>>678436 >I Africa it's obviously africans. First was Egypt, then Mesopotamia states, Rome. It was real industry even in Antiquity. Then Arabians. It was real industry for centuries. There were many dynasties of slavedrivers. Then Europe and America. The third wave. And now only african and arabian slavedrivers left. Slavery and the slave trades had a significant impact on the size of the population and the gender distribution throughout much of Africa. T
They weren't. There were three major black slave trades; a medieval and early modern one crossing the Sahara, a 16th-19th century Atlantic one, and a 18th-19th century Indian Ocean one. Plenty of other slave trades existed, such as the Slavic one or the Barbary pirate raids.
The trans-Saharan one was probably due to the fact that sub-Saharan Africa had many small tribes that could easily be raided by more militaristic cavalry-based Islamic armies of the Sahel. Slavic slaves became harder to obtain as powerful kingdoms grew in East Europe, so Africa became the more important source of slaves for the Arabs over time, though Turks and other central Asians were also enslaved.
The Atlantic one was due to the colonization of the Americas and the deaths of the natives there, leaving vast tracks of uncultivated land. European settlers couldn't farm all of it and native slaves died too quickly, so Africans were brought in from West and Central Africa. It started off small, but the larger it grew the more African economies became reliant on it. Slaves became the most profitable good West Africans could offer, and this gave rise to militaristic states which were based around capturing and selling slaves (think Dahomey). Thus, supply and demand for slaves were both high and remained so until the trade was forcibly ended.
The Indian Ocean one grew in the late 18th century and became massive in the 19th. Omani/Swahili Muslims (and initially some Portuguese) along the East African coast started setting up plantations which required slave labour to run. They sent raiding expeditions as far as the Congo as well as buying slaves from certain militaristic tribes. That trade didn't end until colonialism.
In each case there was a powerful and wealthy group (Arabs/Europeans) with a strong demand for slave labour and had access to regions filled with small fragmented farming societies. These small societies were vulnerable to raids either directly from the demanding groups (eg Swahilis and Arabs) or from other more powerful, organized, and militaristic people who could make a profit by capturing and selling them off (eg Dahomey, Sahelian cavalry peoples).
There was nothing unique about this. This was basically the same thing that happened to the early medieval Slavs; there was demand from rich Muslims, so powerful groups like the Vikings and Bohemians raided their less developed neighbors to profit off that demand. Similar slaves trades existed all over the world, but usually were more localized.
>>678423 >Okeey, let's suppose you are right. We are >And what was the main source of slaves? Most european slaves were european, african slaves were mostly african, and asian slaves were mostly asian >In which countries it still is? India and Pakistan
Why did the whites use the blacks as slaves, instead of say, the yellows or the browns? Slavery was not racist in the ancient world: most of the Greeks' slaves were whites, so it was not on racist grounds that the whites picked the blacks. They didn't go, "You blacks are racially inferior, so we'll use you as our slaves"; the blacks were simply THE EASIEST ONES TO USE (and hence, the most racially inferior). It was one thing for the Japanese to capitulate to Perry's demand and open up their borders, for example, and another to agree to be bound in chains and shipped off across the world as his slaves. If the whites had tried to pull off that stunt in Japan, they'd have no doubt succeeded to an extent, but with a lot more casualties and losses, a great deal more of trouble. Also, this sort of treatment doesn't seem proper when you see up close the culture of the Japanese, their literature, architecture, and so on; but the blacks were basically begging to become slaves, living in huts or in the dirt, with no proper clothes or tools, etc., no literature or even writing. The greater the distance between you and your inferiors, the easier it is — even from a moral standpoint — to simply impose your will on them, and monkeys live in cages and no one cares.
>>678721 It's hard to measure there were not official data. There were "cotton slaves". There was the soviet system of kolhoz\sovhoz and "work mobilization" of urban sitizens and it was very alike a state slavery itself in all Union. But in UZ this system become real slavery.
>>678628 > If the whites had tried to pull off that stunt in Japan, they'd have no doubt succeeded to an extent, but with a lot more casualties and losses, a great deal more of trouble The portuguese were taking Japanese slaves for ages and nobody batted an eyelash >Also, this sort of treatment doesn't seem proper when you see up close the culture of the Japanese, their literature, architecture, and so on How? If someone has no morals and a big population you'll always find slaves >but the blacks were basically begging to become slaves No African voluntarily became a slave to Europeans >living in huts or in the dirt Most west africans used Wattle and daub to build huts, with fired brick in the sahel region. Mud keeps the inside of the hut warmer when it's cool out and stays cool when it's hot out >with no proper clothes or tools In the hot and humid regions of africa people had no need for lots of clothing, much like how it was in Mesoamerica and Southeast Asia.
Clothing was mostly a status symbol. Wealthier people were covered from head to toe. Typically well-off people wore hats, a length of cloth in the style of a toga with one hand free, jewelry, and sandals. Islamic dress became popular in the muslim regions for obvious reasons.
Poorer people wore skirts.
Most africans used a variety of iron tools for farming, bush clearing, building, and warfare.
>no literature Muslim Africans used what is called Ajami script to write down their native tongues. Modified Arabic script. The people of Biafra used Nsibidi.
Things really came down to circumstance. The Malinese for example massacred early european sailors who tried abducting their subjects.
>>678690 You're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand numbers, Mauretania has a grand total of 4 million people. Even if literally 100% of them were slaves, such a number would still be tiny compared to the amount of slaves in Asia.
>>678883 Yeah sorry, I forgot to mention the main cause of these slave trades; fun. Everyone had fun doing it. The raiders, the merchants, the buyers, and all others involved didn't really care much about money or power. Profit was just incidental to the fun.
False. They were mostly people from small villages who fell prey to raiders and militaristic states lead by slavers.
Think about it: you were hanging with your family and your mates planting, harvesting, cooking and drinking palm-tree alcoholic beverages (TM) when all of a sudden a group of neighbours with foreign guns, horses and shit shows up. It's profitable to them and you and your pals don't have much ways to resist. That's what mostly happened.
>>678473 >First was Egypt Blacks in Egypt were more likely to be Mercenaries than slaves actually.
The Nubians were in a state of near constant warfare prior its unification under the Kushite Kings. This made them great warriors, particularly their archers who were considered some of the ancient world's best.
Not to mention the average Egyptian soldier was the shit infantryman-conscript. Meaning they had a huge market for their skills upriver.
>>678628 They did take slaves of other groups, even other whites, but Africans were much more common for a few reasons.
1. Importing slaves from Asia would've been much more expensive and time-consuming, just due to the distances involved. While simply enslaving the Native Americans en masse would've been a very cheap source of labour, they died too quickly from European diseases. 2. The areas in Africa that the Europeans got their slaves from were already huge places in the slave market, with people there already prepared to sell their stock for relatively cheap. 3. African slaves were better suited to the climate in areas like the Caribbean, the most profitable region of the Americas. In fact, African slaves brought over rice farming techniques from Africa that were well suited to the tropical climate in the Caribbean and Latin America.
Hey OP even though your statement isn't accurate (Africa being a global source of slaves didn't really take off until the 15th century) I can still tell you a bit about why slavery was so well-established in much of Subsaharan Africa when Europeans and Arabs first started trading with them.
Unlike in Eurasia where wealth was determined chiefly by the quality and quantity of land, in much of Subsaharan Africa wealth was determined by how many people you had control over through kinship, fealty, clientage, ownership, etc; a concept known as "Wealth in People." This system can be at least partially attributed to the fact that the value of land in much of Africa can change dramatically due to frequent droughts, monsoons, disease outbreaks, etc and an initial lack of reliable crops that could guarantee that parcels of land would be productive over long periods of time. People were simply a more reliable store of wealth and political power than territory was, and "cities" were fairly impermanent and mobile in order to accommodate the changing environment. If a lord ever obtained a larger following than he wanted or was capable of caring for, he would trade owned members (slaves) from his demesne with other lords or merchants in exchange for goods or other slaves. When Europeans and Arabs arrived with their high quality finished goods it was kinda hard to resist trading something you have a lot of for cool things you've never seen, like guns.
>>683046 Genesis 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24 ¶ And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
>>678628 The Portuguese did enslave Japs you fuckign idiot.
>After the Portuguese first made contact with Japan in 1543, a large scale slave trade developed in which Portuguese purchased Japanese as slaves in Japan and sold them to various locations overseas, including Portugal itself, throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Many documents mention the large slave trade along with protests against the enslavement of Japanese. Japanese slaves are believed to be the first of their nation to end up in Europe, and the Portuguese purchased large numbers of Japanese slave girls to bring to Portugal for sexual purposes, as noted by the Churchin 1555. Sebastian of Portugal feared that this was having a negative effect on Catholic proselytization since the slave trade in Japanese was growing to massive proportions, so he commanded that it be banned in 1571.
>Japanese slave women were even sold as concubines to black African crewmembers, along with their European counterrparts serving on Portuguese ships trading in Japan, mentioned by Luis Cerqueira, a Portuguese Jesuit, in a 1598 document. Japanese slaves were brought by the Portuguese to Macau, where some of them not only ended up being enslaved to Portuguese, but as slaves to other slaves, with the Portuguese owning Malay and African slaves, who in turn owned Japanese slaves of their own.
>Hideyoshi was so disgusted that his own Japanese people were being sold en masse into slavery on Kyushu, that he wrote a letter to Jesuit Vice-Provincial Gaspar Coelho on 24 July 1587 to demand the Portuguese, Siamese (Thai), and Cambodians stop purchasing and enslaving Japanese and return Japanese slaves who ended up as far as India.[Hideyoshi blamed the Portuguese and Jesuits for this slave trade and banned Christian proselytizing as a result.
>>683156 Some Korean slaves were bought by the Portuguese and brought back to Portugal from Japan, where they had been among the tens of thousands of Korean prisoners of war transported to Japan during the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98).] Historians pointed out that at the same time Hideyoshi expressed his indignation and outrage at the Portuguese trade in Japanese slaves, he himself was engaging in a mass slave trade of Korean prisoners of war in Japan. Fillippo Sassetti saw some Chinese and Japanese slaves in Lisbon among the large slave community in 1578, although most of the slaves were blacks.
The Portuguese "highly regarded" Asian slaves like Chinese and Japanese, much more "than slaves from sub-Saharan Africa".The Portuguese attributed qualities like intelligence and industriousness to Chinese and Japanese slaves which is why they favored them more.[ In 1595 a law was passed by Portugal banning the selling and buying of Chinese and Japanese slaves.
Arabs from the Arabian peninsula had east african slaves from Ethiopia, and Arabs/Berbers from the Maghreb had west african slaves from Mali. But the Barbary slave trade, when the coast was called Barbary by Europeans, had more to do with Ottoman raids and enslaving of Christians.
Btw, Bilal is a meme, Arabs believed black people were subhuman for a long time
>>678483 >The trans-Saharan one was probably due to the fact that sub-Saharan Africa had many small tribes that could easily be raided by more militaristic cavalry-based Islamic armies of the Sahel. >easily be raided by more militaristic cavalry-based Islamic armies >cavalry-based
Arabs introduced camels in North Africa, if they could cross the Sahara on horses, sub Saharan Africa and Europe wouldn't be the same today.
The Tuaregs are the result of trade between West Africa and the Maghreb, and Morocco tried to annex them mutiple times, before they figured out that controlling an empire with a huge desert in the middle was a bad idea.
>European settlers couldn't farm all of it and native slaves died too quickly, so Africans were brought in from West and Central Africa >There was nothing unique about this
>>683479 Nope. Although the article states that Somalis were protected by the tenets of Islam, it doesn't explain why they enslaved the Swahilis and the Zanj who rebelled. Both those groups were muslim. Why were Somalis the exception?
>>683406 Because you can easily free yourself from slavery in muslim society, and you have some basic human rights even as a slave.Hell, Hayreddin Pasha was a slave, he ended up ruling a country.
Arabs believed blacks had an absolutely haram hedonistic behavior, and despite the proximity, they didn't populate East Africa like they did in North Africa or Egypt, it would have been even easier to conquer than Ifriqia.
>>683442 I'm not sure what you're talking about. Cavalry were very common in the Sahel. They were the basis behind entire empires and have been used since pre-historic times, long before the arrival of camels. They only couldn't spread further south because of tropical diseases and tsetse flies.
they think Athena was black because they are people who want to use history for a self-esteem boost, and since much of subsaharan African history wasn't written down they appropriate other peoples' history using flimsy evidence like black figure pottery to assert that X-person or Y-civilization was secretly black.
Of course, you knew all this. You just wanted another excuse to laugh at black people and stir up shit on this board.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.