The “but their kings are the ones who sold them into slavery” has been the refrain of racist white guys who don’t think of themselves as racist. It really pisses me off because I don’t know enough to deboonk that talking point.
If it’s true, that’s an argument that the African societies in question were deeply flawed not that euros should be morally absolved for chattel slavery.
I mean it is true that African groups were deeply involved in the slave trade but that doesn’t absolve Europeans at all because without a purchaser then there wouldn’t have been other groups involved in it either.
The Europeans coerced many African states into engaging in the slave trade when they were otherwise reluctant, for example by playing on existing social divisions to turn groups against each other, or by refusing to trade desired European goods for anything other than slaves. Any comrade here who is curious can read “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” by Walter Rodney.
Rodney also notes that millions of slaves were taken from Africa. The Europeans did not simply show up to find them all waiting on the shores. Africa had no need for this huge amount of slave labor, but the new colonies did, which is why they traded in slaves and not gold. Some African states that did enslave other groups, even before the Europeans, didn’t necessarily use them as labor but would integrate them as citizens.
The “but their kings are the ones who sold them into slavery” has been the refrain of racist white guys who don’t think of themselves as racist. It really pisses me off because I don’t know enough to deboonk that talking point.
If it’s true, that’s an argument that the African societies in question were deeply flawed not that euros should be morally absolved for chattel slavery.
I mean it is true that African groups were deeply involved in the slave trade but that doesn’t absolve Europeans at all because without a purchaser then there wouldn’t have been other groups involved in it either.
The Europeans coerced many African states into engaging in the slave trade when they were otherwise reluctant, for example by playing on existing social divisions to turn groups against each other, or by refusing to trade desired European goods for anything other than slaves. Any comrade here who is curious can read “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” by Walter Rodney.
See my comment here.
Rodney also notes that millions of slaves were taken from Africa. The Europeans did not simply show up to find them all waiting on the shores. Africa had no need for this huge amount of slave labor, but the new colonies did, which is why they traded in slaves and not gold. Some African states that did enslave other groups, even before the Europeans, didn’t necessarily use them as labor but would integrate them as citizens.
Thanks a lot! I’ve heard Rodney’s book mentioned before, so I’ll definitely check it out.