Current Events > I never understood why the Europeans enslaved the Africans

(+) Yeah! (+)

There's work to do? Why don't you do it yourself instead of being lazy and getting somebody else to do it for you? It's weird because sailing to Africa and then America was a ton of work already, and it probably would have been easier just to do that slave labor themselves. Seriously, what were they thinking when they came up with the idea of forcing foreigners to work in another foreign land when most European cities weren't built upon that much slavery?
---

Cheap and easy labour? People from their countries tend to complain when treated to the inhumane conditions and it was easier just to trade with some African tribes for captured people than any other way. That way, it didn't matter if they died in cramped conditions across the sea or if they were lost to other slavers from other countries.

It's not like they came up with slavery either.
---

Humans have a great capacity for good, but along with that comes a great capacity for evil.

Its truly terrifying, to think what being in their heads (abject slavers) might be like.
---

slk_23 posted...

It's weird because sailing to Africa and then America was a ton of work alread

Pretty sure slavers didn't make the trip themselves.
---

Also interesting that they had millions upon millions of natives already in america but didnt enslave them
---

solosnake posted...

Also interesting that they had millions upon millions of natives already in america but didnt enslave them

iirc, they tried with Native Americans, but because they were familiar with the area, would often run away

with Africans, they were from a different land, and would place people from different tribes together so that they couldn't communicate with each other.

so they'd be displaced, with nowhere to go, and have no means of communication other than learning their master's language
---

solosnake posted...

Also interesting that they had millions upon millions of natives already in america but didnt enslave them

Easier to bring in your own malnourished slaves who have nowhere to go and can't communicate with the locals than placate the local populace half the way around the world. Cheaper too, as that was a primary reason they were used - to make as much money as possible.
---

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.
---

USB-C posted...

solosnake posted...

Also interesting that they had millions upon millions of natives already in america but didnt enslave them

They tried to. They fought back.

a La Madre.
---

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

No shit. Conquered tribes turned into slaves and sold to anybody. It happened throughout history. Slavery still exists today but nobody cares anymore.

Also they weren't used because of laziness, back then America was wide open to some people, and farming 50 acres of land with just your family was not feasible so they got the cheapest labor you could get. Sucks but so was the way of the world back then.
---

The answer basically boils down to: they did it because it made them money.
---

Because Africa already had a tradition of slavery. The Europeans just bought slaves from Africans that were enslaving other Africans.
---

KillerKhan420 posted...

Slavery still exists today but nobody cares anymore.

Yes, slavery still exists in some regions even today.
---

Probably because Africans agreed to sell their people so it was an easy way to get labor.

Also if you've studied the history of the world the aristocrats have always forced people into labor or extremely cheap labor. People gotta stop acting like slavery began in the 1500s.
---

Same reason we had slaves the moment we understood violence = makes people do what we want.
Humans can be evil at times.
---

slk_23 posted...

Seriously, what were they thinking when they came up with the idea of forcing foreigners to work in another foreign land when most European cities weren't built upon that much slavery?

Most European countries practiced slavery.

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

Hahaha oh jeez, that's some bull shit propaganda and false. No, most weren't sold by local slavers. At best, you might have a tribe that sold another tribe that they had taken as slaves following a war, and the basic idea was if they didn't give the Europeans slaves, they would be enslaved themselves. Of course, as the slave traders from Europe had zero honor, they'd end up reneging on that "deal" so. Maybe don't suckle the test of that pro-southern white nationalist propaganda.
---

Native populations were vulnerable to the diseases European settlers brought with them to the new world; this was not so much the case with Africans.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

Hahaha oh jeez, that's some bull shit propaganda and false. No, most weren't sold by local slavers. At best, you might have a tribe that sold another tribe that they had taken as slaves following a war, and the basic idea was if they didn't give the Europeans slaves, they would be enslaved themselves. Of course, as the slave traders from Europe had zero honor, they'd end up reneging on that "deal" so. Maybe don't suckle the teat of that pro-southern white nationalist propaganda.

So are you under the impression Europeans got most of their slaves by regularly traveling deep into Africa and rounding them up by the millions with nets on horseback?
---

USB-C posted...

solosnake posted...

Also interesting that they had millions upon millions of natives already in america but didnt enslave them

They tried to. They fought back.

So did Africans when they got over here. Black slaves fought Europeans in many ways. Look up the Hatian revolution.

However many Africans who traded fellow Africans to slave traders did so because they were seen as prisoners of war. They didnt have the concept of chattlel slavery in their cultures.

Most of the Natives they enslaved also died because they werent immune to the nasty diseases that white supremacists brought with them. Africans were.

But thats besides the point. European slave traders were probably some of the lowest subhumans to ever live
---

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

Hahaha oh jeez, that's some bull shit propaganda and false. No, most weren't sold by local slavers. At best, you might have a tribe that sold another tribe that they had taken as slaves following a war, and the basic idea was if they didn't give the Europeans slaves, they would be enslaved themselves. Of course, as the slave traders from Europe had zero honor, they'd end up reneging on that "deal" so. Maybe don't suckle the teat of that pro-southern white nationalist propaganda.

So are you under the impression Europeans got most of their slaves by regularly traveling deep into Africa and rounding them up by the millions with nets on horseback?

You're adding in the horseback details, but yeah, they traveled deep in to get the slaves. Do you believe that is any more believable than your suggestion that over the course of 300 years, "local slavers" were able to sell 12+ million slaves from the African interior? Can you name any of these alleged "local slavers" or the nations/ tribes from which they hailed?
---

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

Hahaha oh jeez, that's some bull shit propaganda and false. No, most weren't sold by local slavers. At best, you might have a tribe that sold another tribe that they had taken as slaves following a war, and the basic idea was if they didn't give the Europeans slaves, they would be enslaved themselves. Of course, as the slave traders from Europe had zero honor, they'd end up reneging on that "deal" so. Maybe don't suckle the teat of that pro-southern white nationalist propaganda.

So are you under the impression Europeans got most of their slaves by regularly traveling deep into Africa and rounding them up by the millions with nets on horseback?

You're adding in the horseback details, but yeah, they traveled deep in to get the slaves. Do you believe that is any more believable than your suggestion that over the course of 300 years, "local slavers" were able to sell 12+ million slaves from the African interior? Can you name any of these alleged "local slavers" or the nations/ tribes from which they hailed?

Compare a map of Africa from 1700 to 1900 and this will debunk your post easily. What they never teach you in school is that Africa actually had functioning kingdoms and wasnt just cavemen living in some jungle. It took modern technology and developed nation states for a European power to pull of a Battle of Omdurman let alone the Europeans still got a couple of nose bleeds fighting with modern technology as opposed to crossbows and swords against the Aztecs.
---

Wheres all the money these "local slavers" made selling fellow Africans??
---

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

Hahaha oh jeez, that's some bull shit propaganda and false. No, most weren't sold by local slavers. At best, you might have a tribe that sold another tribe that they had taken as slaves following a war, and the basic idea was if they didn't give the Europeans slaves, they would be enslaved themselves. Of course, as the slave traders from Europe had zero honor, they'd end up reneging on that "deal" so. Maybe don't suckle the teat of that pro-southern white nationalist propaganda.

So are you under the impression Europeans got most of their slaves by regularly traveling deep into Africa and rounding them up by the millions with nets on horseback?

You're adding in the horseback details, but yeah, they traveled deep in to get the slaves. Do you believe that is any more believable than your suggestion that over the course of 300 years, "local slavers" were able to sell 12+ million slaves from the African interior? Can you name any of these alleged "local slavers" or the nations/ tribes from which they hailed?

Yeah, that's much more believable. Europeans were afraid of diseases like malaria and hostile Africans so they rarely did so.
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

Hahaha oh jeez, that's some bull shit propaganda and false. No, most weren't sold by local slavers. At best, you might have a tribe that sold another tribe that they had taken as slaves following a war, and the basic idea was if they didn't give the Europeans slaves, they would be enslaved themselves. Of course, as the slave traders from Europe had zero honor, they'd end up reneging on that "deal" so. Maybe don't suckle the teat of that pro-southern white nationalist propaganda.

So are you under the impression Europeans got most of their slaves by regularly traveling deep into Africa and rounding them up by the millions with nets on horseback?

You're adding in the horseback details, but yeah, they traveled deep in to get the slaves. Do you believe that is any more believable than your suggestion that over the course of 300 years, "local slavers" were able to sell 12+ million slaves from the African interior? Can you name any of these alleged "local slavers" or the nations/ tribes from which they hailed?

Compare a map of Africa from 1700 to 1900 and this will debunk your post easily. What they never teach you in school is that Africa actually had functioning kingdoms and wasnt just cavemen living in some jungle. It took modern technology and developed nation states for a European power to pull of a Battle of Omdurman let alone the Europeans still got a couple of nose bleeds fighting with modern technology as opposed to crossbows and swords against the Aztecs.

Still waiting on proof of local slavers, got any tribe names or leaders?
---

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

Hahaha oh jeez, that's some bull shit propaganda and false. No, most weren't sold by local slavers. At best, you might have a tribe that sold another tribe that they had taken as slaves following a war, and the basic idea was if they didn't give the Europeans slaves, they would be enslaved themselves. Of course, as the slave traders from Europe had zero honor, they'd end up reneging on that "deal" so. Maybe don't suckle the teat of that pro-southern white nationalist propaganda.

So are you under the impression Europeans got most of their slaves by regularly traveling deep into Africa and rounding them up by the millions with nets on horseback?

You're adding in the horseback details, but yeah, they traveled deep in to get the slaves. Do you believe that is any more believable than your suggestion that over the course of 300 years, "local slavers" were able to sell 12+ million slaves from the African interior? Can you name any of these alleged "local slavers" or the nations/ tribes from which they hailed?

Yeah, that's much more believable. Europeans were afraid of diseases like malaria and hostile Africans so they rarely did so.

There was a Scottish explorer that explored the western African interior, compare his experience to the explorers in America and its like night and day.
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

Hahaha oh jeez, that's some bull shit propaganda and false. No, most weren't sold by local slavers. At best, you might have a tribe that sold another tribe that they had taken as slaves following a war, and the basic idea was if they didn't give the Europeans slaves, they would be enslaved themselves. Of course, as the slave traders from Europe had zero honor, they'd end up reneging on that "deal" so. Maybe don't suckle the teat of that pro-southern white nationalist propaganda.

So are you under the impression Europeans got most of their slaves by regularly traveling deep into Africa and rounding them up by the millions with nets on horseback?

You're adding in the horseback details, but yeah, they traveled deep in to get the slaves. Do you believe that is any more believable than your suggestion that over the course of 300 years, "local slavers" were able to sell 12+ million slaves from the African interior? Can you name any of these alleged "local slavers" or the nations/ tribes from which they hailed?

Yeah, that's much more believable. Europeans were afraid of diseases like malaria and hostile Africans so they rarely did so.

There was a Scottish explorer that explored the western African interior, compare his experience to the explorers in America and its like night and day.

Ah yes, that one Scottish explorer, we all 100% know to whom you're referring. No need for names.

Remember that other famous guy who did that thing and that's why we have that one custom in our culture?
---

gunplagirl posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

Hahaha oh jeez, that's some bull shit propaganda and false. No, most weren't sold by local slavers. At best, you might have a tribe that sold another tribe that they had taken as slaves following a war, and the basic idea was if they didn't give the Europeans slaves, they would be enslaved themselves. Of course, as the slave traders from Europe had zero honor, they'd end up reneging on that "deal" so. Maybe don't suckle the teat of that pro-southern white nationalist propaganda.

So are you under the impression Europeans got most of their slaves by regularly traveling deep into Africa and rounding them up by the millions with nets on horseback?

You're adding in the horseback details, but yeah, they traveled deep in to get the slaves. Do you believe that is any more believable than your suggestion that over the course of 300 years, "local slavers" were able to sell 12+ million slaves from the African interior? Can you name any of these alleged "local slavers" or the nations/ tribes from which they hailed?

Compare a map of Africa from 1700 to 1900 and this will debunk your post easily. What they never teach you in school is that Africa actually had functioning kingdoms and wasnt just cavemen living in some jungle. It took modern technology and developed nation states for a European power to pull of a Battle of Omdurman let alone the Europeans still got a couple of nose bleeds fighting with modern technology as opposed to crossbows and swords against the Aztecs.

Still waiting on proof of local slavers, got any tribe names or leaders?

Mali, Fulani, Ashanti, Oyo, whatever moorish sultanate at the time, Kongo, theres plenty, look at a ******* map on google or something
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Awesker002 posted...

Most of the slaves they got from Africa were purchased from local slavers.

Hahaha oh jeez, that's some bull shit propaganda and false. No, most weren't sold by local slavers. At best, you might have a tribe that sold another tribe that they had taken as slaves following a war, and the basic idea was if they didn't give the Europeans slaves, they would be enslaved themselves. Of course, as the slave traders from Europe had zero honor, they'd end up reneging on that "deal" so. Maybe don't suckle the teat of that pro-southern white nationalist propaganda.

So are you under the impression Europeans got most of their slaves by regularly traveling deep into Africa and rounding them up by the millions with nets on horseback?

You're adding in the horseback details, but yeah, they traveled deep in to get the slaves. Do you believe that is any more believable than your suggestion that over the course of 300 years, "local slavers" were able to sell 12+ million slaves from the African interior? Can you name any of these alleged "local slavers" or the nations/ tribes from which they hailed?

Compare a map of Africa from 1700 to 1900 and this will debunk your post easily. What they never teach you in school is that Africa actually had functioning kingdoms and wasnt just cavemen living in some jungle. It took modern technology and developed nation states for a European power to pull of a Battle of Omdurman let alone the Europeans still got a couple of nose bleeds fighting with modern technology as opposed to crossbows and swords against the Aztecs.

Still waiting on proof of local slavers, got any tribe names or leaders?

Mali, Fulani, Ashanti, Oyo, whatever moorish sultanate at the time, Kongo, theres plenty, look at a ******* map on google or something

Proof of burden falls on the guy making claims. If Europeans didn't travel in that far how could they have maps from that time? Nothing in your story seems to add up.
---

Money.
First you ship cheap products to Africa, overcharge the price, fill the ship with cheap slaves, ship them to America, sell them cheap, buy stuff that is exotic in Europe, overcharge the price in Europe.

...why people bought slaves?
Cheap working force that you can force to work harder than any free man.
Lets use cotton as an example. Has always been a huge demand for it, has always been hard work to collect. If you worked alone, you would barely get enough to make it worth selling. If you hired people, you would barely earn any money on it. With slaves, you can produce tons of it, sell it cheaper to raise the demand and still earn lots of money.
---

Even African leaders today say they should be ashamed for actions of past leaders.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade
---

No one is burdened to teach you basic history but believe what you want. Sure Europeans explored Africa but that wasn't the point.
---

Europeans used to enslave other Europeans at one point, until they all became Christian

rodu_jr posted...

Europeans used to enslave other Europeans at one point, until they all became Christian

They still did afterward
---

USB-C posted...

solosnake posted...

Also interesting that they had millions upon millions of natives already in america but didnt enslave them

They tried to. They fought back.

History major here.

In 1512, Dominican priests managed to get passed, the Laws of Burgos, protected the rights of the natives in the New World and secure their freedom.

Also, The papal bull Sublimus Dei, to which Spain was committed, also officially banned enslavement of indigenous peoples.

Kolibri X posted...

No one is burdened to teach you basic history but believe what you want. Sure Europeans explored Africa but that wasn't the point.

>Makes claim
>Can't back it up
>Tries to put the onus on the other party

I mean if you want to be intellectually dishonest, go ahead. Far be it from me to stop somebody from making a fool of themselves.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

No one is burdened to teach you basic history but believe what you want. Sure Europeans explored Africa but that wasn't the point.

>Makes claim
>Can't back it up
>Tries to put the onus on the other party

I mean if you want to be intellectually dishonest, go ahead. Far be it from me to stop somebody from making a fool of themselves.

I was questioning YOUR claim, which you never backed up. And I not gonna start copy and pasting from wikipedia to prove you wrong. I just don't care that much.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

No one is burdened to teach you basic history but believe what you want. Sure Europeans explored Africa but that wasn't the point.

>Makes claim
>Can't back it up
>Tries to put the onus on the other party

I mean if you want to be intellectually dishonest, go ahead. Far be it from me to stop somebody from making a fool of themselves.

Plenty of information in this topic alone to give you a simple grasp on African slavery. You are at this point just making a lame troll attempt.
---

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

No one is burdened to teach you basic history but believe what you want. Sure Europeans explored Africa but that wasn't the point.

>Makes claim
>Can't back it up
>Tries to put the onus on the other party

I mean if you want to be intellectually dishonest, go ahead. Far be it from me to stop somebody from making a fool of themselves.

I was questioning YOUR claim, which you never backed up. And I not gonna start copy and pasting from wikipedia to prove you wrong. I just don't care that much.

Questioning a claim is not, in itself, presenting one. Do you understand how and why that is?
---

Modifier posted...

KillerKhan420 posted...

Slavery still exists today but nobody cares anymore.

Yes, slavery still exists in some regions even today.

Like the state of Georgia
---

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Kolibri X posted...

No one is burdened to teach you basic history but believe what you want. Sure Europeans explored Africa but that wasn't the point.

>Makes claim
>Can't back it up
>Tries to put the onus on the other party

I mean if you want to be intellectually dishonest, go ahead. Far be it from me to stop somebody from making a fool of themselves.

I was questioning YOUR claim, which you never backed up. And I not gonna start copy and pasting from wikipedia to prove you wrong. I just don't care that much.

Questioning a claim is not, in itself, presenting one. Do you understand how and why that is?

On the one hand, you're right that questioning a claim is not making one. On the other hand, this is not a hard topic to research: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

gunplagirl posted...

You're adding in the horseback details, but yeah, they traveled deep in to get the slaves. Do you believe that is any more believable than your suggestion that over the course of 300 years, "local slavers" were able to sell 12+ million slaves from the African interior?

It's far more plausible that powerful African kingdoms with military muscle, regional authority and contacts were better positioned to capture or transfer more than 12 million slaves from the interior than handfuls of Europeans, yes.
---

Originally it was taboo to enslave Christians. So Europeans enslaved African because they weren't Christian. Then they converted slaves to Christianity but still wanted to keep them as slaves. That's when racism was invented.
---

So-called Black people were also enslaved by the Africans before the white people came into the picture, mainly the Egyptians....

Slavery was and continues to be a constant part of human existence.

If the West had stopped its role in it earlier, I wonder if the industrial revolution would have occurred sooner.
---

Humanity have always used slaves.
Heck, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade wasnt even the largest one before 1700, the one that had been going on since 1200 at the Black Sea ports of the Crimea was, shipping slaves everywhere from Europe to India.
---

Firewerx posted...

gunplagirl posted...

You're adding in the horseback details, but yeah, they traveled deep in to get the slaves. Do you believe that is any more believable than your suggestion that over the course of 300 years, "local slavers" were able to sell 12+ million slaves from the African interior?

It's far more plausible that powerful African kingdoms with military muscle, regional authority and contacts were better positioned to capture or transfer more than 12 million slaves from the interior than handfuls of Europeans, yes.

Yeah so powerful that they withstood European colonization till the end of the 18th century as compared to the 1400s like the Americas, but shhhh
---

SevenX posted...

So-called Black people were also enslaved by the Africans before the white people came into the picture, mainly the Egyptians....

Not the same kind of slavery. Still shitty, but please dont try to draw some kinda fake comparison.
---

StealthRock posted...

SevenX posted...

So-called Black people were also enslaved by the Africans before the white people came into the picture, mainly the Egyptians....

Not the same kind of slavery. Still shitty, but please dont try to draw some kinda fake comparison.

It's still Slavery. Black people were enslaved by the Africans before the Europeans came into the picture so don't assumed it's fake that I made up cuz' it shows you're ignorant.