Thanks everyone for recommendations. And as for this one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmikronWarrior
John Thornton's Africa and Africans is a modern classic, and a bit of an "antidote" to the theory you suggested above. Thorton argues that Africans retained an enormous amount of "agency" in dealing with Europeans. He also argues that the slave trade did no more lasting damage to African society on the whole as an out break of plauge would have. Furthermore, there were winners and losers in the slave trade within Africa, and some nations arguably came out ahead in the transactions.
|
I guess I'll check it out, if only because it sounds so different from
Black Mother. Black Mother cites numerous examples of black people governing themselves, rebelling (some painted them as unable to take any action) being treated as equals by European monarchs, shows examples of sophisticated purely African culture and pieces of art. Curiously, pieces of art get cruder and cruder with time, illustrating degeneration. Some of the points the book makes:
Slave trade was for most part volountary, at least in the beginning. Capturing slaves by force was quite rare. Later, Africa was unable to stop it. Even when African rulers wanted to stop it, it was too late. If you didn't trade, your neighbors did. Not only would they become wealthy, but would get superior weapons and would invade you. So it wasn't just
slave trade, it was also weapon trade, one of dirties trades there is. Some desperate peoples like those in the delta of Kongo sought to take advantage of that and armed themselves. They would only trade if they'd get at least 1 rifle per 1 slave. They were getting stronger and more fortified and were finally able to resist Europeans. Basil Davidson cites this - Africans arming themselves and finally resisting - as a factor contributing to the start of colonialism. No more profit without using force. Of course, Industrial Revolution running out of steam was still the main reason.
- slave trade had a long tradition in Africa, but most slaves would usually assimilate. They had more freedom than in Europe or America, could marry etc. This isn't strange if you realize there was no skin color difference. Meanwhile in America you'd be instantly recognized as different and a slave. In Africa it was blacks among blacks. Imagine many Africans thought Europeans were cannibals !
- about lasting damage: Basil Davidson says the damage was huge and backs it up. First, it isolated "countries". Those at the shore would guard it jealously. The trade was dominated by kings and wealthiest merchants - they had a monopoly. People
fought over access to shores so they could trade. And they started wars to capture slaves and fuel the trade. It made Africans hate each other, or more accurately other tribes. Surely wars can cause lasting damage ?
- Africans had a feudal system, but it was too different for Europeans to recognize. It was a
tribal feudal system, you had a hierarchy of tribes instead of individuals.