The British sustained the African slave trade "Truth is strange but a truth it is"

Key thing to remember "the Arabs are ready enough to find the men who will conduct the actual risks of the trade, they have not the wealth necessary to advance the capital required."

(Arab=Swahili?)

Audio from:

John Newton

http://books.google.com/books?id=OjI3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA245#v=one

"I verily believe, that the far greater part of the wars, in Africa, would cease, if the Europeans would cease to tempt them, by offering goods for slaves. And though they do not bring legions into the field, their wars are bloody. I believe, the captives reserved for sale are fewer than the slain.

I have not sufficient data to warrant calculation but, I suppose, not less than one hundred thousand slaves are exported, annually, from all parts of Africa, and that more than one-half of these are exported in English bottoms.

If but an equal number are killed in war, and if many of these wars are kindled by the incentive of selling their prisoners ; what an annual accumulation of blood must there be, crying against the nations of Europe concerned in this trade, and particularly against our own!"

Audio also from

Slavery's Legacy in West Africa
Descendants Cope with Complicity in Brutal Trade

http://www.npr.org/programs/re/archivesdate/2004/apr/slavery/


East African slave trade 1872

http://books.google.com/books?id=A23WAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA291&dq=t#v=onepage...

"Every British subject taking any part, direct or indirect, in the trade, is guilty of felony ; and if this is distinctly known, and it is known also that every effort will be made by our Bombay Government to trace home to the offender any such act, and if need be, to punish it with the utmost rigour of the law, we shall have at once done much to destroy the infamous traffic. For Dr. Livingstone is no doubt perfectly right in saying that, whilst the Arabs are ready enough to find the men who will conduct the actual risks of the trade, they have not the wealth necessary to advance the capital required.

' It is well known,' he declares in a despatch to Lord Granville, received on the 18th of August of this year, ' that the slave-trade in this country is carried on almost entirely with the money of Ludha Damji, the richest Banian in Zanzibar, and that of other Banian British subjects. The Banians advance the goods required, and the Arabs proceed inland as their agents, perform the trading or rather murder; and when slaves and ivory are brought to the coast the Arabs sell the slaves; the Banians pocket the price, and adroitly let the odium rest on their agents.'—Despatches, p. 10.

Moreover, as the Customs are farmed at Zanzibar by Banians, many of whom are British subjects, or living under British protection; and as a very large proportion of these Customs is levied openly and avowedly from the duty on slaves here in another way, the subjects of the British Crown are mixed directly up with the forbidden trade in its most open manifestations."

Dahomey and the Dahomans: being the journals of two missions to the king of Dahomey, and residence at his capital, in the year 1849 and 1850, Volume 1


http://books.google.com/books?id=CKNEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA139#v=onepage&q=&a...

"These wars are directly and instrumentally the acts of the slave-merchants of Whydah and its neighbouring parts; but have they no higher parties on whom to lay the blame of their actions ? are these, the agents of larger houses, the instruments in the hands of parties who have other means of disposing of their goods, to bear the whole blame? Truth is strange but a truth it is, that the slave trade is carried on in Dahomey and the neighbouring kingdoms with British merchandize, and, at Porto Novo, the residence of the monarch of slave dealers, by British shipping direct. I do not mean to say that if British goods were not obtainable, the traffic would cease to exist; but the taste for British goods runs high, and if these could not be purchased with slaves, palm-oil would be manufactured to obtain them."

Dahomey and the Dahomans: being the journals of two missions to the king of Dahomey, and residence at his capital, in the year 1849 and 1850, Volume 2

http://books.google.com/books?id=X9wE0c6eo_0C&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q=&am...

"The amazons now advanced in the same order, and having saluted the king he joined them, and again performed a war dance. They also sang in praise of the liberality of the slave-dealer, who gave them muskets and powder to make war upon innocent neighbors; to enrich himself by supplying the market with slaves. These are the evils to uproot: and yet this very man is directly trading with, and receives these muskets and this powder from, British agents in British shipping."

Category:

Education

Tags:

• abolition
• British
• Zanzibar
• Arab
• Mauritania
• Muslim
• slave
• trade
• black
• negro
• abed
• morocco
• Muslims
• racist
• Islam
• arab
• africa
• Slave
• Trade
• invade
• Africa
• killed
• Afrika
• Abed
• ArcticGarlicX2
• AGXEIE
• afrikan
• fashion
• show
• cameroonstar
• african
• history

[moebigsley1976]

You know, seeing all these little tidbits of history is really starting to knit things together. Fall of Roman Empire, Arab invasion of North Africa, Moorish conquest of Spain, China sails around the world(visits Europe), Europe recaptures Spain, the so called "discovery" of the New World, etc, etc. Really explains things better than the crap they teach in school.

[markellion]

So you do know the stuff about "Moors" bringing down the "black race" makes no sense right? Remember that there were invasions in the opposite direction too

And there is no question that Ethiopian influence was supreme during the time of Mohamed, therefor Islam cannot be attributed and/or blamed on Arabs alone. In fact the subsequent Arab conquests cannot be attributed/blamed on Arabs alone since they had no small support from the kings of the Sudan

[TheLiberalKnight]

@order9066 Our constitution is the finest in the world, far better than America's. Just ask the Tunisians, who in their first election ever this year, voted for a party to base their new system of government on Britain, beating the party who wanted an American styled constitution.

[order9066]

@TheLiberalKnight The british constitution is a bunch of disjointed witten agreements wrested from the unelected monarchs who ran the british island over the years.If a member of parliament doesn't swear allegiance to the crown, they can't be seated. Now that's childish.

[TheLiberalKnight]

@order9066 You don't understand our consitution, just because it isn't written. A baby-like mentality that too many Americans share.

[order9066]

@TheLiberalKnight "After the Royal African Company's monopoly was rescinded in 1698, the British became the largest and most efficient carriers of slaves to the New World." Symbiosis: Trade and the British Empire, By Professor Kenneth Morgan... The british prime minister has to kiss the unelected monarchs hand before he/she can be sworn into office. Who has "no" power again?

[TheLiberalKnight]

@order9066 You just so horribly unintelligent in every way. You are right, the first British Empire supported slavery. However, many leading politicians, including George II, George III, William Pitt the younger & Elder, Walpole, were all personally opposed to the slave trade. They did nothing about it because they were worried about the impact on the markets.

'unelected monarchy now running your island', you're such a fucking imbecile, please just die.

[order9066]

@TheLiberalKnight And when the Zong Massacre or "Incident" occurred, backwards british law didn't prosecute a single killer under Captain Collingwood's command. Britain ran the Bance Island slave fort, built slave ships, employed slavers, insured slave ships and enjoyed the revenue slavery brought to the british island. The crown even had "slave regulations".. "An Act to regulate, for a limited Time, the shipping and carrying Slaves in British Vessels from the Coast of Africa"

[order9066]

@TheLiberalKnight Incorrect. The unelected monarchs granted the "royal" charters that legally protected and monopolized the kidnapping of Africans into chattel slavery. The monarchs never took a strong stand against slavery and enjoyed the taxes the slave trade brought to britain's coffers. America has formerly apologized for slavery. More than we can say for the unelected monarch now running your island. If britain never supported slavery why would it have "ban" it at all?

[TheLiberalKnight]

@order9066 Bam! Wrong in the first sentence. George III and George II both personally opposed the slave trade. Secondly, don't complain about taxes, the colonist only had to pay 1/7th of what mainland Britons had to pay. And those taxes were necessary to defend the colonies.

We banned slavery nearly half a century before you did. Don't you dare lecture us on slavery. British Canada used to be a safe haven for American slaves before the civil war.

[order9066]

@TheLiberalKnight The true, angry subject of the crown speaks! The british monarchs never spoke out against slavery and enjoyed the taxes levied on the british slavers and the colonial and british slave economy. How dare a pikie lecture America about slavery. Bunce Island was a british slave castle off the Coast of Sierra Leone "...best known as one of the chief suppliers of slaves to the rice industry in the British colonies of South Carolina and Georgia." Remember the Zong!

[TheLiberalKnight]

@order9066 Wrong, you uneducated pig. The British Monarchs have had no power over law since 1707. Even if they wanted to get rid of slavery, they didn't have the power to do it.

Unlike the Americans, who were one of the last countries to ban slavery, Britain banned it first. And we were the single most powerful anti-slavery force for over 300 years. How dare a yank lecture us on slavery.