Alright, so I know I'm probably not going to get the best

>>2236194
bump

>>2236371
Any actual answers?

bump for interest, OP

>>2236385
Yet a massive amount of them converted to and maintained non-syncratic Roman Catholicism for 2 whole centuries before suddenly stopping or merging it with local faiths. Clearly they had the capacity for adopting Western ideas and religion.

File: Kongo Ivory Trumpet, 16th century, inventoried 1553.jpg (260KB, 1313x533px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1313x533px

I read a paper about how its society degenerated due to the slave trade. At first, from the 15th to the early 17th century they were a powerful, expansionist kingdom which could supply slaves to the Portuguese from its wars abroad or from purchasing them from other kingdoms and tribes. Because the Portuguese demanded slaves above anything else the Kongo produced, it was essential to maintain the trade if they wished to continue their 'Westernization'. The trade was heavily monitored and tightly controlled through the limiting of trade to certain ports, the need for slaves to have official documentation before they could be sold, and the building of toll booths along major roads. Most importantly, Kongo's own subjects could never be exported (except for criminals), and even when they were sold against the government's orders the king would often go to great diplomatic lengths to ensure the return of these slaves to their homeland.

This system relied entirely on the monarchy's power and will. Both the Europeans and the local Kongo officials and merchants could profit immensely from the sale of Kongo slaves, but the power of the king, largely resting on the slave of non-Kongo slaves, restrained them. When the 'Jaga' invaded or rebelled in 1568-1570, there was a short period of political chaos and economic crisis in which these restraints were lifted and the Kongo slaves were sold, but the Kingdom quickly recovered and ensured many of these slaves were returned.

File: Ceremonial Vessel, 16th–17th century, inventoried 1659.jpg (61KB, 416x624px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 416x624px

>>2236473
In the early 17th century things really began to fall apart, as the demand for slaves in the Americas exploded while the Kongo's foreign supply began to dry up as its expansion slowed. Soon Kongo-born slaves were being sold by the elite in order to meet European demands, and the monarchy was increasingly reluctant to suppress this source of revenue. The law was bent so that Kongos could be condemned as criminals for arbitrary 'crimes' and thus sold abroad. Local elites also began to rely more on slaves for their own use, putting them to work on plantations or using them as soldiers, thus becoming less reliant on the monarchy and undermining royal power (already troubled by dynastic conflict from 1614-1622, and continued destabilization afterwards).

These elites began to compete with each other for a share in the trade and in their own ownership of slaves, turning all of society into a kind of free-for-all of arbitrary enslavement, which the monarchy was soon taking part in as well. Anyone from the village farmers to the elite themselves was at constant risk of enslavement, by the elite, by their neighbors, by their own family, and by selling themselves (for protection or to avoid being enslaved by somebody else). Entire villages could be enslaved because of a crime committed by a few inhabitants. Heretics, such as followers of the mystic Beatriz Kimpa Vita, were also enslaved and sold.

Civil war broke out in 1665 until 1709, after which the Kongo was less a kingdom than a kind of African >H>R>E with no real political power. Society was anarchic, law was arbitrary, and basic human decency, family and trust were dead, much like in many other societies affected by the slave trade. The situation continued throughout the 18th century. The article didn't go on to the 19th century so I don't know what happened up to colonialism, except that slavery and general anarchy continued.

File: Kongo raffia cloth (1360-1436 AD).jpg (411KB, 1200x684px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1200x684px

>>2236477
Forgot to mention, the article is 'Slavery and Its Transformation in the Kingdom of Kongo' by LM Heywood, 2009.

>>2236473
>>2236477
>>2236481
neat

>>2236473
>>2236477
>>2236481

Thank you, I'll be sure to look into the article later.

So by the time the scramble for Africa came about, order had basically disintegrated and society had been reduced to base tribalism correct? How much had society changed due to the slave trade and its effects?

It's curious to me as how the Portuguese portray the Kongolese as having a sophisticated, well organized government with a regulated currency and noble houses, to how the Belgians saw them as little more than simple savages. The contrast is vast and it makes you wonder if they're even talking about the same place.

>>2236515
>So by the time the scramble for Africa came about, order had basically disintegrated and society had been reduced to base tribalism correct? How much had society changed due to the slave trade and its effects?
In Kongo and in many other areas affected by the slave trade, but things were different everywhere so it would be wrong to generalize the whole continent. There were still complex and prosperous societies on the eve of colonialism, though were were still of course 'backwards' compared to contemporary Europe. Benin for example hadn't engaged in the slave trade to any significant extent, and unlike the Kongo they were able to bounce back from civil war in the mid-17th century and despite some decline lasted as a cohesive state until colonialism; however their practice of human sacrifice, and certain funerary practices, meant they were depicted as savages. Similar is true of the Ashanti. Other areas were affected differently, and by different slave trades such as that of the Swahili coast, while others like those of southern Africa were affected more by vast migrations driven by Boer and Zulu incursions.

You might find this interesting, it's about how the slave trade resulted in a culture of mistrust in the areas most affected which still exists today; http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/nunn_wantchekon_aer_2011.pdf

>The contrast is vast and it makes you wonder if they're even talking about the same place.
They were different people. The Kongolese were based in modern Angola, the people of the Belgian Congo were different (except for the land around Kinshasa) and I don't really know anything about them.

>>2236515
The slave trade had a monstrous effect on the continent. Slaves were so valuable that most economies in sub-saharan Africa switched to slave trading. The slave trade was effectively a form of early total war where one used your enemy's civilians as your means of production. The more slaves you captured, the more weapons you could buy, and the more slaves you could capture. Essentially, Africa was depopulated, far more people having died in battle or of natural causes than actually made it to the Americas. Then the British banned the slave trade and enforced it with the Royal Navy, leading to the absolute collapse of much of whatever was left.

Being Canadian, I see parallels with our experience in the fur trade... being Albertan, I see the same thing going on the with oil sands in the moment. Not all trade is beneficial to all participants.