Pan Africanism : Reparations: What About the Sellers?

Discussion in 'Black History - Culture - Panafricanism' started by zuleilah2, Mar 10, 2004.

  1. zuleilah2

    zuleilah2 Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Why does the call for Reparations seem so one-sided?

    Shouldn’t the call for Reparations include the buyers AND the sellers?

    Some Africans, kings, chiefs, merchants and others who could, sold their fellow Africans into slavery. This is one aspect of our history that is not widely taught, denied by some native Africans, and glossed over or defended by some AAs who maintain that these particular Africans were ‘tricked’ by crafty white men.

    Others AAs go so far as to rationalize that 1) the African system of slavery was ‘different’ from the European/American system, in that the African slave was capable of changing his status from slave to free or, at the very least, become an asset to the village; and 2) those Africans who were sold into slavery by their own were prisoners of war or the scum of the village.

    Bottom line: Slaves, regardless of which side of the ocean they were enslaved, were considered the property of their masters – bought and sold like cattle and goats.

    When these Africans and the Europeans and Americans entered into this unsavory alliance, they changed the dynamics of scores of African cultures – forever. This alliance also planted the seeds of the selfishness, greed, nepotism and favoritism, among the ruling classes that is responsible for much of the suffering witnessed on the African continent today.

    Ghana’s Ashanti(Asante) Kingdom become rich and powerful from slave-trading. Unbelievably, the official ceremony to mark the opening of the national commemoration of 300 years of diplomatic relations between Ghana and the Netherlands was held at the Gemeente Museum in The Hague on September 29, 2001.

    The Dutch-Ghanaian historian Professor Albert van Dantzig stated:

    “…the numerous forts and castles along Ghana's shores have played an important role in her history. These structures, built by various European nations to protect their trade.” “…these castles and forts do not only symbolize the long-standing presence of Europeans in Ghana in connection with the slave trade. They are as much symbols of the symbiotic relationship that existed between European traders and administrators and the surrounding Ghanaian societies. In a sense they played an important role in the shaping of Ghana's unique cosmopolitan character. Although the Dutch left their possessions on the Gold Coast in 1872 to the British, the Dutch legacy is still very much part of Ghanaian society. Not only in the form of (ruins of) forts and the castle of St. George d'Elmina, but also through the off-spring of Dutch-Ghanaian marriages from centuries past, often recognizable by their Dutch or Dutch-sounding names. Many of these descendants played an important role in the modernization of the country during and after the colonial period, both within the colonial administration and as actors in the independence movement.”

    Nigeria’s Yoruba Kingdom also had its hand deep in the European/American honey pot. Intrigued by the Yoruba kings who sold their own into slavery, Nigerian writer, Niyi Ogunfolaju’s research into the Transatlantic Slave Trade, yielded two significant players - King Jaja of Opopo and Kosoko, which he mentioned in his article - Nigeria: Many Sovereign Nations At Crossroads - With Different Destinies.

    Naiwu Osahon of the Lagos-based World Pan African Movement stated that…

    “,,,of couse, the Yoruba were sold into slavery. You would find most Yoruba in Brazil and Cuba. They were sold by our kings and some very influential nobles. One notorious slave merchant was called Kosoko and he operated from Lagos’ ports in collaboration with white merchants.”

    In many African countries, the ruling classes would rather shake hands with the devil (white folks) than create alliances with each other to alleviate the suffering of the African masses.

    One example of this is President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea.

    In an archived article by Sunday Dare entitled: The Curious Bonds of Oil Diplomacy (’02), he states:

    “The 23-year-old regime of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo has been criticized for allowing the oil companies to exploit Equatorial Guinea’s oil riches with little obvious benefit to the people. The U.S. Energy Department notes that the government’s share of oil revenues is relatively small by international standards. Obiang has announced plans to renegotiate contracts to increase the country’s participation in oil licenses. Meanwhile, the president and his family have been buying up multimillion-dollar homes in the United States. The landscape in Malabo and Bata, the two major cities in Equatorial Guinea, is dotted with state-of-the-art buildings belonging to the president and senior members of his government that stand in stark contrast to the slums in which the majority of people live. In 2000, the president bought a house in the posh Washington, D.C., suburb of Potomac, Maryland, for $2.6 million and another one in nearby Rockville, Maryland, for $1.15 million. The president’s son, Teodoro N. Obiang, purchased a house in the ritzy celebrity haven of Bel Air, Los Angeles, in March 2001, for $5.8 million. Actress Farrah Fawcett lives across the street. The younger Obiang, who is also his country’s minister of Forests, Fishing and the Environment and is in the running to succeed his father as president, also owns a record label and publishing company in Los Angeles called TNO Entertainment, which specializes in rap records.”

    In Nigeria, the ruling classes line their pockets with an estimated 80% of ill-gotten wealth derived from the country’s oil revenues, while the masses exist on less than $1.00 per day.

    If Africans in the Diaspora are demanding Reparations from Europe and America, then shouldn’t demands for Reparations should be asked of those who benefited from slave-trading and are still benefiting by exercising that very same mentality?

    Africa’s wealth should be used to provide for needy Africans and to raise their standard of living. It should not be used to provide a cushy lifestyle for Fat Cat Big Men, their families, friends or paid thugs!

    It’s way past time to TURN THE HEAT UP!
     
  2. panafrica

    panafrica Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,227
    Likes Received:
    191
    Location:
    The Diaspora
    Ratings:
    +194
    Zuleilah, your comparison between Africa's current dictators, and those who benefitted from the slave trade is not an adequate one. Your comparison with Equatorial Guinea's president is particularly off base. Obiang Nguema is a madman, on that there is no dispute. The people of Equatorial Guinea would love nothing more than to be rid of him (particularly the refugees who fled the country and went to areas like Spain in the 1970s & 80s). However Equatorial Guinea, formerly Spanish Guinea, was never involved in the Slave Trade. As a result how could he have been a recipient of the profits of the slave trade? The same could be said for most of Africa's leaders, even if the kingdoms/nations benefitted from the Slave Trade (and there are very few who did), the leaders directly did not.

    The theory of reparations and the subjects of reparation lawsuits, are corporations which existed during slavery. There is a direct link between them, their profits, and the crimes of African slavery (at least that is what the plaintiffs of the lawsuits are trying to prove). A direct link is necessary for reparations to be granted. This was a requirement for Jews to get reparations from Nazi organizations. Again since there is not a direct African link, then why would they be listed on reparation lawsuits. Furthermore, why are you looking for them to be? If your ultimate point is that African dictators need to be responsible for their crimes, then I'd agree with you, as would most PanAfricanist. These people need to be removed..just like Bush. However, arbitrarily suing African nations (particularly those not involved in the slave trade) serves no purpose. It is not happening for a reason.
     
  3. Blackbird

    Blackbird Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    3,972
    Likes Received:
    1,819
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Professional Hitman
    Location:
    Da Desert, literally
    Ratings:
    +1,820
    Greetings all,

    I'm not well-versed on this subject as I should be, but I would like to add my ill-informed 2 cents. I think why the advocates of reparations don't call into question the "sellers" is because the "salespeople" eventually received their "just" due. Many of these kingdoms lost invaluable social capital and people with certain skills and know-how. Many of the kingdoms and city-states, like those of the Calabar (Niger Delta) region, eventually fell to the imperalist ambitions of their supposedly co-conspirators. Due to this, Afrika endured a period of colonialism, followed closely behind by neo-colonialism. Now, many of these Berlin conference demarcated countries are impoverished, downtrodden and rife with inter-ethnic conflict, civil wars, famine or disease. If one believes in the cycle of retribution, Afrika has already paid and is still paying for the betrayal and wholesaling of her daugthers and sons. Now, she, indeed, needs reparations.

    Reparations means the act or process of repairing or the condition of being repaired. I believe monetary reparations is being required by Euro-American countries because their nations' hold a lion's share of the world's wealth - most of which was obtained through exploitation of other world people. One asks America, before 1776, was a ragtag of dependent colonies - lacking in terms of population to other countries so how did it become the most powerful player on the global market within less than 400 years? Then we factor in civil war, a devastating civil war, which typically leaves most countries impoverished. How did it sustain? At the beginning of the 20th century, many AAs paid taxes, like all American citizens, however, of many of the things their taxes supported ironically they, themselves, could not enjoy most. Our ancestors paid taxes to maintain state-ran institutions which neither they nor their children could attend. After doing a detailed look back, it makes one think of the major reason why the colonies revolted against the "mother country" and that is "taxation without proper representation."

    I could go on, but....

    Ase!
    Blackbird
     
  4. zuleilah2

    zuleilah2 Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You said…Zuleilah, your comparison between Africa's current dictators, and those who benefitted from the slave trade is not an adequate one. Your comparison with Equatorial Guinea's president is particularly off base. Obiang Nguema is a madman, on that there is no dispute. The people of Equatorial Guinea would love nothing more than to be rid of him (particularly the refugees who fled the country and went to areas like Spain in the 1970s & 80s). However Equatorial Guinea, formerly Spanish Guinea, was never involved in the Slave Trade. As a result how could he have been a recipient of the profits of the slave trade?

    Z: I am comparing the mentality of those who have and are enriching themselves at the expense of their people, in the past (selling their own) and in the present (kleptocracies). And where did I say that that Equatorial’s President is or has ever been the recipient of the profits of the slave trade? He and his family are the recipient of wealth derived from oil reserves, while the majority of Guineans wallow in poverty – lacking the basic necessities of life. The same thing is happening in Nigeria.

    You said…The same could be said for most of Africa's leaders, even if the kingdoms/nations benefitted from the Slave Trade (and there are very few who did), the leaders directly did not.

    Z: That’s the point. It’s not being said or barely acknowledged. Whether a few did participate or scores participated, there was still participation by the ruling class (leaders) and the elites. Why the silence?

    You said… The theory of reparations and the subjects of reparation lawsuits, are corporations which existed during slavery. There is a direct link between them, their profits, and the crimes of African slavery (at least that is what the plaintiffs of the lawsuits are trying to prove). A direct link is necessary for reparations to be granted. This was a requirement for Jews to get reparations from Nazi organizations. Again since there is not a direct African link, then why would they be listed on reparation lawsuits.

    You said…The theory of reparations and the subjects of reparation lawsuits, are corporations which existed during slavery. There is a direct link between them, their profits, and the crimes of African slavery (at least that is what the plaintiffs of the lawsuits are trying to prove).

    Z: That’s one side of the Reparations Movement. The other side deals with Reparations as a long, overdue payment to the descendants of slaves as exhibited in the following quotes:

    "If you are the son of a man who had a wealthy estate and you inherit your father's estate, you have to pay off the debts that your father incurred before he died. The only reason that the present generation of white Americans are in a position of economic strength...is because their fathers worked our fathers for over 400 years with no pay...We were sold from plantation to plantation like you sell a horse, or a cow, or a chicken, or a bushel of wheat...All that money...is what gives the present generation of American whites the ability to walk around the earth with their chest out...like they have some kind of economic ingenuity. Your father isn't here to pay. My father isn't here to collect. But I'm here to collect and you're here to pay." (El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X); November 23, 1964, Paris, France; [Malcolm X: By Any Means Necessary, New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970, p123] )

    ”The question is not what are we today, the question is what would we have been today if we'd had all the billions of dollars that belonged to us. The question is how much greater we would have been and how much greater white people would have been if we had been given the money we deserved to have, and if we had the economic development that we should have now.” (Lerone Bennett, historian)

    “…a figure of $5 to $10 trillion is the estimated the amount the U.S. government owes African-Americans for "the slavery their ancestor's were forced to endure. Other estimates are more conservative, at $1.4 trillion. But to whom exactly that money would be paid and how is up for debate. Ideas run the gamut from a government check for each Black family to free college tuition for needy Black students. Reparations is not about making up for the past, but dealing with current problems. But no matter which side of the debate, dealing with current problems seems to be at the forefront of the issue."

    You said…Furthermore, why are you looking for them to be?

    Z: If you are approaching Europe and America for Reparations, then why not approach those countries (Ghana and Nigeria, among others) who were also involved in the slave trade?

    You said...If your ultimate point is that African dictators need to be responsible for their crimes, then I'd agree with you, as would most PanAfricanist. These people need to be removed..just like Bush.

    Z: The President of Equatorial Guinea has been ruling for 23 years. There are others like him. They can’t be removed “just like Bush”. If they could be removed, they would have been removed; then you wouldn’t have the suffering on the continent today. Any removal of a ‘Sit Tight’ ruler is most likely to quite violent.

    You said…However, arbitrarily suing African nations (particularly those not involved in the slave trade) serves no purpose.

    Z: Again…only those involved should be approached about Reparations. Why should those who weren’t involved share the blame?

    You said… It is not happening for a reason.

    Z: What reason?
     
  5. zuleilah2

    zuleilah2 Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You said...Reparations means the act or process of repairing or the condition of being repaired. I believe monetary reparations is being required by Euro-American countries because their nations' hold a lion's share of the world's wealth - most of which was obtained through exploitation of other world people.

    Z: The monetary value of Africa's resources is estimated to be so vast that it could be likened to a drop in the bucket of the world's wealth. Channeled correctly and not expolited by the leaders, who are in cahoots with white folks (corporations), this wealth has the potential of making Africa self-sustaining - no longer the world's beggar -an economic force to be not only reckoned with but feared, admired and respected.

    But how is this possible in kleptocratic governments?

    The same me-me-me mentality that drove some of Africa's past rulers into the bed of the white man (eg. the slave trade) is the same mentality that keeps them sleeping with the enemy.

    No more ostrichitis.

    Call them on it.
     
  6. panafrica

    panafrica Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,227
    Likes Received:
    191
    Location:
    The Diaspora
    Ratings:
    +194
    This is a great quote, and it highlights my disagreement with your view point Zulielah. You are implying that African participation in the TransAtlantic Slave trade was just as damaging as US & European involvement. However, even if all slave transactions were initiated by Africans (which they weren't). Africa did not institute a system of slavery which determined that the children of slaves would also be enslaved. Africa did not determine that the descendants of these slaves work in perpetual servitude for almost 300 years. Africa did not decide that a system be created, which would leave the children of these slaves penny-less or without property when slavery was abolished in 1865. Furthermore Africa did not decide that the US should incorporate Jim Crow only 20 years after slavery, which further restricted the type of employment, and earnings that these former slaves would earn. The type of rules & regulations that the US enforced during slavery and Jim Crow, is directly responsible for the lower social-economic status which the overwhelming majority of African American inherit. Most African Americans can remember the farms their families sharecropped for. They can recall the companies that the owners of these farms founded. These are specified damages. They are losses that can be traced. They are not based on speculation, which is what you are doing with these African leaders, who participated in the slave trade. So again exactly what should we be going after Africa for?

    Again I don't think anyone is coming to the defense of the Nguemas, Taylors, and Mobutu's of Africa. These people's crimes include mass murder, rape, robbery, oppression, and terrorism. Absolutely these and people like them have to be removed. However, they gain power because of their connections with their former colonial masters. The colonial masters whose "humanitarian" aid has helped Africa survive since independence, as you pointed out in another thread. This is a fact for the Nguemas (Obiang & Macias) and it was so for the late Mobutu. Europe helps Africa with loans that they spend the bulk of their GNP paying off, with weapons to kill each other in Civil Wars, and by either directly appointing presidents (or indirectly supporting coups). Indeed with friends like Europe, Africa doesn't need enemies. With that being said I still don't understand why you included Africa with the debate on reparations. Surely you don't think suing them will shame these corrupt leaders into leaving office? :D I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning.

    P.S. You should wrap your quotes, it makes your thread easier to read.
     
  7. zuleilah2

    zuleilah2 Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You said…This is a great quote, and it highlights my disagreement with your view point Zulielah.

    Z: The quote was in answer to your response that Reparations were only focused on the corporations that benefited from the slave trade, which they aren’t. It is also individuals, decendants of slaves, who are calling for the monetary equivalent of 40 acres and mule - at today's prices. They are looking for a check just like the Japanese and the Jews received.

    You said…You are implying that African participation in the TransAtlantic Slave trade was just as damaging as US & European involvement.

    Z: No, I’m not. Please reread my initial post.

    You said…However, even if all slave transactions were initiated by Africans (which they weren't). Africa did not institute a system of slavery which determined that the children of slaves would also be enslaved.

    Z: I submit to you…

    Key Points:

    1) The slave trade had been a reality in Northern Africa 600 years before the arrival of the Europeans.

    2) Under reformed Islamic law, slavery could only arise from two circumstances: (1) being born to slave parents or (2) being captured in war. The latter was soon restricted to infidels captured in a jihad.

    3) Conversion to Islam did not automatically give a slave freedom nor his/her children.

    You said…Africa did not determine that the descendants of these slaves work in perpetual servitude for almost 300 years. Africa did not decide that a system be created, which would leave the children of these slaves penny-less or without property when slavery was abolished in 1865.

    Z: The slave class (caste) was present in Africa before the white man’s arrival and is still in existence today - as is slavery. You inherited your caste from your parents. If they were slaves, you were a slave – forevermore, in the eyes of your particular society - no matter how rich or how educated you were - you were still of the slave caste.

    Ex.

    1) Mauritania’s social system still has a "slave" caste (haratines) and religious teachings there reinforce that slaves will find paradise by serving their masters (beyadannes). Slavery has officially been banned in Mauritania three times, once by the colonial French rulers in 1905, a second time in Mauritania's first post-colonial constitution, in 1960, and a third time, in 1981, by the military government. Yet slavery still exists.

    2) In Sudan, citizens from the Southern region of the country are still referred to as ‘abd’ by those from the Northern region. The term 'abd' is used by Northerners to refer to slaves, or those of slave descent, whose relatives belonged to a non-Muslim group of the South or Nuba Mountains". For the Northerner, being ‘Sudani’ meant being black, and being black, meant in turn, being of a low social status and low origins. The stigma of "blackness" is rooted in the legacy of slavery.

    3) In Niger, birth continues to impose a slave status (slave caste) on different ethnic groups whereby they are expected to work without pay for their traditional masters, primarily as herders of livestock, agricultural laborers or domestic servants, in exchange for minimal amounts of food and shelter. Any income derived from outside work is taken by the masters.

    4) The Wolof of Senegal have a distinct social system made up of three main castes - freeborn, those of slave descent, and artisan which includes smiths, leatherworkers and musicians. This system is not as strongly defined in urban areas.

    5) An Igbo group in the Southeast of Nigeria - the Ohu (literally "slave") are considered to be "pariahs". In a society with strict social rules and classifications, these people are considered to be "subhuman" and are treated accordingly. Those who were captured during past civil wars or "imported" by slave traders were classified slaves. This status was automatically transferred to their descendants. Although the spread of different religions and urbanization has counteracted most of the harsh treatment directed at the Ohu caste, discrimination still persists, especially in the countryside.

    You said…With that being said I still don't understand why you included Africa with the debate on reparations.

    Z: Why leave Africa out?

    You said…Surely you don't think suing them will shame these corrupt leaders into leaving office?

    Z: This topic is about the descendants (governments) of those who sold their own paying Reparations to the descendants of Africans, in Africa, who were directly affected by the slave trade, due to the alliances their ancestral leaders formed with the Europeans and Americans.

    This topic is not about suing corrupt Sit Tight rulers as a way of shaming them to leave office.
     
  8. panafrica

    panafrica Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,227
    Likes Received:
    191
    Location:
    The Diaspora
    Ratings:
    +194
    I've read your initial post, and that is exactly what you are saying. Don't contradict yourself.

    Since you like to get technical, Northern Africa was Arabic at this time, and had been since Arabs conquered North Africa in the 6th century A.D. Therefore the crimes you are placing on African chiefs were committed by Arabic slave masters (and still are). As you should notice, all of the areas you are examining are Arabic/Muslim. I don't excuse Arabs for the damage they have done to Africa, I place them right beside Europeans (as evidenced by several of my past threads). Did ancient Africa have slavery? Yes it did, as did ancient Greece, Rome, and many other kingdoms. African slavery prior to the coming of Europeans was similar to the European (slave) system of indentured servitude. They were allowed to marry, own land, and establish their own villages. This is chronicled in books like Africans in the Americas, written by Michael Conniff & Thomas Davis. Was this a good system? No it wasn't, as it left Africans open for the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade. However, this was a system established by many nations (including European) at the time. You aren't "shining" a new light on anyone with this "breaking news" of Africans enslaving Africans. However, claiming that African slavery was the same as the chattel slave system adopted by the Spanish, French, and British is an extremely Eurocentric point of view (A view you are obviously fond of).

    The problem is for every book like The African Origin of Civilization by Cheikh Anta Diop, which suggest and provides documentation that ancient Egypt was Negriod. There are works like the Babylonian Talmud, which promotes ideas like the Hametic Hypothesis (that suggest Egypt was created by a white race). For every book like The Negro in Reconstruction by Carter G. Woodson, which tells about the admirable efforts of African Americans to better themselves after slavery. There are works like The Ordeal of Reconstruction by Thomas A. Bailey, which tells of the inept attempts of the ignorant Negro to practice their newfound freedom. All of these works cite primary & secondary sources, all insist they are the truth. One can look at the sources to check how they were interpreted; however, ultimately which you believe comes down to who you lay with: The oppressor or the oppressed? Do you agree with History or His-story? I know which I believe, what about you Zuleilah? What you believe, what accounts you favor, speaks volumes about one's own self worth.
     
  9. zuleilah2

    zuleilah2 Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Rewind:

    Quote:

    You said…You are implying that African participation in the TransAtlantic Slave trade was just as damaging as US & European involvement. Z: No, I’m not. Please reread my initial post.

    You said…I've read your initial post, and that is exactly what you are saying. Don't contradict yourself.

    Z: No, I’m not. That is what you are reading into the post because you find it difficult to acknowledge that the Africans’ role in the slave trade went far beyond “just a few”.

    You said…Since you like to get technical, Northern Africa was Arabic at this time, and had been since Arabs conquered North Africa in the 6th century A.D. Therefore the crimes you are placing on African chiefs were committed by Arabic slave masters (and still are). As you should notice, all of the areas you are examining are Arabic/Muslim. I don't excuse Arabs for the damage they have done to Africa, I place them right beside Europeans (as evidenced by several of my past threads). Did ancient Africa have slavery? Yes it did, as did ancient Greece, Rome, and many other kingdoms. African slavery prior to the coming of Europeans was similar to the European (slave) system of indentured servitude. They were allowed to marry, own land, and establish their own villages. This is chronicled in books like Africans in the Americas, written by Michael Conniff & Thomas Davis. Was this a good system? No it wasn't, as it left Africans open for the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade. However, this was a system established by many nations (including European) at the time.

    Z: I submit to you…

    Key Points:

    1) Since pre-Islamic times, sub-Saharan Africans have been traded as slaves to the Arab world, including North Africa. Trade from sub-Saharan Africa was controlled by the Islamic Empire which stretched along Africa's northern coast. Muslim trade routes across the Sahara, which had existed for centuries, involved salt, kola, textiles, fish, grain, and slaves.

    2) Somalis, Ethiopians and Nubians were exported to Egypt as slaves since pre-Islamic times. In the West, people from the Sahel region of West Africa were sent to the Maghrib (Northwest Africa). Colonies of Muslim traders in Ghana and Goa traded with local princes, obtaining Black Africans for the trans-Saharan slave trade. Black African women sold as slaves to Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, and other parts of North Africa were often taken as concubines by Arab (or Arabized Berber) men.

    3) As the Portuguese extended their influence around the coast, Mauritania, Senagambia (by 1445) and Guinea, they created trading posts. Rather than becoming direct competitors to the Muslim merchants, the expanding market opportunities in Europe and the Mediterranean resulted in increased trade across the Sahara. In addition, the Portuguese merchants gained access to the interior via the Senegal and Gambia rivers which bisected long-standing trans-Saharan routes. Muslim merchants had an insatiable appetite for slaves, which were used as porters on the trans-Saharan routes (with a high mortality rate), and for sale in the Islamic Empire.

    4) The Portuguese found Muslim merchants entrenched along the African coast as far as the Blight of Benin. The slave coast, as the Blight of Benin was known, was reached by the Portuguese at the start of the 1470's. It was not until they reached the Kongo coast in the 1480's that they outdistanced Muslim trading territory.

    5) In exchange for slaves, African kings and merchants received various trade goods including beads, cowrie shells (used as money), textiles, brandy, horses, and perhaps most importantly, guns. The guns were used to help expand empires and obtain more slaves, until they were finally used against the European colonizers. The export of trade goods from Europe to Africa forms the first side of the Triangular Trade.

    6) In West Africa children in countries such as Benin, Burkina, Togo, Cameroon and the Ivory Coast are being sold for "domestic and commercial labor and sexual exploitation.

    7) As we speak, Nigerian girls are being smuggled through Britain to the rest of Europe where they are sold to prostitution rings.

    Sources: Transformations in Slavery by Paul E. Lovejoy, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

    The Slave Trade by Hugh Thomas, Simon and Schuster, 1997.

    You said…You aren't "shining" a new light on anyone with this "breaking news" of Africans enslaving Africans.

    Z: Reading over your responses, it would seem that more "light" needs to be shone on you.

    In as previous post you stated:

    “However, even if all slave transactions were initiated by Africans (which they weren't). Africa did not institute a system of slavery which determined that the children of slaves would also be enslaved.”

    Z: This statement was incorrect.

    Then you stated:

    “Africa did not determine that the descendants of these slaves work in perpetual servitude for almost 300 years. Africa did not decide that a system be created, which would leave the children of these slaves penny-less or without property when slavery was abolished in 1865.”

    Z: This statement was also incorrect and, I gave you several examples that pointed to the a centuries-old slave caste that was still in place in several countries.

    You said…However, claiming that African slavery was the same as the chattel slave system adopted by the Spanish, French, and British is an extremely Eurocentric point of view (A view you are obviously fond of).

    Z: I claimed no such thing. You just have a problem with the truth. Anytime a person-of-color presents a not so pretty picture of Africa, he or she is accused of being an outright liar, white, an Oreo, an Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, etc. anytime one ventures off the beaten path.

    You said…The problem is for every book like The African Origin of Civilization by Cheikh Anta Diop, which suggest and provides documentation that ancient Egypt was Negriod. There are works like the Babylonian Talmud, which promotes ideas like the Hametic Hypothesis (that suggest Egypt was created by a white race). For every book like The Negro in Reconstruction by Carter G. Woodson, which tells about the admirable efforts of African Americans to better themselves after slavery. There are works like The Ordeal of Reconstruction by Thomas A. Bailey, which tells of the inept attempts of the ignorant Negro to practice their newfound freedom. All of these works cite primary & secondary sources, all insist they are the truth. One can look at the sources to check how they were interpreted; however, ultimately which you believe comes down to who you lay with: The oppressor or the oppressed? Do you agree with History or His-story? I know which I believe, what about you Zuleilah? What you believe, what accounts you favor, speaks volumes about one's own self worth.

    Z: I agree with of African History, as told by most Africans in the Diaspora, most Africans on the continent and, any other serious scholars who value the history of the oppressed, rather than the oppressor.

    Note: In order to believe a story, one has to be prepared to accept all sides of the story – not just the side of story he wants to believe or feels more comfortable acknowledging.

    Such is life!

    The question still remains:

    Should the African descendants of slave traders (the sellers) pay reparations to the descendants of those who were enslaved (the slaves)?
     
  10. panafrica

    panafrica Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,227
    Likes Received:
    191
    Location:
    The Diaspora
    Ratings:
    +194
    Let me get this straight, you agreed with me on a point, then you decide I'm incorrect......whatever!! I have officially withdrawn from this "debate" (I have better things to do with my time). You obviously feel that Africa has wronged you Z. If the mother continent owes you, then be all means try to collect. Just don't expect too many PanAfricanist to climb aboard your ship.
     
Loading...