Skip to main content

The original bedwenches...

 

So European men were marrying African women in order to access to Africans.Interracial marriage were between Europeans and bedwenches were only legal in Africa.

 

Basically we had a generational thing of African women with European men in these colonies. Then they would make these biracial African babies that will continue to marry these Europeans for access to Africans. 

 

So White people didn't just pop up and start throwing nets over Africans, Black women gave them access to Africans through marriage. 

 

I think there are more of these marriages that change the nature of the removal of Africans from Africa...was done through seduction more than force. 

 

Now I wonder how many of these relationships carried out outside of Africa?

 

 

------------------------------

 

 http://www.mixedracestudies.org/wordpress/?p=39394

Examining five generations of marriages between African women and European men in a Gold Coast slave trading port, Daughters of the Trade uncovers the vital role interracial relationships played in the production of racial discourse and the increasing stratification of the early modern Atlantic world.

 

Severine Brock’s first language was Ga, yet it was not surprising when, in 1842, she married Edward Carstensen. He was the last governor of Christiansborg, the fort that, in the eighteenth century, had been the center of Danish slave trading in West Africa. She was the descendant of Ga-speaking women who had married Danish merchants and traders. Their marriage would have been familiar to Gold Coast traders going back nearly 150 years. In Daughters of the Trade, Pernille Ipsen follows five generations of marriages between African women and Danish men, revealing how interracial marriage created a Euro-African hybrid culture specifically adapted to the Atlantic slave trade.

 

Although interracial marriage was prohibited in European colonies throughout the Atlantic world, in Gold Coast slave-trading towns it became a recognized and respected custom. Cassare, or “keeping house,” gave European men the support of African women and their kin, which was essential for their survival and success, while African families made alliances with European traders and secured the legitimacy of their offspring by making the unions official.

For many years, Euro-African families lived in close proximity to the violence of the slave trade. Sheltered by their Danish names and connections, they grew wealthy and influential. But their powerful position on the Gold Coast did not extend to the broader Atlantic world, where the link between blackness and slavery grew stronger, and where Euro-African descent did not guarantee privilege. By the time Severine Brock married Edward Carstensen, their world had changed. Daughters of the Trade uncovers the vital role interracial marriage played in the coastal slave trade, the production of racial difference, and the increasing stratification of the early modern Atlantic world.

 

--------

 

http://www.mixedracestudies.org/wordpress/?p=39398

“MULATRESSE Lene”—or Lene KÜhberg, as she is also called in the Danish sources—grew up and lived in a social world created by the Atlantic slave trade. Her name suggests that she was a daughter of slave traders—a Ga woman and a Danish man—and in the 1760s she was cassaret (married) to Danish interim governor and slave trader Frantz Joachim KÜhberg. She lived in a European-style stone house in Osu (today a neighborhood in Accra) on the Gold Coast, and she was both racially and culturally Euro-African. The color of her skin and her name alone would have made it clear to everyone who met her that she was related to Europeans, but her clothes would also have marked her difference, and she may even have worn little bells and ornamental keys to show her heritage and connections. European travel writers described how Euro-African women on the Gold Coast who wore such little bells jingled so much that they could be heard at a great distance. Through their Euro-African heritage and marriages to European men, Euro-African women such as Lene KÜhberg occupied a particular and important position as intermediaries in the West African slave trade.

Last edited by GoodMan
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Those African/European nether regions have created NOTHING but havoc for centuries and centuries and centuries.  They HATE each other, but they can't stop diddling each other. Who cares if they die, let the fun begin and possibly end. Who cares if a pecker ends up shoved down throat, detached from body and one's body becomes a dead dangling tree ornament.  Oh, the fun they had or the rape it was!!!! White men are so loving and caring when it comes to the African.  NOT!!!!!!

The original bedwenches...

 

  Original bedwrenches?  Ok.  Lemme sell you the Brooklyn bridge,  K?  First of all, let clear something up.  Marriages of any kind during those days were not WILLING from the African female point of view.  Marriages are a patriarchal arrangement that came from Asian and European cultures.  Africans did not believe or take part in marriage....they participated in MATRIMONY.  Apple and oranges.    Marriages i.e. forced....matrimony i.e. free will.  

 

Secondly, by the time Europeans came to Africa....Africa was ALREADY in social and culture DECLINE.  The Arabs had a field epoch raping, plundering, invading, castrating, FGMing, entrapping, encroaching....many upon many AFRICAN cultures.  So to say that the original bedwrench came from Africa....is not only RACIST, but WRONG.  The original "wrench"  bedwarmer, ho, whore, concubine, slut, etc came from Europe.  

 

What actually happen was....during the many invasions of the Hyksos cultures, the conqueror made it his business to marry the upper elite of Egyptian royalty in order to continue the monarchy and rule Egypt.  Conquerors would "marry" the daughters of the King or marry those in authoritative control and have interracial children to pass down the dominating side or the side that invaded the country....this happens a few times as why the features of some Egyptian Kings looked Asiatic.  So it is a CUSTOM that an invasion force would most ALWAYS take over the head of the country and integrate that way.  

 

Now what home boy is referring to may have occurred several hundred years later when the Europe finally got over the ice age and the plague and was able to travel across the waters into Africa.  But!  African women being "wrenches" of any kind was a lie.  They were FORCED....either to survive the wrath of slavery or men were so intoxicated by the beauty of these African women that these men were wrapped around their fingers....but!  Let's not get it twisted.  These are isolated events.  And African women DID NOT give massa any damn thang...especially access to Africa...why would they?  And if they had that kind of power at that crucial time?  First off, Arabs wouldn't have able to enslave Africa for sooooooooooo long and two?  Europe would have NEVER been apart of the Atlantic Slave Trade.   Would have NEVER happened.  

 

What gets me?  Folks will BELIEVE anything to degrade, defame, destroy, minimize black women...while white cunts spread their legs soooooooo wide, their sexual influence causes men both Arab and European to continue to enslave them.  On the other hand, African women are tortured with FGM. That would have my MAIN concern-not to get cut by these horrific monsters.    So get it right. But!  BTW:  Why do we continuously BELIEVE any damn thang massa says?  When we know he LIE LIE LIE...every time he opens his mouth about us.  Crazy!

Last edited by Kocolicious

These people were trying to survive.  It's almost like what other choice did they have, either vehemently appose these invaders and die or be sold into slavery themselves.  Also, why would we be surprised that there were dirty Africans back then, when we see dirty Africans all over Africa selling out their heritage, their people's natural resources for pennies on the dollar [therefore their own people's wealth], their own dignity and their own minds today.  

 

But, one thing for sure, is that the African woman couldn't possibly be blamed, considering that before Western influence in West Africa, women had very little to no power or even say in their own lives; hell, in West African cultures, women used to have to serve a man from on her knees [any man].

 

So, I'm sure that there were rare exceptions, but during a time in African history when women could be bought and sold and traded like cattle and had no say-so in who they could or would marry, any collaboration in such 'arrangements' lies not with women.  

Last edited by sunnubian

"Secondly, by the time Europeans came to Africa....Africa was ALREADY in social and culture DECLINE.  The Arabs had a field epoch raping, plundering, invading, castrating, FGMing, entrapping, encroaching....many upon many AFRICAN cultures.  So to say that the original bedwrench came from Africa....is not only RACIST, but WRONG.  The original "wrench"  bedwarmer, ho, whore, concubine, slut, etc came from Europe."  

**********************************************************

 

Exactly!  And besides, most of the "bed warmers" during American slavery were children, and I guess you know what that really means; something else they try to never speak of about slavery, the amount of pedophilia Black children suffered.  

 

 

Originally Posted by sunnubian:

These people were trying to survive.  It's almost like what other choice did they have, either vehemently appose these invaders and die or be sold into slavery themselves.  Also, why would we be surprised that there were dirty Africans back then, when we see dirty Africans all over Africa selling out their heritage, their people's natural resources for pennies on the dollar [therefore their own people's wealth], their own dignity and their own minds today.  

 

But, one thing for sure, is that the African woman couldn't possibly be blamed, considering that before Western influence in West Africa, women had very little to no power or even say in their own lives; hell, in West African cultures, women used to have to serve a man from on her knees [any man].

 

So, I'm sure that there were rare exceptions, but during a time in African history when women could be bought and sold and traded like cattle and had no say-so in who they could or would marry, any collaboration in such 'arrangements' lies not with women.  

No they weren't trying to survive...

 

They did this for power.

 

Africans weren't a united group, actually the concept of "Africans" didn't even exist there was no race consciousness among them. Europeans didn't have to force their way to Africa, European were welcomed in Africa, given status in Africa. 

 

And what the hell is this Women in Africa had to serve men?

 

Africa was is matrilineal, Women had property. Women didn't even allow fathers to do deal with the raising of children, it was mostly done by maternal uncles, aunts, mothers and grandmothers. No different today. 

 

There was a clear separation of sexes that allowed women to have their own power structure totally independent of men and it is still that way in rural Africa.

 

So I am pretty sure these women, entered these relationships willingly since Europeans were too damn cowardly to actually go into Africa. They stayed on the coasts. If Europeans went into Africa without the help of Africans they would've died. Same with the Europeans without the help of Native Americans in the Americas, they would've died. 

 

Europeans weren't a real threat at that time. They just for some reason ran up against cowardly and naive people of color that didn't kill Europeans immediately when they saw them. 

 

And these weren't the only biracial African generational family slave traders. And these were elite marriages, not Europeans finding some poor African girl and telling her she gonna get married to him. No, these were carefully arranged marriages between African elites and Europeans merchants. 

 

There were more of them from all over Europe and Africa. British, Portugese, and Danish. There were some from the Gold Coast all the way to Angola. Actually Angola and Cape Verde still have a strong biracial African Caste. Most of the biggest slave traders were offsprings of these types of unions.

 

So Africans willingly intermarried with Europeans and procreated with them and housed them and sold various tribes to Europeans. Very little force involved. 

 

African rulers actually had great control of Africa at that time and Europeans were too cowardly to challenge them since they were scared of Africa. Africans did it for the money and goods that were exchanged. 

 

Europeans didn't even have to manage the posts or even guard it, Africans did it for them. Then on top of that, Europeans had their little biracial African children be the middlemen so that Europeans just pulled up their ships, but the slaves on them and take them to the New World.

 

So the African side Trans Atlantic slave trade was mostly African managed and operated. 

 

http://www.theroot.com/article...s_who_were_they.html

 

The African elites brought their victims to the coast and sold them to slave traders who operated through a variety of trading places, as David Eltis explained to me by email. Some were sold at "factories," the residence of a European or African trading agent or agents (or factors) of a slaving company, established in strategic locations along the African coast. Some were sold at coastal forts, in Senegal, the Gambia and Guinea-Bissau. "South of the latter (Guinea-Bissau) to the Gold Coast (Ghana), there was a large number of small, but fortified, trading posts." Then from Ghana east to the Togo boundary today there were about 40 castles of varying size. 

 

Further east, from Little Popo in Dahomey [Benin] to Lagos, Nigeria, "the flow of slaves was controlled by African polities, and the Europeans had agents and storehouses under the protection of an African ruler," Eltis continued. "From the Niger Delta to Northern Angola, there were no permanent European posts at all, so each slave ship would negotiate with the African polity, and Europeans would not have had a permanent land-based presence, though the Congo River had a lot of European-controlled barracoons [enclosures to hold the enslaved] in the last 25 years of the trade." The exception to all of this was Luanda, in Angola. It was "the biggest trading site of all, which was Portuguese-controlled, as was Mozambique island," where there would be warehouses and holding yards.

 

If African elites controlled the capture of the slaves in the interior, who controlled these factories and trading places along the coasts? Europeans, right? Here's where things get interesting. Surprisingly, some of the largest traders in slaves were actually "mulattos," the offspring of European traders and the daughters of African rulers. They were connected to both the European merchants and the African elites by marriage, clientage and trade alliances.

 

As Eltis explained to me, "from very soon after the start of the slave trade, there would have been traders on the coast with mixed African and European origins. Thornton and Heywood have identified several Afro-Brazilians and Afro-Portuguese mulatto traders, including Joaquim d'Almeida, Francisco Olympia da Silva, Ambrosio Gomes in Guinea-Bissau, Isidoro Felix de Sousa in Dahomey and Anna Joaquina dos Santos Silva in Luanda, and Afro-British traders in Sierra Leone such as James Cleveland, Thomas Gaffery Curtis, John Pearce (the "King of Rio Nunez") and  William Skelton Jr., among many others. Historian Bruce Mouser also has compiled charts distinguishing slave traders by location and background, including Africans, in his current book, American Colony on the Rio Pongo. The most prominent of a group of about half a dozen mulatto traders in Sierra Leone in the early 19th century was a man named John Ormond Jr., whose life helps to explain how this curious mixed-race caste of slave traders came to be.

 

 

 

Last edited by GoodMan
Originally Posted by Norland:

Black men WERE NO DAMN HELP in protecting AFRICANS FROM SLAVERY, that's for sure. Here we all are getting our asses kicked royally by the European Cave Man.

yeah, while pointing the finger at black women, what about the Black MEN who were already well invested in slavery millenniums before any outsider invaded Africa. I don't get this frequent attack on black women from black men. 

 

People are people and any human no matter the tone of their skin will make similar decisions under the same historical circumstances. We have to remember that racism is a social construct that divides according to how humans look. There is only one race, the human race. If humans looked alike would not change this urge to divide and conquer, the fact that we have these superficial differences just makes it easier. 

 

We would be hard pressed to think of an ethnicity that did not enslave their own people or those who looked like them. Japan for example had more than 1200 years of slavery without any outside influences and when slavery was banned they used their judicial system for forced labor for many centuries.

 

So this pattern of misogyny from black men is just a cop out in black men looking for somebody to blame instead of doing what good men do and that is to organize, build and protect its own.

 

 

 

 

 

Last edited by Momentum

Brotha Momentum wrote:  

yeah, while pointing the finger at black women, what about the Black MEN who were already well invested in slavery millenniums before any outsider invaded Africa. I don't get this frequent attack on black women from black men. 

 

People are people and any human no matter the tone of their skin will make similar decisions under the same historical circumstances. We have to remember that racism is a social construct that divides according to how humans look. There is only one race, the human race. If humans looked alike would not change this urge to divide and conquer, the fact that we have these superficial differences just makes it easier. 

 

We would hard pressed to think of an ethnicity that did not enslave their own people or those who looked like them. Japan for example had more than 1200 years of slavery without any outside influences and when slavery was banned they used their judicial system for forced labor for many centuries.

 

So this pattern of misogyny from black men is just a cop out in black men looking for somebody to blame instead of doing what good men do and that is to organize, build and protect its own.

 

  You know my brotha?  This is why I have sooooooooo much respect for you and a few other REAL black men on this board.  You tell the TRUTH whether it looks good on men or not.  And you don't dismiss what others posters say just cuz they may be "female."  As if that's a default to the truth.  I can tell you are ol school and KNOW what the hell you are talking about when it comes to sensitive issues like this.  I can't do NOTHING but give you your props.

 

Having said that?  I agree.  Asia as well as Europe have a HISTORY of enslaving their own people.  As a matter of fact,  China and Japan were instrumental in sending slave girls to portions of Asia and the middle east....these women were popular in the slave world.  

 

And....yes, African men were bartering slaves during the collapse of the matriarchal rule.....which many "men" refuse to recognize its vase and long hold existence.  But if you look at the timeline...it will indicate 10, 000 BC...around the period of the decline and near destruction of the Happapan culture-which was matriarchal.  

 

These misogynistic comments especially from black men...nausates me since many of them are the ones who abandon black women for white women.  Since many of 'em tell us all the time that we are not worthy to them even though WE WERE THE ONES INSTRUMENTAL IN THEM OBTAINING THEIR FREEDOM.  Weak and low inferior black men who need to be told all the time that they are somebody...always are the ones to throw black women under the bus.  And these women are their ancestors, great grand mothers, grand mothers AND mothers.  What a legacy of DISRESPECT from these low lifes.  And they have the NERVE to wanna fight for some sort of twisted civil rights when they don;'t even have respect, sympathy, empathy, compassion, passion for their OWN women?  I call fools like this?  Traders!  Judas.  On the down low.  Cuz clearly they...these little black men....who are actually "boys" have a problem with black women.  I think it's personal.  I think something happened when they were children and needed protection....and since the black dads weren't there....they blamed the person who was always there....the mother!  Sad,

 

And as generations go...just listen to me here....they wanna creep in this misogyny BULLSHIT to show face....while massa and the arabs CONTINUES to kill us.  Oh that's the black woman's fault too.  When are these black men gonna be accountable/responsible for being the perceived PROTECTORS of their black community?  And guess what? Here's a NEWFLASH!!   They didn't or wouldn't PROTECT us.  Who's fault is that?  Again....black women?  Oh no.  That's a lie.  A damn lie.  

 

Some black men NEED to look in the mirror...and see who really is the culprit of our history's demise.  Clearly black women are not physical STRONG enough to challenge the strength of male invaders-that was OUR men's job.  But did they do it?  Hell....nawl.  They ran in the bushes.  Stepped over the heads of African women and children....and left them in the dust.  So we are supposed to be BLAMED for that too.  Bottom line.  Here we go.  Massa and the arabs effeminated African men by deflowering them as young men and boys-cuz that's what they were doing back then.  And this deflowerment placed them in shame without power.  And what some victims do when they feel powerless is BLAME THOSE WHO CARE FOR THEM.  Which in cases like this?  The women.  As why in Africa FGM continues cuz it gives African men some form of [senseless] power to themselves since they couldn't be men in their own homeland...this way they were better than the women....the women who fought for their freedom.  Sick!  Cuz quite frankly, how can a woman fight off invaders with a baby in her arms and children wrapped around her waist in fear?  Where was the father?  The leaders?  The warriors?  Where?  Somewhere shaking in a tree...as why massa compared them to gorillas.  No?  And we now know that gorillas are the most gentlest animal in the animal kingdom.  But even with them, the male will protect its camp.  So what happened to our men?  That's the million dollar question, no one BLACK wanna answer but I will.  Again.

 

This is the thing.  Women are equals.  Period.  They don't have to be men to be equal.  All they have to be is HUMAN.  And to hear a  black man [freed generations ago by the sweat, blood and death of many black women] dehumanize black women responsible for bringing him in the world as a FREE black man?  Is a LOT OF BALLS-for the ball-less.   And tells hugely how THAT black man see himself.  And....it has NOTHING...absolutely NOTHING  to do with a Black Woman.  Not a damn thang.   And just because black women are physically weaker....these sickos THINK overpowering them....give them the power they lost.  Not.  They lost the power cuz they didn't FIGHT for their CULTURE.  Many of 'em ran. Or willingly joined the invaders.  Leaving the women and children to fend for their lives..ALONE.  So, Again.  Who's fault is that?  Oh.. BTW:  That's why ignorance of your own history is soooooooo dangerous.  It gives you a false positive of what really happened...so you won't feel the blame. But the blame?  Go to black men if they are to see themselves as the protectors of the black community.  They failed. As a result of that failure....they wanna blame us.     Pitiful and COWARDICE.  But!

Last edited by Kocolicious
Originally Posted by GoodMan:
 

"No they weren't trying to survive..."

 

We are well aware of the fact that some African sold other Africans into Slavery.  We also know that slavery existed in Africa, the same as it did all over the world before, during and after the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, and that there were some Africans profiting from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade

 

"They did this for power."

 

I'm sure that some did, because as with any War, there will always be those who will try to align themselves with the enemy either because they agree with the enemy or as a most cowardice act to survive. 

 

"Africans weren't a united group, actually the concept of "Africans" didn't even exist there was no race consciousness among them. Europeans didn't have to force their way to Africa, European were welcomed in Africa, given status in Africa."

 

We are well aware of the fact that Africa, the same as it is now, was not a United Group before or during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, nor during the Arab Slave Trade.  

 

"And what the hell is this Women in Africa had to serve men?"

 

It was a tradition of the most prominent Tribes in West African culture; it's just a simple fact, and not surprising considering that the subjugation of women still exists in Africa.  The oppression of women and girls is still the norm in most of Africa to this day, so it shouldn't be such a broad leap to such a "tradition" being common place in African culture centuries ago.  

 

"Africa was is matrilineal, Women had property. Women didn't even allow fathers to do deal with the raising of children, it was mostly done by maternal uncles, aunts, mothers and grandmothers. No different today." 

 

There a some African Tribes that are or always were Matriarchal, but then, there is the rest of the vast majority of Africa, which happens to also be a predominately Islamic. It's only been in recent decades that many African began to see educating girls as important as educating boys, the dominance that African men still try to hold over women in most parts of the continent. Ancient African history depicts a culture neither predominately Patriarchal or Matriarchal, but a more gender homogoneous one than not.

 

"There was a clear separation of sexes that allowed women to have their own power structure totally independent of men and it is still that way in rural Africa."

 

I'm sure that this is true sparingly withing certain cultures in Africa, but it is not the norm and Africa, to this day, is predominately Patriarchal.  I know of one African Tribe where the woman chooses which man she wants to be with and after a point in time, can just choose to be with another man, but this is not the norm in traditional African cultures. 

 

"So I am pretty sure these women, entered these relationships willingly since Europeans were too damn cowardly to actually go into Africa. They stayed on the coasts. If Europeans went into Africa without the help of Africans they would've died. Same with the Europeans without the help of Native Americans in the Americas, they would've died. "

 

I'm pretty sure that these women's parents where dictating and orchestrating any matrimonial arrangements, unions, etc., as done for centuries in nearly all African cultures, even to this day in most African cultures.  Often it is the Yoruba that seems to have had less oppressive and chauvinistic views and dominance over the lives of women and girls by comparison.  

 

 

 

"Europeans weren't a real threat at that time. They just for some reason ran up against cowardly and naive people of color that didn't kill Europeans immediately when they saw them."

 

Africans were done like the Native Americans were, at first there were not many Europeans coming, and I'm sure some were merely seeking mutual trade, etc., but as time went on more and more came and European realization that they had guns/gun powder while Africans still only had bows and arrows and spears, along with all gained knowledge of the territory and Tribes, seized any and all opportunity to invade, overthrow, occupy and dominate Africans and the continent.

 

 

"And these weren't the only biracial African generational family slave traders. And these were elite marriages, not Europeans finding some poor African girl and telling her she gonna get married to him. No, these were carefully arranged marriages between African elites and Europeans merchants." 

 

"There were more of them from all over Europe and Africa. British, Portugese, and Danish. There were some from the Gold Coast all the way to Angola. Actually Angola and Cape Verde still have a strong biracial African Caste. Most of the biggest slave traders were offsprings of these types of unions."

 

"So Africans willingly intermarried with Europeans and procreated with them and housed them and sold various tribes to Europeans. Very little force involved." 

 

And, I'm sure that some of that happened within some/a few African Tribes, at least before Slavery became racial, but it in no way was any 'norm'.

 

 

 

 

"African rulers actually had great control of Africa at that time and Europeans were too cowardly to challenge them since they were scared of Africa. Africans did it for the money and goods that were exchanged." 

 

I'm sure they did, up until the point that Africa was being invaded by standing armies of each and every European nation in Europe.  But, it had less to do with fear than it did to do with more superior weapons Europeans possessed, especially after Africans Europeans did have contact with had been thoroughly groomed by European deception to be ambushed in future relentless invasions.

 

 

 

 

"Europeans didn't even have to manage the posts or even guard it, Africans did it for them. Then on top of that, Europeans had their little biracial African children be the middlemen so that Europeans just pulled up their ships, but the slaves on them and take them to the New World."

 

Why would WAR On Africa be any different than War anywhere else in the world, where once you have invaded and conquered a nation, you quickly start to assimilate as much of willing the population into your fold, and holding the power of whether people would starve to death or be murdered is a great motivator to get people to join up with you.  

 

 

"So the African side Trans Atlantic slave trade was mostly African managed and operated." 

 

This simply is not true, especially beyond a certain point in time and it's also not true beyond a few African Tribes [in comparison to thousands of African Tribes that existed (and still exist)] 

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

http://www.theroot.com/article...s_who_were_they.html

 

The African elites brought their victims to the coast and sold them to slave traders who operated through a variety of trading places, as David Eltis explained to me by email. Some were sold at "factories," the residence of a European or African trading agent or agents (or factors) of a slaving company, established in strategic locations along the African coast. Some were sold at coastal forts, in Senegal, the Gambia and Guinea-Bissau. "South of the latter (Guinea-Bissau) to the Gold Coast (Ghana), there was a large number of small, but fortified, trading posts." Then from Ghana east to the Togo boundary today there were about 40 castles of varying size. 

 

Further east, from Little Popo in Dahomey [Benin] to Lagos, Nigeria, "the flow of slaves was controlled by African polities, and the Europeans had agents and storehouses under the protection of an African ruler," Eltis continued. "From the Niger Delta to Northern Angola, there were no permanent European posts at all, so each slave ship would negotiate with the African polity, and Europeans would not have had a permanent land-based presence, though the Congo River had a lot of European-controlled barracoons [enclosures to hold the enslaved] in the last 25 years of the trade." The exception to all of this was Luanda, in Angola. It was "the biggest trading site of all, which was Portuguese-controlled, as was Mozambique island," where there would be warehouses and holding yards.

 

If African elites controlled the capture of the slaves in the interior, who controlled these factories and trading places along the coasts? Europeans, right? Here's where things get interesting. Surprisingly, some of the largest traders in slaves were actually "mulattos," the offspring of European traders and the daughters of African rulers. They were connected to both the European merchants and the African elites by marriage, clientage and trade alliances.

 

As Eltis explained to me, "from very soon after the start of the slave trade, there would have been traders on the coast with mixed African and European origins. Thornton and Heywood have identified several Afro-Brazilians and Afro-Portuguese mulatto traders, including Joaquim d'Almeida, Francisco Olympia da Silva, Ambrosio Gomes in Guinea-Bissau, Isidoro Felix de Sousa in Dahomey and Anna Joaquina dos Santos Silva in Luanda, and Afro-British traders in Sierra Leone such as James Cleveland, Thomas Gaffery Curtis, John Pearce (the "King of Rio Nunez") and  William Skelton Jr., among many others. Historian Bruce Mouser also has compiled charts distinguishing slave traders by location and background, including Africans, in his current book, American Colony on the Rio Pongo. The most prominent of a group of about half a dozen mulatto traders in Sierra Leone in the early 19th century was a man named John Ormond Jr., whose life helps to explain how this curious mixed-race caste of slave traders came to be.

********************************************************

 

And even here, you still have to keep it all in perspective;  there were about a billions African, and thousands of tribes in Africa; naming 2 or 4 or 15 or 20 African Tribes is not ALL Africans.  Also has to be considered is the fact that most of even these "Tribes"/regions were really being occupied by European forces by the time any 'Africans selling other Africans into Slavery' was really happening in astronomical amounts.  

 

 

 

 

 

Trans Atlantic Slave Trade:

 

"By the end of the 15th century, Europeans had superseded their Arab and African counterparts and established a modern trans-Atlantic slave trade. A commercial revolution in Europe led to the rise of powerful nations such as Spain, Portugal, Britain, France and Holland. This created new ideas featuring competition, commodity exploitation, and the accumulation of wealth. The importing and exporting of slaves became an acceptable and profitable part of European commerce.

Portugal was the first European country to see the profitability of slave trading.  They exploited the rivalries between  the more than 200 different ethnic groups in West Africa. Christian Europeans who believed that enslaving other Christians was immoral had no qualms about enslaving pagan or Muslim Africans. As early as 1502 Portugal was shipping enslaved Africans to the Caribbean and Brazil to work on sugar cane plantations. As these plantations grew in size more and more slaves were needed to do the hard work in the fields. With new slaves constantly arriving from Africa it became more profitable for planters to import newer, fresher slaves than to care for those already working the fields of Cuba, Jamaica, and Barbados. With new slaves constantly arriving planters and overseers devised a system to break in newcomers. After being broken in spirit as well as in the habits of freedom, new slaves were often re-exported to North America.

 

 

The slave trade quickly exploded into a multi-million dollar enterprise, employing thousands of people and beginning the largest forced migration in the history of man. The coast of West Africa was soon filling up with an extensive network of European forts. The Gold Coast, which is now Ghana had dozens of European castles, some able to hold up to 1500 slaves. Local rulers were easily paid off in rent and protection fees. Slaves were prisoners of wars,  prisoners convicted of crimes,  and kidnap victims. African traders usually marched their victims in chains to the forts along the coast, many times in groups as large as 150 people. After purchase the slave's skin was branded with the insignia of their purchaser. Their teeth, genitals, limbs and stature were inspected and defects reduced the price. The slaves were held in the dungeons until the ship arrived to take them to their next destination. Many slaves died before they departed Africa."  . . . 

 

**************************************************************

 

We Did Not Sell Each Other Into Slavery

 

he single most effective White propaganda assertion that continues to make it very difficult for us to reconstruct the African social systems of mutual trust broken down by U.S. Slavery is the statement, unqualified, that, "We sold each other into slavery." Most of us have accepted this statement as true at its face value. It implies that parents sold their children into slavery to Whites, husbands sold their wives, even brothers and sisters selling each other to the Whites. It continues to perpetuate a particularly sinister effluvium of Black character. But deep down in the Black gut, somewhere beneath all the barbecue ribs, gin and whitewashed religions, we know that we are not like this.

British colonial official with Islamic slave traders in Zanzibar. On the far right is Hamad bin Mohamed bin Jumah bin Rajab bin Mohamed bin Said al-Murghabi, more commonly known as Tippu Tip. He was the most notorious Islamic slaver. al-Murghabi died in 1905.

         

This singular short tart claim, that "We sold each other into slavery", has maintained in a state of continual flux our historical basis for Black-on-Black self love and mutual cooperation at the level of Class.

The period from the beginning of the TransAtlantic African Slave so-called Trade (1500) to the demarcation of Africa into colonies in the late 1800s is one of the most documented periods in World History. Yet, with the exception of the renegade African slave raider Tippu Tip of the Congo Arabs(Muslim name, Hamed bin Muhammad bin Juna al-Marjebi) who was collaborating with the White Arabs (also called Red Arabs) there is little documentation of independent African slave raiding. By independent is meant that there were no credible threats, intoxicants or use of force by Whites to force or deceive the African into slave raiding or slave trading and that the raider himself was not enslaved to Whites at the time of slave raiding or "trading". Trade implies human-to-human mutuality without force. This was certainly not the general scenario for the TransAtlantic so-called Trade in African slaves. Indeed, it was the Portuguese who initiated the European phase of slave raiding in Africa by attacking a sleeping village in 1444 and carting away the survivors to work for free in Europe.

Even the case of Tippu Tip may well fall into a category that we might call the consequences of forced cultural assimilation via White (or Red) Arab Conquest over Africa. Tippu Tip s father was a White (or Red) Arab slave raider, his mother an unmixed African slave. Tip was born out of violence, the rape of an African woman. It is said that Tip, a "mulatto", was merciless to Africans.

The first act against Africa by Whites was an unilateral act of war, announced or unannounced. There were no African Kings or Queens in any of the European countries nor in the U.S. when ships set sail for Africa to capture Africans for profit. Whites had already decided to raid for slaves. They didn't need our agreement on that. Hence, there was no mutuality in the original act. The African so-called slave "trade" was a demand-driven market out of Europe and America, not a supply-driven market out of Africa. We did not seek to sell captives to the Whites as an original act. Hollywood s favorite is showing Blacks capturing Blacks into slavery, as if this was the only way capture occurred. There are a number of ways in which capture occurred. Let s dig a little deeper into this issue.

Chancellor Williams, in his classic work, The Destruction of Black Civilization, explains that after the over land passage of African trade had been cut off at the Nile Delta by the White Arabs in about 1675 B.C. (the Hyksos), the Egyptian/African economy was thrown into a recession. There is even indication of "pre-historic" aggression upon Africa by White nomadic tribes (the Palermo Stone).. This culminated as an unfortunate trade, in that, when the White Arabs attacked, they had the benefit of the knowledge and strength of Africans on their side, as their slaves. This is a significantly different picture than the propaganda that we sold our immediate family members into slavery to the Whites.

It becomes a kind of racism; that, while all ethnic groups have sold its own ethnic group into slavery, Blacks can't do it. When Eastern Europeans fight each other it is not called tribalism. Ethnic cleansing is intended to make what is happening to sound more sanitary. What it really is, is White Tribalism pure and simple.

The fact of African resistance to European Imperialism and Colonialism is not well known, though it is well documented. Read, for instance, Michael Crowder (ed.), West African Resistance, Africana Publishing Corporation, New York, 1971. Europeans entered Africa in the mid 1400 s and early 1500 s during a time of socio-political transition. Europeans chose a favorite side to win between African nations at a war and supplied that side with guns, a superior war instrument. In its victory, the African side with guns rounded up captives of war who were sold to the Europeans in exchange for more guns or other barter. Whites used these captives in their own slave raids. These captives often held pre-existing grudges against groups they were ordered to raid, having formerly been sold into slavery themselves by these same groups as captives in inter-African territorial wars. In investigating our history and capture, a much more completed picture emerges than simply that we sold each other into slavery.

The Ashanti, who resisted British Imperialism in a Hundred Years War, sold their African captives of war and criminals to other Europeans, the Portuguese, Spanish, French, in order to buy guns to maintain their military resistance against British Imperialism (Michael Crowder, ed., West African Resistance).

Eric A. Walker, in A History of Southern Africa, Longmans, London, 1724, chronicles the manner in which the Dutch entered South Africa at the Cape of Good Hope. Van Riebeeck anchored at the Cape with his ships in 1652 during a time that the indigenous Khoi Khoi or Khoisan (derogatorily called Hottentots) were away hunting. The fact of their absence is the basis of the White "claim" to the land. But there had been a previous encounter with the Khoi Khoi at the Cape in 1510 with the Portuguese Ship Almeida. States Eric A. Walker, "Affonso de Albuquerque was a conscious imperialist whose aim was to found self-sufficing colonies and extend Portuguese authority in the East&He landed in Table Bay, and as it is always the character of the Portuguese to endeavor to rob the poor natives of the country, a quarrel arose with the Hottentots, who slew him and many of his companions as they struggled towards their boats through the heavy sand of Salt River beach." (Ibid. p. 17). Bartholomew Diaz had experienced similar difficulties with the indigenous Xhosa of South Africa in 1487, on his way to "discovering" a "new" trade route to the East. The conflict ensued over a Xhosa disagreement over the price Diaz wanted to pay for their cattle. The Xhosa had initially come out meet the Whites, playing their flutes and performing traditional dance.

In 1652, knowing that the indigenous South Africans were no pushovers, Van Riebeeck didn't waste any time. As soon as the Khoi Khoi returned from hunting, Van Riebeeck accused them of stealing Dutch cattle. Simply over that assertion, war broke out, and the superior arms of the Dutch won. South African Historian J. Congress Mbata best explains this dynamic in his lectures, available at the Cornell University Africana Studies Department. Mbata provides three steps: 1) provocation by the Whites, 2) warfare and, 3) the success of a superior war machinery.

There are several instances in which Cecil Rhodes, towards the end of the 19th Century, simply demonstrated the superiority of the Maxim Machine Gun by mowing down a corn field in a matter of minutes. Upon such demonstrations the King and Queen of the village, after consulting the elders, signed over their land to the Whites. These scenarios are quite different from the Hollywood version, and well documented.

It has been important to present the matters above to dispel the notion of an African slave trade that involved mutuality as a generalized dynamic on the part of Africans. If we can accept the documented facts of our history above and beyond propaganda, we can begin to heal. We can begin to love one another again and go on to regain our liberties on Earth.

Respectfully,

Oscar L. Beard, B.A., RPCV

slavery at the dawn of capitalism and the ideology of white supremacy

Slaves were denied any rights. Throughout the colonies in the Caribbean to North America, laws were passed establishing a variety of common practices: Slaves were forbidden to carry weapons, they could marry only with the owner's permission, and their families could be broken up. They were forbidden to own property. Masters allowed slaves to cultivate vegetables and chickens, so the master wouldn't have to attend to their food needs. But they were forbidden even to sell for profit the products of their own gardens.

.

Africa Queen Nzinga Resistance

Ann Nzinga "Queen of Ndongo" (1582-1663)In the sixteenth century, the Portuguese stake in the slave trade was threatened by England and France. This caused the Portuguese to transfer their slave-trading activities southward to the Congo and South West Africa. Their most stubborn opposition, as they entered the final phase of the conquest of Angola, came from a queen who was a great head of state, and a military leader with few peers in her time.

 

The important facts about her life are outlined by Professor Glasgow of Bowie, Maryland:

 

"Her extraordinary story begins about 1582, the year of her birth. She is referred to as Nzingha, or Jinga, but is better known as Ann Nzingha. She was the sister of the then-reigning King of Ndongo, Ngoli Bbondi, whose country was later called Angola. Nzingha was from an ethnic group called the Jagas. The Jagas were an extremely militant group who formed a human shield against the Portuguese slave traders. Nzingha never accepted the Portuguese conquest of Angola, and was always on the military offensive. As part of her strategy against the invaders, she formed an alliance with the Dutch, who she intended to use to defeat the Portuguese slave traders."

In 1623, at the age of forty-one, Nzingha became Queen of Ndongo. She forbade her subjects to call her Queen, She preferred to be called King, and when leading an army in battle, dressed in men's clothing.

In 1659, at the age of seventy-five, she signed a treaty with the Portuguese, bringing her no feeling of triumph. Nzingha had resisted the Portuguese most of her adult life. African bravery, however, was no match for gun powder. This great African woman died in 1663, which was followed by the massive expansion of the Portuguese slave trade.

Some colonies encouraged religious instruction among slaves, but all of them made clear that a slave's conversion to Christianity didn't change their status as slaves.

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9:And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9:Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Slaveowners would read these verses to slaves as part of the worship services that they allowed (and controlled) as a means of encouraging the proper attitude among their slaves. Based upon these isolated verses, slaveowners claimed that the Bible supported slavery and taught slaves to be obedient to their masters.http://www.reunionblackfamily.com/apps/blog/show/7183511-biblical-verses-used-by-slave-masters-to-justify-slavery

Slavery Wasn't a Trade, It Was a Robbery and Genocide.Just like colonization.

Congolese women reality: Shackled together, enslaved in their own homeland, held as hostages until their men returned with enough rubber to make King Leopold and the Belgium people rich beyond their wildest dreams. While impoverishing and enslaving the native people.

Slave Runners

Zanzibar men ca 1900

The Belgians, under orders of King Leopold II hung thousands of Congolese citizens.

"Africans did not enslave themselves in the Americas. The European slave trade was not an African venture, it was preeminently a European enterprise in all of its dimensions: conception, insurance, outfitting of ships, sailors,factories,shackles, weapons, and the selling and buying of people in the Americas.

Not one African can be named as an equal partner with Europeans in the slave trade.

Indeed, no African person benefited to the degree that Europeans did from the commerce in African people...no African community used slavery as its principal mode of economic production. We have no example of a slave economy in West Africa.

The closest any scholar has ever been able to arrive at a description of a slave society is the Dahomey kingdom of the nineteenth century that had become so debauched by slavery due to European influence that it was virtually a

hostage of the nefarious enterprise. However, even in Dahomey we do not see the complete denial of the humanity of Africans as we see in the American colonies.

Slavery was not romantic; it was evil, ferocious, brutal, and corrupting in all of its aspects. It was developed in its greatest degree of degradation in the United States.

The enslaved African was treated with utter disrespect. No laws

protected the African from any cruelty the white master could conceive.

The man, woman, or child was at the complete mercy of the most brutish of people.

For looking a white man in the eye the enslaved person could have his or her eyes blinded with hot irons. For speaking up in defense of a wife or woman a man could have his right hand severed. For defending his right to speak against oppression, an African could have half his tongue cut out. For running away and being caught an enslaved African could have his or her Achilles tendon cut. For

resisting the advances of her white master a woman could be given fifty lashes of the cowhide whip. A woman who physically fought against her master's sexual advances was courting death, and many died at the hands of their masters. The

enslaved African was more often than not physically scarred, crippled, or injured because of some brutal act of the slave owner. Among the punishments that were favored by the slave owners were whipping holes,wherein the enslaved was buried in the ground up to the neck; dragging blocks that were attached to

the feet of men or women who had run away and been caught; mutilation of the toes and fingers; the pouring of hot wax onto the limbs; and passing a piece of hot wood on the buttocks of the enslaved. Death came to the enslaved in vile, crude ways when the angry, psychopathic slave owner wanted to teach other

enslaved Africans a lesson. The enslaved person could be roasted over a slow-burning fire, left to die after having both legs and both arms broken,oiled and greased and then set afire while hanging from a tree's limb, or being killed slowly as the slave owner cut the enslaved person's phallus or breasts.

A person could be placed on the ground, stomach first, stretched so that each hand was tied to a pole and each foot was tied to a pole. Then the slave master would beat the person's naked body until the flesh was torn off the buttocks and the blood ran down to the ground."

 

Molefi Kete Asante

"The African American Warrant for Reparations: The Crime of European

 

 

 

http://www.browsebiography.com/bio-queen_nzinga.html

One of the great women rulers of Africa, Queen Anna Nzinga (circa 1581-1663) of Angola fought against the slave trade and European influence in the seventeenth century. Known for being an astute diplomat and visionary military leader, she resisted Portuguese invasion and slave raids for 30 years. A skilled negotiator, she allied herself with the Dutch and pitted them against the Portuguese in an effort to wrest free of Portuguese domination. She fought for a free Angola until her death at age 82, after which weak rulers left the country open for the Portuguese to regain control.
Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Lord have mercy! What the heck is up with this anti Black Woman shit on  recurring basis? Why do otherwise brilliant and passionate black men resort to this Tommy Sotomayor level BS?  Every week Sistas gotta take time to rebutt your ass and be out in the streets protesting the man too? It's a bit much.

 

Considering our history, I find it very bizzare that African American men, of all men on Earth, would even dare instigate and participate in vile denigration of African American women. 

 

Much of it is usually coming from young Black men that do not know our history, or who have been heavily influenced by some religious cult-like chauvinistic views of women in general and Black women in particular. It seems also like attempts to divert any culpability and/or responsibility for the condition of African America from themselves.  It also plays right into or goes along hand-in-hand with the American Racist Propaganda Machine tactics that have always been used against the African American woman, but where their inability to stereotype all Black women as "violent, "dangerous", "rapists", and "killers", as they have all Black males, they instead attack the Black woman's "virtue", reputation, and sophistication with stereotypical defamation.  

 

But, as I keep saying, it's called "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Syndrome"; if you say something enough times or long enough, people will begin to believe it. It appears to have worked exactly as planned on the Black male psyche, but on the contrary, fortunately, since most African American women developed a built-in psychological barrier that protects their psyche against racist White opinion and propaganda long ago, it has not had the same effect on no where near as many African American women.  

Last edited by sunnubian
http://africanhistory.about.co...ade.htm#step-heading

The spots in west Africa were originally trade posts for goods like ivory, gold, pepper and silk.  These trading routes were initially established by the Muslims. IF A EURO-AFRICAN CLASS AROSE, IT WAS WELL AFTER EUROPEANS NOTICED TRADE ESTABLISHED BY THE MUSLIMS.


Start of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade

"By-Passing the Muslims
The Portuguese found Muslim merchants entrenched along the African coast as far as the Bight of Benin. The slave coast, as the Bight of Benin was known, was reached by the Portuguese at the start of the 1470's. It was not until they reached the Kongo coast in the 1480's that they outdistanced Muslim trading territory.

The first of the major European trading 'forts', Elmina, was founded on the Gold Coast in 1482. Elmina (originally known as Sao Jorge de Mina) was modeled on the Castello de Sao Jorge, the first of the Portuguese Royal residence in Lisbon. Elmina, which of course, means the mine, became a major trading center for slaves purchased along the slave rivers of Benin."

 @Sista Nspirit.  Thank you!!!         It is always important to keep the REAL history out there.  It should never get muddled.  Must always be clear and not corrupted with stereotype theories.  

 

Average male scientist doesn;t even recognize matriarchal as a culture.  As if it never existed.  And this was done through defacement-removing our signature in humanity and then claim there was no such habitat.  As in this case, blaming us for the destruction of our civilization...without acknowledging the fact that African men did not protect African women from slavery during both invasions.  No one talks about this. And yet there is always blame in our direction for something we had no power to prevent.  Whose job was it to protect the culture?   As why I say the REAL war isn't man vs man ..the REAL war is man vs woman.   But!

European men were marrying African women in order to gain access to our DNA. It was a well elaborated plot. They were able to control us so well because they actually breed with us and have gotten into our blood. Today they are still within in our DNA which gives us the desire to want to be like them, to think like them and doesn't allow us to ''hate'' them or ''love'' ourself. It makes it harder but not impossible to awaken from under the spell of self hate. The African immune system is strong because they vibrate differently. Mixing with other races breaks down this strong immunity. 

We have to stop mixing with caucasians to breed them out of our genes.

Shit, they need to breed with something blacker than black to keep from looking like the Crypt Keeper Robert Durst.  That's the creepiest looking motherfucker I've seen since some one or another on the channel I last clicked through.  White people look like the breathing DEAD.  Yeah, I said it.  The Clint Eastwood of yesterday, is damn sure NOT THE CLINT EASTWOOD OF TODAY.  An elephant's behind is better to view than he.  All that beauty they try to put forth is in their damn minds.  Their big heads on movie screens will cure constipation.  Old hateful, prejudice, crazy, Cave Man assholes. Yeah, I said it, again.

Last edited by Norland

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×