Talk:Atlantic slave trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Archive 1 (February 2007 - October 2007)

Contents

[edit] Why Europeans didn't enslave other Europeans and ship them to Americas?

Why did the European traders use Africans for slavery instead of using other Europeans or other ethnic group such as South Asians for slavery for the Atlantic Slave Trade? Sonic99 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (aka Homer33)

Huh? This isn't the subject of the article, you can try asking your question at the help desk. though. ~Jeeny (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The link is to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, which is indeed the right place for this question; there is also a Wikipedia:Help desk, which is for questions about using Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 19:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If Europeans had tried to enslave and ship to America other Europeans, it would have led to a war between European nations. However, something not totally dissimilar was done to some Europeans, but they were sold into temporary enforced service (rather than permanent) as indentured servants. This is referred to as Transportation, and was applied to criminals, including revels captured at the Battle of Worcester and Battle of Sedgemoor. Asians were probably not subject to the European slave trade becasue the distances were too great, but (free) indentured labour was imported inot some British colonies in the West Indies from India after the abolition of slavery. Peterkingiron 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
They were a number of factors,
  • Europeans were actually shipped to the americas as indentured servants. In the early days of slavery there was no distinction based on race or ethnicity. Blacks and whites worked alongside one another.
  • African were from the tropics and had developed resistance to a number of diseases that Europeans had no resistance to. The high death rate of europeans was a discouragement to bringing europeans to the americas in large numbers.
  • Africans were already experienced farmers, the iron age technology in Africa was similar to that of European technology at the start of the slave trade.
  • Africa had poor soils, that were much less fertile than europe. Therefore a European could produce more from a field in Europe than an African could produce in Africa. This was a disincentive to enslave europeans. However an African could produce more in the Americas because American soils were more fertile than African soils. Furthermore the climate in the Americas had fewer pests and crop diseases than in Africa. Because of these tough African conditions, African farmers had to become very skilled in exploiting their land. All these factors made africans valuable to business in the Americas.Muntuwandi 00:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a good question u bring up. The answers u have already gotten are pretty spot on, but I'd like to bring some other things to ur attention. To understand why things went down as they did, you have to understand that most slaves were sold to Europeans and not taken by Europeans (as portrayed in ROOTS). When Europeans began exploring Africa (roughly around the same time they started exploring the Americas) there were already many slave markets in existence. Slavery had been in Africa longer than just about anywhere else, though the forms of slavery varied depending on where u were. It was far easier to buy slaves from Africans more than willing to sell them than to steal them from the Africans (whom militarily were more or less on par with europeans up to the 18th century) or for that matter other Europeans. If a vast slave market existed in Europe at the time of its exploration of the Americas, it surely would have been exploited. But Europeans weren't that big into slavery cuz there was a huge peasant labor force already existing. The only reason slavery was so big in Africa, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa, is because the continent has always had a low population and thus a small labor force. Basically, in Europe people fought for and purchased land. In africa, people fought for and purchased PEOPLE. This circumstance led to the development of many slave markets where kingdoms sold prisoners of war to whoever could afford them as a way of removing hostile military elements from their land. The reasoning behind this becomes clear when you look at the Haitian Revolution, where the French unwisely filled a valuable New World colony full to the brim with african prisoners of war from a dozen different wars and civil wars. Hoped that helped out. Holla back if u have any other questions.Scott Free 20:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It was primarily Africans and Native Americans who were enslaved because the Europeans considered themselves Christians and did not want to enslave other Christians. In the early part of the slave trade the Europeans did not have an issue with enslaving white Muslims. BradMajors (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Most North Africans were not Christians. The Europeans could of enslave the North Africans in the early part of the slave trade and shipped them to America, but they didn't. Why? North Africa is closer to Europe than Sub-Sahara Africa. Sonic99 (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If they had tried that, they would probably themselves have been enslaved; see Barbary Coast.  --Lambiam 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London as a major slave trade port

Hi, when you mention Britain's involvement in the slave trade, you make the statement that Bristol and Liverpool were the main slaving ports. However, London initiated the English slave trade, long held a monopoly on the African trade and continued to be heavily involved after the monopoly was broken. Although Liverpool transported more slaves than any other English port, London was next with a traffic estimated at twice that of Bristol, the next largest port. Surely if Bristol and Liverpool are highlighted then so should London? Tonyddyer (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a few words on this (but without a reference). This is a broad article and it would not be right to say more. A more detailed article on "British Involvement in the Slave Trade" might be appropriate, but this article is long enough already. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have inserted a reference and changed the wording in the article slightly as it gave the impression that London's involvement had effectively ceased after Bristol and Liverpool had become involved, whereas the analysis of port records as illustrated in Rawley shows that except for the period 1730-1750 (when Bristol dominated) and the odd year thereafter, London remained the second largest slaving port in Britain. I don't believe the changes have significantly added to the length of the article but will look at creating an article along the lines that you have suggested. Tonyddyer (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I expect you know much more of this subject than I do, and I will await developemtns with interest. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
YOU NEED SOURCES Smith Jones (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Tonyddyer added a citation of Rawley, which I assume supports his amended version; it is not a work that I know. What I wrote was based on (I think) K. G. Davies, The Royal Africa Company (which is now about 50 years old) and other books that I have read. I am not an expert on this and was thus merely reacting to his first comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First image used

I noticed that the first image in the article has been changed recently. I'm not married to the old one, but the replacement is very similar to another one already in the article and doesn't really add information. I think we should go back to the old version or choose a third image instead. Malc82 (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't look carefully at all the pictures before I added mine. I've restored the previous image. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted additions to the "Beginnings"-section

I have (once more) reverted User:Pularoids additions to the Beginnings section of this article. Reasons for this are the following:

  1. All of these additions are unreferenced.
  2. Given the large scope of this article, there really is no reason to go into so much detail for the beginnings. If you can find sources you may create a new article and let this section link to that article.

Thanks for the additions though, hope we can find a way to use them. Malc82 (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beginnings section of this article. Reason for the additions:

We can't create an article and state: ooh the X are bad; ooh the X are ugly, ooh the X are evil because they invented all the wrong things of this world... But then you don't tell the true full story from the beginning. Pularoid (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we've gone to lenghts in removing the "Europeans are the source of all evil" stance from this article. I don't think that it has a generally accusing tone against any side right now. If you disagree, name the problem and we can try to sort it out.
On the other hand, we can't go into every little detail, if a topic is worthy of its own article you can create this, but the AST article would get much too long. More importantly, your additions are unreferenced, which basically mean they don't belong into the article anyway. Malc82 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I support the view expressed by Malc82. The additions by Pularoid may well be vaild information, but they do not belong here. The right place would be on an article on the Portuguese exploration of west Africa or Portuguese trade with Africa in the late medieval period, and that might be cross-referenced here. The reason is that this article is long enough already: it is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article, not a book! In a sense this is a reason why new users should be discouraged from altering long complicated articles, and particularly ones that are becoming well-referenced. Slavery is a controversial subject and particualrly subject to WP:POV issues. Potentially Pularoid's contributions ought to be welcomed, provided they are accurate, referenced, and display WP:NPOV. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I remember from my vacations in Portugal (which included visits to Sagres Point and Lagos, two very important locations to the issue) and some texts on the Portuguese explorations (which focussed on sea exploration, though), Pularoids additions are absolutely correct and could/should be used in an article. Unfortunately he has added them just as unreferenced to the history of slavery article, where they were of course removed for the same reasons. Hope Pularoid can name one or two sources and I'd be happy to help in creating Portuguese exploration of Africa. Malc82 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume Pularoid is a new user, since his name comes up as a redlink. Such people are to be encouraged. I think his additions should be recovered and made into a new article, which should then be tagged "unreferenced". Pularoid has had his information from somewhere, and this should encourage him to work it up into something better. My previous comment was specifically supporting your action, in view of apparent edit-warring. Unfortunately it is too late for me to do anything tonight. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economics of the slave trade

I deleted the leading sentence in this section that slavery was one of the "most profitable" ventures in history. The claim is vague and no source is given. Furthermore, there are reasonable counter-examples and counter-arguments. Cotton, sugar, and slaves are commodities. A venture with a monopoly (patented invention or cartel) would probably be more profitable. Also, slaves are very inefficient workers due to lack of motivation and education. An educated and motivated workforce makes improvements. Slaves rarely consciously try to improve productivity of their employer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken about what the sentence said. It didn't say that "slavery was one of the 'most profitable' ventures in history", it said that "slavery was involved in some of the most profitable industries in history". Then the paragraph gave examples of some of those industries: the labor-intensive production of sugar, coffee, cotton, and tobacco. I'm going to restore the sentence and I'll try to find a source for it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you find a source, then restore the sentence? If you put in the sentence first, that seems like editorializing-- write your opinion, then dig around to find sources to support it. Such methods are not appropriate for a encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.142 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be editorializing... if it were an opinion and not a fact. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The use of superlatives is dangerous, becasue it is often a matter of opinion. It might be better to use some such phrase as "highly profitable". However, I suspect that the subject is a controversial issue, which would be better discussed in a later section, not in the introduction where the objective is to define the subject. It is a common mistake of new editors to introduce unnecessary detail into the introduction. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The section involved is not the introduction, nor is the editor involved a newbie.  --Lambiam 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "highly profitable" would be better. Superlatives should only be used when they are sourced and uncontroversial. Malc82 (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End of slave trade II redux

Copied here from Talk:Atlantic slave trade/Archive1#End of slave trade II because of the unresolved POV tag in the article.  --Lambiam 13:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Yo I realize that section is too lengthy and needs some cuts, but cutting it down to one tiny paragraph is inappropriate. It's just too important an issue. The tag says we should discuss the edits here before making drastic changes, so let's do that. Suggestions???Scott Free 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was tagged and up for discussion since May 2 with no single suggestion or comment on the tagging. The section needed a complete rewrite, not improvements. I haven't got the sources to do this myself at the moment. My attempts basically convinced me that one can only write such an extremely short paragraph or has to go into details to avoid undue weight. In the end I decided to enforce Wikipedia's policy to removed unreferenced statements, which meant removing the section. I don't see this as a huge problem, the End of slavery is basically given by the three numbers mentioned, and abolitionism simply is a very complex topic that can't be summed up in 5 sentences without getting POV. Malc82 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The main problem here wasn't even the lack of sources, it is that this section is embarrassingly POV and completely against scientific consensus. I have read the opinions of about 10 authors on the subject now and have yet to find someone who says that slave rebellions were "the" main cause for abolition, much less someone who shares the idea that every success was a direct consequence of a rebellion. This has already been discussed in the other "End of slavery" section above. Malc82 22:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I just found the edit that brought the POV-slant into this article. It was this edit by an obvious POV-pusher from December 18, 2006. Undo isn't a good possibility after so many edits, but would anybody object if I removed all of his changes manually? Malc82 22:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a much better solutionScott Free 19:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the POV-edit now, but left the article tagged as "neutrality disputed". The reason is that it is still somewhat POV, only in the opposite direction. The section now focusses almost entirely on British abolitionism and (more important) doesn't mention the scientific debate about British motivation and other factors. The Royal Navy's patrolling sounds (maybe unintentionally) like it was entirely done out of humanism, while scientific consensus is that there were also economic reasons for it. Williams' theory should at least be mentioned (but not too detailed, there is a main article about that topic). I don't have enough sources handy right now to do that myself, so if one of the other contributors could do it that would be great. Malc82 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim basis

A very recent addition indicates that the beginning was the need for Muslim countries to have slaves, but by the Koran not enslaving their own peoples - so they went to Africa. That may well be true for slavery in general, but it seems to me to not belong in the article on the Atlantic Slave Trade. --Dumarest (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do not know specifically, it is certainly the case that the Muslims were in the habit of enslaving non-Muslims, and were forboidden to enslave their fellow Muslims. However, slavery was endemic in the ancient world, so that I am not sure that one can really say who started it. There are clearly different degrees of servitude, some of which we do (and others we do not) categorise as slavery today. Should be categorise medieval villeins, who were tied to the land as subject to a variety of slavery? Some might. Perhaps it would be better to congratulate Mohammed for abolishing slavery (though only to a limited extent), rather than blaming his followers for continuing it for others. I write that as a Christian who has no time for his beliefs. I am not sure that this blame game is helpful to the article. Possibly we need an article forked off this on the the origins of slavery, but that may take us into areas of which nothing is certainly known. It is an issue of West African history, rather more than of Atlantic trade. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I deleted that recent addition, which said the Atlantic slave trade "was first introduced by the new Muslim religion". Since the first sentence of the article says that the Atlantic slave trade "was the trade of African people supplied to the colonies of the 'New World'", it's unlikely that it was started by Muslims of the 7th and 8th century. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

who wants to go and fix them i tried but got completly lost and im trying to lind a source for an essay damn it so im just pointing that out and hope someoone answers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkerpunk (talk • contribs) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)