any invading force coming form the North would have to be so impossibly organized as to present a logistic nightmare for any serious would be conquerors. Coupled with the dense rain forest of the Sub-Saharan region, where disease like malaria would have killed many of the horse/camels--and a good number of soldiers to boot--meant that the Arabs could not seriously mount an attempt to conquer the Blacks to the south (although they tried).
...?ok, first you say that I am "wrong" by saying that direct negative Arab impacts in West Africa can't be compared to that in the East, but then you continue by saying this....I don’t get it...you obviously see that there was a difference in what took place in the East and West, so how is my statement "wrong"...???

...Arabs did indeed rape and conquer scores of East African peoples, but the same extent cannot be said about West Africa...with the exception of maybe some Sahara regions, what West Africans felt the same Arab destruction that was felt by East Africans..???...(or am I just overestimating the Arab deeds in the East..???)




Whilst the close proximity of Eastern Africa to the Arabian Peninsular via the Indian Ocean, meant that the Arabs could simply sail to the East African coast and mount their invasion or they could descend along the Nile River. It is from these conquests and the subsequent domination of Arabs over African that led to the rise of the Swahili culture. In fact Swahili can be said to be the slave master’s language forced upon the native, yet interpreted slightly differently by that oppressed group. In the way that the Black people of Haiti speak Creole, a mixture of French mixed with African vernacular and the West Indian speaks English mixed with an African dialect; so is the same with Swahili. The spread of Kiswahili along East Africa is only indicative of the spread of Arab domination and influence. Thanx.
....of course, but what of this nature can be said about Nigeria, Ghana, SeneGambia, Benin, Cameroon, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, etc etc..???....these are the main areas we (African-Americans) came from, so if there were any significant number of Arabs in these areas "rounding us up", please tell me, because I must be seriously missing something.


....and are you and panafrica denying that the large majority of West African slaves that Europeans traded for were captured by the hands of West Africans themselves..???
.

...also, Chukwuemeka and panafrica, how do you all feel about the Almoravides/Tukulor overtaking Morocco and eventually Spain..???

....of course, but what of this nature can be said about Nigeria, Ghana, SeneGambia, Benin, Cameroon, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, etc etc..???....these are the main areas we (African-Americans) came from, so if there were any significant number of Arabs in these areas "rounding us up", please tell me, because I must be seriously missing something.....and are you and panafrica denying that the large majority of West African slaves that Europeans traded for were captured by the hands of West Africans themselves..???

Gentlemen I believe at this point we have to start naming our sources, because we obviously placing our beliefs in difference perspectives (accounts) of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. For instance, historians like Phillip Curtin estimates the slave trade to have taken no more than 5-10 million slaves from Africa; however, he only used the slave trading records of France to come up with this number (neglecting to include the British, Spanish, and French records). The material we are going on will largely influence one's views on a topic. Indeed, there are historians who argue that black slaves were happy in America. Again be careful about which views you champion.

All that being said. Yes this is what I am saying, at least Africans were not supplying slaves freely (many did so under the threat of having their kingdoms conquered if they didn't supply slaves). I have heard oral tradition amoung the Bubi of Equatorial Guinea that they used to hide from Europeans that tried to raid their villages & enslave them. Also Arabs had been slave trading in W. Africa for hundreds of years before Europeans came. In addition Arabs had converted many of the leaders of West African nations to Islam, who in turn became the leaders in the black controlled slave trade. Again DreamFunk you are underestimating the Arabic & European role in this matter.

You are correct in saying that there was African involvement in the trans-atlantic slave trade (although we have argued just how much). But I would like to know what conclusion you draw from this fact DreamFunk? How do we reconcile this fact with PanAfrican goals? How do we address this when encountering our brothers and sisters in Africa? Since you seem to state in your original post that Europeans did not come to Africa to deal in slaves. What level of responsibility do you place on Europeans for the treatment of Africans slaves in the Americas?

Since you seem to state in your original post that Europeans did not come to Africa to deal in slaves.

....I never said that, if I did, show me....I said that the only thing that Europeans really wanted to trade for was slaves (and that it was West Africans that supplied this heavy demand for slaves).


...but about the other stuff, let me first repeat the very first thing I said in this thread:

....I believe that no matter how "ugly" a particular truth may be, that truth should still have precedence over all else.....and the truth remains that although they were indeed exploiters, Europeans themselves were not "slave raiding and pillaging Africans" (<<~~a stereotype that blacks promote).

....until recently (a year or so ago), I've always thought that there was indeed wide-scale European "slave raiding and pillaging West Africans"....I thought that every single slave that crossed the Atlantic was the result of some evil Europeans burning down West African villages and kidnapping the victims as slaves; I also thought that any belief other than this was just Eurocentric propaganda.

....but because I believed this (and I'm sure that most Aframericans also do), I thought that Africans were pitiful, defenseless, weak, totally unified, and innocent "child-like" victims that got ultimately taking advantage of by a more "powerful" people.......but now, after taken up learning on my own, I know that this is not so....I use to think that Europeans just had their way with West Africa (doing whatever they wanted)......but as I have already said, these West African kingdoms/peoples were self-ruled and there was no occupation, "colonialization", or foreign rule by any other non-West African groups back then....also, I have come to realize that West Africa was not just one big "happy family"....did outside influences have anything to do with this...???...of course!....but all said and done, the large kingdoms did as they chose.....and by trying to take all of the "blame" away from West Africans concerning slavery, you also give them and untrue aura of weakness and naivety.
.

I thought that Africans were pitiful, defenseless, weak, totally unified, and innocent "child-like" victims that got ultimately taking advantage of by a more "powerful" people.......but now, after taken up learning on my own, I know that this is not so....I use to think that Europeans just had their way with West Africa (doing whatever they wanted)......but as I have already said, these West African kingdoms/peoples were self-ruled and there was no occupation, "colonialization", or foreign rule by any other non-West African groups back then....also, I have come to realize that West Africa was not just one big "happy family"....did outside influences have anything to do with this...???...of course!....but all said and done, the large kingdoms did as they chose.....and by trying to take all of the "blame" away from West Africans concerning slavery, you also give them and untrue aura of weakness and naivety.

I think part of the problem DreamFunk is that you are taking up learning on your own, instead of taking courses taught by experts in African history & discussing this history with your peers. If you ever though Africans were weak, child-like victims, that shows a lack of understanding of history. Through your self-study you have gone from this is an extreme view to another extreme (that American slavery was mostly thefault of the African). Again I would like to know what books you have studied, because you appear to have some missing pieces to the puzzle you are trying to put together.

Ok, enough is enough! This myth of Africans unforgivingly selling themselves wholesale must die...NOW!!! It is an illusion, which was started by the slave master to control those he enslaved by diverting the natural anger of the slave at being enslaved from the master to himself (the slave). Were there many African individuals who acted as middle men in slave dealing by kidnapping and selling people to European slave traders in return for worthless trinket? Yes, off course...this is true. But this is insufficient to cast the blame from the European to the African. If so then we might as well just blame the Jews of Europe for being victims of the Holocaust; after all there were Jews aiding the Nazis to find other Jews to send to the concentration and death camps. No group of people has ever been conquered or mistreated by another group through out human history, without some members of the conquered group selling out their own people for some perceived rewards from the conquerors.

However, for the most part European slave traders raided whole villages or took sides in indigenous disputes; whilst taking part in the age old practice of conquerors, i.e. divide and conquer. By providing weapons to the side which was most favorable to the interest of the Europeans, the slave traders were able to limit insurgency amongst the Africans by dividing and weakening their resolve to fight their common enemy. In fact Europeans enforced quotas on the African natives to provide them specific numbers of slaves. Those who failed to meet their quotas faced enslavement themselves. This is the REAL reason why the majority of Black people were forced to sell other Blacks; they had no choice—either they enslaved others or they themselves faced enslavement—period.

DreamFunk, you seem to forget (or perhaps you weren’t aware) that the first abolitionists of slavery were indeed Africans themselves. There were many who were willing to stand up to the Europeans and say NO to slavery. People such as, Queen Nzinga; Affonso, King of the Kongo; Jaja of Opobo; Nasr el-Din; Olaudah Equino; Madame Tinubu etc. Here are excepts from letters written by ManiKongo (king) Affonso I to Joao III of Portugal in 1526, on the question of slavery in the Kingdom of the Kongo; which are found in the book King Leopold's Ghost" by Adam Hochschild:

"Most High and powerful prince and king my brother...Each day the traders are kidnapping our people--children of this country, sons of our nobles and vassals, even people of our own family...This corruption and depravity are so widespread that our land is entirely depopulated...We need in this kingdom only priests and schoolteachers, and no merchandise, unless it is wine and flour for Mass...It is our wish that this kingdom not be a place for the trade or transport of slaves."

"Many of our subjects eagerly lust after Portuguese merchandise that your subjects have brought into our domains. To satisfy this inordinate appetite, they seize many of our black free subjects...They sell them...after having taken these prisoners[to the coast] secretly or at night...As soon as the captives are in the hands of white men they are branded with a red-hot iron."

Affonso is very clear to denounce the evil practice of slavery and the means of offering trinkets, such as cloth, jewelry, alcohol etc; which the Europeans used to entice unscrupulous Africans to kidnap and sell other Africans, even from their own families:

"These goods exert such a great attraction over simple and ignorant people that they believe in them and forget their belief in God...My Lord, a monstrous greed pushes our subjects, even Christians, to seize members of their own families, and of ours to do business by selling them as captives."

These are the first known letters written by a Black person in a European language. They are the sole contemporized evidence written from the point of view of the victim rather than the propaganda of the conquerors, which exists today. Affonso’s reign in history is very important, because prior to when he assumed the throne of the Kongo there were little or no Europeans on the continent of Africa; by the time of his death the practice of slavery had become epidemic. In a single generation Spanish and Portuguese slave dealers were acquiring slaves all across the continent, soon they would be joined by their other European counter parts.

for the most part European slave traders raided whole villages or took sides in indigenous disputes; whilst taking part in the age old practice of conquerors, i.e. divide and conquer. By providing weapons to the side which was most favorable to the interest of the Europeans, the slave traders were able to limit insurgency amongst the Africans by dividing and weakening their resolve to fight their common enemy. In fact Europeans enforced quotas on the African natives to provide them specific numbers of slaves. Those who failed to meet their quotas faced enslavement themselves. This is the REAL reason why the majority of Black people were forced to sell other Blacks; they had no choice—either they enslaved others or they themselves faced enslavement—period.


I've said this repeatedly throughout this thread Chukwuemeka. It is unfortunate that some of us are so ingrained with the European side of events, that we refuse to believe this.

Africa sold African American into slavery. I just wanted you to read.

They did not do it out of nowhere. Some folks were forced to sell into slavery.

QUOTE/ DREAMFUNK
....I believe that no matter how "ugly" a particular truth may be, that truth should still have precedence over all else.....and the truth remains that although they were indeed exploiters, Europeans themselves were not "slave raiding and pillaging Africans" (<<~~a stereotype that blacks promote).

THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT (TO NAME 1 EURO COUNTRY) COMITTED UNSPEAKABLE ATROCITIES IN THE KONGO. dREAMFUNK U STATED THAT EURO'S DIDNT WANT TO TRADE FOR ANYTHING BUT SLAVES. THIS IS NOT TRUE, THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG. ONE OF several THE COMODITIES IN THE KONGO THAT THE EUROS SOUGHT TO STEAL -(TRADE) WAS RUBBER. LETS TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THESE AFRIKANS IN THE KONGO(& MANY OTHER LOCALS IN AFRIKA) WERE ENSLAVED IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY AS WELL AS KIDNAPPED AND ENSLAVED IN OTHER COUNTIES.

THE BELGIAN INVADERS USED THESE PEOPLE TO PRODUCE RUBBER , IF THEY DID NOT PRODUCE ENOUGH RUBBER THEY WERE MUTILATED , CUTTING OFF OF HANDS, LIPS, BREASTS, & MURDERED. ....THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENt Til THIS DAY ATTEMPTS TO DENY THEIR INVOLVEMENT AND DESTRUCTION OF KONGO.SOME OF THESE ATTROCITIES WERE ILLUSTRATED IN A BOOK BY AN ENGLISHMEN BY THE NAME OF CAPTAIN GUY BURROWS. THE BOOK--THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CONGO. LITEGATION WAS LEVIED AGAINST BURROWS BY THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT.

THEY(THE BELGIAN GOVT/LAWYERS 4 THE) TRIED TO TWIST THE FACTS TO MAKE IT SEEM AS THE NATIVES DID THESE THINGS TO THEM SELVES (AS THE U.S. IS DOING TODAY). BURROWS WAS A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE BELGIAN GOVT AND WAS STATIONED IN KONGO(HAD 1ST HAND ACOUNT), THE BELGIAN GOVT ACTED AS THOUGH THE PICTURES WERE PHONIES, LIKE U DIDNT SEE WHAT U JUST SAW. THE LONDON JURY CLEARED THE BELGIAN GOVT IN TEN MINUTES.,,,( 500 YRS OF EUROPEAN BEHAVIOR by NANA EKOW BUTWEIKU 1)

THIS HAS LONG BEEN A TACTIC BY WHTS, TO SHIFT THE BLAME ON THE CONQUORED . THE BROTHERS IN THIS POSTED STATED CLEARLY THE REAL ABOUT BLK INVOLVEMENT IN THE SLAVE TRADES SO I WILL STATE NO MORE.
JUST BEWARE OF THEIR TACTICS.

PEACE WORLD