Are Africans somewhat responsible for slavery in America?

Question

In my History class in college, I learned that African slave traders were the ones that rounded up the Africans and then sold them to the Europeans.

It was not like the Europeans had the knowledge and experience of the African terrain to go in and round up the Africans all by themselves.

Do you know anything more about this? Who were the Africans that were selling the slaves? Were they rich? Was their slavery in Africa before the Europeans came?

Answer 1

That's a complex question.

Africans were definitely responsible for slavery which did exist in Africa and it could definitely be argued that they were partially responsible for slavery in America.

Think of it this way, without one side of the slave trade, there wouldn't have been slavery in America so both Africa and America were the two necessary cogs in the machine.

However, I still think slavery of America was primarily America's fault, even though some responsibility can be given to Africa.

It is like comparing the murderer to the salesman that sold the gun. Without one, the murder wouldn't happen, but one is probably much more at fault than the other.

Answer 2

That's an interesting question...and the answer is yes, I suppose they were partly responsible--though of course they wouldn't have done it if there was no demand for slaves.

"African peoples such as the Imbangala of Angola and the Nyamwezi of Tanzania would serve as intermediaries or roving bands warring with other African nations to capture Africans for Europeans."

Slavery did exist in Africa then, but not in the same form as in America: "Slavery", as it is often referred to by people, in African cultures was generally more like indentured servitude: "slaves" were not made to be chattel of other men, nor enslaved for life. African "slaves" were paid wages and were able to accumulate property. They often bought their own freedom and could then achieve social promotion -just as freedman in ancient Rome- some even rose to the status of kings ...

In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved. In early Islamic states of the western Sudan, including Ghana (750-1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275-1591), about a third of the population were slaves. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century about half of the population consisted of slaves. In the 19th century at least half the population was enslaved among the Duala of the Cameroon, the Igbo and other peoples of the lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third of the population consisted of slaves. The population of the Kanem (1600–1800) was about a third-slave. It was perhaps 40% in Bornu (1580–1890). Between 1750 and 1900 from one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of slaves. The population of the Sokoto caliphate formed by Hausas in the northern Nigeria and Cameroon was half-slave in the 19th century. It is estimated that up to 90% of the population of Arab-Swahili Zanzibar was enslaved. Roughly half the population of Madagascar was enslaved"

Answer 3

It was the Dutch who saw slavery as a huge money making enterprise and brought it to the attention of the Islamic Africans that it would be profitable to remove the infidels from their lands and make money off of them too.

Answer 4

Yes finally! Yes African's did. In the beginning the Europeans did not force African traders to sell slaves. They did out of their own accord. There was a few African king's and leaders who were against this way of making wealth. They forsaw what would happen. African Americans would take people, kids, prisoner's of war from whereever they lived and sell them to Europeans for goods and tradeables! Then eventually Europeans got a little greedy and just took whatever slaves they needed.....



But initially yes. Europeans or white people weren't the only ones who contributed in slavery. Slavery in Africa was being done thousands of years ago. Europeans only thought of it when Bartholemew De las Casas had to open his big mouth....

Answer 5

There is no question about it, slavery existed in Africa before Europeans got involved. What changed was a) the magnitude and b) the market.

You should probably also realize that slavery has been a feature of a great many societies in many parts of the world.

Answer 6

There was some responsibility for the African kings, but this is an oversimplification. Yes, slavery existed in Africa for thousands of years, but the Europeans introduced slavery 'as a weapon' for the political and cultural destruction of African society wherever it was practiced.

Specifically, European traders would introduce manufactured and cheap goods such as pots and pans, and very inexpensive cloth, but they would accept ONLY slaves in trade. Next, they would often incite tension and conflict between neighboring kindoms so they could create a market for guns, with the result that each kingdom would have to make attacks (often on their own villages!) to capture more slaves just so they could buy more guns to defend against the raids of the enemy. It was not uncommon that the last slave to board a ship was in fact the prince who had made the original deal with the Europeans to trade slaves for guns.

Answer 7

That's correct, the selling was done by native Africans, the buying by Europeans.  The people supplying slaves to market were native African kingdoms--Oyo, Dahomey, and others.

Those who were sold into slavery were sometimes criminals or troublemakers in the kingdom.  More often they were captured in slave raids, often from deeper in the interior.

Answer 8

Not really if you want to get very technical....

When slavery was first introduced to the Americas, the Europeans used the Native Americans as slaves.  It proved to not be such a great idea since the indians were not immune to the European disease and they also knew the land very well so they ran away often if they were even able to beat the diseases.

The European settlers decided they needed to get someone else to work who were use to extreme heat and harsh working conditions so they decided to go to Africa to round up some slaves.  They went there and they started rounding up Africans.

Word got out that the Europeans were buying slaves so THEN black people decided to round up waker tribes since it was either them or someone else.  Most of the Slaves were taken from Northern Africa.

The Blacks sold the slaves to the Europeans to take to America.  The most ironic part is that after they got their pay and was wealthy from the POWs they sold as slaves, The European countries took control over all of Africa and divided each region while in the process taking all the money they made off of the slaves they sold.

Basically the Africans that sold the POWs as slaves were jipped in the long run.

I wouldn't blame the Africans responsible for slavery in America.  Even if the Africans refused to sell the slaves, do you really believe the Europeans would have went "AWWW MAN!!!! I guess we will go home now...."

They would have took the slaves regardless of whether the Africans sold them or not.  Technically speaking, Africans were not responsible.

It wouldn't have matter if Africa would have cooperated or not because Europe would have take them by FORCE and GUNS!!!

Answer 9

No Africans only supplied 18 million slaves to the new world

Where as the New world institutions of slavery enslaved more than 50 million black people. You see black people were born in America into slavery the majority were in fact and importation of Africans was even outlawed in 1830s throughout the new world but slavery continued up till 1888 in Brazil. Also only African leaders and kidnappers suplied Europeans slaves where as any type of European could buy them and the goods which slaves were bought with were made by populations of normal people in Europe. Normal populations in Africa had nothing to do with the trade they were simply the victims.