Black People : Africans did NOT sell their own people into slavery

Yeh, we've all heard that old trite equivocation from both white liberals and racist southern revisionists; 'well ya'll do know the African did (abet in) sell their own into slavery'. Or how about this one, 'the A. Indian often killed, murdered and warred among themselves and took slaves from other tribes'.
And it's always done in such a manner as if it absolves them of all their past genocides, all their past sins and continued present day crimes.

However, playing with semantics doesn't get one anything but some feel good high based on nothing more than a lie by omission. To take a more twisted view on what the essay says...... 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'. Playing in the war of words only plays into their game because the truth never gets to see the light of day, which is their objective because that would mean the truth of today remains hidden behind word games.
If ya catch my drift.

Here's a short account of what is purported to be from the last known survivor of the Atlantic slave trade between Africa and the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cudjoe_Lewis
 
I appreciate the information. The subject to me is one that is used to distract from the point. Even if Africans did sell their own people (Black people), that doesnt mean europeans were obligated to buy and subject to chattel slavery. Thats like saying someone forced you to buy something you didnt want.

Now I know some African countries have apologized for their role in slavery and are attempting to provide reparations.

https://rastafari.tv/ghana-gives-free-land-descendants-slaves-repatriate-right-abode-bill-573/


Point made Senegal, and here's more insight and back-drop to what actually happened...

https://destee.com/threads/dr-henry...-for-the-slave-trade.78190/page-3#post-840173

...
 
Yeh, we've all heard that old trite equivocation from both white liberals and racist southern revisionists; 'well ya'll do know the African did (abet in) sell their own into slavery'. Or how about this one, 'the A. Indian often killed, murdered and warred among themselves and took slaves from other tribes'.
And it's always done in such a manner as if it absolves them of all their past genocides, all their past sins and continued present day crimes.

However, playing with semantics doesn't get one anything but some feel good high based on nothing more than a lie by omission. To take a more twisted view on what the essay says...... 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'. Playing in the war of words only plays into their game because the truth never gets to see the light of day, which is their objective because that would mean the truth of today remains hidden behind word games.
If ya catch my drift.

Here's a short account of what is purported to be from the last known survivor of the Atlantic slave trade between Africa and the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cudjoe_Lewis
 
Interesting and informative article in the OP and I found a little more on this. It seems the introduction of modern weapons escalated historical conflicts and selling slaves aquired during these wars to finance purchasing more weapons became common. I did learn something here.
On the subject of this historical fact being used to assuage white guilt though I would say that isn't really the case. History is history and facts are facts and the fact is blacks sold captives to Europeans for profit to buy guns to win wars. Doesn't make Europeans any less culpable for buying them and reselling them as slaves to plantation owners though and in the end this is a human nature issue not a black white issue.


"Typically wars in West Africa were relatively short affairs that left a small number of causalities. The introduction of European weapons made these wars more drawn out and destructive affairs. Moreover, the only way Africans could acquire these firearms was through the trade of slaves. A king of Dahomey once requested that Europeans establish a firearms factory in his nation, but this request went ignored. Firearms became necessary for African nations to defend themselves both from African rivals as well as from European intrusion, but the only way to acquire these weapons was through the slave trade. This situation only benefited the competing European powers that were able to play Africans against each other.

Finally, the slave trade left a negative legacy on both sides of the Atlantic. The Africans that were brought to the Americas were forced to labor as slaves, while enduring some of the most inhumane treatment imaginable. Those who remained, however, were left to mourn the lost of their friends and relatives that were taken away. A handful of African traders and rulers may have gained some wealth from the slave trade, but overall it was a very negative event for Africa. There were African kingdoms, such as the Kongo Kingdom, that eventually fell due to the onslaught brought about by the slave trade. We often think of the negative impact that the slave trade had on those who were captured, but the slave trade was also devastating for those who escaped being captured as well."
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top