• Astroturfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, no it’s their fault for making it. Just like Africa should of never of had all those juicy natural resources and available slaves. It was their fault.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of the slaves were captured by Africans in wars fought for slaves. European slave raids happend, but mostly Europeans just bought the slaves from African leaders. That is one of the reasons Africa is so fragmanted today. As more local power mean more potential targets to raid and the smaller you are the less you have to share the wealth from the slave trade.

      • Benj1B
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I strongly, strongly suggest you revisit some of the preconceptions that led you here. I was going to instinctually retort, but instead took 5 minutes to read the relevant Wikipedia article on the topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa#West_Africa. It is clear that the topic is more nuanced than I originally thought, so thank you for bringing that to my attention, but it’s a crude and broad brush to imply that most slaves already existed in slavery prior to the Atlantic trade. There is also a significant difference between slaves in Africa who were exchanged between local groups in a wholly African context, versus slaves chained up and flung across the Atlantic with a 12% mortality rate and forced under a European slavery conception.

        I suspect your response has rubbed others the wrong way, as it did myself, so consider this an attempt to find a common ground for dialogue - whatever the history of Africs prior to the Atlantic Slave Trade, I think we can agree that what happened was utterly grotesque and an atrocity upon the history of our common humanity.