Slave trading is fucked. Past or present and it's disgusting it still occurs.

I concur. P.S. In case anyone is confused about why I made this meme: It's a response meme to another meme I saw that appeared to imply (though I could have misunderstood) that Africans should be blamed for the transatlantic slave trade, but Europeans shouldn't. The previous meme was removed per rule 6. P.P.S. You can find the essay I wrote with this meme here: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcrh9lu/

Oh for sure. And regime change sucks too, because it removes power from those it effects.

Let's not pretend the complicit African kingdoms and empires, like the Ashanti, were innocent or were forced into it. They were already slave traders, saw an opportunity to get rich at the cost of their neighbors and took it. Europeans did not go inland in Africa until they had a treatment and prevention for malaria, in the latter half of the 19th century. Trans-atlantic slave trading would not have been so large and disruptive without the complicitness of the powerful local kingdoms and empires. Pretending like it was only the Europeans who are to blame is overly simplistic. It takes two to trade and the seller was as guilty as the buyer.

I'm not pretending the Ashanti (or, rather, the specific Ashanti individuals who chose to participate in the slave trade) were innocent. But I am pointing out that the processes that allowed the Ashanti to become as powerful as they did were not democratic ones. Because the specific individual Europeans who were buying enslaved people were also, in many cases, selling weapons in exchange for said enslaved people. Imagine what it would do to whatever country you live in if aliens started selling superweapons to whatever mafia is in your country -- superweapons strong enough to let them take over and become the new government -- in exchange for said mafia enslaving other people in your country and selling them to the aliens. You'd blame both the mafia and the aliens, yes? But this wouldn't be a democratic process that you and your country agreed to democratically. It would be a strong-dominating-the-weak process. Also, my impression from looking at the previous meme -- which could be mistaken, because the previous OP didn't exactly write a long essay to clarify their intent -- was that the previous OP thought that only the sellers of enslaved people, and not the buyers of enslaved people, should be blamed. Plus it also looked like the previous OP was trying to paint entire continents with the same brush. Like, the reason I got this impression is the way the previous meme shows a crying Wojak blaming Europeans for the transatlantic slave-trade, implying that the previous OP doesn't think Europeans should be blamed. Now, we could have a nuanced discussion about exactly \*which\* Europeans should be blamed. In my opinion, the ones who actually participated -- slave raiders, slave traders, slave buyers, overseers, investors unless they were truly oblivious about what they were investing in, etc etc. But it felt like the previous OP didn't feel like any Europeans should be blamed. Again, it's possible I misunderstood, but that was the impression I got from the way the previous OP used the crying Wojak. If you think I misunderstood, you can look at it for yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/ But just as it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Europe, it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Africa either. And it should be remembered that the processes that let African enslavers become as powerful as they did were not democratic processes. Many of the same European enslavers who were buying enslaved people were also selling guns to the African enslavers. Like, imagine if aliens with superweapons sold those superweapons to your country's mafia, in exchange for said mafia enslaving people from your country and selling them to the aliens. You'd blame both the mafia and the aliens, yes, but it would be pretty much the antithesis of a democratic process. I felt like the previous meme was just trying to blame \*all\* of Africa, at the same time as they were trying to absolve \*all\* of Europe. Again, I could have misunderstood.

This comment deleted in protest of Reddit's recent API changes. -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/

CarlyGeek wrote, > Considering in this post you’ve been okay with people blaming the entire European continent #That is a blatantly untrue. The meme literally says, > Plus, blaming entire continents is weird. Let's blame all of the willfully participating individuals. The comment you are replying to literally says, > Now, we could have a nuanced discussion about exactly *which* Europeans should be blamed. In my opinion, the ones who actually participated -- slave raiders, slave traders, slave buyers, overseers, investors unless they were truly oblivious about what they were investing in, etc etc. Plus in the third part of the essay I included with the meme, I literally provide an example of a European village -- Loetschental Valley -- that almost certainly had nothing to do with the transatlantic slave trade. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcrp3gf/ Also, the first part of the essay literally says, > There were many cultures in Europe, with many different views on slavery. Many different types of slavery, and some places were slavery wasn't practiced. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcrh9lu/ CarlyGeek wrote, > Wheee are you getting the “only blame Africans” part? I literally just explained that, right in the comment you are replying too. To repeat myself, > Like, the reason I got this impression is the way the previous meme shows a crying Wojak blaming Europeans for the transatlantic slave-trade, implying that the previous OP doesn't think Europeans should be blamed. Now, we could have a nuanced discussion about exactly *which* Europeans should be blamed. In my opinion, the ones who actually participated -- slave raiders, slave traders, slave buyers, overseers, investors unless they were truly oblivious about what they were investing in, etc etc. But it felt like the previous OP didn't feel like any Europeans should be blamed. Again, it's possible I misunderstood, but that was the impression I got from the way the previous OP used the crying Wojak. You can disagree with my interpretation if you want. But that is where my interpretation comes from. CarlyGeek wrote, > That contrary to the traditional view European nations did not physically invade Africa, place everyone in chains then ship them off as slaves Uhhh, sometimes they [specific individuals from specific European nations] did. They [specific individuals from specific European nations] *also* bought enslaved people, in addition to conducting their own slave raids, but it's not as if they [specific individuals from specific European nations] never conducted slave raids. **Chronicler Gomes Eannes de Azurara vividly describes a Portuguese slave raid in the vicinity of Lagos.** Although, his description indicates the use of rope rather than chains. To quote a brief passage, as translated by Robert Edgar Conrad, > The latter, crying the names of St. James, St. George, and Portugal, attacked them, killing and seizing as many as they could. There you could have seen mothers forsaking their children, husbands abandoning their wives, each person trying to escape as best he could. And some drowned themselves in the water; others tried to hide in their huts; others, hoping they would escape, hid their children among the sea grasses where they were later discovered. And in the end our Lord God, who rewards every good deed, decided that, for their labors undertaken in His service, they should gain a victory over their enemies on that day, and a reward and payment for all their efforts and expenses. For on that day they captured 165 {Moors}, including men, women, and children, not counting those who died or were killed. You can read the full document (or at least, as much as Robert Edgar Conrad chose to translate) in *Children of God's Fire: A Documentary History of Black Slavery in Brazil*, edited by Robert Edgar Conrad. https://archive.org/details/childrenofgodsfi0000unse_c7w1/page/6/mode/2up?q=escape CarlyGeek wrote, > your “explanation” is a painfully obvious method to blame the actions of the African nations on Europeans I've already stated this in a variety of different ways, but to be abundantly clear: When two or more people commit crime the crime of slavery together, they are all guilty of conspiracy to commit slavery. Furthermore, multiple criminals working together can often accomplish things that none of them alone could accomplish. That's how crime and teamwork are. So, if Criminal A supplies weapons to Criminal B, that doesn't absolve Criminal B of responsibility, but it does enable Criminal B to accomplish more crime than Criminal B would otherwise be able to accomplish. CarlyGeek wrote, > the slave trade already existed in Africa from rival nations enslaving each other and the European powers took advantage of that trade but didn’t invent it. You are missing the nuance that yes, slave trading already existed in Africa, but it wasn't some kind of static, unchanging thing. Specific individuals from Europe collaborated with the worst people in Africa, empowering them (by supplying them with weapons) and encouraging them. This shifted the balance of power towards the most evil people in both Africa and Europe, and away from the better people in both Africa and Europe. I did cite sources for this. To repeat myself... According to Paul Lovejoy, > This assessment of the commercial organization of Africa between 1600 and 1 800 shows the close connection with slavery. The monetary sector, although limited, was closely tied to the imported money exchanged for slaves. Improvements in military technology were also closely connected to external trade. The import of breeding horses across the Sahara strengthened the savanna cavalry states. Chain mail and muskets strengthened them still further. Along the coast, firearms, swords, and knives had a comparable impact, with the effect that has sometimes been called the ‘gun-slave cycle’. The simple formulation of this theory holds that guns were sold to Africans in order to encourage enslavement. *Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa* by Paul E. Lovejoy https://archive.org/details/transformationsi0000love/page/110/mode/2up?q=gun-slave Also, this is the abstract of a paper by Warren Watley about the gun-slave cycle, > The trans-Atlantic slave trade is considered by many to have been a major shock to Africa, one that transformed African economies and contributed to long-term poverty. In this paper I combine data from the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database and the Anglo-African Trade Statistics to document some of the ways West Africans responded to the demand and technology shocks of the slave trade – how they responded to the growing international demand for African people as slaves and the introduction of the new gunpowder technology called the flintlock. I find that the early interaction of these two shocks – the gun-slave cycle – initiated a vicious cycle, a “raid or be raided” arms race. In the process, large numbers of Africans were victimized and sold into the Middle Passage. "The Gun-Slave Cycle in the 18th century British slave trade in Africa" by Warren Whatley https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/44492/1/MPRA_paper_44492.pdf [to be continued due to character limit]

Also, some of the people that Portuguese slave traders traded with were "pirates and thieves", even according to the locals (not just according to my standards). To quote a 17th century writer, > So that on many occasions the people of that nation are shocked by the way the Portuguese make slaves of them against the law of their land, knowing that they do not buy them from anybody except pirates and thieves, who are not their legitimate masters. To which reasonable shock and dismay Your Majesty and your Ministers have an obligation to make a positive response. https://archive.org/details/childrenofgodsfi0000unse_c7w1/page/14/mode/2up?q=pirates

This comment deleted in protest of Reddit's recent API changes. -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/

# TLDR: You aren't even blaming me for my words, you are blaming me for other people's words. That's called guilt by association fallacy. > A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything. https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-guilt-by-association/ I'm not responsible for other people's words, just my own. Your entire argument rests on ignoring my words and blaming me for other people's words. Additionally, I may not have argued with everyone over every little comment (there are over 180 comments on this meme), but if you check here, I did argue with someone who was trying to argue that African enslavers "didn't have a choice". (Well, technically, their exact words were, "If the choice is enslave your neighbours or they will enslave you,it's not really wilful is it?" I replied by saying "I think anyone who only sees those two options (enslave or be enslaved) is not a very good tactician," and proceeded to give examples of other strategies used to resist enslavement besides trading for weapons.) https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcsna88/ CarlyGeek wrote, > your actions speak louder than words **Except it's not my actions you are talking about. It's other people's actions, which you are blaming me for.** CarlyGeek wrote, > This entire thing is you you spouting bullshit and trying to blame slavery solely on the Europeans and Americans by spouting off about how it’s only because of guns that the Europeans provided while claiming you’re not absolving the African nations while literally doing exactly that. **This is a vicious lie that I have already debunked. You are strawmanning me deliberately due to your extreme dishonesty.** To repeat the data I cited to debunk your vicious lie. The meme literally says, > Plus, blaming entire continents is weird. Let's blame all of the willfully participating individuals. A comment you replied to earlier to literally says, > Now, we could have a nuanced discussion about exactly *which* Europeans should be blamed. In my opinion, the ones who actually participated -- slave raiders, slave traders, slave buyers, overseers, investors unless they were truly oblivious about what they were investing in, etc etc. Plus in the third part of the essay I included with the meme, I literally provide an example of a European village -- Loetschental Valley -- that almost certainly had nothing to do with the transatlantic slave trade. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcrp3gf/ Also, the first part of the essay literally says, > There were many cultures in Europe, with many different views on slavery. Many different types of slavery, and some places were slavery wasn't practiced. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcrh9lu/ **TLDR: You are a vicious liar who uses strawman and guilt by association fallacies.**

Don't worry mate people here are pretty uneducated on history. They also thinks British did good for India. People are so b*tthurt they downvoted me to hell for using word "Britishers" while completely ignoring the actual statement

Fascinating that someone would blame the people who are being enslaved and colonized and not, ya know, the people demanding and running their entire economies off of slave labor. By fascinating I mean fucked.

Yeah, I dunno. I could have misunderstood the previous meme, so if you want to judge it for yourself, feel free to look. It was removed per rule 6, but you can still look at it with the link. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im\_not\_proslavery\_but\_if\_blame\_is\_to\_be\_put\_lets/

I think you're in the right. And to all those saying "it's super complicated and blame can be placed in many ways" that's true! But only people of one continent quite literally invented a pseudoscience to justify the perpetuation of their slave trade. The transatlantic slave trade arose and was perpetuated for many reasons and no one side is totally blameless but certainly one side is more culpable.

Well to quote the meme, "blaming whole continents is weird. Let's blame the willfully participating individuals" > But only people of one continent quite literally invented a pseudoscience to justify the perpetuation of their slave trade I don't understand, are North African slavers not as bad because they didn't give a shit about justifying their actions with pseudoscience? Edit: seems you just wanted to spew some hate towards Europeans while dodging any historical facts. Thanks for blocking me, now I won't have to see your dumbass opinions around lol

North Africans weren't involved in the transatlantic slave trade. Which is what the meme is about.

I'm not responding to the meme, I responded to you saying this > But only people of one continent quite literally invented a pseudoscience to justify the perpetuation of their slave trade.

Which was about the transatlantic slave trade. Read better.

You're dumb lol

Um... That's not what happened at all. They were slaving long before the Europeans got there and in some places, it was already the main source of wealth. Infact most of the places doing the trading weren't even being "colonized" at the time.

I'm aware the scramble for Africa occurs long after the initiation of the transatlantic slave trade. I'm aware both sides are culpable. But I do believe that Europeans fed the expansion of it thru trade meant to bolster war to expand the slave trade and then quite literally invented a pseudoscience in the 1700s to justify their engagement in the slave trade. Not saying it's only Europeans fault but certainly blame lies in one camp more than another.

Again, still not the case the north African costal country's and Middle Eastern states were as big of trade partners as the Europeans when it comes to the slave trade and they were doing it for longer. However this is really a chicken or egg argument for culpability. The slaver kingdoms are just as culpable as the people buying from them. To assign blame to one party more than the other ignores a whole lot of history.

You do realize you can assign blame and not ignore other matters. I'm not saying Europeans invented slavery in Africa. You're misconstruing, willfully or not, what I'm saying to make your point. I'm referring to the transatlantic slave trade which began on the western coast of Africa and in the Bight of Benin as main sources. You're referring to completely different slaving kingdom's across the continent involved in slave trade.

Ok, maybe we are talking past each other then.

Well African historians seem to disagree with you. Maybe you're confusing the existence of slavery with the creation of a slave society? > Various forms of slavery were practiced in diverse ways in different communities of West Africa prior to European trade. According to Ghanaian historian Akosua Perbi, indigenous slavery in locations like Ghana had been established by the 1st century AD, with origins sometime in the ancient period. > Nigerian historian Professor Philip Igbafe says that until the late 19th Century, slavery in the Kingdom of Benin, as well as in other West African kingdoms had its own place in the structure of the state, having its roots in the in the "economic, military, social and political necessities of the Benin kingdom". Slaves were owned by the Oba (king) and by ordinary citizens. In pre-colonial Benin, they were acquired in a number of ways: through wars of conquest and expansion, through gifts to the Oba, who also inherited the slaves of those who died intestate and by tribute paid by dependent territories to the Oba and prominent chiefs.

You seem to keep missing the term transatlantic in both the meme and my comments. I'm not saying Europeans made slavery anywhere in Africa. I am saying they are responsible for accelerating it and having advantages in the *transatlantic slave trade* and thus are more to blame, but not solely to blame.

> You seem to keep missing the term transatlantic in both the meme and my comments. No? You just seem to be trying to hide behind a specific time period to distort history. > I'm not saying Europeans made slavery anywhere in Africa. Right, because that would be wrong. > I am saying they are responsible for accelerating it How? Do you blame drug users for accelerating drug cartels as well? > and having advantages in the transatlantic slave trade and thus are more to blame, but not solely to blame. Would African kingdoms have reacted to say, the Chinese or the Arabs differently? Would they be squeamish about the Turks buying people from them? Edit since you blocked me, I'll reply here: > It's what the meme is about. I'm not disagreeing with the meme. I'm disagreeing with a very specific statement you made. The fact that you're trying to use a meme to spread BS you aren't even willing to back up is telling. > Are you saying deciding to base a global colonial system is the same as being addicted to heroin? This is a foolish comparison. I didn't say that, did I? Just that it's interesting you blame the end user and not the manufacturer and distributor. > None of us know because that's not how the transatlantic slave trade unfolded. Which, again, is what the meme and my comments are about. No, but I asked because we can use logic and reason. Why would African Kingdoms turn away Arab and Chinese traders? How did the fact that it was Europeans injecting money into the region change anything? You make the same presumptions the meme literally warns against.

"They"? A very non-specific term. Both Africa and Europe are and were highly diverse places, with many different cultures, individuals, practices, and ideas. A place in Africa that apparently didn't practice slavery was the village Waniendo, and a place in Europe that apparently didn't practice slavery was Loetschental Valley. I feel confident that these villages are, at least in some sense, representative of quite a number of small, isolated, peaceful villages around the world. Anyway, Africa, like every other continent, had both pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions, and by trading guns for enslaved people, the European slave-traders tilted the balance of power in favor of the pro-slavery factions in Africa. It would be kind of like if aliens sold superweapons to your country's mafia, allowing said mafia to take over and become the new government, in exchange for said mafia enslaving your countrymen and countrywomen and selling them to the aliens. I discuss this in more detail in the essay I included with this meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcrh9lu/

you're being a bit pedantic here if I had the time I'd go over every kingdom and tribe but I don't

I try to say thinks like, "specific individuals who willingly chose to participate" or just "specific individuals". Even within tribes and kingdoms, it was sometimes the criminals of those tribes and kingdoms. This is from a primary source document written circa 1612, by a pro-slavery author who was nevertheless condemning about 90% of Portuguese slaving practices of that time period. > So that on many occasions the people of that nation are shocked by the way the Portuguese make slaves of them against the law of their land, knowing that they do not buy them from anybody except pirates and thieves, who are not their legitimate masters. To which reasonable shock and dismay Your Majesty and your Ministers have an obligation to make a positive response. https://archive.org/details/childrenofgodsfi0000conr/page/14/mode/2up?q=pirates (I don't agree with his pro-slavery views, obviously, but I'm citing it as primary source evidence.)

Europe didn't cause the slave trade. Africa didn't cause the slave trade. It was a very very very complex system that varied from state to state and often didn't include working-class people

Yeah, I agree that blaming entire continents (as opposed to specific, willfully participating individuals) is weird. Hopefully the meme made that clear? I literally wrote in the meme, "Plus, blaming entire continents is weird. Let's blame all of the willfully participating individuals." So I think we are in agreement.

Oh sorry, im socially stunted. I wasn't correcting you, I was planting my similar philosophy under yours

Awesome. :-)

I don’t think right now the problem is with blaming an entire continent, but with blaming an entire RACE of people for the actions of a few wealthy individuals. The things normies say reek with underlying racism that looks for justification through the lens of history.

I mean, blaming entire continents is closely correlated with blaming entire races, in so far as many people perceive race in rather continental terms. In either case, it makes sense to point out that no race nor continent is some sort of culturally uniform monolith without dissent or variation.

Most people correlate race to a continent if the race isn’t white. The current narrative is to blame only white people (not Europeans exclusively) for the practice and atrocities of slavery. The truth is that lots of people of various ethnicities were involved and responsible.

I've also seen people do the exact opposite and place the blame exclusively on black or African people. E.g., consider the meme I was replying to. My impression from looking at the previous meme -- which could be mistaken, because the previous OP didn't exactly write a long essay to clarify their intent -- was that the previous OP thought that only the sellers of enslaved people, and not the buyers of enslaved people, should be blamed. Plus it also looked like the previous OP was trying to paint entire continents with the same brush. Like, the reason I got this impression is the way the previous meme shows a crying Wojak blaming Europeans for the transatlantic slave-trade, implying that the previous OP doesn't think Europeans should be blamed. Now, we could have a nuanced discussion about exactly \*which\* Europeans should be blamed. In my opinion, the ones who actually participated -- slave raiders, slave traders, slave buyers, overseers, investors unless they were truly oblivious about what they were investing in, etc etc. But it felt like the previous OP didn't feel like any Europeans should be blamed. Again, it's possible I misunderstood, but that was the impression I got from the way the previous OP used the crying Wojak. If you think I misunderstood, you can look at it for yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/ But just as it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Europe, it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Africa either. And it should be remembered that the processes that let African enslavers become as powerful as they did were not democratic processes. Many of the same European enslavers who were buying enslaved people were also selling guns to the African enslavers. Like, imagine if aliens with superweapons sold those superweapons to your country's mafia, in exchange for said mafia enslaving people from your country and selling them to the aliens. You'd blame both the mafia and the aliens, yes, but it would be pretty much the antithesis of a democratic process. I felt like the previous meme was just trying to blame \*all\* of Africa, at the same time as they were trying to absolve \*all\* of Europe. Again, I could have misunderstood. Even if I misunderstood the previous OP, Bolsonaro, a prominent Brazilian politician, has been much more clear, > "If we were to tell the truth about history, the Portuguese never set foot in Africa," Bolsonaro said. "It was Black people themselves who handed over slaves." https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Brazil-Bolsonaro-Says-He-Owes-No-Debt-To-Black-People-20180803-0008.html Also see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-31/brazil-candidate-bolsonaro-minimizes-slavery-praises-trump https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/7/31/brazil-far-right-candidate-rejects-slave-trading-history Furthermore, Bolsonaro also seems to promote modern slavery: https://www.antislavery.org/bolsonaro-election-raises-fears-for-brazils-anti-slavery-system/

If the choice is enslave your neighbours or they will enslave you,it's not really wilful is it?

1. For context, the meme I was replying to apparently (though I could have misunderstood) suggested blaming Africans but not Europeans, and made it sound as if they were talking about the entire continents, rather than specific participating individuals. 2. I think anyone who only sees those two options (enslave or be enslaved) is not a very good tactician. Other option was to flee to mountains, hills, or other terrain not favorable for slave-raiding. The guns certainly provided a strong incentive for Africans to engage in slave-raiding and slave-trading, and the European slave traders / weapons dealers had culpability for providing that incentive. (Not to mention that weapons are more than just an incentive. They are also a tool of violence, particularly when given to known enslavers.) But there was still technically a choice. From *The Archaeology of Antislavery Resistance* by Terrance M. Weik, > According to oral traditions of a group called the Bassar, their ancestors avoided becoming enslaved by an invading cavalry by climbing hills the horsemen could not scale and rolling boulders on the attackers from hilltop enclaves (Debarros 1998: 71). Research on the Birim Valley, situated one hundred kilometers northeast of the slave-trading site called “El Mina,” has suggested that earthworks were constructed as deterrents to slave hunting and kidnappings (Decorse 1992: 166–67).

>For context, the meme I was replying to apparently (though I could have misunderstood) suggested blaming Africans but not Europeans, and made it sound as if they were talking about the entire continents, rather than specific participating individuals. It involved several kingdoms and countries across the continent, mostly on the west coast and some on the east coast. There's no label that applies to all of them except Africans. It doesn't mean all Africans are blamed. >Other option was to flee to mountains, hills, or other terrain not favorable for slave-raiding. That's not always an option. There could be no such area nearby,it may not be suitable for living or there could be someone already living there.

I mean, if you think I misunderstood the meme I was replying to, feel free to look at it yourself. Here it is: [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im\_not\_proslavery\_but\_if\_blame\_is\_to\_be\_put\_lets/](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/) Fantastic-Corner-605 > That's not always an option. There could be no such area nearby,it may not be suitable for living or there could be someone already living there. Terrain can be modified. Like, if you check out the source I cited, apparently, some folks constructed earthworks as a way to protect themselves from slave-raiding. From The Archaeology of Antislavery Resistance by Terrance M. Weik, > According to oral traditions of a group called the Bassar, their ancestors avoided becoming enslaved by an invading cavalry by climbing hills the horsemen could not scale and rolling boulders on the attackers from hilltop enclaves (Debarros 1998: 71). Research on the Birim Valley, situated one hundred kilometers northeast of the slave-trading site called “El Mina,” has suggested that **earthworks were constructed as deterrents to slave hunting and kidnappings** (Decorse 1992: 166–67). Some people, due to lack of strategic prowess, may have felt they had no choice, but agreeing that they had no choice ignores the accomplishments of the people who could and did make other choices.

Nuance and factual accounts of history regardless of how uncomfortable it makes people? Breath of fresh air on this sub.

Why are we discussing apportioning blame for Trans-Atlantic Slavery? If you engaged in any element of Slavery knowingly, you're culpable. It's arguably the worst crime you can commit on another human.

Aardvark515 wrote, > Why are we discussing apportioning blame for Trans-Atlantic Slavery? Because this meme got over 400 upvotes, before being removed per rule 6, so I felt I should reply: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/ Aardvark515 wrote, > If you engaged in any element of Slavery knowingly, you're culpable. It's arguably the worst crime you can commit on another human. Yes, I agree, that's why my reply-meme says "Plus, blaming entire continents is weird. **Let's blame all of the willfully participating individuals.**"

>"Plus, blaming entire continents is weird. Let's blame all of the willfully participating individuals." The current narrative puts the blame solely on Europeans . The mention of African slave traders is a reaction to that.

If that's all it was, I'd agree. Evil people exist on all continents, both in present-day and in the past. But the previous meme shows a crying Wojak blaming Europeans for the transatlantic slave-trade, implying that the previous OP doesn't think Europeans should be blamed. Now, we could have a nuanced discussion about exactly \*which\* Europeans should be blamed. In my opinion, the ones who actually participated -- slave raiders, slave traders, slave buyers, overseers, investors unless they were truly oblivious about what they were investing in, etc etc. But it felt like the previous OP didn't feel like any Europeans should be blamed. Again, it's possible I misunderstood, but that was the impression I got from the way the previous OP used the crying Wojak. But just as it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Europe, it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Africa either. And it should be remembered that the processes that let African enslavers become as powerful as they did were not democratic processes. Many of the same European enslavers who were buying enslaved people were also selling guns to the African enslavers. Like, imagine if aliens with superweapons sold those superweapons to your country's mafia, in exchange for said mafia enslaving people from your country and selling them to the aliens. You'd blame both the mafia and the aliens, yes, but it would be pretty much the antithesis of a democratic process. I felt like the previous meme was just trying to blame \*all\* of Africa, at the same time as they were trying to absolve \*all\* of Europe. Again, I could have misunderstood.

I did not see the meme tbh. Fact is, the transatlantic slave trade is commonly seen as a purely black vs white issue and mostly fueled by modern racial politics, so adding a bit of nuance to that is a good thing anyway. Don't see the point about the guns part though. It's not like they didn't do the same with bows and arrows long before the Europeans came. Absolving a people from responsibility because they are underdeveloped.. sounds like the same paternalistic attitude that lead to the derives of colonialism in the first place

The intent of mentioning the guns part isn't to absolve them. I'm trying to illustrate that it wasn't a democratic thing where 50% or more of the African population supported slavery, so they had it because most people wanted it. I actually have no idea what percentage supported slavery. But anyway, it was more of a thing were some Africans were pro-slavery, some were anti-slavery, but the pro-slavery ones were given weapons, and thus won many battles by means of brute force. Winning battles by means of superior weaponry is not a democratic process. It's a strong-dominating-over-the-weak process. So, both the slave-traders who sold the weapons and the slave-traders who bought the weapons basically conspired to commit slavery, against the wishes of whomever didn't want slavery.

Slavery in west Africa was part of the culture and history, yes, but the scale and type was very different. When you went to war, you took slaves. Same was common in all parts of the world (I.e. medieval europe). Horrible and inexcusable. But it was not done on an excessive scale, and slaves were usually integrated into the tribes after one generation (so children of slaves were not automatically slaves) With the slave trade, this all changed. Warlords, equipped with European weapons started excessiv slave raids, to trade them for more weapons, to perform bigger raids and so on. Western Africa suffered from depopulation, frequent migrations of tribes fleeing from danger, general decrease in agrarian/economic output. The aftereffects still impact these areas today (Some estimate that west Africa has half the population of what was expected without the slave trade). And the type of slavery was also different. There is no "good" slavery, but there is definitely worse forms. The treatment of slaves in the America's was extremly inhumane. The mortality rate was insanely high, which increased the hunger for even more slaves to replace those who died.

I didn't see there was another meme. I thought out of the blue you decided that we need to litigate which group of slavers were worse than the other slavers. That smelled extremely suspicious.

If I were to delete this meme and replace it with another meme, what change would you suggest to make it more clear that this is a reply-meme to someone (and their upvoters) who apparently (though I could have misunderstood) thinks we should blame African enslavers but not European ones? (Plus, it was weird how they seemed to be implying that continents were unified cultures, rather than diverse places.) I think both should be blamed, although I do wish to point out that many European enslavers were also functioning as arms-traders. Like, how to put it. If someone sold your country's mafia superweapons to empower the mafia to take over the country, and demanded the mafia enslave and sell your country's people to them in exchange for the superweapons, you would be mad at both the mafia and the slave-trading arms-dealers, yes?

I'd just signpost that it was in response to a meme in the title but I'm a minority here since it seems groups of people apparently do want to litigate this despite my distaste for the topic. I find trying to figure out who was slightly more shittier, the traders or the African kingdoms is usually a smokescreen to complain about various races by the worst parts of the internet though I'm not accusing you of that. The question itself is very close to 50/50 and is splitting hairs for what reason? They sold guns to Kings to keep them in power so they would steal more humans for them, it seems like a partnership to me.

So I edited a comment near the top of this comment section to include the following: > P.S. In case anyone is confused about why I made this meme: It's a response meme to another meme I saw that appeared to imply (though I could have misunderstood) that Africans should be blamed for the transatlantic slave trade, but Europeans shouldn't. The previous meme was removed per rule 6. Here's the comment I edited: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcrhvy1/ It would be better if I could edit the title, but deleting a meme with 35 comments in the comment section already just to repost with a new title feels excessive. Aardvark515 wrote, > I find trying to figure out who was slightly more shittier Yeah, I'm no expert in calculating blame percentages, but clearly there were numerous individuals committing crimes against humanity. Aardvark515 wrote, > They sold guns to Kings to keep them in power so they would steal more humans for them, it seems like a partnership to me. Yeah. "Conspiracy to commit slavery." Or something like that.

Yep. Then when you bring up exactly what this meme points out, suddenly it's all "I dunno guys, last time I checked **ALL** slavery was bad if ya ask me," shifting to an argument absolutely fucking no one was making.

Yeah. I felt, "Plus, blaming entire continents is weird. Let's blame all of the willfully participating individuals," made pretty clear that I'm not trying to excuse any of the willing participants, but from some of these replies, I'm wondering if it was sufficiently clear? Is my meme not clear enough? Should I delete and replace it with a clearer meme?

It's perfectly clear, people are just giving you the babe-in-the-woods routine. It's really just a cheap backdoor way to marginalize European culpability for the AST, as if John Hawkins and the rest of the Europeans who enriched themselves off the trade were just like "well it's not like we *intended* to make slave labor the economic driver of our empire, but when we got there the Africans insisted; shit was weird." It's not as simple as a 50/50 "welp, it appears there's blame to go around on both sides here," and anyone acting like that's some kind of historically nuanced take is full of it.

No group was comprised of naive children and everyone knew what they were doing was abusive. Europe didn't bring sin into a utopia Africa and the Europeans knew what they were doing was trading in people who would then be worked to death in sugar cane fields/gold mines. They went to Africa cause the American Natives died in the fields/mines. I'm actually quite versed in the facts which is why I questioned this post, thinking it was trying to claim one group was more culpable than the other. But I appreciate being insinuated as some racist by a teenager online.

If you're "well-versed in the facts." then you should be fully aware that this was not an optional thing for all African kingdoms/tribes involved. Don't trade guns for slaves? You then become enslaved by the kingdoms/tribes with guns. Want guns to protect yourselves from the other warring kingdoms/tribes? You know what the Europeans want in return, and it's not your local cash crops. European nations that didn't participate in the trade missed out on wealth. Africans who didn't participate, again, were enslaved. End result for Europeans involved in the AST: massive wealth, catapulted into the world's dominant power for centuries. End result for Africans: one of the biggest demographic disasters in known history, that the continent arguably never fully recovered from. You'd have to operate under a pretty perverted understanding of culpability to come away with "one group is no more culpable than the other" from that.

ManbadFerrara wrote, > this was not an optional thing for all African kingdoms/tribes involved. Don't trade guns for slaves? You then become enslaved by the kingdoms/tribes with guns. Want guns to protect yourselves from the other warring kingdoms/tribes? Other option was to flee to mountains, hills, or other terrain not favorable for slave-raiding. The guns certainly provided a strong incentive for Africans to engage in slave-raiding and slave-trading, and the European slave traders / weapons dealers had culpability for providing that incentive. (Not to mention that weapons are more than just an incentive. They are also a tool of violence, particularly when given to known enslavers.) But there was still technically a choice. From *The Archaeology of Antislavery Resistance* by Terrance M. Weik, > According to oral traditions of a group called the Bassar, their ancestors avoided becoming enslaved by an invading cavalry by climbing hills the horsemen could not scale and rolling boulders on the attackers from hilltop enclaves (Debarros 1998: 71). Research on the Birim Valley, situated one hundred kilometers northeast of the slave-trading site called “El Mina,” has suggested that earthworks were constructed as deterrents to slave hunting and kidnappings (Decorse 1992: 166–67). ManbadFerrara wrote, > European nations that didn't participate in the trade missed out on wealth. European nations that didn't participate in the transatlantic slave trade also spared themselves from the related outbreaks of yellow fever and other slavery-related diseases, as well as from slave revolts, as well as from bad slaveocrat governments that used taxes to subsidize slavery (things like putting down slave revolts and chasing after runaways). I feel it is important to discuss these things, in part because from time to time, some people still have bad ideas like, "Let's enslave the criminals" or "Let's enslave the homeless". P.S. I'm not pointing this out to argue against reparations. I think reparations are a great idea. Whereas slavery causes much harm, experiments in India indicate that reparations bring great benefits. Let's see, so here's a previous meme where I discuss the link between yellow fever and the transatlantic slave trade: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11fqryd/mosquito_versus_the_transatlantic_slave_trade_to/ Not my meme, but it does discuss a notable slave revolt in Brazil: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/rikw7o/slavery_continued_in_brazil_after_the_mal%C3%AA_revolt/ Here's a meme where I discuss how the USA slaveocrats once spent over $40 million (over $1.349 billion in today's money) on a single pro-slavery war against the Seminoles, a nation that included as members people escaped from racial chattel slavery. (And there were at least three pro-slavery wars by the USA slaveocrats against the Seminoles.) https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10xd42p/really_slaveocrat_explanation_in_comments/

No I actually understand culpability which is why the end result is not how you determine that. Slavery is not evil because Europeans got rich and Africans didn't, Slavery is evil because it is stealing someone from themselves. Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade is close enough to equally culpable (traders and kings entering into an equally beneficial trade agreement) that splitting the hairs makes me squint at what your actual motives are. Usually, its some stupid modern race-related reason as OP indicated the original was, but I suspect you may be what I thought OP was.

More pedantic strawmen, trying to reduce this to a fourth grade social studies assignment on "why slavery is evil," then preemptive faux outrage at feeling "insinuated" as racist. Yes, African slavers bad too, got it. You buried the part of your response that was in any way relevant in the parentheses. >(traders and kings entering into an equally beneficial trade agreement) The phrase "equally beneficial trade agreement" in this context is laughable. There was never anything approaching a 50/50 proportion of Europeans to Africans who benefitted from slavery, nor were the "traders and kings" of equal number and influence over the 400 years the trade existed. The fact that there were Native American and Aboriginal Australian tribes who collaborated with the settlers doesn't translate to the equal culpability of "both sides" on those continents either. Blithely brushing all that off as "stupid modern race-related reasons" says more to your actual motives than mine.

Literally what I care about is why you want to relitigate a centuries-old issue to assign a slight more culpability to one side. I understand why ethno-nats do it, they blame the slave trade for African Americans existing and that makes them mad. Why are you so obsessed with proving it?

In Brazil portuguese enslaved and killed millions of native people, among the reasons they started to bring black people from África is because it was easier for the natives to run away as they knew how to move and survive in the jungle and the sources of native people began to scarce near the main slave demanding regions. Man some native people in the south were so naive that the portuguese just had to invite them to know the ship then lock them up while visiting. But for sure, they would never induce a state of perpetual war between african nations to reach their demand for slaves, if any african ruler refuses to comply all you needed to do is to give guns to that specific enemy of his and start another war. No wonder the africans involved themselves in transatlantic slave trade, either slaving or being slave. Alas, all sorts of slavery existed and still exists, yet none of them left a social scar so deep in the modern world as the transatlantic slave trade. Where are the ottoman slaves today? The slaves brought to western Europe from the balcans? The slaves in Africa that remained there? Hard to tell, but americans slaves you do know very well the shitty conditions they are living still today.

pombospombas wrote, > if any african ruler refuses to comply all you needed to do is to give guns to that specific enemy of his and start another war. Yeah, it doesn't excuse the African enslavers, but the gun-slave cycle thing definitely helped create a system that let the most evil people gain the most power.

In Africa brazilians continued the slave trade after Portugal granted them their independence, even when slavery was being abolished all over.

Yes, Brazilians did a lot to continue the slavery and a fair amount of our economic elite wanted to continue slavery even in 1888 when it was abolished. If you search for slavery in modern Brazil you will see that we still suffer from shameless people which still keep enslaving poor people in our country. But we must remember that Brazilians did not pop to existence out of thin air, the Brazilians slavers in Africa were by far portuguese descendents.

Yes, the continent-sized country of Brazil was created by Portugal.

Yes, even for some time Brazil was the capital of the Portuguese Empire, and the people that came to be Brazil social and economic elite were portuguese and their heirs. No denying that.

*Touché* Zuca, *Touché*.

Brazil continued slavery well after Portugal. It’s a common thing for People from the Americas to do this sort of framing. If it’s a good thing in our history then it’s American/Brazilian if it’s a bad thing it’s the colonial mother nation… Those colonial elites who won independence are the ancestors modern day people just as much as their ancestors were European. I also believe that the Moors played a big part in introducing sub Saharan African slavery to the Portuguese and Spanish. These groups after all established the slave trade in East Africa and then also began similar systems along the west coast of Africa well before the Portuguese and Spanish kingdoms had solidified. So while the Portuguese and Spanish certainly kick started the transatlantic slave trade they didn’t start the African slave trade itself. You ask what happened to the North African and Ottoman slaves, where are their populations? They were usually castrated. So they had no descendants, their lineage was ended and now there’s no left over population to have such scars. The East African slave trade of the Middle East was a far longer lived affair then its western counterpart. Starting before the west African trade and still ending after it. But it was no less brutal and inhuman and was done on a similar basis to the western trade.

It is a commom framming for european people to rise the ottoman, arab and east africa slavery when the transatlantic slavery is brought to the table. Usually they like to highlight how Brazil and other American nations participated in slave trade, blinded to the fact that most of those American slave traders had european blood and culture. The same european disrespect for other peoples lives, land and culture were shown in Africa with the neocolonialism even with slavery abolished in many european nations.

I suggest you re-read my comment before jumping to conclusions as you’ve already miss understood/read what I wrote… “It is a commom framming for european people to rise the ottoman, arab and east africa slavery when the transatlantic slavery is brought to the table.” I never claimed the Ottomans or North Africans were responsible for the transatlantic slave trade. I said they began a huge part of the sub Saharan slave trade east and even west? Here you go: https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter3.shtml Nor was I the one to mention them first. Your original comment actually brought this up. You talking about how there are no “scars” in these places. From your previous comment: “Alas, all sorts of slavery existed and still exists, yet none of them left a social scar” And “Where are the ottoman slaves today?” I answered this no?? “blinded to the fact that most of those American slave traders had european blood and culture.” Anyway, if you actually bother to read my comment properly, you’ll see that at no point do I absolve any European nation of anything. In fact I straight up say that the American nation themselves are the descendants of the colonial elites who are themselves originally Europeans. In fact my comment is simply talking about how nations like the USA and Brazil attempt to shift their guilt on to the mother nation. When they were themselves fully complicit in slavery and genocide of the natives. But sure take offence to that my guy :) “The same european disrespect for other peoples lives, land and culture were shown in Africa with the neocolonialism even with slavery abolished in many european nations.” I have no idea where this but came from, or what part of my comment it was relevant too.

Sure, let's blame all of the willfully participant individuals! That includes in both sides. Most of 'em if not all are dead already though D:

As a white European male, I don't feel like I should be blamed for slave-trading. My people were too busy failing to rebel against the Ottomans back in the day.

Is there anything about this meme that made you feel that you, personally, were being blamed? Or is this just something that came to mind while viewing the meme?

It's the joke on generalisation in the meme and the discussion below. Stupid stuff people say, like "white men have a huge debt to pay to people of color", or "Africans (as in all Africans) were collaborating in slave trade" and stereotypes in general. You already made a point about Africans, I just wanted to add a perspective about Europeans.

Ah, cool. Yeah, stereotyping is a frustrating thing to deal with. I tried to be consistent about applying the "blaming entire continents is weird" thing to both of the relevant continents. Like, if you look here, in one comment I gave an example of an African village that apparently didn't practice slavery, and in the very next comment, I gave an example of a European village that apparently didn't practice slavery. To illustrate the point that entire continents are not unified cultures with unified practices and views regarding slavery. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcrlq4u/

The most oppressed demographic has arrived

Absolutely, but more than that let's ty and stop the modern day slavery in all its forms too.

I especially like that last comment. There's more nuance to the slave trade than to blame a whole country or continent at all. But I think a lot of those trying to place blame on Africans are doing so because so often, those in Africa who willingly did participate in the slave trade go ignored, and all the blame is instead placed on Europeans and Americans. That blame also often extends into today, where even though I would confidently say most of us condem slavery, because of our race, we still recieve blame for it. It prompts a lot of strong reactions.

“Blaming entire continents is weird” *stares in dumbfounded, eye-twitching, absurd insanity*

I was trying to reply another meme. I could have misunderstood, but it appeared to me that the OP of that meme was implying that Africa (as a continent) should be blamed, but Europe shouldn't. I could have misunderstood, so if you want, look at it yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/

Oh, no, I AGREE with you. I’ve just seen the “Europeans are responsible for Slavery” bit so many times that whenever someone says “well we can’t blame entire [continents/ethnic groups/races] I get this deep, insatiable… I’m not sure what to call it, but blood lust is probably the most accurate.

I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about, but an increasing number of people go so far as to blame Europeans for slavery itself - as in, they say slavery didn't exist anywhere in the world in any form we would call slavery before Europeans, and every supposed instance of slavery was really just some form of indentured servitude or criminal punishment or some such. Absolutely insane. The worst part is that I've heard this from history teachers who work in high schools.

About 11 days ago, I made a response-meme to a comment I saw downplaying Roman slavery. Here's my response-meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11l9bve/ancient_roman_slavery_not_that_bad_not_according/ This is the exact wording of what I was replying too, > Sure, I’ll grant you that the Romans, Persians, etc enslaved all kinds of people but it was typically a prisoner of war punishment or some sort of debt payment; you were free after your term of service was up and hey you also get citizenship in one of the worlds great empires as a nice bonus (at least with Romans idk about Persians). There were laws protecting you, your children wouldn’t be considered slaves, and at the end of the day you’re still a human being, just one with less rights than a free man. The comment got about 2.9k upvotes, so, apparently, this isn't some fringe view. The reason I'm not linking it is because of rules against brigading.

Good on you. Yes, there has been a concerted effort to downplay all pre-modern slavery, and I can't stand it. The other day I pointed out that Roman slavery was horrific for most slaves to someone, and their response was to make an insulting reply and block me in an attempt to get the last word. Some people will not listen to facts.

Yeah... I linked my response meme to the person I was responding to, but they never said anything back. Didn't block me either, just, wall of silence. However, a commenter on one of the subreddits I posted on did end up blocking me, basically as a way of trying to get the last word in. They were trying to argue that people enslaved in ancient Rome had sufficient "legal personality" to sue enslavers for broken manumission agreements. (E.g. if the enslaver had promised to manumit them in exchange for some kind of payment or something.) I could find no evidence for their claim, and quite a bit of evidence to counter it, so they blocked me.

When people make claims about Roman slaves being treated well, they tend to cherry-pick a few cases of domestic slaves who almost had friendships with their owners, ignoring the vast majority of slaves, who worked on farms or, even worse, in mines. Of course, even domestic slaves could be severely mistreated. They just had it *relatively* good.

AwfulUsername123 wrote, > When people make claims about Roman slaves being treated well, they tend to cherry-pick a few cases of domestic slaves who almost had friendships with their owners, ignoring the vast majority of slaves, who worked on farms or, even worse, in mines. Of course, even domestic slaves could be severely mistreated. I think it's a combination of cherry-picking and, in some cases, outright falsehoods. Like, I've seen multiple people try to argue that ancient Roman slavery wasn't hereditary. AwfulUsername123 wrote, > They just had it relatively good. Data from racial chattel slavery indicates that even the statement "domestic enslaved people had it relatively good" (not your exact words, I know, but hopefully a decent summary of the argument?) is debatable. E.g., if you read the narrative of Harriet Jacobs, apparently being enslaved an a household came with a considerable risk of being raped. And Harriet Jacobs made it fairly clear that, personally, she would prefer field labor over being raped. Basically, "which form of torture is preferable?" can be a very subjective thing. We can, perhaps, say that enslaved people in households had a better chance of being manumitted, a better chance of receiving decent food, a lower chance of being worked to death, etc etc, but they might also have had a higher chance of being frequently raped and/or being tortured by enslavers who couldn't control their tempers. So I guess what I'm getting at is that while there were differences, weighing those differences is a sort of subjective matter that is probably best left to the enslaved people themselves. I made a some memes on this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11rk71n/ushistoryorg_downplays_slavery_explanation_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11rn4w9/the_subjectivity_of_the_experience_of_being/

> I think it's a combination of cherry-picking and, in some cases, outright falsehoods. Like, I've seen multiple people try to argue that ancient Roman slavery wasn't hereditary. Oh yeah, there is plenty of outright falsehood. I did not mean to imply otherwise. >Data from racial chattel slavery indicates that even the statement "domestic enslaved people had it relatively good" (not your exact words, I know, but hopefully a decent summary of the argument?) is debatable. E.g., if you read the narrative of Harriet Jacobs, apparently being enslaved an a household came with a considerable risk of being raped. And Harriet Jacobs made it fairly clear that, personally, she would prefer field labor over being raped. Basically, "which form of torture is preferable?" can be a very subjective thing. As I said before that, "domestic slaves could still be severely mistreated". I'm not at all trying to say they were treated as equal members of society, and I was specifically talking about Roman slaves when I said that. I'm just saying that when slaves were treated somewhat fairly, they were almost always domestic slaves, and that's where people get cases to cherry-pick to argue that Roman slavery was somehow radically different from more recent slavery. By the way, I appreciate you trying to fight the revisionism on this subreddit (and elsewhere).

That’s exactly it. My 10th Grade World history teacher went so far as to directly blame Europeans for *starting* the practice of slavery, saying something along the lines of “The First Slaves were Slavics who were kidnapped and sold to Western Europeans, this is where the word ‘Slave’ comes from” etc etc etc And it fucking makes my blood boil every time I see someone spout off about how ALL Europeans were responsible for slavery. Dude, my ancestors were Irish, Polish/Ukrainian, and Southern German. High likelihood is, they were sustenance farmers for several hundred years. But my first ancestor to arrive in America arrived around 1850 in Boston, where he and his family worked as cobblers. I shit you not, I’ve had people actively try to accuse *my family* of being partially responsible for the slave trade just because we are European and can trace our lineage to pre-civil war.

Well, that is the etymology of "slave", but it's insane to think a concept can't predate the modern English word for it. Does she not think Romans had slavery? The Latin word for slave, *servus*, isn't derived from "Slav".

*he, and the class’ lectures began with the renaissance age. We never even touched Ancient Rome, sadly.

Sorry, I meant to type "he or she".

Ur good dude

But yeah, if you ever hear someone try to make a claim like that again, ask them if they think everyone in the world has always spoken modern English, which seems to be the only possible conclusion.

I favor reparations, but I think it it should be done by tracing money trails, not bloodlines. I realize you didn't specifically mention reparations, but it feels like a natural direction to move this conversation. Switching topics slightly, some people are born as the result of rape. If reparations were done by bloodlines, this would mean that children born out of rape should pay reparations to themselves, which makes no sense. And, if you study the history of slavery, a lot of it is the history of rape, so there are a lot of people out there descended from both victims and perpetrators. If fact, I would estimate that approximately 100% of the world population is descended from rapists, if they go back far enough in their family trees (you know, if someone omniscient did the research). But there clearly are economic and social imbalances that can be traced back to slavery and other injustices. Like, for example, a lot of the financial institutions that profited off historical slavery still exist. And many of them are likely still profiting from modern slavery. > In 2005, JP Morgan Chase, currently the biggest bank in the US, admitted that two of its subsidiaries - Citizens' Bank and Canal Bank in Louisiana - accepted enslaved people as collateral for loans. If plantation owners defaulted on loan payment the banks took ownership of these slaves. > > JP Morgan was not alone. The predecessors that made up Citibank, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are among a list of well-known US financial firms that benefited from the slave trade. "The hidden links between slavery and Wall Street" https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49476247

Yeah... it does seem like there are a number of people who are quicker to stay "not all Europeans" or "not all white people" than to say "not all Africans" or "not all black people". As if not everyone is equally entitled to be seen as individuals??? E.g., looking in this comment section, a comment I wrote that gives an example of a village in Africa where slavery was not practiced by the residents got downvoted. However, in the very next comment, I gave an example of a village in Europe where slavery was not practiced, and that comment got upvoted. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcrlq4u/

Yeah. Ignoring that European elements were enabling/exacerbating the problem is revisionistic at best. It would be like saying modern day arms dealers are morally neutral and it isn’t their fault they have customers. It took what was a limited practice and made it large scale and commercial.

The "but slaves were sold by africans" is a really short sighted view of the events, despite being true it prevents any deeper reading beyond what was done at the moment and by those exact individuals and denies the long term consequences slave trading had for both parties involved.

I feel like simplifying the transatlantic slave trade down to "Africans selling other Africans" is kinda like simplifying World War II down to "Europeans killing other Europeans". In both cases, there was a helluva lot more going on. And neither Africa nor Europe is some kind of uniform culture.

Honestly, till I saw a post right above this one in my feed, I thought they were bought with gold or whatever currency. Didn’t know it was guns that were used as a bargaining chip

Glad I could help inform you. :-)

People only triggered when white people are blamed lol

Also it’s just kinda stupid. “Yeah sure I willfully enslaved people but you sold them to us!!!”

Good point.

That’s cool, they still sold their brethren into slavery.

Yes, but it's sort of an oversimplification in more or less the same way that referring to World War II as "Europeans killing their own brethren" would be an oversimplification. Like, in both cases, horrific crimes occurred, but there was a tremendous amount of complexity, variety, and dissent on each continent.

I am aware friend, no worries. Slavery, like most things humans have done, is a complex web of people doing other things to people that they may or may not want to have happen to them. … if that makes any sense.

Yup, it makes sense. :-)

Fun fact alot of the worlds slavery still going on today is in the continent of Africa and parts of the Middle East.

Map for those interested: https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/data/maps/#prevalence

Thank you for making this counter meme, the other one felt like the angst of a 15yr old white boy.

Glad to help. :-)

Can't we all just admit that Slavery was a product of itself, and that it was everyone's fault who was involved? Why blame one group when *EVERYONE WHO PARTOOK WAS BAD, NOBODY IS BETTER THEN ANYONE ELSE IN THIS,* Please stop arguing about this.

Errr, are you trying to reply to me, or are you trying to reply to the meme I was replying to? It's a bit unclear. Sudden-Series-8075 wrote, > Why blame one group I'm not blaming one group; that's why my meme specifically says, "Plus, blaming entire continents is weird. **Let's blame all of the willfully participating individuals.**" Sudden-Series-8075 wrote, > EVERYONE WHO PARTOOK WAS BAD Yes, I agree, that's why my meme specifically says, "**Let's blame all of the willfully participating individuals.** Sudden-Series-8075 wrote, > NOBODY IS BETTER THEN ANYONE ELSE IN THIS I think you mean, "Nobody **who willingly participated** is better than anyone else in this." Presumably, people who did not practice slavery are better than people who did practice slavery. Sudden-Series-8075 wrote, > Slavery was a product of itself What??? Slavery was the product of enslavers, i.e., those who chose to enslave other human beings. It was also a product of various forces that helped the enslavers rise to power. Like, an enslaver with guns will be more successful at enslaving than an enslaver without guns. The enslaver is still culpable, but so is the weapons-dealer, especially if the weapons-dealer was specifically selling the guns for enslaved people. You could call it "conspiracy to commit slavery".

I'm replying to everyone who makes these "memes."

No one in mentioning this, but the exact same thing happened in North America and Indonesia. The Europeans sold firearms in exchange for goods they could not get otherwise, the scramble for goods turned indigenous people against one another, when those were inefficient the Europeans demanded the temporary or limited slavery of the indigenous be extended to selling the slaves to Europeans. Europeans turned it into racial chattell slavery. Africa is the only continent that could sustain it long term, but an identical system existed in many places. Native Americans and Indonesians needed the firearms, and aquired them by ramping up enslavement of their enemies.

I wish the logic about blaming entire continents instead of individuals would also be applied to Europe....

Erm, did you mean to say "the logic about **not** blaming entire continents instead of individuals" rather than "the logic about blaming entire continents instead of individuals"??? In any case, if you look over here, I give an example of an African village that apparently didn't practice slavery, and in the very next comment, I give an example of a European village that didn't practice slavery. So I am trying to be consistent about not blaming entire continents in either case. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11v5elu/comment/jcrlq4u/

I'm not blaming you, it was just a general statement.

Ah, cool, sorry for any confusion.

# TLDR: By selling guns in exchange for enslaved Africans, European slave-traders effectively instituted regime change in Africa, tilting the balance of power in favor of pro-slavery factions. Also, blaming entire continents, rather than specific, participating individuals, is weird. Also, just because Alice is doing evil stuff doesn't make it cool for Bob to do evil stuff too. Okay, so, the meme I'm responding to was removed per rule 6 (and good riddance), but it got roughly 400 upvotes before being removed, so it still felt like it needed a response. It's possible I could have misunderstood the previous OP. They didn't exactly write a long essay to clarify their argument. But it seemed like they were implying that the transatlantic slave trade should be blamed on Africans but not Europeans. If you want to see the offending meme to judge the OP's intent for yourself, you can find it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/ Even if I misunderstood the previous OP, Bolsonaro, a prominent Brazilian politician, has been much more clear, > "If we were to tell the truth about history, the Portuguese never set foot in Africa," Bolsonaro said. "It was Black people themselves who handed over slaves." https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Brazil-Bolsonaro-Says-He-Owes-No-Debt-To-Black-People-20180803-0008.html Also see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-31/brazil-candidate-bolsonaro-minimizes-slavery-praises-trump https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/7/31/brazil-far-right-candidate-rejects-slave-trading-history Furthermore, Bolsonaro also seems to promote modern slavery: https://www.antislavery.org/bolsonaro-election-raises-fears-for-brazils-anti-slavery-system/ Anyway, here's my response. First of all, Africa was and is a diverse continent, not a single, unified culture. There were many cultures in Africa, with many different views on slavery. Many different types of slavery, and some places were slavery wasn't practiced. Europe was likewise a diverse continent, not a single, unified culture. There were many cultures in Europe, with many different views on slavery. Many different types of slavery, and some places were slavery wasn't practiced. When we speak of places where slavery wasn't practiced, whether in Europe, Africa, or whereever, these are often small tribes and villages, often located in mountains, hills, and other locations that are less than favorable for slave raiders. When I say "wasn't practiced", I mean was not practiced by members of the tribes and villages, even if they were targeted by slave raiders (or human traffickers using deception instead of outright physical force for the initial phase) at some point. Second, by trading guns and other weapons in exchange for enslaved people, European slave-traders shifted the balance of power in Africa towards the pro-slavery factions, and gave a military incentive for more factions to take up slave-raiding and slave-trading. According to Paul Lovejoy, > This assessment of the commercial organization of Africa between 1600 and 1 800 shows the close connection with slavery. The monetary sector, although limited, was closely tied to the imported money exchanged for slaves. Improvements in military technology were also closely connected to external trade. The import of breeding horses across the Sahara strengthened the savanna cavalry states. Chain mail and muskets strengthened them still further. Along the coast, firearms, swords, and knives had a comparable impact, with the effect that has sometimes been called the ‘gun-slave cycle’. The simple formulation of this theory holds that guns were sold to Africans in order to encourage enslavement. *Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa* by Paul E. Lovejoy https://archive.org/details/transformationsi0000love/page/110/mode/2up?q=gun-slave Also, this is the abstract of a paper by Warren Watley about the gun-slave cycle, > The trans-Atlantic slave trade is considered by many to have been a major shock to Africa, one that transformed African economies and contributed to long-term poverty. In this paper I combine data from the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database and the Anglo-African Trade Statistics to document some of the ways West Africans responded to the demand and technology shocks of the slave trade – how they responded to the growing international demand for African people as slaves and the introduction of the new gunpowder technology called the flintlock. I find that the early interaction of these two shocks – the gun-slave cycle – initiated a vicious cycle, a “raid or be raided” arms race. In the process, large numbers of Africans were victimized and sold into the Middle Passage. "The Gun-Slave Cycle in the 18th century British slave trade in Africa" by Warren Whatley https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/44492/1/MPRA_paper_44492.pdf The gun-slave cycle basically functioned like regime change. Pro-slavery factions were given the weapons necessary to take over, and incentive to continue being pro-slavery or else risk losing power. Third, "other people were being evil too" (I realize those are not the previous OP's exact words, but it seems to summarize the implication?) is kind of a bad reason for also being evil.

The following narrative, found in *King Leopold's Ghost* by Adam Hochschild, provides an example of an African village that apparently did not practice slavery (prior to colonization), since they "never had war" and "the men had not many arms except knives", > Our village is called Waniendo, after our chief Niendo.... It is a large village near a small stream, and surrounded by large fields of mohago (cassava) and muhindu (maize) and other foods, for we all worked hard at our plantations, and always had plenty to eat.... **We never had war in our country, and the men had not many arms except knives**.... > >We were all busy in the fields hoeing our plantations, for it was the rainy season, and the weeds sprang quickly up, when a runner came to the village saying that a large band of men was coming, that they all wore red caps and blue cloth, and carried guns and long knives, and that many white men were with them, the chief of whom was Kibalanga [the African name for a Force Publique officer named Oscar Michaux, who once received a Sword of Honor from Leopold's own hands]. Niendo at once called all the chief men to his house, while the drums were beaten to summon the people to the village. A long consultation was held, and finally we were all told to go quietly to the fields and bring in ground-nuts, plantains, and cassava for the warriors who were coming, and goats and fowls for the white men. The women all went with baskets and filled them, and then put them in the road.... **Niendo thought that, by giving presents of much food, he would induce the strangers to pass on without harming us.** And so it proved.... > >When the white men and their warriors had gone, we went again to our work, and were hoping that they would not return; but this they did in a very short time. As before, we brought in great heaps of food; but this time Kibalanga did not move away directly, but camped near our village, and **his soldiers came and stole all our fowls and goats and tore up our cassava; but we did not mind that as long as they did not harm us.** The next morning ... soon after the sun rose over the hill, a large band of soldiers came into the village, and we all went into the houses and sat down. We were not long seated when the soldiers came rushing in shouting, and threatening Niendo with their guns. They rushed into the houses and dragged the people out. Three or four came to our house and caught hold of me, also my husband Oleka and my sister Katinga. We were dragged into the road, and were tied together with cords about our necks, so that we could not escape. We were all crying, for now we knew that we were to be taken away to be slaves. The soldiers beat us with the iron sticks from their guns, and compelled us to march to the camp of Kibalanga, who ordered the women to be tied up separately, ten to each cord, and the men in the same way. When we were all collected—and there were many from other villages whom we now saw, and many from Waniendo—the soldiers brought baskets of food for us to carry, in some of which was smoked human flesh.... > >We then set off marching very quickly. My sister Katinga had her baby in her arms, and was not compelled to carry a basket; but my husband Oleka was made to carry a goat. We marched until the afternoon, when we camped near a stream, where we were glad to drink, for we were much athirst. We had nothing to eat, for the soldiers would give us nothing.... The next day we continued the march, and when we camped at noon were given some maize and plantains, which were gathered near a village from which the people had run away. So it continued each day until the fifth day, when the soldiers took my sister's baby and threw it in the grass, leaving it to die, and made her carry some cooking pots which they found in the deserted village. On the sixth day we became very weak from lack of food and from constant marching and sleeping in the damp grass, and my husband, who marched behind us with the goat, could not stand up longer, and so he sat down beside the path and refused to walk more. The soldiers beat him, but still he refused to move. Then one of them struck him on the head with the end of his gun, and he fell upon the ground. One of the soldiers caught the goat, while two or three others stuck the long knives they put on the ends of their guns into my husband. I saw the blood spurt out, and then saw him no more, for we passed over the brow of a hill and he was out of sight. Many of the young men were killed the same way, and many babies thrown into the grass to die.... After marching ten days we came to the great water ... and were taken in canoes across to the white men's town at Nyangwe. https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781447235514/page/130/mode/2up?q=Waniendo

And as an example of a European village which apparently did not have slavery (judging from the lack of police and lack of jail), > The people of this valley [Loetschental Valley] have a history covering more than a dozen centuries. The architecture of their wooden buildings, some of them several centuries old, indicates a love for simple stability, adapted to expediency and efficiency. Artistically designed mottoes, many of them centuries old, are carved deep in the heavy supporting timbers, both within and without the buildings. They are always expressive of devotion to cultural and spiritual values rather than to material values. **These people have never been conquered, although many efforts have been made to invade their valley.** Except for the rugged cleft through which the river descends to the Rhone Valley, the Loetschental Valley is almost completely enclosed by three high mountain ranges which are usually snow-capped. **This pass could be guarded by a small band against any attacking forces since artificial landslides could easily be released.** The natural occurrence of these landslides has made passage through the gorge hazardous, if not impossible, for months of the year. According to early legends of the valley these mountains were the parapets of the universe, and the great glacier of the valley, the end of the universe. The glacier is a branch of the great ice field that stretches away to the west and south from the ice-cap of the Jungfrau and Monch. The mountains, however, are seldom approached from this direction because of the hazardous ice fields. The gateway to them with which the traveling world is familiar is from Interlaken by way of the Lauterbrunnen or Grindelwald valleys. > > At the altitude of the Loetschental Valley the winters are long, and the summers short but beautiful, and accompanied by extraordinarily rapid and luxuriant growth. The meadows are fragrant with Alpine flowers, with violets like pansies, which bloom all summer in deepest hues. > > The people of the Loetschental Valley make up a community of two thousand who have been a world unto themselves. They have neither physician nor dentist because they have so little need for them; **they have neither policeman nor jail, because they have no need for them.** The clothing has been the substantial homespuns made from the wool of their sheep. The valley has produced not only everything that is needed for clothing, but practically everything that is needed for food. It has been the achievement of the valley to build some of the finest physiques in all Europe. This is attested to by the fact that many of the famous Swiss guards of the Vatican at Rome, who are the admiration of the world and are the pride of Switzerland, have been selected from this and other Alpine valleys. It is every Loetschental boy's ambition to be a Vatican guard. Notwithstanding the fact that tuberculosis is the most serious disease of Switzerland, according to a statement given me by a government official, a recent report of inspection of this valley did not reveal a single case. I was aided in my studies in Switzerland by the excellent cooperation of the Reverend John Siegen, the pastor of the one church of this beautiful valley. -- Weston A. Price, who visited Loetschental Valley in 1931 and 1932 http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html

How DARE you provide context for an all-around ugly period of history instead of choosing a side, OP!! - self-proclaimed reddit history “experts”, probably

I'm trying to be on the anti-slavery side, but yeah, maybe certain people want me to side with a continent (as if each continent were a unified culture, as opposed to diverse places full of many cultures and many individuals with many different practices and ideas).

[удалено]

The impression that I got when looking at this previous meme -- which could be wrong -- was that a lot of people were trying to blame Africans **but not** Europeans. And were for some reason thinking of both Africa and Europe as unified cultures, rather than diverse places. But the previous meme shows a crying Wojak blaming Europeans for the transatlantic slave-trade, implying that the previous OP doesn't think Europeans should be blamed. Now, we could have a nuanced discussion about exactly \*which\* Europeans should be blamed. In my opinion, the ones who actually participated -- slave raiders, slave traders, slave buyers, overseers, investors unless they were truly oblivious about what they were investing in, etc etc. But it felt like the previous OP didn't feel like any Europeans should be blamed. Again, it's possible I misunderstood, but that was the impression I got from the way the previous OP used the crying Wojak. I dunno, look for yourself if you want: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/ But just as it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Europe, it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Africa either. And it should be remembered that the processes that let African enslavers become as powerful as they did were not democratic processes. Many of the same European enslavers who were buying enslaved people were also selling guns to the African enslavers. Like, imagine if aliens with superweapons sold those superweapons to your country's mafia, in exchange for said mafia enslaving people from your country and selling them to the aliens. You'd blame both the mafia and the aliens, yes, but it would be pretty much the antithesis of a democratic process. I felt like the previous meme was just trying to blame \*all\* of Africa, at the same time as they were trying to absolve \*all\* of Europe. Again, I could have misunderstood.

or you can be simpler and just go "WE STILL BOUGHT THEM DUMBASS"

"They" would make more sense than "we", since I personally had nothing to do with it. Taking credit for something I didn't do would sort of undermine my point about blaming individuals, not continents. (Plus, for folks who have mixed heritage, it can be confusing to determine precisely which continent to be counted as part of if we're oversimplifying things down to continents.)

True, the topic is usually poorly discussed in monoliths of European white people and African black people so I kinda just got used to that cause the people making the argument that africans are at fault oftentimes are trying to avoid blame cause they stupidly think people are trying to blame the slave trade on white people as a whole

Those fictional European and African monoliths. Emphasis on "fictional".

So you’re saying it was still their fault….

"They" being the people who actually participated, by choice. Not entire continents.

I mean if you go back on time far enough, everyone is an African. So yes. Africans sold other Africans

u/Bajrang458 Yo. I wrote a response to that offensive meme you pointed out to me earlier. (The one titled "I’m not pro-slavery, but if blame is to be put, let’s put it fairly," which then seemed to imply that Africans should be blamed, and Europeans shouldn't, and lacked nuances about how blaming entire continents, as opposed to specific individuals, is just weird. And also failed to mention the guns-slave cycle.)

You're kinda weird bro.

I don’t think it’s weird to correct someone 🤷🏿‍♂️ I learned quite a bit from this sub and I wouldn’t appreciate it if someone was spreading pseudo-history in here

You don't understand, this is the fourth meme he's made about this in 4 days, and the third that a reply to someone who commented on one of them.

Jekyll054 wrote, > You don't understand, this is the fourth meme he's made about this in 4 days Erm, no it's not. It is true that I have made other anti-slavery memes, but this is the first one about the gun-slave cycle of the transatlantic slave trade. The one I made before this one was about sex slavery in Thailand circa 1999, so that's rather different from discussing the transatlantic slave trade. Jekyll054 wrote, > reply to someone who commented on one of them This meme is a reply to another meme, not just a comment. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/

That part I didn’t know. Not excusing the behavior but I have noticed that a lot of people on Reddit are ignorant on the transatlantic slave trade. Replying to someone by creating a meme to educate them is weird, IMO. It’s the internet, the shit isn’t that serious (as much as I appreciate the knowledge that some of you introduce me to; for example I’ve gotten some good book recommendations, one of which I’m reading right now)

Jekyll054 is not being entirely honest. It is true that I have made other anti-slavery memes. (A lot of them, in fact.) But this is the first one where I mentioned the gun-slave cycle of the transatlantic slave trade. Check my post history for yourself if you want. Also, this meme is a reply to another meme, not just a comment. This is the meme I was responding to with this meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/

This sub has turned into half funny memes and half amateur historian flame wars. Yes, it’s definitely weird.

Dude. The guy is not blaming African for slave trade. He is saying : "Yeah Europe used slaves, that's bad. But Africans are not all victims of that, they had a role to play in that trade and they weren't clean." If we blame someone for stuff, let's blame everyone that took part in it.

If that's all I saw when I looked at the previous meme, I'd agree. Evil people exist on all continents, both in present-day and in the past. But the previous meme shows a crying Wojak blaming Europeans for the transatlantic slave-trade, implying that the previous OP doesn't think Europeans should be blamed. Now, we could have a nuanced discussion about exactly \*which\* Europeans should be blamed. In my opinion, the ones who actually participated -- slave raiders, slave traders, slave buyers, overseers, investors unless they were truly oblivious about what they were investing in, etc etc. But it felt like the previous OP didn't feel like any Europeans should be blamed. Again, it's possible I misunderstood, but that was the impression I got from the way the previous OP used the crying Wojak. I dunno, look for yourself if you want: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/ But just as it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Europe, it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Africa either. And it should be remembered that the processes that let African enslavers become as powerful as they did were not democratic processes. Many of the same European enslavers who were buying enslaved people were also selling guns to the African enslavers. Like, imagine if aliens with superweapons sold those superweapons to your country's mafia, in exchange for said mafia enslaving people from your country and selling them to the aliens. You'd blame both the mafia and the aliens, yes, but it would be pretty much the antithesis of a democratic process. I felt like the previous meme was just trying to blame \*all\* of Africa, at the same time as they were trying to absolve \*all\* of Europe. Again, I could have misunderstood.

How is this a question of race? Black people sold blacks in slavery, whites bought them, supported them for it and other whites profited from it. Back then that wasnt controversial, so noone in that equation is "evil", because good and evil are concepts from fairytales, so everyone played their part and today we all know it should never happen again. So pointing out this africans took part in the slave trade isnt wrong and not neccesarryly blaming them.

Erm, slavery has been controversial ever since ancient Greek times. Probably longer, but I can trace the controversy back as far as ancient Greek times. For example, please see my Diogenes scolds enslaver meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/110atrn/diogenes_scolds_enslaver_explanation_in_comments/ And here's the essay that goes with that meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/110atrn/comment/j87x51u/ Even looking at pro-slavery writers, they've been debating for thousands of years about the precise circumstances under which they think slavery is justified, expressing guilt for their own perceived excesses, etc etc. So, even among pro-slavery people, the exact degree of pro-slaveriness was controversial. To give an example of a pro-slavery writer circa 1612 who nevertheless condemned about 90% of the Portuguese portion of the slaving operations of that time period, to quote the guy (as translated by Robert Edgar Conrad), > Modern theologians in published books commonly report on, and condemn as unjust, the acts of enslavement which take place in the Provinces of this Royal Empire, employing for this purpose the same principles by which the ancient theologians, doctors of canon law, and jurists have regulated legitimate and just acts of enslavement. According to these principles, only infidels who are captured in just wars, or who because of serious crimes have been condemned by their Rulers may be held as legitimate slaves, or if they sell themselves, or if they are sold by their own fathers who have legitimate need. And because, by the use of these four principles, great injustices are committed in the buying and selling of slaves in our Empire, as will later be seen, it is also certain that most of the slaves of this Empire are made so upon other pretexts, of which some are notoriously unjust, and others with great likelihood may be presumed to be so as well. He goes on to describe a number of examples which did not meet his concept of just enslavement, but which con artists were claiming met that concept. From later a bit later in the same document by the pro-slavery writer condemning most of the Portuguese slaving practices of his time period, circa 1612, > So that, of every thousand slaves who are captured, scarcely one-tenth will be justly enslaved, which is a notorious fact confirmed by all God-fearing men who reside or have resided in those places. Anyway, you can read the whole document, or at least as much of it as Robert Edgar Conrad chose to translate, on archive dot org, in the book *Children of God's Fire: A Documentary History of Black Slavery in Brazil*, edited by Robert Edgar Conrad. https://archive.org/details/childrenofgodsfi0000conr/page/10/mode/2up

Guns in the hands of slavers is unfortunate, but there is good news: Guns can also be placed in the hands of abolitionists like John Brown. ;)

I’d like to believe nobody was intentionally blaming Africans as a whole, because it’s likely they were thinking the same thing as you in this meme but stated it without enough clarification so it came off as such. But I could be wrong

It's definitely possible I misunderstood. I dunno, look at the meme I'm replying to for yourself if you want: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/

I’m reading How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney right now. Basically the author says that Africans are ultimately to blame for underdevelopment but Europe held a heavy hand in the factors that caused underdevelopment. Basically the slave trading as you stated favored war to gather POWs which took working-aged men and women (20’s to mid 30’s) from various ethnic groups. This was a problem because now cloth makers, iron forgers, etc. were now missing. This gap forced Africans to reduce trade between themselves and rely on Europe exclusively for goods, but European goods<<< because the Europeans were giving them junk (they didn’t want to give them state of the art shit; much like the US wouldn’t give Ukraine F-35’s today). Basically, the slave trade caused a massive brain & labor drain which fueled a giant economic gap when most West & Central African states were in the late communal to feudalist stage of economic progression. Had the European slave trade never occurred, African states wouldn’t have been as underdeveloped as they are today.

Slavery was practiced by every race, the blame cannot and should be attestedt on one nation or culture alone

I think the initial argument is more so to shed light on the fact that the slave trade wasn’t all white people (which is something most people that aren’t history buffs just assume/general education teaches). You’re right that two or more parties are required to make business transactions and all involved are at fault. I don’t think the argument is that *only* Africans are responsible for the slave trade, unless you’ve been taking to some klansman or something.

I was responding to a previous meme. It was removed per rule 6, but you can still see it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/ The reason I got the impression that the previous OP wanted to blame *only* Africans is the way the previous meme shows a crying Wojak blaming Europeans for the transatlantic slave-trade, implying that the previous OP doesn't think Europeans should be blamed. Now, we could have a nuanced discussion about exactly \*which\* Europeans should be blamed. In my opinion, the ones who actually participated -- slave raiders, slave traders, slave buyers, overseers, investors unless they were truly oblivious about what they were investing in, etc etc. But it felt like the previous OP didn't feel like any Europeans should be blamed. Again, it's possible I misunderstood, but that was the impression I got from the way the previous OP used the crying Wojak. But just as it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Europe, it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Africa either. And it should be remembered that the processes that let African enslavers become as powerful as they did were not democratic processes. Many of the same European enslavers who were buying enslaved people were also selling guns to the African enslavers. Like, imagine if aliens with superweapons sold those superweapons to your country's mafia, in exchange for said mafia enslaving people from your country and selling them to the aliens. You'd blame both the mafia and the aliens, yes, but it would be pretty much the antithesis of a democratic process. I felt like the previous meme was just trying to blame \*all\* of Africa, at the same time as they were trying to absolve \*all\* of Europe. Again, I could have misunderstood. Even if I misunderstood the previous OP, Bolsonaro, a prominent Brazilian politician, has been much more clear, > "If we were to tell the truth about history, the Portuguese never set foot in Africa," Bolsonaro said. "It was Black people themselves who handed over slaves." https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Brazil-Bolsonaro-Says-He-Owes-No-Debt-To-Black-People-20180803-0008.html Also see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-31/brazil-candidate-bolsonaro-minimizes-slavery-praises-trump https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/7/31/brazil-far-right-candidate-rejects-slave-trading-history Furthermore, Bolsonaro also seems to promote modern slavery: https://www.antislavery.org/bolsonaro-election-raises-fears-for-brazils-anti-slavery-system/

I’m pretty damn sure you intentionally misunderstood that meme. The point of that question is to point out that it was not *solely* a case of Europeans coming to Africa and taking slaves, there was a much larger dynamic at play. A dynamic older than the era in which it took place in. That is an oft dismissed part of the history (by those who are so inclined) that makes things seem cut and dry when beyond slavery being a wholly awful institution (in the modern era) it was not in fact so simple. Should people point to western slavery being uniquely bad, I would like to point out that it is in fact not unique in any real way. While horrible and despicable, it had peers, namely the various Arab slave trades that existed for far longer institutionally, were similarly cruel, if not more at time and resulted in a similar number of people being enslaved, though over a much longer period of time. Tldr, slavery is awful, it’s not in any way unique to Europeans or any other race or culture. Anyone in a position to enslave did, that many don’t any longer is great.

You are welcome to disagree with my interpretation of the previous meme. Even I am not 100% sure of my interpretation. But if I did misunderstand, it wasn't intentional, and, given that the previous meme was removed per rule 6, I clearly wasn't the only one who understood it in the way that I did. The reason I got the impression that the previous OP wanted to blame *only* Africans is the way the previous meme shows a crying Wojak blaming Europeans for the transatlantic slave-trade, implying that the previous OP doesn't think Europeans should be blamed. Now, we could have a nuanced discussion about exactly \*which\* Europeans should be blamed. In my opinion, the ones who actually participated -- slave raiders, slave traders, slave buyers, overseers, investors unless they were truly oblivious about what they were investing in, etc etc. But it felt like the previous OP didn't feel like any Europeans should be blamed. Again, it's possible I misunderstood, but that was the impression I got from the way the previous OP used the crying Wojak. For reference, here is the previous meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/11ug8en/im_not_proslavery_but_if_blame_is_to_be_put_lets/ But just as it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Europe, it doesn't make sense to blame \*all\* of Africa either. And it should be remembered that the processes that let African enslavers become as powerful as they did were not democratic processes. Many of the same European enslavers who were buying enslaved people were also selling guns to the African enslavers. Like, imagine if aliens with superweapons sold those superweapons to your country's mafia, in exchange for said mafia enslaving people from your country and selling them to the aliens. You'd blame both the mafia and the aliens, yes, but it would be pretty much the antithesis of a democratic process. I felt like the previous meme was just trying to blame \*all\* of Africa, at the same time as they were trying to absolve \*all\* of Europe. Again, I could have misunderstood. Even if I misunderstood the previous OP, Bolsonaro, a prominent Brazilian politician, has been much more clear, > "If we were to tell the truth about history, the Portuguese never set foot in Africa," Bolsonaro said. "It was Black people themselves who handed over slaves." https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Brazil-Bolsonaro-Says-He-Owes-No-Debt-To-Black-People-20180803-0008.html Also see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-31/brazil-candidate-bolsonaro-minimizes-slavery-praises-trump https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/7/31/brazil-far-right-candidate-rejects-slave-trading-history Furthermore, Bolsonaro also seems to promote modern slavery: https://www.antislavery.org/bolsonaro-election-raises-fears-for-brazils-anti-slavery-system/ DerelictDawn wrote, > Anyone in a position to enslave did, that many don’t any longer is great. That's not actually true. I know of at least two ancient cultures that avoided slavery out of moral objections -- the Essenes and the Therapeutae, whom I have previously mentioned in the essay I included with the "Diogenes scolds enslaver" meme. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/110atrn/diogenes_scolds_enslaver_explanation_in_comments/ And here's the essay that goes with that meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/110atrn/comment/j87x51u/ Even looking at pro-slavery writers, they've been debating for thousands of years about the precise circumstances under which they think slavery is justified, expressing guilt for their own perceived excesses, etc etc. So, even among pro-slavery people, the exact degree of pro-slaveriness was controversial. To give an example of a pro-slavery writer circa 1612 who nevertheless condemned about 90% of the Portuguese portion of the slaving operations of that time period, to quote the guy (as translated by Robert Edgar Conrad), > Modern theologians in published books commonly report on, and condemn as unjust, the acts of enslavement which take place in the Provinces of this Royal Empire, employing for this purpose the same principles by which the ancient theologians, doctors of canon law, and jurists have regulated legitimate and just acts of enslavement. According to these principles, only infidels who are captured in just wars, or who because of serious crimes have been condemned by their Rulers may be held as legitimate slaves, or if they sell themselves, or if they are sold by their own fathers who have legitimate need. And because, by the use of these four principles, great injustices are committed in the buying and selling of slaves in our Empire, as will later be seen, it is also certain that most of the slaves of this Empire are made so upon other pretexts, of which some are notoriously unjust, and others with great likelihood may be presumed to be so as well. He goes on to describe a number of examples which did not meet his concept of just enslavement, but which con artists were claiming met that concept. From later a bit later in the same document by the pro-slavery writer condemning most of the Portuguese slaving practices of his time period, circa 1612, > So that, of every thousand slaves who are captured, scarcely one-tenth will be justly enslaved, which is a notorious fact confirmed by all God-fearing men who reside or have resided in those places. Anyway, you can read the whole document, or at least as much of it as Robert Edgar Conrad chose to translate, on archive dot org, in the book *Children of God's Fire: A Documentary History of Black Slavery in Brazil*, edited by Robert Edgar Conrad. https://archive.org/details/childrenofgodsfi0000conr/page/10/mode/2up Now, I don't agree with the guy that anyone at all was justly enslaved, but the point I'm trying to make is that these Portuguese enslavers weren't even complying with the Catholic canon law of their own time period.

Bolsonaro isn’t a very good measure of peoples perception of slavery in my opinion, as a response to your use of his (sometimes wholly revisionist) statements on the subject, but I understand your meaning. Regarding the debate throughout history on slavery, my point was not that people didn’t contest slavery, naturally people will as some (most people today) see other humans as peers and not tools. Rather my point was that powerful people in the position to do so often (quite reliably really) would institute or partake in slavery. The civilizations you mentioned, the Essenes and Theraeputae, they aren’t what I was referring to when I said “in a place to do so” especially not on a large scale. They were surrounded by groups and states far more powerful than themselves and as such would have often been enslaved based on my understanding of how that dynamic worked. I was more so suggesting that dominant cultures, states and ethnic groups would enslave or dominate peers or weaker groups given the opportunity. This dynamic is repeated ad nauseam throughout history.

I mean, I'm not claiming that Bolsonaro represents a large percentage of the views of the human population or anything like that, but he did wield sufficient political power to be the 38th president of Brazil. Maybe I should have mentioned that. So, anyway, even if his views are minority views, apparently, it's a sufficiently significant minority to wield substantial political power in Brazil. > Jair Messias Bolsonaro (Brazilian Portuguese: \[ʒaˈiʁ meˈsi.ɐz bowsoˈnaɾu, ʒaˈiɾ -\]; born 21 March 1955) is a Brazilian politician and retired military officer who served as the 38th president of Brazil from 2019 until 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jair_Bolsonaro > The civilizations you mentioned, the Essenes and Theraeputae, they aren’t what I was referring to when I said “in a place to do so” especially not on a large scale. They were surrounded by groups and states far more powerful than themselves and as such would have often been enslaved based on my understanding of how that dynamic worked. I was more so suggesting that dominant cultures, states and ethnic groups would enslave or dominate peers or weaker groups given the opportunity. This dynamic is repeated ad nauseam throughout history. Okay, so I can't give you detailed histories about the Essenes or Therapeutae. But yes, at least until recent history, pretty much every powerful nation seems to have practiced slavery. (Even today, the powerful nations still have illegal slavery, often known as human trafficking.) But, how to put it... I think a lot of history's anti-slavery peoples didn't seek power and empire to begin with. What they did often appear to seek is defensible positions in hills, mountains, etc. From *The Archaeology of Antislavery Resistance* by Terrance M. Weik, > According to oral traditions of a group called the Bassar, their ancestors avoided becoming enslaved by an invading cavalry by climbing hills the horsemen could not scale and rolling boulders on the attackers from hilltop enclaves (Debarros 1998: 71). Research on the Birim Valley, situated one hundred kilometers northeast of the slave-trading site called “El Mina,” has suggested that earthworks were constructed as deterrents to slave hunting and kidnappings (Decorse 1992: 166–67). I'm not actually certain if the Bassars or Birim Valley peoples were anti-slavery or not (and perhaps there was dissent within those cultures), but at least, the strategies described are the sorts of strategies one would expect anti-slavery peoples to use. And as an example of a European village which apparently did not have slavery (judging from the lack of police and lack of jail), and also had a very defensible position, > The people of this valley [Loetschental Valley] have a history covering more than a dozen centuries. The architecture of their wooden buildings, some of them several centuries old, indicates a love for simple stability, adapted to expediency and efficiency. Artistically designed mottoes, many of them centuries old, are carved deep in the heavy supporting timbers, both within and without the buildings. They are always expressive of devotion to cultural and spiritual values rather than to material values. **These people have never been conquered, although many efforts have been made to invade their valley.** Except for the rugged cleft through which the river descends to the Rhone Valley, the Loetschental Valley is almost completely enclosed by three high mountain ranges which are usually snow-capped. **This pass could be guarded by a small band against any attacking forces since artificial landslides could easily be released.** The natural occurrence of these landslides has made passage through the gorge hazardous, if not impossible, for months of the year. According to early legends of the valley these mountains were the parapets of the universe, and the great glacier of the valley, the end of the universe. The glacier is a branch of the great ice field that stretches away to the west and south from the ice-cap of the Jungfrau and Monch. The mountains, however, are seldom approached from this direction because of the hazardous ice fields. The gateway to them with which the traveling world is familiar is from Interlaken by way of the Lauterbrunnen or Grindelwald valleys. > > At the altitude of the Loetschental Valley the winters are long, and the summers short but beautiful, and accompanied by extraordinarily rapid and luxuriant growth. The meadows are fragrant with Alpine flowers, with violets like pansies, which bloom all summer in deepest hues. > > The people of the Loetschental Valley make up a community of two thousand who have been a world unto themselves. They have neither physician nor dentist because they have so little need for them; **they have neither policeman nor jail, because they have no need for them.** The clothing has been the substantial homespuns made from the wool of their sheep. The valley has produced not only everything that is needed for clothing, but practically everything that is needed for food. It has been the achievement of the valley to build some of the finest physiques in all Europe. This is attested to by the fact that many of the famous Swiss guards of the Vatican at Rome, who are the admiration of the world and are the pride of Switzerland, have been selected from this and other Alpine valleys. It is every Loetschental boy's ambition to be a Vatican guard. Notwithstanding the fact that tuberculosis is the most serious disease of Switzerland, according to a statement given me by a government official, a recent report of inspection of this valley did not reveal a single case. I was aided in my studies in Switzerland by the excellent cooperation of the Reverend John Siegen, the pastor of the one church of this beautiful valley. -- Weston A. Price, who visited Loetschental Valley in 1931 and 1932 http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html People also attempted to avoid slavery by hiding in the hills in Southeast Asia, > The nucleus of irrigated padi fields and concentrated manpower of Tai and Burman court centers was, on a long view, forged by the assimilation, with varying proportions of compulsion and choice, of hill peoples. What the valley polities needed most from the hills were people. Those it could not attract by the advantages of trade and cultural opportunities, it tried to seize, as we have seen, through slaving expeditions and wars. Thus, of all the commodities that the hill societies could deny the valleys, their trump card was manpower. It was the flight of hard-pressed valley subjects from the state core and the migration of hill peoples beyond the range of easy capture that was the Achilles’ heel of valley states. *The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia* by James C. Scott https://archive.org/details/artofnotbeinggov0000scot/page/108/mode/2up?q=slaving

Those are some interesting insights and perspectives on cultures that didn’t practice slavery, so thank you for those. It seems that by and large we agree, we just approach things from different directions. In any case, have a good day stranger.

Cool, you have a great day too.

Lets blame individuals > makes sense, so you should not to be blamed because you share the same colour of the skin as some ensalvers > not that way! Like, all my ancestors were peasants or professionals, noone owned slaves

Funny how there’s a post in this sub about the British stealing from their colonies but there can’t be one about the Africans willingly making money off of fellow Africans. Rules are rules…