These evil British colonizers of Africa and the institution of slavery
So, why don’t our history books teach us much about this aspect of the history of slavery in Africa? Mine certainly didn’t touch on it at all, and in all the years since then, when I’ve about the evils of the institution of slavery I never heard a word about the role of Christian missionaries in ending slavery within Africa itself.
In fact, ending slavery seems to have been one of the main reasons that missionaries were there, and a rather significant force in the European colonization of Africa in general, although of course it was hardly the only factor. And the campaign was relatively effective, although there is still some slavery there:
Patrick Manning explains that “if there is any time when one can speak of African societies being organized around a slave mode production, [1850-1900] was it.”
The continuing anti-slavery movement in Europe became an excuse and a casus belli for the European conquest and colonisation of much of the African continent. It was the central theme of the Brussels Anti-Slavery Conference 1889-90. In the late 19th century, the Scramble for Africa saw the continent rapidly divided between Imperialistic European powers, and an early but secondary focus of all colonial regimes was the suppression of slavery and the slave trade. In response to this pressure, Ethiopia officially abolished slavery in 1932, Sokoto Caliphate abolished slavery in 1900, and the rest of the Sahel in 1911. By the end of the colonial period they were mostly successful in this aim, though slavery is still very active in Africa even though it has gradually moved to a wage economy. Slavery has never been eradicated in Africa, and it commonly appears in African states, such as Chad, Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, and Sudan, in places where law and order have collapsed.
Then today, after I’d already prepared the above draft, I saw this offering in the comments section from “Dennis”:
In the mid 19th century Islamic jihad against black Africans was in full force. The Muslims had invaded central Africa and were killing and enslaving Africans on a massive scale. They would march the newly minted African slaves out to the coast in chain gangs. These poor sick undernourished Africans were forced to march with elephant tusks on their heads. Many of the men were castrated out in the field…
The Britisher who was most influential missionary in fighting Muslim depredations in Africa was a Scottish missionary named David Livingstone (19 March 1813 ”“ 1 May 187). The primary mission of the early British missionaries to Africa was to protect the Africans from Islamic jihad. David Livingstone and the other missionaries fought Islamic jihad against Africans primarily through education both in England where the English were alerted to the tragedy which was unfolding in Africa and in Africa where the Africans received the education necessary to enable them to repel the Muslim invaders. It is ironic that leftists accuse missionaries of destroying traditional African society and to some extent they did however since Christian missionaries relied on education and persuasion to win converts rather than by force they ended up saving much of what is uniquely African from the impending destruction by Islamic jihad.
The name of the modern day Islamic jihadis in central Africa, Boko Harem (roughly translated ”“ Western education is a fraud which is forbidden in Islam) is not a fluke. The Islamists know exactly what the missionaries hoped to accomplish by establishing schools and hospitals throughout Africa and they hate them because they stand as bulwark against their violent jihad.
It’s a never-ending struggle, isn’t it?
Ultimately, after European influence, some anti-slavery feeling developed within the Muslim world, although it was met with resistance:
Bernard Lewis writes: “In one of the sad paradoxes of human history, it was the humanitarian reforms brought by Islam that resulted in a vast development of the slave trade inside, and still more outside, the Islamic empire.” He notes that the Islamic injunctions against the enslavement of Muslims led to massive importation of slaves from the outside. According to Patrick Manning, Islam by recognizing and codifying the slavery seems to have done more to protect and expand slavery than the reverse…
Arab or Islamic slave trade lasted much longer than Atlantic or European slave trade: “It began in the middle of the seventh century and survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. With the Islamic slave trade, we’re talking of 14 centuries rather than four.”…
Earlier in the 20th century, prior to the “reopening” of slavery by Salafi scholars like Shaykh al-Fawzan, Islamist authors declared slavery outdated without actually clearly supporting its abolition. This has caused at least one scholar (William Clarence-Smith) to bemoan the “dogged refusal of Mawlana Mawdudi to give up on slavery” and the notable “evasions and silences of Muhammad Qutb”.
Muhammad Qutb, brother and promoter, of the famous Sayyid Qutb, vigorously defended Islamic slavery from Western criticism, telling his audience that “Islam gave spiritual enfranchisement to slaves” and “in the early period of Islam the slave was exalted to such a noble state of humanity as was never before witnessed in any other part of the world.” He contrasted the adultery, prostitution, and (what he called) “that most odious form of animalism” casual sex, found in Europe, with (what he called) “that clean and spiritual bond that ties a maid [i.e. slave girl] to her master in Islam.”
ISIS and Boko Harum are firmly in that tradition, although much of the Islamic world now opposes them:
ISIL appealed to apocalyptic beliefs and “claimed justification by a Hadith that they interpret as portraying the revival of slavery as a precursor to the end of the world.” In late September 2014, 126 Islamic scholars from around the Muslim world signed an open letter to the Islamic State’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, rejecting his group’s interpretations of the Qur’an and hadith to justify its actions. The letter accuses the group of instigating fitna””sedition””by instituting slavery under its rule in contravention of the anti-slavery consensus of the Islamic scholarly community.
Who will win that battle?
It’s simple. Treating people as individuals undermines the popular narratives, and reduces political, economic, and social leverage. The Left’s social complex was built on stoking and propagation of prejudice. The Democrat Party engages in strategic denigration of individual dignity, and, on principal, promotes debasement of human life (i.e. pro-choice doctrine).
That said, Mugabe has invited survivors of his pogrom against native whites to manage the farms. Presumably to avoid starvation of the majority in one of the most fertile lands on the African continent.
The Left’s social complex is infamous for promoting dysfunctional orientations and behaviors for profit, where pro-choice doctrine is the keystone of their common “religion”. Cult, really.
For a bit of a modern taste of this look at some of the comments from Franklin Graham, leader of “Samaritan’s Purse”, which operates in Africa and the Middle East. some of his comments about ISIS, jihadist, etc…..
Who will win that battle?
surround yourself with those on the same mission as you
When about 60% of your income is swallowed by taxes, fees, excises, etc. it means you are being farmed.
They’ve gotten more clever about running the plantations:
Disney Cast Member: How They Replaced Me, Other Americans, With Cheap Foreigners On H1B Visas
No one is more of a slave than he who thinks himself free without being so. Goethe
“126 Islamic scholars….” BFD
Islam is evil.
Islamic “scholars” can practice taqqiya.
Islam is evil.
How many SJWs and black race-hustlers, obsessed with the fact of slavery in our country’s past, acknowledge that some form of slavery has existed in almost all cultures historically, that African chiefs were hostile to the efforts of Western abolitionists in the nineteenth century, that the legal decision in Virginia that solidified the institution of slavery in the colonies was based on the case of an African slave-owner, or that slavery in Africa persists to this day (the case of the activist Biram Dah Abeid in Mauretania comes to mind)?
It’s a never-ending struggle, isn’t it?
Yes.
Can I add this for the sick of this discussion and what we facing now:
Laina Farhat-Holzman
A Mosque in Munich
by Ian Johnson , Zarinés Negron
Frog Says:
Islamic “scholars” can practice taqqiya.
When you writing this do you know exactly what it means?
Do have any idea which part of Muslims practice “taqqiya”?
I hope next someone if he write things be knowledgeable what comes from his mouth or his mind.
For a light and a bit amusing take on 19th century Muslim slave-trading in Africa – one of the Flashman novels (http://www.amazon.com/Flashman-Papers-George-MacDonald-Fraser/dp/1400096464)
which has Flashy briefly on board a British Navy boat, hunting and interdicting Arab slavers shipping black African captives. Most curiously, a larger portion of black African captives seemed to go … eastwards, into the Caliphate.
jklm Says: 8:08 pm
“Frog Says:
Islamic “scholars” can practice taqqiya.
When you writing this do you know exactly what it means?
Do have any idea which part of Muslims practice “taqqiya”?”
The term taqqiya is traditionally associated with Shia Islam. So what is the point?
Neo, if you go out of the common media and academic circles, this a well known stuff.
I highly recommend Ibn Warraq’s “Why the west is best”, chapter four about Slavery and Racism
http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Best-Apostates-Democracy/dp/1594035768
â– From the “Black on Black slavery” subchapter:
«John Thornton of Boston University, a leading historian of slavery, likewise dispels a number of myths about the slave trade in his book Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400—1680. Thornton argues that Africans, far from being passive, were firmly in control of their continent’s destiny and their interactions with Europeans. They were active participants in trade with Europe, including the slave trade. “Europeans did not possess the military power to force Africans to participate in any type of trade in which their leaders did not wish to engage. Therefore all African trade with the Atlantic, including the slave trade, had to be voluntary,” Thornton explains.9 Europeans did not conquer and pillage Africa. Instead, they engaged in a peaceful, well-regulated trade, tapping into an existing slave market.
Thornton notes that slavery had a long history in African societies, where “relatively large numbers of people were likely to be slaves at any one time.”10 These societies were inegalitarian, and slavery was deeply rooted in their legal and institutional structures. Since there was no private ownership of land, African entrepreneurs bought slaves as “the only form of private, revenue-producing property recognized in African law.”11 Slaves were [in Africa] the major form of private investment and a sign of wealth and social prestige. Many worked in agriculture or in mines; some performed administrative duties or military service. Thus, economic growth in Africa was closely tied to slavery.
Africans began exporting slaves as soon as they discovered there was an outside market for them. Thornton notes that the rapid growth of Congo’s slave trade with Europeans “had to draw on a well-established and developed system of slavery, slave marketing, and slave delivery that pre-existed any European contact.” Such a system was in place because “the capture, purchase, transport, and sale of slaves was a regular feature of African society.” This reality, Thorton argues, was “as much responsible as any external force for the development of the Atlantic slave trade.”12 African leaders were not forced into participating in the slave trade. The African slavers had total control of the entire operation from the moment of capture to the delivery of the slaves to European ships.»
â– From the “The Arab Slave Trade” subchapter:
«Tidiane N’Diaye, a Senegalese anthropologist and historian, wrote a passionate account of the role that Muslim Arabs played in the black African slave trade, with the pointed title The Veiled Genocide. 15 He demonstrates that although slavery existed in Africa long before the Arabs arrived there, the Arab slave trade was larger in scope and more deadly in its effects. Muslim Arabs captured, enslaved, and castrated millions of black Africans, resulting in death for hundreds of thousands. The Veiled Genocide is a courageous book, bluntly stating the facts no matter how politically incorrect. N’Diaye lays to rest many myths of slavery, documenting that both Muslim Arabs and black Africans had been enslaving other humans for centuries before the white man arrived in Africa. In a forthright fashion that would be virtually unthinkable for a Western historian, N’Diaye writes:
[The Arabs] brought with them an avalanche of sorrows. As the Arabs advanced, mere survival was a real challenge for the people. Millions of Africans were victims of raids, were massacred or captured, castrated and sent to the Arabo-Muslim world. And that in inhuman conditions, by caravans across the Sahara or by sea, from trading posts dealing in human flesh from East Africa. Such was in reality the major occupation of the majority of Arabs who Islamized the African people, all the while posing as pillars of the faith and exemplary believers. They often went from region to region, the Koran in one hand, and the knife for castrating in the other, leading a hypocritical “life of prayer,” never uttering a word without invoking Allah or a saying or deed of the Prophet.
Beautiful and noble principles but which were trampled upon–with such joy, such indignity, such dishonesty–by these Arab slavers, who submitted Africa to fire and sword. For, behind this religious pretext, they committed the most revolting crimes and the most atrocious cruelties….
The Atlantic Slave Trade lasted four centuries, whereas the Arabs raided Sub-Saharan Africa for thirteen centuries without interruption. The majority of men shipped disappeared because of their inhuman treatment and systematic castration…. For, even though there are no degrees of horror nor a monopoly of cruelty, one can argue, without risk of contradiction, that the slave trading and jihad carried out by Arab Muslims to procure captives for these predators without pity was far more devastating than the Atlantic Trade. And it is still being carried on under our noses.16
Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau, a specialist on the history of slavery, concludes that between the seventh century and the 1920s, Arab merchants handled more than seventeen million black slaves, of which more than one and a half million died en route, many across the Sahara.17 In the nineteenth century alone, over a million slaves were exported from eastern ports of Africa to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and the Persian Gulf; millions more were transported around the African interior and along the eastern coast.18»
NOTE I would add that, unless the Atlantic slave trade, arabic slave trade was highly focused in women to be used as sexual slaves. The “Harem” imagery is basically composed by sexual slaves, since muslim women are not supposed to wander around half naked.
More food for thoughts: even though arab slave trade had a high proportion of females, there’s almost no black descendants in middle east. Why? Because their children were murdered.
Which brings a very interesting observation: the ones who have problems in the modern world with “racism” are the ones that didn’t slaughter their slaves. Had the whites slaughter the offspring of their slaves as the arab did, current North-America wouldn’t have any racial tension. And nobody would call americans “racists”, as nobody does with middle east Arabs.
â– From the “White Slaves” subchapter:
«Not well known to the general public is the enslavement of Europeans and North Americans by Arabs, especially during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. According to Robert C. Davis, “almost certainly a million” and possibly many more white Europeans were taken into slavery by Muslims of the Barbary Coast between 1530 and 1780.24 The coasts of Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Ireland, and England, especially Cornwall, were all targets of Muslim raids for centuries.»
â– From “Abolition and Resistance” subchapter:
«The abolition of slavery was very much a Western initiative. It was Europe that “first decided to set the slaves free: at home, then in the colonies, and finally in all the world,” as Bernard Lewis said.32 Abolitionism was a concept that did not resonate well either in black Africa, where slavery was not opposed in principle, or in the Islamic world, where it was believed to be supported by religion.33 […]
The abolitionist movement was resisted for a longer time in the Islamic world, in large part because slavery is accepted in the Koran. In 1872, Sir Bartle Frere was sent by the British foreign office to Zanzibar to negotiate a treaty with the sultan, Barghash bin Said, to end the slave traffic. Barghash first insisted that abolishing slavery would ruin Zanzibar’s agriculture and that slavery was approved in Islamic law. Eventually, in 1873, he signed a treaty agreeing to close all public slave markets and prohibit the transport of slaves over water.36
In the Ottoman Empire, slavery was taken for granted: “Accepted by custom, perpetuated by tradition and sanctioned by religion,” as Ehud R. Toledano put it. Abolitionism was considered a foreign idea, barely understood and vigorously resisted.37 The Turkish historian Y. H. Erdem confirmed that no antislavery movement ever emerged from Ottoman society; there were no abolitionist tracts to spotlight the suffering of slaves or bring the subject to wide attention. In modern Turkey, the abolition of slavery is not a part of the educational curriculum.38
“The anti-slavery measures of European colonial powers were generally viewed by Muslims not only as a threat to their very livelihood but also as an affront to their religion,” said John Azumah, a Ghanaian with a doctorate in “Islam and Slavery” from the University of Birmingham. “Muslims therefore resisted all abolition efforts and chattel slavery persists in Muslim countries today.”39 A United Nations report in 1995 highlighted “the abduction and traffic of young boys and girls from Southern Sudan to the northern part of the country for sale as servants and concubines.”40 In 2006, John Eibner described the ongoing practice of slavery in Sudan»
Couple of points: You could say that the European powers lied about ending slavery; it was necessary, however, to promote it to sell the effort and expense to their citizens. If that’s true, it does say something about the general view of slavery on the part of Europeans. I don’t know that it’s true, but it’s the most cynical possibility and even that makes European civilization look pretty good, considering the issue.
Studying subSaharan history half a century ago, we were told that three to five times as many Africans were captured and went east as went west. Which brings up the question of where, in MENA, or the littoral of the Indian Ocean is anything resembling Haiti, or at least, Alabama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu
Ah, you’ve come to the same conclusion I have, Neo, except you did it via a different source. I saw a historical simulation of the spread of Islam in Africa, and realized off the bat that that’s why blacks sold slaves to the Europeans. Because they’ve been selling slaves to the Islamics since 700 AD at least, so that Islam could castrate them and use them as eunuch guards on those harems.
Studying subSaharan history half a century ago, we were told that three to five times as many Africans were captured and went east as went west. Which brings up the question of where, in MENA, or the littoral of the Indian Ocean is anything resembling Haiti, or at least, Alabama.
The Islamics weren’t going to bring in slave ethnicities that could reproduce. They castrated them or bred the women into Islamic lines. It’s very simple why you don’t see mixes of culture later on. Because they didn’t allow any “mixing” so to speak, similar to the DemoNcrat caste system dividing blacks from whites.
This is also why the retarded pro Democrat Southerners keep telling us that “slavery would have ended eventually, Civil War I was Lincoln the Tyrant’s way of getting in our business”.
No, slavery would never end, it has never ended, and it will never end even. We’re currently on Slavery 3.0 with the Arabs still on Slavery 2.0 but then Islam is pretty retro.
Btw
So, why don’t our history books teach us much about this aspect of the history of slavery in Africa?
Why would Leftists and American traitors ever teach you anything about this?
The truth is too powerful to be allowed to the peasants, the Left knows this. America has been under this propaganda and mind control for some time now.
Pingback:ALL IS NOT AS IT SEEMS: These evil British colonizers of Africa and the institution of slavery…. - Perot Report
“Boko Harem” means “School Is Sin”.
If it weren’t for the colonials, Africa’s natural resources would still be in the ground. The Spanish lust for gold led to the Central and South American slave trade, and Eli Whitney’s cotton gin started the mass American slave trade as the gin changed cotton growing from a cottage industry into an international commodity. You can talk about Arab slave traders, but the Treaty of Ultrect in 1713 gave Great Britain the monoply to carry slaves from Africa to the West. Predictably, in the end, it’s all about money.
As for some Islamic scholars signing a letter to complain what other Islamic scholars have concluded, all I know is that when I read the coran, Boko Harm’s actions seem to be more in line with what the book demands. Who am I to disagree?
ymar
You know it–about the missing Alabama, so to speak–and I know it, and even if we got a prog to admit the slavery going east, we still have the fun of asking said prog why he doesn’t think the no-descendants version of a holocaust should be considered.
The executive summary of the statement by the 126 Muslim scholars is an interesting read. The fact that there are Arab Christians and Yazidis still living in the Middle East for ISIS to kill shows that ISIS has pushed the limits of Islamic theology. Thus it is possible for the Islamic scholars to condemn ISIS’s extremely violent behavior on the basis of historic Islamic practice and theology.
On the issue of slavery ISIS is on firmer footing since slavery is strongly supported by the Koran, the Hadiths, and by Islamic history until very recently.
Item #9 – Declaring People Non-Muslim (takfir) – is an interesting item since that is exactly what Obama, the Islamophilic left and all the other apologists for Islam do when they claim that ISIS is not Islamic and has nothing to do with Islam. Unless I missed something, the Islamic scholars themselves did not make that claim since they would be contradicting themselves if they did. In fact, ISIS is a genuine Islamic movement which has distinguished itself by pushing the theological envelope a little bit. This is nothing new in Islam. Although traditional Islam is so violent that ISIS doesn’t have to push the envelope much to reach their present position the scholars are correct that Isis is on the cutting edge in the evolution of modern Islam.
http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf
I just finished a book titled Our Man In Charleston, which was about the British consul in Charleston from 1852-1862. One thing the book made me realize was the Confederacy was doomed from the get-go because of British opposition to the Atlantic slave trade or the expansion of slavery in the Caribbean or Central America. Even had the Confederacy won, they would have been at war with Great Britain within a decade had the Confederacy – as it promised – tried to revive the slave trade or started filibustering. The Brits might even have allied with the remnants of the U.S. to end slavery.
although much of the Islamic world now opposes them
delusional…
the islamic world does NOT oppose them…
anymore than people who bought bonds during WWII opposed the war… they may not shoot, but they do support…
Neo: I love to (*Innocently!!*) torture the Liberal/PC-Adherents where I work with occasionally mentioning that I have,”3-African American friends/colleagues at the same company: 1-Senegal; 1-Ethiopian; 1-Congo; ALL smart, savy, hard-working, America Loving women in their 30’s. Never, NEVER does one hear any of the ‘Hood crap and entitlement/victim bullshit of many of our home grown ‘yoots/adults. And, as I like to say: These ladies are Genuine AFRICAN Americans.
First, we have always had slavery and will return to it in the future as our tech wans. Second, we did certainly use blacks as slaves, but in the South blacks were frequent holders of slaves and owned several large plantations with slaves, check out Melrose in Louisiana. Note that blacks could not even live in most of the North before the War of Northern Aggression and that they certainly had fewer rights in the North as compared to the South. Funny how the war was fought to end slavery when both countries advocated there use ( the Emancipation Proc. did not free slaves).
Now consider this, the English began the abolition movement, likely in an effort to hurt the French and Spanish. The English did a good job getting rid of their slaves because they found a better economic solution, that is, they enslaved whole countries, such as India. This form of slavery continued until after WWII and resulted in the deaths of millions of Indians due to the colonial power shifting food from India to England during the war.
Mark,
Are you aware that Brittan and France actively supported the Confederacy and only held off recognizing the nation due to the threat of world war, which they could not handle at the time?? Brittan would have done nothing to stop slavery in the South, but the practice would have ended as slavery is a very poor economic system and would have been replaced quickly with tech. The only problem was the amount of capital tied up in the system and the need to replace said capital. As it was, the North completely destroyed our country and we still suffer, and we are still occupied and don’t like it.
Pingback:Da Tech Guy Blog » Blog Archive » The Awful Slavery Ending European Imperialists
‘Twasn’t just the Muslims. You’d never know from the Wikipedia article, but one of the grievances the Boers held against the British that eventually led to the Boer War was the Boer fondness of slavery.
To end slavery, one must end Islam.
askeptic
To end slavery, one must end Islam.
First go finish ISIS and then do what you siad?
Looks some dreamers not real in this world.
There was no war of Northern Aggression. It was the War of the Great Rebellion.
England did not support or recognize the confederacy, to their credit.
Yes, blacks held slaves. They owned shares of corporations, and could own the shares even if slaves. The corporations held land and slaves. Often the slaves of the corporations were their children, wives, husbands who worked for the corporation so more people could be bought.
They were earning their freedom.
Wilburforce started the abolitionist movement, to save the lives of the slaves, and the souls of British people. He cared little for hurting Spain or Portugal.
Pingback:The History Of Slavery You Never Get Taught | Tai-Chi Policy
but the practice would have ended as slavery is a very poor economic system and would have been replaced quickly with tech.
Hah, I’m sure Planned Parenthood have ended their profit with “tech” after inheriting the South’s eugenics based philosophy of life. That’s why they’re making money bags out of live births, right. Cause tech makes you free, right.
Slavery 3.0 deals with that ‘poor economic’ system. Do you even understand how much Planned Profit makes from their abortions?
Poor economic system, for people that think slavery was always a single thing that never changed.
Richard A, oh if you meant in that fashion, then I also use that kind of tactic.
I hadn’t read some of the above comments about the African slave trade, I was making my conclusions based on memory and my own sources.
https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/counter-revolutionary-methods-against-the-left/
But the tactics of pushing the Left to follow their own rules without using turtle defenses, is what I favor and have used for many years now. Until American anti Leftists, Western loyalists, and patriots are ready to go active against the Left, it’s more efficient to sap out the supports first.
Don,
Your security in history is very poor. Look up Melrose plantation, look up black ownership of slavery, look up the Black Laws of the north, look up the real relationship of the CSA with England– not the myth. Even the Vatican supported the CSA. Where do you think the weapons used by the CSA came from?? Try England and France. You see, the problem with this country is ignorance, not stupidity, that comes if people don’t correct their ignorance.
You see, the problem with this country is ignorance, not stupidity, that comes if people don’t correct their ignorance.
The ignorance that comes from thinking Slavery is static and can never make a profit using technology? That kind of ignorance from the DemoNcrat excusers?
Pingback:News of the Week (September 13th, 2015) | The Political Hat
Pingback:American Slavery, Reinvented, Plus MoreIowaDawg Blogging Stuff | IowaDawg Blogging Stuff
Pingback:IMAO » Blog Archive » Link of the Day: This Is Why the Idea of a “Black Muslim” Should Be Completely Laughable