Talk:Middle Passage

10 Million, 3 Million?

Is the source for 10 Million survivors and 3 Million dead cited? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.81.96.78 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Why havent other historians of note with higher slave trade figures such as Davidson and DuBois been cited while the figures cited were presented as factually proven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.20.151 (talk • contribs)

Basil Davidson, in his highly-acclaimed 1961 book "Black Mother" quoted what he thought were estimations by Kuczynski. Kuczynski, in the 1930s, quoted W.E.B. DuBois. DuBois, while generally being accepted as "an eminent authority" on the Atlantic slave trade (to quote Curtin), indeed popularized the much-cited "minimum" 15 million (that came to the New World) calculation in a 1911(!) semi-scholary speech, but he too only cited it (and never claimed anything else). The origin of these numbers is in fact a 1860(!) political paper (!) by one Edward E. Dunbar - who was a publicist, not an historian. And he didn't "calculate" it either, he himself says that he only "guessed" these numbers. This is actually one of the best examples of a "tower of evidence" (meaning a shaky quote that gets repeated so often that its origin is lost in the process and it eventually becomes an undisputed fact). The first historian to actually see through the tower was Philip D. Curtin in his 1969 book "The Atlantic Slave Trade. A Census." . Since then, a huge number of studies has found the number of slaves who arrived in the New World to be between 9.2 and about 12 million, but the "Minimum 15" is still alive and running wild in non-scientific realms. You can find an in-detail study of the origins of this guess in Northrup's "The Atlantic Slave Trade" (latest edition from 2002). Malc82 18:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Disease spread on slave ships

The article refers to the spread of diseases on slave ships, and lists syphilis and malaria as diseases that "spread rapidly in the close-quarter compartments". As syphilis is primarily a sexually transmitted disease and malaria is spread by vectors that would be rare at sea, a citation for the spread of these diseases would be welcome. Halfsnail 08:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Slavers were coerced?

The article says:

The Europeans themselves often kidnapped African people. In addition, African kings, warlords and private kidnappers were coerced into selling their captives to Europeans who held several coastal forts.

Is there any evidence for the assertion that "kings, warlords, and private kidnappers were coerced into selling their captives"? This would seem to absolve the native African slave traders of any responsibility. This seems to be something of a rewriting of history to portray a certain point of view - namely, that slavery and the slave trade was virtually non-existent in Africa until the arrival of Europeans and to the extent that natives participated in it it was only under duress of coercion. -- Planders 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is true. We have been studying slavery in class and the Africans were pressured into capturing other Africans in order to save their villages and families from slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.126.112 (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Intro

I will edit the Intro section to this article in a few minutes because it contained various failures. Before reverting, please read this rationale and offer your criticisms/problems here.

The middle Passage was a portion of the Atlantic slave trade route - it was the only portion of the Atlantic slave trade route.

The slave trade involved Peruvian and Mexican mines, Brazilian coffee plantations, South Carolinian fields, and Caribbean sugar, coffee, and cotton plantations - the list is not complete. It is also pretty misleading because Peruvian and Mexican mines were never a large scale destination, they were mainly "supplied" by the Encomienda and later Repartimiento systems, which had nothing to do with the Middle passage.

The European powers, including Spain, Portugal, France, England, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Brandenburg, as well as Canada, all played a role - Neither Norway nor Canada existed as independent states at the time, both weren't prominently involved as regions. On the other hand New England traders were quite prominent.

The Germans were also involved by supplying slave voyages with financial aid - Germany as a state also didn't exist back then. Even if I wouldn't be German myself, this sentence isn't acceptable without any reference. I have never heard that German financial aid (apart from Brandenburg-Prussia's colonial aspirations) was a major factor behind any part of the triangle trade.

Asian textiles were used as trading goods in Africa - that's not wrong (history is complex), but wasn't a major factor.

Malc82 13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for "Reference needed" and "Neutrality tags

I have added "reference needed tags to the "Journey" and "Abolition" sections. Reasons for this are:

• Obviously, both sections don't give any references
• That African kings were only coerced into taking part is contrary to scientific consensus.
• Both sections are written with obvious POV. Moral outrage, even if justified, is not a good basis to write an encyclopedia article.

I have removed the POV tag---I detected no moralist tone in the tagged section. Kemet 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemet (talk • contribs)

The removal of the POV tag has been reverted consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines: The concerns of the originating editor have not been answered and the issue at hand has not been resolved. Noula69 10:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The originating author cited moral outrage as his/her concern. A reading of the article will reveal no such tone---so the concern is essentially resolved. The description of afflictions of slaves during the Middle Passage is factual information, so the POV tag is unwarranted. The article DOES need proper citation though. Kemet 16:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemet (talk • contribs)

There is no indication that the issue was solved to the originating author's satisfication which is the prerequisite to removing the POV tag. You cannot infer consent based on your own opinion that the POP tag is unwarranted. Originating author's tag restrored. Noula69 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I already deleted that ships were built mainly for cargo of products and that Europeans "oftenly" kidnapped Africans themselves, two statements that are flat out wrong. Malc82 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely missed the above discussion, but want to answer here (btw: please leave further comments on the bottom of or in a new section to allow other editors to understand and join in, thanks). I think the reasons why I tagged the section still largely apply. By Wikipedia's guidelines, all unreferenced content can (and in fact should) be removed. After months, this section is still almost entirely unreferenced. The only reason I preferred tagging instead of removing back then was to avoid an edit war and a lenghty, pointless discussion about sinister motivations for the removal. I'd still prefer referencing over removal right now. As to the POV-tag, the current version of the section (which is much improved from when I first discovered it) doesn't strike me as particularly POV, but I would oppose removing the tag for procedural reasons. Either you enforce WP-rules in full and largely remove the section, or you back it up with WP:RS, which is the only way to show this can be considered a NPOV (I know that some people wouldn't consider it as such right now), something that I largely agree with, but other people don't. Basically, it's impossible to really comment upon the validity of some points unless we know what sources they were based upon. Malc82 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Abolition section

First of all, I don't see why a section about abolition is needed at all in this article. Also the concentration of Abolition in the US isn't justified. Besides that, the section shows the same POV-slant that has already been discussed and tagged at the Atlantic slave trade article. See Talk:Atlantic_slave_trade#End_of_the_slave_trade for details. I will delete this section in a week or so if nobody disagrees. Malc82 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Removed section after almost 2 weeks. Malc82 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Slave figures Why have the estimated numbers of slaves removed form Africa identified by historians such as Davidson and Dubois been replaced by less profient historians who clearly have an agenda in minimizing its impact? The difference should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.20.151 (talk • contribs)

Answered this question above [1]. Please sign your edits on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). There is no "agenda" here, calling these accomplished contemporary historians a worse source than DuBois, who worked about a century ago, indicates that you may not have enough expertise on this topic to accuse them (and implicitly me) of having an "agenda". Thanks. Malc82 18:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Enslavement of Africans: The African Point of View

As a West African it is often frustrating to witness our history (past and present) being advanced from the perspective of narrators with limited knowledge of the continent. Quite often, history is written from the point of view of the victor, not the vanquished. It is not surprising therefore that predominant literature and opinion on Trans-Atlantic Slavery place the blame of this human tragedy squarely on the shoulders of Africans themselves. "Oh, it was their Kings and Empires that fought wars and sold the captives into slavery", they often postulate. It is illogical to assume that these Africans were savages incapable of emotions and love, upon which they suddenly invented slavery, owned slave ships, then sold out their brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, mothers, fathers and children to "reluctant" European slave merchants.

This assertion is false in the premise in which it presumes that little or no external forces were brought bear in securing the captives. African perspective on slavery, as passed down to modern Africans by traditional means, clearly states the fact that Europeans first arrived the west coast of Africa as explorers (ala Mungo Park), then as missionaries, and later as colonialists. Africans are by culture very hospitable even unto this day, hence the European explorers were well received. On discovering the raw strength of Africans under severe tropical skies, these Europeans postulated that perhaps that strength could be harnessed to build the "New World" - America. Therein, the European visitors launched wars on their unsuspecting African hosts, conquered with guns and superior weaponry, and the captives forced-shipped to the New World.

These are facts which are evident even unto this day by way of relics and artefacts predominant in African museums, as well as rudimentary landscape monuments built as iconic memorial to the struggle against the "White Man" (a colonial African term for Europeans). Millions of ancient African artefacts can be seen today in Museums around the world, further evidence of human and material plundering by the European conquerors.

This African account of slavery is not only factual, but also logical, because it is common knowledge that Europeans colonized the continent for centuries, up until as recent as 1994 when South Africa eventually liberated itself as the final bastion of apartheid. Colonization did not occur by friendly invitation from African Kings and Chiefdoms, but through their defeat by Europeans in battles. The vanquished were then forced into slavery. African collaborators were forced, co-erced or bribed by the new European Colonialists to capture human beings and drag them hither to slave ships berthed at the docks they had custom-built. Natural resources were also fair game, - plundered, exported to Europe and never compensated except to bribe local chiefs into acquiescence, only if such chiefs were themselves too powerful to be captured and shipped out. The great Scramble for Africa had begun.

There is no denying that some Africans seized the opportunity to eliminate political opponents and enemies by betraying them into slavery. Yes, it did happen. However, these occurences were very minuscule in a global perspective of the trade. It is well documented that a few Jews betrayed each other to Hitler's gas chambers, yet it would be preposterous to assert that a few such occurences would make Jews culpable as a group and therefore responsible for the terrible Holocaust.

In every great human tragedy, it is common to find victims participating in their own victimization, oftentimes for self preservation. This is true even in current world events. The greater tragedy is to blame victims of a catastrophe the magnitude of slavery. The African continent still struggles to recover from its effects, including colonization, in which disimilar entities and kingdoms were amalgamated into individual countries by Europeans in a divide and rule strategy. This strategy of divide and rule is the genesis of wars in Africa, as incompatible ethnicities, once co-existing peacefully in seperate kingdoms, were now forced to co-habit in one geographical country, jostling for power in the new and alien political structure foisted on them by European Colonialists. Clearly, this was a recipe for destabilization, continuing to this day.

The families of slave captives were just as much victims as the slaves themselves, being left behind to mourn the forced and permanent extrication of their sons and daughters from the homeland, as well as fight to survive under brutal exploitation of the colonial master. A modern icon of centuries of that fight is Nelson Mandela. At the height of slavery, the population of Africa declined to about four million.

It is pitiful indeed that most of the world has subscribed to this false history of African slavery including, sadly, some descendants of the enslaved. To my dismay, Secretary Condoleezza Rice expressed on Tim Russert's Meet The Press the "strong probability of Africa's culpability" in slavery. This false belief is ironically predominant in the African American community, a possible undercurrent to their general lukewarm interest in Africa, if not outright resentment.

The lesson of slavery is not to apportion blame; truth and honesty will allow a beam of light to be projected into the future, hence this writer's strong belief that Africa's progress depends fully on self-reliance and equal partnership with the rest of the world, rather than constant economic and logistical support from countries seeking only to perpetuate exploitation in the modern sense. Such economic and logistical "support" are often in exchange for exclusive, lobsided and long term resource mining contracts designed to drive these countries further into debt and poverty in a modern style slavery, - economic bondage. There are of course, genuine entities, individuals and organizations performing charitable work in the continent and these are to be commended, but the population must learn to be self-sufficient, economically independent and chose good leaders.

I am unable to provide or quote international sources to support this article. I was born in West Africa, grew up there and attended university there. We live with the evidence of our history, and therefore we are our own original sources. On this subject I would be remiss to cite a history professor at Harvard, or an anthropologist at Oxford. My uttermost respect for academic distinction is of course, fully reserved.

Anyone interested in discussing this topic further with me can send email to basseyoe@yahoo.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.151.98.125 (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

LoL, doesn't the 'this is not a forum' statement apply here? This (above) is almost an essay!1812ahill (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is poorly written to represent a false impression. African kings may have been involved, but only because it was either them or their subjects, prisioners, etc. It was the lessor of the two evils, in a sense to keep their kingdom alive. I think this should be explained further. If you have sources please provide them, and add this to the article. Thank you. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the notion that African kings were coerced, or that it was "either them or the other tribe" is just as wrong as denying the destructive effects the slave trade had on Africa. The fact has been proven very well that African kingdoms oftenly joined into the trade without any coercion, simply because the kings wanted to sell and because their attitude towards their people (let alone towards other peoples) was just as bad as the one shown by European kings of that period. Another simple truth is that treating the lower classes as a resource ready to exploit was (and still is) a widespread attitude in pretty much any culture, so please don't fool yourself with any image of a noble African brotherhood overrun by a dark empire. Malc82 19:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Africa was certainly not a "noble brotherhood", but it definitely was overrun by empires with less than noble intentions. The argument here is not that Africans were not involved, or that African civilizations were sedentary, laid-back empires wallowing in idyllic settings before the arrival of European colonialists on their shores. The falsehood perpetrated here and almost everywhere is that their relatively lesser role in slavery has been wrongly (and perhaps mischievously) accentuated to levels in which Africans are now being regarded as the primal inventors of Trans-Atlantic slavery. The "proven fact" as alluded to by the writer of the previous paragraph underscores the truth that history is often written by the victor, not the defeated. Hence the preponderance of "sources" blaming Africans that the writer has so unquestionably relied upon. The culpabilitly of non-Africans is mentioned only in passing, if ever so. The writer has also ignored the fact that colonization of the African continent by Europe was not through a friendly invitation, but was a direct consequence of battle forces projected by Europe, in which defeated Africans were sold into bondage and their land colonized to ensure continuity of the horrific trade and pillage of natural resources. Again, as mentioned in the main article above, people live with evidence of their history. Their perspective on their own circumstance is superior to that of an academic researcher thousands of miles away, no matter how well-intentioned. basseyoe@yahoo.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin1935 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any source that regards Africans as the "primal inventors of Trans-Atlantic slavery" and thus can't really see the problem here. I would, however, disagree that Africans had a "relatively lesser role". For one, I don't like "relatively lesser" in history anyway (Francois Duvalier is responsible for fewer deaths than Hitler, so what?) and secondly, a minority of Europeans traded slaves with a minority of Africans, where is the lesser role here? The only difference is that the trade had horrible effects on most Africans and few on most Europeans (lots of whom, by the way, were treated little better than slaves by the same Europeans). I have not in any way referred to the colonization of Africa, a completely different topic (and my comment was intended as a response for the above comment by Jeeny, I didn't even read all of the initial text, sorry that I didn't make that clear). A People's perspective on it's own circumstances is, however helpful in some regards, a very poor guide to history because a peoples' look on their own history is always subjective and because humans have a strong tendency to idealize their heritage. Malc82 03:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A peoples' perspective on their own history may be subjective, but not necessarily inaccurate. A treatise on American Revolution as presented by individuals who participated in the events, on average, would be very well regarded. So would an eyewitness account of the tragic events of 9/11. As subjective as such accounts might be, on average they are more credible sources and preferable to that presented by an objective research academician in say, Australia. Canadian kids study Canadian history as written by Canadians, not Asians, and vice versa. Subjectivity of native historians is not necessarily a negative, because there are cultural nuances that may never be fully understood by the foreigner.

The reference to colonization is being made here to establish this institution as a direct consequence and proof of European creation, implementation and control of Trans-Atlantic slavery. While I agree with the previous commentator that slavery had a devastating effect on Africa regardless of the degree responsibility, the angst of this argument is that Africans who played a much lesser role are always at the forefront of the blame. Because, shifting blame on victims creates a different and more enduring kind of torture - psychological and mental.

Can we hold a Staff Sergeant ultimately responsible for a war led by a four-star General? basseyoe@yahoo.com Merlin1935 15:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Even some University publications about the American Revolution (let alone everything in school history books) are more of a heartwarming story than a historical account, so this is a really bad example (and trust me, I have some knowledge about that topic). The memories of soldiers involved would be a fine source for lots of studies, but the worst possible one to base an objective study about causes of war on. After all, they have been indoctrinated for years that their side fights the good cause and the other side is just evil.

Your main argument (that peoples should write their own history) is something on which I couldn't disagree more.

No one would give a more one-sided account of 9/11 than eyewitnesses. They have seen the horrors done to average New York citizens, but what the f**k do they know about the reasons why millions of young Arabs hate the US so much? Canadian schoolchildren study the Canadian point of view on their history because this is the POV that the "Mighties" (politicians, billionaires etc.) have chosen as the one interpretation of history they should believe in, not because this is the most factually correct or objective POV. That you actually believe that African kings were merely the staff sergeants in a European masterplan (without even trying to proove your point) convinces me even further that maybe you should read an Australian's account of the slave trade instead of trusting in African folk legends as historical references. Malc82 22:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The sergeant-general analogy is a metaphor, and the point is proven in the unequal relationship that existed between colonialist and locals, unless one denies colonization of Africa in the first place. While it is quite possible that an Australian can present an objective view of my history (and I may read such for balance), I reject your notion that I cannot possiby do the same, even if I am qualified and experienced as a writer of history. It was never suggested here that every home-boy account of their own history would be accurate without bias, but it is equally faulty to dismiss African perspectives as mere "folk legends" unworthy of reference. Also, your sweeping suggestion that local people - Americans, Africans, Canadians, Europeans, etc - cannot articulate an objective account of their own history and events surrounding them, no matter how well-qualified, is remarkably implausible as an argument. An eyewitness to 9/11 born in New York, who also happens to be a history professor with specialty in the Middle East and Mesopotamia may very well present an accurate, objective reporting of that event with proper antecedents. Given a city like New York, this scenario is not far from reality.

Eyewitness accounts of events are so important that justice systems in most societies rely on them even from the beginning of recorded history. Notwithstanding that eyewitnesses are often inaccurate and sometimes outright perjurious, they are generally given preference over third party narrators, unless proven otherwise.

Therefore, I beg to disagree that one cannot gain proper perspective on Trans-Atlantic Slavery by studying African archivals of it, and I also disagree that non-local writers always possess honorable motives without bias. basseyoe@yahoo.com Merlin1935 06:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I did not mean that peoples are incapable of studying their own history. I did not say or mean that there are no reliable African sources on the subject (there doubtlessly are African scholars who have tremendously increased our knowledge on the topic). I do (logically) agree that African sources can be great sources to study the AST, but beg you to understand that your sentence "[A People's] perspective on their own circumstance is superior" sounded very alarming to me. Of course a knowledgable person who witnessed 9/11 or the American Civil War or whatever can be a great source, but the main point would still be that (s)he is an expert on the topic, while your earlier comment read (maybe unintentionally) as thought someone was a great source on the reasons just because he witnessed the event or is somewhat influenced by it.

I do however reject the general-sergeant metaphor. Anstey has pointed out that prices for slaves showed typical free-trade characteristics for a long time, i.e. fluctuating prices based on supply and demand (yes, I am aware that the terms seem somewhat perverted when the good in question is captured humans). While there is no doubt that the AST had crippling effects on large parts of Africa and that the trade turned out to be horrible for many of the African kings and their descendants (let alone their people), all evidence shows that in the beginning the AST wasn't a process that European slavers forced upon African kings (i.e. they weren't coerced), but a trade (initially an extension of an already-existing African slave trade) in which African mighties joined purely by their own decision. Colonialism, the topic for which your metaphor would apply, is a topic that is somewhat related to the AST (historical topics usually are) but which started when the AST was an already long-established institution. In fact, the high time of colonialism came when the AST was in it's dying days and the slave trade was a very minor motivation behind large-scale African colonialism (exceptions like Angola aside). Malc82 01:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This statement forms the crux of the argument, the fundamental point of my original essay - "all evidence shows that in the beginning the AST wasn't a process that European slavers forced upon African kings (i.e. they weren't coerced)". And also, "AST was an already long-established institution" (before European arrival in Africa).

This "evidence" is nothing but published literature presented from the perspective of European slave merchants and European history writers on the subject, who themselves are not free of bias due to their own involvement. This "evidence" is what I and others dispute, because it grossly contradicts real physical evidence (artefacts, relics, documents, etc) that I and millions have observed in our homeland, the ground zero of African Slave Trade - the African Continent itself. As you rightly suggested, African scholars have contributed immensely to the history of slavery, however their accounts are largely overlooked in the West. Constant repetition over the centuries that African Kings were culpable seems to have crystalized, as it is widely accepted as the general truth despite contradictory evidence in African homeland and literature.

It is just inaccurate to assert that slave trade existed in Africa before the advent of foreigners. Ancient African societies were no different from other feudal empires of the time, in which the high and mighty oppressed the down-trodden and war captives, who were usually forced to labour for the wealthy and powerful in castles, palaces and royal courts. This was not unique to Africa. Present day monarchies in Europe and other parts of the world, now glorified, are relics of this system of existence. Brutality, cruel executions, solitary confinement and enslavement were hardly viewed as wrong in Medieval Europe. King Henry VIII of Britain regularly beheaded his wives just as a matter of course. In our modern society, these acts would characterize as barbarism and enslavement, but in context of that era, it probably was not.

To give credit to those colonial masters, they did eventually fight against African slavery on both sides of the Atlantic, and helped to end this shameful period in human history. Our world is still not perfect, but significant progress has been made. Therefore it is time to abandon tired non-sequiturs and untruthful theses on African Slave Trade, endeavour to investigate further and straighten the records based on overwhelming physical evidence still present today. At least that much is owed to the victims. "basseyoe@yahoo.com" Merlin1935 23:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More info on which African peoples were affected.

The article details the European countries involved, but doesn't mention which African ethnic groups were most affected by the slave trade to the Americas. It might also be useful to list out which African areas were most involved--I know we can't use countries, but perhaps we could describe them according to their modern locations, e.g. "present-day Nigeria" etc.? (See for instance Atlantic slave trade#Slave Market Regions and Participation.) I feel as though the lack of specifics regarding the Africans' origins only reinforces the idea that the slaves aren't important enough to talk about. Could I simply import the list from the Slave Trade article? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and be bold. Graham87 11:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

vandal

rofl it'll probably be fixed by the time anyone sees this.69.76.7.248 (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. Graham87 03:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

References

With many good scholarly works on the slave trade why is one of the only two references listed a textbook? A textbook should never be a source for an article. 71.252.207.32 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Because school children study the slave trade and want to improve the article. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Oh the sources are currently listed under "notes"... Rich Farmbrough, 12:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Removed

"At sea, the sharks that followed the ships were used, if only passively, to discourage sailors from abandoning the ship."

This seems a rather romantic notion that sailors would try to swim for it, rather than be involved in slaving, given that most sailors were probably unable to swim, and that even for a strong swimmer more than a dozen or so miles at sea is extreme going. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Suicide

... "by jumping overboard was such a problem that captains had to address it directly in many cases. They used the sharks that followed the ships as a terror weapon. One captain, who had a rash of suicides on his ship, took a woman and lowered her into the water on a rope, and pulled her out as fast as possible. When she came in view, the sharks had already killed her—and bitten off the lower half of her body"

Not sure quite how this would "address" suicide - death by shark or death by drowning? Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Collapse

"The two most common types of resistance were refusal to eat and suicide. Suicide was a frequent occurrence, often by refusal of food or medicine or..." somehow the repetition should be removed. But is not clear (and uncited) if refusal to eat was a resistance tactic that wasn't suicidal. Seems sloppy. Rich Farmbrough, 12:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Confusing statement regarding Portugal.

This statement in the intro is confusing or in need of clarification: "For two hundred years, 1440–1640, Portugese slavers had a near monopoly on the export of slaves from Africa."

1: There was no Portuguese presence in the new world until 1504. So, how could there have been a 'middle passage' for slaves from Africa to the Americas in the 64 years from 1440 to 1504? (Or is the editor trying to claim that the Portuguese were transporting slaves from Africa back home to Portugal?)

2: From 1580 to 1640 Portugal did not exist as it was in union with Spain.

This article is poor enough already. It doesn't need extra help from patently incorrect dates.;) 1812ahill (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor quality

As is mentioned in above in comments this article is a disgrace. It's bloody offensive. Little vignettes about sharks, and weaseling words like they "even" had port holes on some ships. I don't think I have ever see a worse article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.63.244 (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is the most ridiculous article on Wikipedia

I have personally looked at the lists of slaves. WE HAVE THE LISTS. WITH THEIR NAMES ON IT. The total number of slaves brought to Americas was 381,000. 199.116.241.58 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Crew Deaths Even Worse

According to this academic analysis crew deaths were almost three times as high as the rate for slaves:

" Crew members died primarily from fevers (probably malaria) and slaves died primarily from gastrointestinal diseases. Annual death rates in this activity were 230 per thousand among the crew and 83 per thousand among slaves."

https://www.nber.org/papers/w1540

This seems perfectly credible. All sea voyages were dangerous. For example of Magellan's original around the world crew of 280 only 19 made it home. 92.31.72.31 (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)