Talk:African slave trade/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Factual information!

85.3.116.191 23:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)About "Why African Slaves?" section:[reply]

Actually, the main reason about why Europeans traded African slaves, is that the Catholic Church's verdict during the Valladolid Debate was that the natives from the New World had a Soul and should be then considered as human beings. The final turn of the debate was in continuation on the New Laws (1542), and made a crucial impact on Spain's decision to eventually rather "take" African slaves. Then Native Americans couldn't be used for Slave Trade, although the treaty didn't really change their condition, to tell the truth... Anyway, pope Paul III began then to promote the use of African slaves, as previous decisions would have created an economic disaster for the Spanish Crown. One more thing: To argue that Native American's weren't able "to perform hard physical labor", it's really questionable! Even if in fact the text precises the European slaver's point of view, it should be precised as well that this argument was not actually a strong one, since most of Native Americans already practiced agriculture...

What was the african population at the beginning of the slave trade

Would somebody please insert dates into at least the first section? I am entirely confused about when the slave trade across the Sahara first started. - Banyan Tree 19:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It already states "while there has long been some trading up the Nile River and very limited trading across the western desert the transportation of large numbers of slaves did not become viable until camels were introduced from Arabia in the tenth century." - SimonP 19:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to err on the "cautious" side for figures (judging by a quick check on Google), and the claim that "slavery had a neutral, or even somewhat positive effect on those left behind" seems worrying enough to warrant careful checking. I've marked it as needing attention; some solid references, at least, would be nice. --19:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Why African slaves?

If this is an article about the trans-Saharan slave trade, not the trans-Atlantic slave trade, this chapter should deal with the Arabian and African motives. I recommend to move the text to the trans-Atlantic article.

Arican slave.

I'am very disppointed that people will be like this. Who cares how their look like and what different their have. Their are still human beings. NOT ANIMALS. I can image how hard was it probably for them to be treated like a slave. No where to go, just had to service their Master or his Mistress in the poor condition. If their Master doesn't have enough money or something they could be sold to anyone for the money. Slave trade was like a animal trade. Not a slave trade, which there was no Human rights for the Slave and couldn't say no because their had to feed their family to feed. While i read and found out about it. i am so disgust that human will treat other human like animals because their colour skin and their can't do the house work or work in the farm and had to let the slave work in the bad condition while their rest at home. Their should have let the slave right. Before the whole thing has started.

In reply to the above...are you for real??!!? You're trying to judge past events by the standards and morals of the present day. The fact is that the institution of slavery is as old as civilisation itself. Humans have always sought ways to get someone (or something) else to do the work for them(ie slaves, servants, animals, machines etc). One of the main reasons why the Atlantic slave trade broke the scales in terms of numbers, scale and brutality was the fact that they had the technological means to be able to, not only to have something worthwhile to trade slaves for (iron/metals, guns, cloth, alcohol etc because apart from that Europeans did not have much to offer in the way of commodities that people actually wanted to trade for), but also to be able to transport vast numbers of slaves across an ocean. this would not have been possible without ocean going ships. can you imagine trying to trek millions of slaves across the Sahara. no chance. quite apart from the fact that Europeans could not even step onto West africa without dying from the multitude of diseases that they were not used to: Malaria, Sleeping Sickness etc up until the latter half of the nineteenth century. You mention "Their should have left the slave right...before the the whole thing started". Rule 1 of history...there is no "should"...people either "do" or "do not". The most important thing about the Atlantic slave trade is that eventually it stopped. I feel people should be more interested in eradicating the last forms of slavery and other forced/indentured labour in the world today (of which there is a lot) instaed of worrying about the past and demanding apologies, reparations etc. There arent many peoples that escape the taint of trading in african slaves. Europeans, Arabs, Berbers, Touareg, the multitude of rival sub-saharan tribes, kingdoms, caliphates

i have a problem with the spelling errors and terrible grammar.

i beg you people, please spell check? the simplest words are mispelled. Even wrong words which phonetically similar, (for example right and write are interchanged quite a lot). Please use a dictionary.com or something else to check spelling. it gets infuriating whe one tries to read supposing academic arguements and be harangued by incessantly terrible spelling and grammar. Thanking you in advance.

The effects of the Slave Trade

I'm a bit disturbed by the comment that historians currently believe that the slave trade had a "neutral, or even somewhat positive effect on those left behind in Africa." While you do make sure that this is only relevant to those left behind, the previous comments you refer to are to the slave trade as a whole, not just non-slaves. The enslavement of 12 million people cannot by any stretch be called a either positive or neutral, and I think greater care should be taken that the article does not imply that it can.

"Today, however, many scholars believe slavery had a neutral, or even somewhat positive effect on those left behind in Africa." This has to be the most vile and disturbing comment I have ever come across in months, perhaps this year. Irrespective of Africa's past greatness, the idea that twelve million civilians and the millions of children they would produce being enslaved for 400 years somehow left a "positive effect" on Africa is without doubt worse than Nazi revisionism. How patently ubsurd, the sentence will be deleted. (nov 16, 2005) - XM

While you may be personally offended by the idea, these views are today increasingly dominant one in the historiography. Please read the works of J.D. Fage, Eltis, or Lovejoy. Here, for instance, is a quote from John Thornton's Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1800:

As these scholars see it, slavery was widespread and indigenous to African society, as was naturally enough a commerce in slaves. Europeans simply tapped this existing market, and Africans responded to this increased demand over the centuries by supplying more slaves. The demographic impact, while significant, was local and difficult to disentangle from losses due to internal wars and slave trading on the domestic African market. (pg. 73)

Of course Walter Rodney still has many supporters, but increasingly the evidence seems to be pointing away from his thesis about the slave trade. - SimonP 22:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The demographic question is still quite controversial - Patrick Manning used computer simulations some years ago to argue that, though the Atlantic slave trade didn't actually make the population of the continent fall, it did lead to stagnation, and that the population would have been tens of millions higher in 1900 had it not occured. Eltis has, on the other hand, questioned the fertility and mortality parameters Manning used... If anything, I think the ", or even somewhat positive effect on those left behind" comment is so vague that it can't help looking offensive.

I've forgotten my password, so I can't sign in, but I left the original comment that started this particular discussion. While I agree that some historians may say that there was a positive or neutral effect on those not enslaved, this is always the case. All you're saying is those that didn't suffer didn't suffer, and obviously the slave traders, who did exist prior to the European entry into the trade, got richer. All I meant was that we should be careful not to cheapen what is one of the worst episodes in human history (in terms of scale and repercussions, if not in intent) for the sake of appearing objective. I don't think any of us are in a position to weigh the misery the slave trade caused against the short term economic gains.

FYI: "Europeans simply tapped this existing market, and Africans responded to this increased demand over the centuries by supplying more slaves". The African slave market had absolutely zero relation to the European activity in its practice. I say this because, while African slavery was common, there was no concept of dehumanization of slaves in the African tradition. It was much more akin to what we in America would call apprenticeship in most cases. A slave owner in Africa was responsible for the care and teaching of a "slave". There was also complete religious freedom. This is a stark contrast to the European practice of portraying and treating Africans as less than human, and the highly paradoxical practices such as Christian churches built into the middle of slave castles. W7brown (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

There has been a great deal of research into the number of slaves taken, and the records from this period are not inconsiderable. The 28 million figure taken from here is the standard estimate for the total number of slaves exported in all three major trades, the Atlantic, Saharan, and East African trades. Today about 12 million is the standard figure for the Atlantic trade. Lovejoy's "The Volume of the Atlantic Slave Trade" looks at numbers of slaves leaving Africa and Curtin's "The Atlantic Slave Trade a Census" looked at the number of slaves arriving in the Americas and both came up with roughly the same figure. There are some scholars who support higher figures, but the highest number I am aware of is Inikori's 15.4 million, and few today believe that is accurate. I don't think anyone has ever presented evidence for as many as 28 million being taken. A brief overview of the numbers debate can be found at [1]. - SimonP 15:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some referencing and 'further reading' in the actual article please? -- max rspct leave a message 23:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a pretty lame reason to abuse African people. They did it because they were very racist. And those slaves will see these people burn in hell.

Apologetic bias

This article has a very disturbng apologetic bias from beginnong to end. For this reason alone, it is probably one of nastiest and most invidious Wikipedia articles I have ever seen. When time permits, I shall make more concrete suggestions for improvement and/or make improvements of my own. I would encourage other right-minded (as opposed to [extremely] right-wing) Wikipedians to do the same, Meanwhile, for those Wikipedians who read French, please see the vastly superior French article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.56.68.221 (talk • contribs).

The above article appears to have been submitted by Mark Dingemanse (Talk | contribs) after the previous comment.

Actually, it was 155.56.68.221 who didn't sign, and after that I restructured the talk page. — mark ✎ 06:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are needed

The basic problem with this article is that it violates central tenets of Wikipedia: verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

Not one alleged fact in this article is sourced. Historiography is crucial for credibility. A brief bibliography does not substitute for sourcing within the article, although here there exists only references to three BBC articles.

Wikipedia has standards. They are not being enforced here. This is not a whim. It is policy. This page will be flagged for the absence of specific citations. Citing sources will be a service to readers, especially student readers who will know that we enforce policy against sloppy research techniques. Skywriter 02:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's real sad to see such an important and sensitive topic utterly unsourced. Unfortunately we can't simply erase unsourced statements, as nothing would remain. But I have added some tags, and added the article to my watchlist to guarantee future respect of rules.--Aldux 13:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly basic outline of the subject, and most of the points could be found in any general work. I've gone through one book on the subject I have on hand, and added page refs where most of the assertions made in this article can be verified. In future it would be better to have more than one source, but for now Fage should do. - SimonP 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if the population of Guniea was 25 million (undated) during the slave trade why is it less than 10 mill. today.

Guinea in this context refers to Guinea (region), not the modern country. The current population of the Guinea region is about 200,000,000. - SimonP 18:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I tried to clean up the flow of this article, which was terrible. This is not a subject I am conversant with, so I didn't try to correct factual claims, except to occasionally add a fact-tag or note something obvious. Elijahmeeks 22:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "The Triangular Trade"

I removed the following section:

"Building the New World was obviously going to be a difficult fete to take on. The Europeans realized that they needed help expanding their empire. Many of the natives of the New World were not useful because they were either sick or dying from the diseases that the Europeans brought over. Therefore the Europeans needed to seek help elsewhere. They chose African slaves for a number of reasons. They were hard workers, used to the climate and were immune to the diseases. The first side of the triangle is the export of good from Europe to Africa. African kings and merchants actively took part in the trading of slaves from 1450 to about 1900. For the slave the African kings would receive a variety of goods from Europe. The middle passage of the triangle was the transport of slaves to the Americas from Africa. Many of the deaths of the slaves were said to have happened during the middle passage. This is because the slaves were exposed to new diseases and also because of malnutrition. The slave ship conditions were terrible, however, the death rate on the ships were lower then those of seaman officers and passengers on similar voyages. Five times the amount of slaves were transported to the Americas compared to those transports to Europe. The third and final part of the triangle was the return of goods to Europe from the Americas. The goods were the products of slave-labor plantations and included cotton, sugar, tobacco, molasses and rum.

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. 2006. About.com. 5 November 2006. <www.africanhistory.about."

The relevant information is already in other sections of the article, and the section is badly written. Words such as 'help' and 'useful' are uncomfortably euphemistic, and the claim that Africans were 'hard workers' is also very loaded.Peyote koyote 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove protect without discussion

This page has been vandalized on more than one occasion; it is a topic, which is being targeted. As opposed to removing the tag, which doesn’t stop any proper editor from editing it. Do not refer to it as erroneous as there is no error in the tag. any page which needs so much vandal reverts can be semi protected from random people posting junk. discuss here. Before any tag is removed you must discuss it!.--Halaqah 18:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is, and a big one. Protection tags are placed only when an admin protects an article, and no admin has done such an action. For this I removed it. If you want protect it, select an admin and ask him to do it; but putting a tag doesn't protect an article.--Aldux 19:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism on this page from the 15th by User talk:81.171.170.19 has been blocked already, so there is no need to protect the page. Generally, the vandalism needs to come from a concerted range of IP addresses over a short period of time for the article to be protected. I'll extend the block if the IP comes back, but it looks as if the vandalism from that source is transient. --HappyCamper 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think semi-protection is sensible at this point. Elijahmeeks 19:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is a process and i would appreciate if the tag was left until the discussion was finished, it is very rude to be so arrogant and 2 times remove something i have put. clearly others support the semi-tag---Halaqah 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the vandalism bout from yesterday has ended, and there no longer seems to be any reason to protect this page. Also, please understand that placing the tag does not actually protect a page, you need an admin to come and do that. This page was never actually protected. - SimonP 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So ur saying random ips could still come in and edit the page?---Halaqah 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless a page is protected by an admin anyone can edit it. - SimonP 01:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO real references

When i find time i will going through this article, it doesnt have any real ref. have a look and see. It is generally very poor and very eurocentric. Yes anyone can make that claim, but just look at all the refs and see for yourself save the two i added. I must be lead to believe the topic is on African Slavery and NOT ONE AFRICA is referenced, NOT ONE, one book by one European is used for the entire topic, who would know better about African history, A European or an African. Bring balance bring truth en mental and academic slavery--Halaqah 08:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need more diversity of sources, but that said J.D. Fage is acknowledged by everyone to be one of the most prominent scholars of slavery and the slave trade, and we can't simply ignore him as he is not African. Also please try to avoid linking to videos and audio tracks for references. By the nature of the media, these sources cannot be peer reviewed, unlike book and journal articles, and thus can't be considered as reliable. There are many printed works on thse topics that can be cited. - SimonP 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree i have searched everywhere and one thing i have found is that a video by a historican in 2006 going 2007 is 100% as valid as any book. We are here on a website for heaven sake. There is no denying technology. The entire concept of wiki is revolutionary, If a man sits down on a video and explains populations demographics, and he is clearly a real person with an academic record at a specific university that is 200% valid. absolutly we not accept the above statement. what could be more valid. God knows who writes books. I am not saying video should be a sole source but it is a valid source.;--Halaqah 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would a video giving the views of one man be more valid than the book written by that man ? God knows who authors either books or videos. The difficulty with videos would be that whilst information may be fairly quickly gathered from a page, watching and listening videos requires not only time, but that one plays the entire thing to obtain specific information. Life's too short for most of us. Claverhouse (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comments by the user "Halaqah": your sentiment is infested by Afrocentric overtones that betray a very strong bias against anything of European (read: white) origin. A European may very well know much more about Africa than an African does by virtue of prolonged study and evaluation of the continent and its history. Furthermore, the evidence presented in the article has been confirmed from a variety of sources, not just one: Africans sold their own people to the Europeans and became very rich off it. They practiced slavery well before the Europeans arrived on African shores, and are thus historically complicit and guilty in contributing to the realization of slavery in and throughout Africa, as well as the rest of the world. 66.27.114.75 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Fage

I dont what everyone you are talking about, but i removed them not for that reason beacuse they are not in any format for me to check up. see how references are done. And to sit down and only have ONE WHITE MANS book is really wrong! and arrogant. And entire article with one white voice. And Tukufu Zuberi can been seen talking about numbers but guess what he is African and hence not to be taken serious. RACISM.all over wikipedia we have this arrogance. Look at this langauage The Mighty black king, WHY black? WHo is writing this? black this and black that. Slavers and Slave traders is what they were. It shows it has been written by a European mind that has a serious POV an an axe to grind. like "ohh they were black u know" Black black black you know. They were if anything called African as they were from African not Blackia. or blackia. discuss before changing things I am open minded trust me, but i dont like white racist views of history. I mean mighty black king, is this an encyclopedia or a story book?--Halaqah 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing through a couple of your posts Halaqah some of your arguments appear to fall in on themselves. The one above is a classic example where you are playing the race card yet, yourself, use the term "ONE WHITE MANS book", even adding emphasis. For your information colour is no indicator of knowledge even if the subject under discussion does have a racial elements. In a previous posting you asked if an African or a European would know more of the slave trade. The answer is that both have an equal chance of knowing provided they research the subject. Being Black, or white, does not impart any special knowledge. Knowledge is gained through learning and research, it is not decided by genetics.

When I read over Halaqah's paragraph I was stunned and disgusted. I see the words "ONE WHITE MANS book" pop out at me and I feel the need to read it because of the glaring racism. Having only ONE WHITE MANS book is really wrong? Arrogant? How so? Maybe the best books were written by African Americans. But WHAT SHOULD IT MATTER AS LONG AS THE ARTICLE IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE? Then I kept reading. As I continued to raed I was only further confused. I got the impression that you were also saying that the article was written by a European mind. Ok, so now we have only one white mans book (which is racist to Caucasians) but also it is written by a European (which is racist to African Americans)???? Really confused - and really disgusted. It seems to me that while writing about how horrible racism is you were also contridicting yourself by being racist. Wow. Good job!

prob with fage; oral equal to written

I work on these topics so when u come and start reverting like if i am an idiot it will cause a problem. I have always been open minded and listen so dont do it. have a discussion and you will see. Put in the Fage links properly and i have no problem, dont only have a WHITE MAN TALKING and i dont have any problem, Dont dismiss and trivialize African contributions may they be audio or written, Africa has a strong oral tradition so in keeping with that it is not fair to say audio and video are not equal, maybe you dont see this but it is like saying Africa’s oral tradition is rubbish. Oral culture is valid, esp if you can go and see the video of Zuberi for yourself.--Halaqah 15:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

be polite and respectful

I work on these topics so when u come and start reverting like if i am an idiot it will cause a problem. I have always been open minded and listen so dont do it. have a discussion and you will see. Put in the Fage links properly and i have no problem, dont only have a WHITE MAN TALKING and i dont have any problem, Dont dismiss and trivialize African contributions may they be audio or written, Africa has a strong oral tradition so in keeping with that it is not fair to say audio and video are not equal, maybe you dont see this but it is like saying Africa’s oral tradition is rubbish. Oral culture is valid, esp if you can go and see the video of Zuberi for yourself.. --Halaqah 15:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one stated that African contributions are not valid. You removed valid citations yourself. Please do not remove reliable and cited information from Wikipedia, this is considered vandalism. If you dispute the points that are cited then please feel free to add your own citations in addition to those which already exist in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such attempts to be inclusive of all ideas and to identify intellectual disputes regarding a given topic. It should present both sides of the argument so, again, please do not remove cited information. --Strothra 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halaqah, what do you mean by putting in the "Fage links properly." The references followed standard format. Fage's book is easily checked, it is a standard text and would be available in any university library. What you seem to be implying is that a work that cannot be read online is not a valid source. I hope I am misinterpreting you, but if so that concept flies totally against current Wikipedia policy. Please read Wikipedia:reliable sources. Wikipedia's goal is NPOV and accuracy, the only way this can be achieved is by relying on sources that are reliable and have been subjected to peer review. Removing references and replacing them because they cannot be checked via Google flies totally against our efforts to make Wikipedia academically credible.

You might be interested to learn that Fage was actually one of the pioneering scholars to embrace African oral history as valuable historical source. But please don't confuse oral history with videos posted to YouTube. Also, while I'm sure Tukufu Zuberi is an admirable scholar he is not actually a historian, he is a sociologist. Looking over his publications he also does not seem to have ever done much work in this area. - SimonP 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zuberi is not here as a Historian he talks about Population demographics he is very famous in this field. The problem with fage was the references and i didnt really want to take them out but the format was useless, Say i didnt know who he was, The reference were very unclear, plus the article cites only him, its like reading his book. Yes the video might be Yo tube but more important is it is Zuberi. You know how African people have to deal with academic racism, why cant people understand this? Zuberi doesnt have to be a historian, Gates isnt a historian he is is cited everywhere. Chomsky is a lingusitic he does more work in politics if you ask me.--Halaqah 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When i get time i will go through this, I will not remove ref, if anything i should have ask for them to be cleaned up. But I will start adding references from African people, African scholars and make sure the language on this cite is fair and respectful, no more mighty black kings and black slave traders. 2007 academia must move on, it wasnt white people, they were Europeans, Bristish French etc, the Hausa King, this is the voice for history, not might black kings. What did black have to do with his slavery practices. I will also stress Zuberis research be added, In the video he blatently talks about "ALL OF THE RESEARCH HE HAS DONE" which means he has studied this topic. --Halaqah 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you haven't got the point Halaqah. We're righting an encyclopedia, not making a revolution, and what counts is Reliabile Sources not The Truth™. And were here to reflect what academia is saying, not what it should say; as for the "respectful", we are neither here not to offend feelings; or are we going to make more "respectful" the Holocaust article to not offend nazis? And as for the "be polite and respectful" you have preached to the other editors, you should have noted that if someone violated WP:CIVIL, that is you; this sort of tone is not admitted here.--Aldux 01:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the paucity of African sources is a problem, multiple perspectives are always important. However, we have to make sure that the sources are credible and reliable. There are many scholars who are African or of African decent who do work in this area. A quick JSTOR search finds that while the vast majority of people working in this area are not African, which is certainly a poor reflection of academia, that there are interesting papers by people such as G. Ugo Nwokeji, Lansiné Kaba, and C.N. Ubah that could be incorporated into this article. - SimonP 01:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My friend (adlux)where and when did i say revolution? How about FAIR PLAY. An artcile on AFrican slave trade all written by some white guy. Whats that got to do with revolution? how about academic racism and exclusion of the plurality of our society. take a look at wikipedia concept why do you think i can edit here and you can edit here. dont start ducking and diving to keep your traditions of oppressing me alive. What tone? POV, that is your problem your def, your translation, always the same rant from the eurocentric mind, African people are emotional and you are civil and studied. I am glad Simon see the inconsistency with the historical narrative of WHO IS TELLING WHOESE STORY. every human culture has a narrative style, I already know most peoples race on wiki by how they right, that is human culture. So unless African writing styles or how we use words and see things is invalid i would have to ask the likes of Aldux to stop the pointless attempts to make me feel i am "violating something", as Malcolm Said when a white man does it its alright, however when a black man does it..."--Halaqah 10:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And dont forget, we just dont focus on African know to the European academic world, Africans dont need their scholarship signed off by the bodies of Europe to be crediable historians. Is the world better when all voices are equal?--Halaqah 10:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have to say that Halaqah is right, it is true that much important African history is recorded orally, but it also saddens me how passionate many people are for Africa's recognition, yet nearly any bookstore you go to contains almost nothing beyond picture books on Africa.people have the power to change that, it is sad that they dont. I have a very good friend that comes from the Masai tribe and he is well educated, he was a phd student of my fathers until he graduated and returned to tanzania. he is currently working on compiling a book with my father on African folk stories which should be published soon, point in case it is important to my father, and especially to him to have these storys recorded, before they are lost to the 'modernization' which the masai are being forced into. to be honest i know relatively little on this topic but it does intrest me, i am white/european, from the west coast but grew up for many years in the south, my closest friend is african american/black (excuse me if i dont use the politically correct term, i mean no disrespect it is truly out of ignorance) so i have seen much racism and it saddens me. despite its modernization racism is still alive in the south as with the rest of the world. i would love to say i am not at all racist, but to be frank i would probably be lying, i have no ill will towards any race but objectively speeking due to media, culture, and any number of things i am sure that all of us are guilty of at least some assumptions at some time that where based on race. yet it is exactly those assumtions that we must fight, the unconcious reactions that society has placed, we must recognize those and make changes within ourselves to lose as much racist thought or behavior as we can. that is why it also saddens me to see someone so passionate to end the opression of African Americans (once again excuse me if i am wrong) be so quick to use the same negative judgements towards white people. to assume that a white historian is inacurate, to bellitle it to "the opinions of one white man", and to get upset over the words "black king" and say it should be the Hausa King and then turn around and say white man multiple times with no attempt at being as consideriate as he himself, or anyone desereves... well i can only call that racist, and i firmly believe that you can not fight racism with racism, that only breeds more hatred. i am not deffending Fage here, i know nothing of the man, but if what was written is slandor than dont fight slandor with slandor, show facts. if you do you will not be written off and neither will your sources as long as the reader has brains enough to understand a different perspective. i understand your plight i have witnessed much racial opression first hand, but what i would ask of you, is not to lower yourself to the level of racists, but rather change those minds that can be changed. i will reasearch this more now, but i also encourage you to find some citable (by wikipedia standards, regardless of how much that may constrain them) sources that are African, because frankly i would love to hear how they differ, and understand the atrocity wich was slavery as well as possible. i came on here to get a better understanding myself because my girlfriend, whom is from Japan, so knows little about the history of African slavery do to its small affect on her contries history, was asking me many questions about slavery, i had some answers, but didnt want to misinform her so decided to reasearch the ones i could not answer. so i would also ask if anyone has any good refferences you could recomend i would love to see them so i can better inform her and learn myself. thank you everyone for your time. any coments or sources please feel free to email me aahroon@gmail.com thanks.

South Carolina (especially Charleston) Jews and the African Slave Trade

I'm in the process of looking in to this, but MUCH more research needs to be done about the VERY prominent role that these Charleston Jews played in the African slave trade, the slave trade which was overwhelmingly centered in the city of Charleston in North America (especially after The North became increasingly abolitionist-oriented) until about 1807, when the slave trade was outlawed (though it certainly continued, albeit quietly).

Also, South Carolina eventually had more African slaves living in the state than non-slaves (as Wikipedia says: "For most of its history, black slaves made up a majority of South Carolina's population.") and the slave owners constantly feared a large slave-uprising or insurrection; indeed, even in modern times African-Americans are about 1/3 the population of the state of South Carolina, possibly a bit more.

It seems that wherever there was a very early North or South American synagogue or large Jewish presence you also find a prominent slave market, both in North and South America (along with the Caribbean and North Africa). All evidence points to the fact that it was a very large role that Jews played -- not to mention the fact that many of these Sephardic Jews hailed from the Netherlands, and everyone knows that the Dutch played a huge part in the African slave trade (History of the Jews in the Netherlands), and that they had been recently expelled from Spain and Portugal (Alhambra decree), but the crypto-Jews remained -- Spain and Portugal were both THE dominant shipping powers around this time. The oldest synagogue in North or South America was established in 1636 (the Kahal Zur synagogue in the Dutch capital of Recife, Brazil). Eventually Brazil had more African slaves than any other place on Earth. There were also many Sephardic Jews living in North Africa (a traditional Sephardi area) which served as a jumping off point where the slaves were gathered (see Triangular trade) by both local Arabs and these Sephardi Jew collaborators and then shipped to North or South America.

There was also an amazingly large slave market in Newport, Rhode Island, which is the site of the oldest synagogue in North America (Touro Synagogue); check out these stats: "As early as 1708 African slaves outnumbered indentured servants in Rhode Island eight to one. In fact, between 1705 and 1805, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 1,000 slaving voyages to West Africa and carried over 100,000 slaves back to America. More slave ships would leave Colonial Newport than any other American port of that time. By 1770, one out of every three Newport families owned at least one slave" [2].

Does anyone have any reliable links or book recommendations so that we can write a section about this on the page? I've found many but am looking for more. Thank you. --Pseudothyrum 02:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitwash attempts not allowed here

Please we do not need anymore fage, he is know for his legacy of anti-African rhetoric, most African academics credit him as this. He contradicts and makes a mockery of African suffering. How can you say "not all bad" can you say this about the Jewish Holocaust? I am sure if we look we can find some good. You cannot remove tags and revert work. Basil Davidson more states it was horrible than anything else. plus no references. and we cannot have anymore fage in this topic please, let other ref be allowed, he is a seriously disputed source for valid references on Africa. I have never seen his work recommended add John Jackson or someone like that.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fage is a serious problem

Please have a read if you have an issue with why i am saying what i said about fage. Problem with Fage as a racist . We cannot repeat a famous racist just because he is famous. I have constantly been fighting this on wikipedia. If you replaced African with Jew and said this stuff in Germany you would be arrested on charges of Holocaust denial right or wrong it is racist to assert with such continuous force the wickness and ill intent of Fage. He makes Slavery "allright" African went to universities in Europe, it didnt hurt the population. This is utter nonsense even from a lay perspective. This is the Eurocentric stuff that should stop. How can u take the best of Africa out of the place and it have little effect and be not so bad? the politics of who is important in the discussion comes from the same people who did the slaving. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That you disagree with someone is no reason to slander them with personal attacks. Fage is one of the world's leading scholars of African history and the slave trade. He was editor of the Cambridge History of Africa, co-founder of the Journal of African History, and author of a standard text book. He is about as authorative a source as you can get, and you can't simply dismiss him as invalid.

As to your changes, please check the article. The paragraph you readded that begins "The slaves came from many different sources" already exists in the new "Source of slaves" section. The two other paragraphs you are trying to add also exist in other parts of the article. - SimonP 07:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he slanders Africans, he is a valid racist, proof of what we have been working with. not everything he said is invalid, he must be viewed with caution. he is your authority do not beg the question. J.D. Fage is acknowledged by everyone to be one of the most prominent scholars of slavery what about African insistutions, they dont see him as nothing. You dont even see the level of arrogance in this statement. I dont blame you, how could you know what you are saying, if you been trained to think like this from day one. Think outside the box, who is fage, who made his famous, where is the work of Dubois? who has greater access to getting printed, whose opinion protects the advantage of white people? so he is famous because he is white and he is famous because he supports the anti-African voice in history, just like Kant and others no difference. This is not a reason for notability in 2007, I am sorry. These agents of mis history are no longer the scholars on Africa. p.s i am reading his book now.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop with personal attacks. Fage is best known for arguing that the slave trade was not a demographic disaster for Africa. This might or might not be true, and certainly many scholars disagree with him, but that he holds this view, which does have quite a bit of hard evidence behind it, does not mean he is a "racist" who "slanders Africans." We do need a diversity of sources in this article, even if most modern scholars generally agree with Fage. Rodney is the obvious counterpoint, and if you are looking for fame and notability he far outshines Fage, however his work is several decades out of date at this point. - SimonP 08:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gates is another problem

When did Gates get a degree in African history? He should not be used. He is probably the most hated African academic in the world. Google him and see what African think about his work. he is such an agent for hurting African history, I can understand why fage would do it but Gates--dont know. I think most people would agree he has little credit as a historian. Why would an African be so keen to defend a position which injurs him? --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we do need balance but Gates wheww, he is strange fruit.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Gates got his degree in history from Yale in 1973. I agree he is controversial, but no more so than Maulana Karenga, and the two will hopefully balance themselves out. - SimonP 08:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt true Gates is an English major he is not a historian. Yeah Karenga is controversial alright but not for his academics.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 08:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well u seem to be right but he is really a literary critic, this is his real area of study his history side is well weak an ill informed, go watch his doc on Africa he trips over himself--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 08:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U are givening preference to fage and friends

I have added more detail on the counter argument. Please give rodney more space to expand what he is saying, it isnt fair to have him stubbed when he spends quite a lot of time looking the population crisis. Also the statements of Zuberi need research. MOre people agree than diagree on the population thing, even Basil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 09:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry but you have 7 refernces to fage already, this is extreamly unfair especially if i have voiced serious opposition to using his outdated and racist material. Again and again he says everything to belittle and make less the reality of the holocaust on Africa. No one could do this to Jewish people, he would be called antisemitic. Considering what he is saying what are his sources? In anyevent 7 refernces to him on the same slant cannot be valid. he constanly hammers the same agenda, it was good for Africa, they sold each other out, it was so bad after all. This is highly offensive and racist and i have a right to say so because it is known to be so he has no cred in African circles. He is a European with a Eurocentric opinion on a people his ancestors enslaved. 7 ref remain of fage, find someone else. The quality of this topic is not balance if he is in here over and over and over again, and saying things which are anti-African. How could slavery be good for Africa? Holocaust was good for Jews? the ones that made money from it? nonsense.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 09:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That you repeatedly say that you disagree with Fage does not make him an invalid source. You cannot deny he is a prominent voice in this subject, and even if you disagree with his views you cannot simply delete all the arguments you disagree with. Especially since most scholars working in this area do today agree with him. - SimonP 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do you appreciate what slavery has done?. Go in a bookstore at random and pick up a book on slavery, who has the dominant voice if not the oppressors, fage is a known member of the camp of academic racism. I emailed Temple University and got some feedback and there isnt any debate on who he is, so here we are and you are quoting him 9 times and then you get another person saying the samething and add him in, then you find another person with the same content and add him in as well. It isnt a list of what fage thinks, make one new point and move on, it is editorizing to say "fage says" and "so and so agrees" and guess what "so and so agrees as well" on the same point. Why dont you add Kant and Hume to the discussion, they are more famous than Fage? Most scholars agree with him, there you go again Asante doesnt agree with him, Karenga doesnt agree with him, Rodney doesnt agree with him, Shareef doesnt, Mazrui doesnt, Zuberi doesnt, Hilary doesnt (Hillary Beckles), the list is very long, actually most Africans dont. 9 ref to the god of African history, it is tarzan all over again.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 23:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge Karenga, Mazrui, Asante, and Zuberi have never published anything in this area. Beckles is one of the leading experts on slavery in the Carribean, but has not done much work on the African context. Rodney is an extremely important writer in this area, and his views are addressed in the article, the main difficulty is that his work is now thirty years out of date. The most prominent poeple working in this area today are Lovejoy, Manning, Eltis, Thornton, Miller, and Inikori. Of those only Inikori pretty much thouroughly rejects Fage. - SimonP 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical content

I am taking my time to be respecful to your contributions. I am finding much strange statements Slavers in Africa made a lot of money, if true how could slaving be profitable for Europeans, somebody had to get the short end of the stick, Europe paid a lot for slaves but Europe profited, but fage would say it didnt really work out for Europe. Basil states they got very little for slaves and as time went on they got even less, like 1 gun for 10 slaves. How can you get rich if you r at war everyday looking for slaves, these statements regardless of where they come from are poor in construction. Many Africans went to english universities, who, when where, it is a statement of great contradiction to known facts (show the records of their uni admissions, fage doesnt) where are these sources. Fage could write Africa was rubbish is it valid, read Hume and Kant can we add that here as a valid argument " African never had a history" for this same reason much of Fage, esp in the negative is a joke in our times, out dated and racist, not to mention beyond logic. taking 20 million people and causing wars and bloodsheed was good for Africa. Holocasut was good for Jews and had no effect on their population, that is the weight of the comparison. because some Jews got rich--but how many 4% 19% of Africans got rich? 1% 0001% fage is citing opinion not history. look at his sources and see. he is defending academic racism. Another issue is you are doing personal edits and linking things without sources, judging content and making poor links. re: fage and friends. And Soliders didnt go to Africa to end slavery, wonder why they would be noble so fast. we can either write an honest account or just add madness for the sake of plurality which is a silly activity as plurality is for balance not listing any and everything in a big rubbish bin--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 09:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to how both Europeans and Africans could get rich of the slave trade this is no contradiction. Basic economics shows that comparative advantage makes everyone grow wealthy from trade as more wealth is created. - SimonP 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SimonP pick a truth, Basil said Euros got SLaves and Africans got guns, clothing and cheap tins and pans, how can a gun make a nation rich? When you trade gold and ivory its not the same as trading human beings. So which one is it? Most historians agree that Africa got an unequal deal even the same Joseph E. Inikori. So you are putting in exotic content just because someone said it. pls tell me did Europeans get rich from the Holocaust? was this not Europeans profiting from Europeans?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust was not a commercial arrangement, unlike the slave trade, which would not have continued if it was not economically viable. The fact that people profited from it also does nothing to make it any less vile. - SimonP 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fage is over referenced which is a bias to a known anti-African academic

Fage is citing 9 times, please reduce this, also they are not quality ref, see the format for other ref. I think accoring to balance it is impossible for this to be balance if one man who i have said is out dated and an agenct of Academic racism is used 9 times. A white man, can you keep citing Germans on a discussion of the Jewish Holocaust. I have to cut down the ref to fage, he has a serious NPOV, and please clean up the ref as no one can see the validity of the sources. You could write anything here and say fage pg 224 see wiki policy on references, and vol of ref by one single person.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

please read Wikipedia:Citing sources haveing fage, pg 225 is not a proper source esp in disputed material also using one source is a NPOV, i will allow you time to fix these errors with a view to reduce fage as your over quoted source and allow you to add the refernce by the

if this isnt done then these sources are not reliable esp in a serious dispute when ridiculous claims of many Africans in European universities is being made. Fage makes some strange claims where is the source, All 20 of them probably consitute "Many" this is what Academic racism is.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 23:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Q

Thank you mr Simon, now please respect my request to reduce the volume of fage refernces as it violates the NPOV, i think we will never agree so at least we can find balance.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zuberi

The Peopling of Africa: A Geographic Interpretation.(Review): An article from: Population and Development Review [HTML] (Digital) by Tukufu Zuberi

i think this proves zuberi knows a lot about demographics--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context

For those left behind in Africa the standard of living increased substantially and the region became divided into highly centralized and powerful nation states, such as Dahomey and the Ashanti Confederacy. ^[1]

Who are those left behind? this is a contradiction to the rest of the article and is strongly protested by this editor. It is in serious conflict see The Destruction of Black Civilization, African greatest civilizations all ended when Europe arrived, this is a fact. so how could the standard of living go up if death and warfare produce slavery? How can they go up when civilizations and labor was being shipped overseas. either this is taken out of context or something worse. Furthermore both Dahomey and Asante (as it is called not Ashanti, fage should know this if he is such a great academic) were tiny compared to Songhai and Ancient Mali,--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HalaTruth, you cannot just whitewash out African involvement in the slave trade. I agree with some of the comments that you have made. Ensuring that African historians are properly referenced in this article should be done. However don't forget that during the slave trade era Europe had not arrived in Africa as such, Europeans couldn't travel inland due to Malaria and such, their presence was limited to small trading stations at ports. It was Africans capturing other Africans and selling them for profit that allowed the slave trade to happen (or in many cases selling members of their own tribe such as unruly children) some sections of African society or certain tribes and civilisations in Africa were clearly obtaining something they considered valuable for all of these slaves. Lager7 14:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed sentence

from the middle of the subsection on the trans-Saharan trade:

The victims were rarely ever let on deck, and mostly it was only women, who were tortured and raped.

on deck of what? the camels that transported goods across the sahara? (though slaves would probably walk, wouldn't they.) is this a sentence about the sea trade that wandered into the wrong paragraph? which market (asia, n. africa, americas) took primarily female slaves, torturing and raping them along the way? where's the citation for all this? 67.68.197.106 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CLean this up Slavery in Africa in the 21st Century it is clearly anti-Islamic

I have just read this and the authors intention is clearly anti-Islamic. Slavery is rife in Ghana and yet there is no mention of this country, Slavery is a global crisis yet this article constantly makes reference to Islam and Muslims and Arabs. This encyclopedia is not for these kinds of sneaky politics by fundamentalist.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted slavery in Sudan section as it is pure pov

Front page magazine is not a valid source.
Wiki is not a shopping list of countries
The topic is not about Islam but Slavery in Africa (yet the article is discussing slavery in Islam.
The image is full of loaded words and unencylopedic unbalanced weasle words.
What does the history of Islamic Law have to do with Slavery in Sudan? ( re: Ronald Segal)--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not merit removal of the information that is cited. If you object to specific wording, then please adjust it appropriately. Please do not remove cited content from Wiki, that is considered vandalism. Further, your edits are removing huge sections of texts including sections on Mali and Niger which you are not even objecting to. Please do not edit so destructively. --Strothra 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my notes below, what i have replaced this madness with is far more balanced contains more information and is more discussing African Slave Trade. Please read what i have replaced before discussing destructive editing of something which comprimises the quality of this article. And dont forget this reflects on wiki when people read this thing it spoils quality work that i have put into this entire article.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Mali and Niger are included in the content i have added, try reading it first.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Step by step violation of NPOV against Islamic Africa

This entire section is not encyclopedic It opens by discussing Sudan and Islam and then proceeds to talk about fundamentalist Islam with an exhausting quote from R Segal. Nothing to do with Africa only his view on Islam and civilization.

Slavery in the Sudan predates Islam, but continued under Islamic rulers and has never completely died out in Sudan

The topic is African Slave Trade not Islam in Sudan or Islamic rulers, the topic is SLAVERY and SUDAN, who are these Islamic rulers?

was under pressure from Congress, including conservative Christians concerned about religious oppression and slavery, to address issues involved in the Sudanese conflict.

The topic is about Slavery not religious oppression or conflict or the views of "concern" Christian fundamentalist and their lobbying power. Discuss Africa and Slavery

In the Sudan, Christian captives in the ongoing civil war are often enslaved, and female prisoners are often used sexually, with their Muslim captors claiming that Islamic law grants them permission

Why is Christian and Muslim in every other sentence, with Muslims and Islamic law being the demon, this is a NPOV violation, it is not balanced and has loaded language. The topic is about Africa not Christian in Sudan.

CHAD, one report from IRN hardly qualifies as content to put in a shopping list of African countries. Undue weight and not in proportion, as you can find this story in every African country, why target Chad and so-called Arab Herdmen.
Slavery began in Mauritania around 1000 A.D., when the Arab and Berber tribes sought to introduce Islam to the Africans

What does this have to do with Africa and slavery, this is talking about Islam being introduced to Africans, which is incorrect in any event, wiki is not a valid reference and the topic is not about the history of Islam in Africa.

In Niger, slavery is a real and current phenomenon.

What kind of encyclopedic language is this?

Slavery dates back for centuries in Niger and was finally criminalised in 2003, after five years of lobbying by Anti-Slavery International and Nigerian human-rights group, Timidria.

Slavey dates back to the birth of humanity, Where is the source. It is not NPOV also and is without balance, Slavery was banned in Niger a while back, not 2003.

The Malian government denies that slavery exists, however, the slavery in Timbuktu is obvious.

This is unencyclopedic and written like a personal view, obvious to who? One little account also doesnt mean you create a shopping list for Mali

WHERE IS GHANA, oh i am sorry that isnt an Islamic country.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUDAN AND SLAVERY

all of you need is Slavery in Sudan that discusses it in detail. Construct something encyclopedic on sudan and add it, if it is missing. without the bias.already there is a dedicated page.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL WARNING TO UNCONSTRUCTIVE VIOLATIONS OF WIKI

I have been editing on this page for over a year now. And wiki has rules. respect editor and USE THE TALK PAGE FOR DISPUTES. I have respectful piece by piece listed why i have removed that nonsense. The vandal is the person who continues to insert foul bad intent content into this site without following or listening to clear rules like NPOV. When we do our own thing we violate the quality of this site. I have made an address of the issues so USE THE TALK PAGE like a civilized editor.

You haven't made an argument that NPOV is being violated. Muslims, mostly Africans, are enslaving people in Africa and justifying it using Islam (correctly or not). Christians aren't enslaving people. That doesn't meant NPOV is being violated here. Arrow740 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend please do not bring your POV to this section okay, BALANCE. BALANCE my friend. Using NPOV the langauage which make slavery into a religious argument is fowl. reply to my remarks above, and some of those sources are bad sources--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blindness of religion seems to affect all, look at your statement it vindicates me, ONLY MUSLIMS ARE BAD, CHRISTIANS ARE NICE. thats the template of your argument that Muslims are the only ones? Ghana is Christian, nigeria is 50% christian so are you sure about this. Ethiopia is Christian.? what about Bein, and Togo (child slavery) which Africa have you been looking at? i am very reasonable so i suggest you discuss and find middle ground. I am not here to defend Muslims, i am here to deal with reality and fix the horrors of humanity. But dont talk about Mali and ignore the rife trade in Ghana. and Togo it is dishonest and vile to the enslaved there.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I said was that Muslims are enslaving and Christians aren't. In my personal opinion, yes that makes those Muslims bad. What's your point? We're just giving the facts here. Arrow740 21:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a lurker here for some time, I have been reading the various versions of this article. Halaqah's version is much more balanced. If we want to include a few additional sentences about the Sudan, then let's do that, but to imply that Islam is a cause of African slavery is both irresponsible and incorrect. It is as absurd to blame African slavery on Islam as it is to blame historical American slavery on Christianity. People everywhere attempt to justify their practices in terms of their religion. If we were to hold religions accountable for the atrocities committed in their names, they would all be languishing in a dungeon somewhere. As it is, this article has a lot of basic problems -- grammar, spelling, and structure -- which are exacerbated by the ongoing edit war. –Taranah 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any references to content here. And it may interest you to know that American slavery is also partly due to Islam. Without the Muslim slavers, acting on the pretext of jihad, there would have been no slaves for the Christians to buy. Arrow740 01:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did not seem necessary to repeat arguments that have already been made. I just wanted to throw in my vote. Specifically, though, the section on "Slavery in Africa in the 21st Century" reads like an anti-Islamic rant, beginning with the two bizarre quotes at the start of the section. It sounds like it is blaming slavery on Islam, as if there is a causal relationship. I believe the section would be more balanced (and thus more compelling) if the religious references were removed. –Taranah 05:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split this article

Obviously there are two different, valid encyclopedia articles trying to live in the same namespace. There should be a Slavery in Modern Africa and a Historic African Slave Trade. It won't stop you guys from arguing, but it will make it more constructive. As a point of division, I would recommend 1945, so that the modern article deals with post-colonial Africa and the history article deals with everything up to that. Or maybe 1918... I don't know, but I'm sure consensus will solve that. Elijahmeeks 00:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What changed? Arrow740 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed, I only started paying attention because of the constant reverts of late (This is on my watchlist because for a while it was a magnet for racist 14-year olds) and, on review, it's definitely two articles smushed together. It goes from "thousands of years" to a listing of current slavery issues in five (randomly selected?) African nations. The whole "Slavery in Africa in the 21st Century" section should be a different article. Elijahmeeks 05:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. Arrow740 05:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to do it or me? Elijahmeeks 05:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I went ahead and split off the modern info into Slavery in Modern Africa. It's quite stubby, naturally, and needs a proper intro, categorization, et cetera. I have been bold, don't blame me, blame Wikipedia. Elijahmeeks 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article has a racial bias

It seems to be an attempt to argue that european and arabic slavery were better. It has so many unsourced statements for one. What is an african middle man? mixed africans who lived in the sahara. It also says that disease prevented any entrance into Africa. If I'm not mistaken wasn't this taken care of in the 1600s? I'm tagging it for now.YVNP (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is one book the source of the racially charged statements?

It seems that J D's book is being used far more than any other source in this article. Why aren't we using other sources?YVNP (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Please place all comments here to ensure that they are kept in one place. --Legis (talk - contribs) 23:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal Abolition

Actually Portugal abolished slavery before France (in its mainland and Indian colonies).

It happened @ February 12th, 1761, through a decree of "Marquês de Pombal" or Marquis of Pombal.

And Russia and Sweden before both.

Sorry if I'm not actually correcting anything, but I'm kind of new to Wikipedia editing. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.169.83 (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

217.129.169.83 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up seriously needed

This page is becoming a mess. I think some one is making minor vandalism and making things which make sense appear contradictory. eg. If you take all the males it would have a profound long term effect on future population. Yet some one said "the effects were not that drastic" clearly a subtle vandal. How can a quote from one author get in the lede? Who is he to summarize by himself the entire debate about African slave trade? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic straying into another Slavery

African Slave trade or Slavery is about INTERNAL SLAVERY Not the Atlantic Slave Trade. So why is this article evolving into Arab slavery and Atlantic slavery? How could the effects of Slavery by Europeans be in this article when it is suppose to discuss INTERNAL African slavery. Slavery in Songhai, Slavery in Ethiopia etc. so what is happening is most of the article or half the article doesnt deal with the topic. And all this info is repeated on other pages. So we should stub it and have the links--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main image

A novice editor removed the main image claiming it didn't represent the African slave trade. I've restored it. The artist who created the image in the 19th century also captioned it "Slave transport in Africa". So, unless this editor has a source (other than his own original research) that says the artist and the publisher got it wrong, he or she has no legitimate grounds for its removal. Rklawton (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A novice editor who is African edited the image, you do not have to be an expert to know that in the 19th century the Atlantic slave trade was in full effect. The African slave trade, if you thought about it for a little bit, will not depict Europeans herding Africans. Just because an "artist" created the image in an era where there was not a separation or understanding of the differences between the two does not mean we should now make the mistakes of the past.

Your casual dismissal of the point being made is in character with the writing of the whole article. Why do we not then "merge" the Atlantic Slave Trade and the African Slave trade into one. Your sourcing is just lazy.

I have to agree with the "novice" editor. the image is inaccurate and is more part of the Atlantic slave capture than the African slave systems. And considering this article should be focused on African systems why have an image which shows the Atalantic slaving process. And it is good the person brought this up. But the only issue is now lets replace it with something more appropriate esp and image of a enslaved person from Songhai or somewhere.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that one person's opinion should be discarded in the face of the image's caption. You all are acting as if people of European descent never settled in Africa, and that's absurd. The short of it is, though, that we have a sourced, captioned engraving and this is competing against the "expert" opinions of a couple of editors. The bottom line - Wikipedia sticks with reliable, verifiable sources and not at all on the "expertise" of it's editors. If you'd like to remove the image, find a source that says it's wrong. Otherwise, removing sourced material qualifies as vandalism and will be treated as such. Rklawton (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say it is clear the image being used relates to the Atlantic slave trade and not the current topic of African Slave trade. We should be open to review anything that could be in error. I didnt notice it but when I saw the edit war I looked at why the person was doing this. We do not have to go as far as vandalism we just deal with it on the talk page. removing incorrectly sourced info is not vandalism it is called editing to get the best factual representation of the topic. Now I am saying 100% the image is incorrect because the article is about slavery in Africa. No European escorted slaves chained like that in Ethiopia or Songhai, or any of the slave systems in Africa. I would love for someone who studies slavery to prove this as the norm. So the point is valid. The image clearly says transport, the coffle gang coffle gang is a feature of Atlantic slavery not African slave system. Read Basil Davidson or Asante "History Of Africa". The solution is for the editor to find an alternative image and discuss it here. I am an editor here and that is my "expert" suggestion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some food for the convo see the notes and the explanation of similar images of the period none of these were for the African Slave Trade. And the problem i have is less with the image but the poor way history is treated. We rather make this article Atlantic and Arab (because it is easy) as opposed to develop it to deal with African slavery systems (hence why I made notes that the article drifts). It drifts so bad it actually is more about Atlantic Slave Trade. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite amazed that Rklawton will send me a message threatening to block me. What is the point of "Wikipedia" if like a bully, Rklawton can threaten other editors. Rklawton quite clearly believes only his opinion counts. And even incorrectly sourced information should be held up as evidence. Why then do we not source books like "A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guniea" by William Bosman.

It is people like Rklawton that will eventually destroy "Wikipedia". They are simply bullies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main image as defended by Rklawton in fact would appear to be an act of vandalism. I understand that the illustration in the book by William Rednbacher depicts slaves being herded to the coast for onward transportation elsewhere. Most likely the across the Atlantic.

Faced with not one but two Africans commenting that the "main image" is incorrect, Rklawton chooses to threaten other editors. We are not in a school yard where you can threaten to "thrash" others. As an African, whose ancestors were transported over the Atlantic I refuse to have my history told incorrectly. If you want, ban me, block me, do your worst. Bully boy methods is what will eventually destroy Wikipedia.

I have been a Wikipedia user and supporter for many years now, but if "wikipedia' is now in the hands of "dictatorial" views I will happily leave wikipedia as it will surely lose all relevance and simply be a fight to the bottom. As long as the "bottom" is appropriately tagged and sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Akinsope, let us use the talk page to resolve it. Already I agree with your observations. But we should find an alternative free image and then I will 100% support your edits. I do not think your actions are vandalism esp since you are on this occasion making a correct observation (that i only now pick up). Threats seem to be part of how some editors work. But do not revert the edits until we resolve it per my suggestions. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuscated lede

Enslaved Africans became part of the Atlantic slave trade, from which comes the modern, Western conception of slavery, as an institution of African-descended enslaved Africans and non-African slave owners. Sorry I just had a look at the lede. WHAt is it trying to say? I read it three times and still have no idea what it is suppose to be saying. Is African Slavery not just about internal slave systems within African communities? Simple and clean.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stray from topic

Rather than this banner, the section dealing with the Atlantic/Arab slave trade could be better integrated and explained by changing the name of the section. I was thinking 'International extension of the African slave trade.' Also, the information in the article is about African slavery rather than any focussing on any trading that took place. Perhaps a renaming of the article to 'African slavery' might be more reflective of the article's scope and intent? Mdw0 (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I think we should look at re-naming and re-writing the section to as you said integrate them into African slave system. Esp by showing the connections not copy pasting them from Arab and Atlantic slavery (which is what has been done in the current article)--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

european slave traders with outposts in africa shipping 12 million slaves to North america?

This sounds very preoccupied by the believe that europeans assaulted African territory during the Colonial period to enslave blacks... and in fact, sounds like some of Achmad "I will sell Iran's Radiactive Garbage, as soon as we have some, to my Hamas friends" Ahmadinedschad theses.

Here are some important thinks to know:

Slavery was part of the African culture and the social system itself, like Polygamie.
The name "Slave" also has the meaning of "worker"
We have to seperate slaves or "workers", in Africa, who wanted to work to make money somewhere, from "real" forced slaves
The European Countries did not found colonies in Africa for trading slaves, the Colonialism was an agenda for founding new colonies and aquiring or trading new material ressources like gold or spices
Slavery in medieval Europe was not present, this thinking is mixed up with a system of different classes of citizens... the poor, the rich, the royals... etc.
This social structure of different classes and also the worker class, is often and easily used on a disproportional level to compare it with the Arab- Muslim and inter- African Slavery
Some of the inter African slaves searched for better lives themself, what we call the "African Slavery in America" was more like freedom for these Africans related to treatment and conditions within their inter - African Slavery
Another reason why many Africans wanted to leave Africa by choice were inter African conflicts and wars, like we know them nowadays.
To say that Africans were abducted from Africa and sold into slavery to work in the United States is simply wrong. The term "migration" would be the correct term, due to they either have already been inter African slaves or workers- by choice who started to work in the United States to receive money, rights and wealth.
We also may not forget the difference of meaning of slavery in the so called "American slavery" and inter African Slavery. From an american perspective there has never been an interesst in the status for a slave, but as a workforce. In the United States they were able to live and do what ever they wanted, they were only bound to their work, and even within this they had more or less a choice if they work on a field, in a household, as worker who builds houses etc.. One perverse negative but still a good example for these liberties is that they were even able to go to towns and steal, there are a lot of examples and reports of blacks stealing and robbing in cities.

The picture of the so called abducted black African enslaved, enchained and tortured is wrong.

One good reflection of history of altantic slavery is this source ^[2] Even if i sound a bit rassistic in some passages, it has more to do with getting provoced when i imagine how many persons dont know real facts about the history of the so called "american slavery" which is even believed to be the reason for the american civil war... but that is another matter.

The high school textbook you cite doesn't support most of your theses. Rklawton (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Fage, J.D. A History of Africa. Routledge, 4th edition, 2001. pg. 274
^ http://www.learner.org/courses/amerhistory/pdf/AtlanticSlaveTrade_LOne.pdf

I did not said that this textbook supports any of these facts, i will add sources for every you called "theses" of mine if you wish. I cited this source because it is the best reliable i found, and it still shows an absolut other picture than what persons believe to know about the slavery of Africans in the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.123.41 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — 188.101.123.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Without reliable sources, your "discussion" of the "truth" does not belong here. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Fage, J.D. A History of Africa. Routledge, 4th edition, 2001. pg. 274

[2] ttp://www.learner.org/courses/amerhistory/pdf/AtlanticSlaveTrade_LOne.pdf

[1]

[2]