The act of "selling your own" isn't exclusive to Africans either. The vikings sold celts to arabs, and the Talmund sold their own to the Malians. It might be useful to do a video on the matter to put things into perspective.
Also, early Danes, Celts, Gauls were swarthy, or tawny.. Also, Also, Morano(Moors), Huguenots, and Ladinos are in america enslaving natives before the 1700s, but he did talk about the Moors of Iberia..
The term “your own” indicates that you are a part of the same group. Which said groups were not. So it would never be a case of “selling your own”. The only people that would consider different African ethnic groups to be the same are racists.
@@nightingaleforrest You are right. However Home team admits that the Yoruba and the Igboo engaged in it. The Igboo can easily be explained as they may have been rival city states. For example, the Spartans and Athenians would still fight each other despite sharing a culture and language. I can't really explain the Yoruba, perhaps the members they sold were prisoners?
But only one groups transgressions are racialized. To try to hand the blame of European race-based slavery off to the people who are the victims of it. 🤡 🌎
Yeah, well, the large scale Atlantic Slave Trade was conducted well into the 19th century so I think everybody had a fuller perspective on the practice by then but nevertheless it continued. Anyway, today there may be differences between people of African descent, but you are hated primarily because you are black. It is a power thing, duh!
The people who hate the idea of pan-Africanism, who are largely outside the diaspora, don't want people to figure out that pan Africanism didn't start with black people. They were/are still lumping us all together long before the idea of global racial unity occurred to us.
There is new evidence that a Portuguese writer by the name of Gomes Zurara under the direction of the Portuguese king wrote a book generalizing all of Africa as 'beastly and inferior'. This was said to be done because the king wanted to justify enslavement of African people. This happened in the 1450s. Scholars also think this was the argument used by Europeans to justify Chattel slavery during the Atlantic Slave Trade in the US.
@@stevenperry5592By far not as barbaric as the Europeans, but it's always Christians and Europeans who try to come up with new lies about the Arab trade.
Blame the Jewish Babalonian Talmud for the idea of slavery and not Europe. It was the Jewish Rabbis who infected Europe with these trash ideas. Europe was never into that until Middle Eastern influence and customs were brought into the land. Many were just farmers and hunters. And when a debt was owed a debt was paid. But Europeans did not believe in usury or putting interest on a debt. And they also didn't believe in putting humans in chains unless they had broken a law. This slave idea all came from Judea. And it's probably what infected Africa as well. But that's up to Africans to settle or figure out. But this is definitely what happened in Europe. And it probably is the same when the Arabs moved into Europe and forced the Islamic conversion. These religions were all created as a way to enslave people either by force or by way of guilt. And sadly, it worked. Even the Norsemen weren't into doing this kind of thing until they saw what others were doing to them. Sultans would often send raiders into European lands to steal sons and daughters of European farmers to be sold into the Military or harems. This happened long before the European slave trade. And even before Rome and Greece the Judean merchant class paid raiders to go into those lands as well and steal people..... The Talmud is one of the most evil collections of books written in human history. It's like an encyclopedia for teaching children how to become master manipulators and sociopaths.
Especially in todays world, people naturally allow Europeans to have separate identities and ethic groups. But whenever discussing Africa, all the tribes/nations get lumped together. It’s very annoying.
No only do people in Africa (who are melanated) are all lumped together, but decedents outside of Africa are lumped in there too. Look at what black people are called in America, they are called African Americans, not just Americans, and the irony is even though the term "African American" is for black people who are decedents of slaves in America as an ethic group, black people who migrate to America from the Caribbean and Africa itself who bring their own cultures & ethnicities are lumped into the "African American" category also. So it is like we are all the same to non-black people.
Noooo, its Black Americans who are lumped together because they dont know what tr8bes they came from. Hell most of them dont even know who their daddy is today.
@@amazing50000 I agree. On the internet when white people go to African tribes and make videos, the title is typically “this African tribe” or “they do this in Africa”. Not specifying that it’s a specific tribe.
You have white liberals to thank for that. For once the conservatives are right. African Americans aren't African. They're black descendants of African slaves.
Literally was debating this with my wife who is Senegalese. I'm Jamaican, and my view is the lack of a Pan-African view is what allowed the Europeans/Arabs to carry out their slave trade with so much efficiency; and is what still holds the continent back today in the 21st century. We cant blame our ancestors for not having it back then as it just simply was not a thing due to the amount of cultural/geographical diversity. In light of past events and the black consciousness we have today however, it's pretty much inexcusable to see another black person as "other". We must unite.
Yea no. Not all people with melanin in their skin will all get along because we are different. You don't see lions with tigers. You don't seed hyenas with bears. We didnt get along before a Arab man and European man. We won't get along today. Why? Because we're not all the same. Hamites never got alone with shemites. And this is the duality of not knowing who you are by God's word. To that end the saying I always love " Not all skinfolk are kinfolk."
@@jeremiahmillan4487 No worries. We'll remember to leave you out 😂. In all seriousness the fact that we know what we do now, it would ridiculous not to make an effort to work together. We live in an age where we can converse, share experiences, and even discover similarities about one another so easily, and THAT is one of the things that can help bridge the gap between us. With all due respect, I'm just not as pessimistic.. and I think this is something worth working toward no matter how long it takes.
Why should we expect African history to be different from European history? US white folks had many languages, religions, and cultures. We sold our war captives into slavery. Why do expect Africans to be different. People are people. Evils are evil and good is good. I don't understand how people could own slaves, but my ancestors did own slaves. That is history and I can't change that. I can only change how I think and react. Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious. After 45 years of teaching, I've learned that even the obvious needs to pointed out.
And I’m sure your ancestors were slaves. Not sure I understand your point? This is why Western Enlightenment should be celebrated. It essentially put a stop to the institution of slavery. An institution that has basically existed since the dawn of man.
Africans never invaded a foreign country the size of America, killed over 10 million native people ( Native Americans) destroyed all their villages and settlements, then invaded another continent enslaved those people and transferred them to be slaves in America and maintained this way of life for over 200 years , Africans are not the same as Europeans , our history proves this ,plus African people didn't start 2 world wars like Europeans, just because white people's history is dominated by acts of evil don't try and normalise this by saying all people are the same ,because that's not true, the history or Europeans is centered around wars, conquest, percussion and tye enslavement of others, Africans don't have that same history
Excellent summary and strongly agree on "selective courtesy" definition. When I do engage in discussions of the TST, i specifically point out the various ethnic cultures as much as possible. Being Afro descended is within itself is a unique pan african culture that others have to realized wasn't the case in the past ( even present). Due to a lack of interest , disgust with the atrocities, or avoiding trauma inducing imagery is another hinder in having a introspective discourse on these subjects with people. I continue to study more of the slave trade on both sides of the water and find incredible perspectives & understanding on the African landscape. I think the coverage of TST (Transatlantic Slave Trade) history could be a separate channel for HomeTeam History. Thank you for the time and wisdom you share.
I've been saying this!! It's weird how (especially in USA) people often categorize humans just according to their skin shade. Grouping e.g. all darker skinned people into just "black people" is really stupid and ignorant towards all the diverse cultures in/originating from Africa, or anywhere else in the world.
Confused by this post, the african slaves who arrived were forced to forget those cultures from africa anyway. People in other places in ie. africa today are free to identify however they want i doubt they abide by whats going in America. Those african slaves in america combined together and made their own ethinicty/history "Black American" anyway.
It's more prevalent globally than people want to admit. It's Not a US thing and people, other countries, need to stop pretending that it is in order to make themselves look good. The issue is most other cultures are ethnically homogeneous. So the issue of race and their racism doesn't come up/have the opportunity for them to show their true colors (no pun intended) often. Ask a half black person in Japan what it's like. It Will get real color-specific. Hell, people hate the dark skinned people among Their Own race. This "America is uniquely preoccupied with race" bit is patently untrue. Just because a Russian may describe themselves as "Russian" instead of White doesn't mean they don't intellectualize things in terms of color or have a racist history/present-day pathology.
@@RepubliconCelebrityPresidents East Asian Society as a whole prefers people with fair or pale skin and people with typical European Features IE hair that is either blonde, brown, red, orange, auburn, or chocolate and or eyes that are blue, green, or hazel yeah.
Just had a conversation with a client about "Blacks selling Blacks". I asked "Why isn't the Roman slave trade called Whites selling Whites" (I know it wasn't just European slaves)? I explained why people from different tribes were not the same people, same as the English and French not being the same.
Yall can only blame black people for the slave trade they were selling blacks to arabs and europeans. Romans never sold romans to other nations like africans that's the difference
This makes sense because the racial concepts of black and white came about because of the transatlantic slave trade. But this doesn’t excuse Africans role on the slave trade. The issue is how the political left likes to emphasize the Europeans’ role in it and the political right likes to emphasize Africans’ role. And no one talks about the role of Arabs in the slave trade.
Lol... Arabs had theirs. Not the trans Atlantic but trans Saharan slave trade. So theirs is another kettle of fish. A topical issue independent of the European perpetuated trans Atlantic trade...
Very well said! History requires a balanced, non-biased view free of our present impressions. Were Europeans at fault for exploiting Africans for Labor? Yes. Were the Africans themselves responsible (in part) for those members they sold? Yes. However, that's where the blame game ends. To the Africans, race was never an issue the way the rest of the world cast it. Their warring, capturing, buying and selling of slaves was no better or worse than any other civilization before them.
@@chriskewe4238 well I wouldn’t say Arab slave trade wasn’t perpetuated by Europeans at all, because that’s about when we start seeing African descendent slaves depicted in European art. But the Arab slave trade certainly predates TA trade and wasn’t chattel slavery either.
@@reportedstolen3603 who told you it wasn't "chattel slavery"? Hmmm Arab revisionists and apologists. Please do your research. It still goes on today in Mauritania, Yemen, just to name a few. That's how endemic it was that vestiges still exists today. Maybe you don't know that the very founder of Islam owned and traded in black slaves. Please don't get me ruffling feathers today...
Yep and like I tell everybody else the Europeans and the Americans were complacent in it. And of course there was no sense of African nationalism. Much like the Europeans were able to take advantage of the tribalism of Native Americans and the Romans were able to take advantage of the tribalism among Celtic tribes.
Even in this period we saw events such as the Napoleonic wars. There was never a sense of "Pan-European" identity in history, it's just a lie spread by white supremist groups
@@risenshine888 people love to say that to excuse the Africans role , well put like this, if someone sold you into " chatel slavery " would you give them a pass?. Also im not sure chattel slavery wasn't practice in Africa. Even in recent times little girls were made concubines and sex slaves because crimes their grandfather did.
I had a white coworker who had her PhD in History tell me, "well Africans had slavery." I then had to educate her the difference between Afrcian "slavery" and chattel slavery.
There you go doing the very same thing this video says not to do - you are denying Africa had chattel slavery when in fact different groups of people in Africa had all types of slavery, this video just mentioned they used slaves in gold, silver and salt mines, on plantations, for human sacrifice and sold millions off - all of which is chattel slavery whether captures in war or bought from a traders if you sell someone you have proven you considered them your property. Not all slavery in Africa was chattel slavery but it did exist and it is a fallacy to deny so.
@@realpainediaz7473 So being worked to death in mines and on plantations, being used as a sex slave, being beaten, abused and being sacrificed (ie killed) in religious ceremonies all of which happened in some (note not all but some and not to everyone) African states/kingdoms/tribes to you was "light" and that is before counting in selling captured slaves to non-African peoples to be taken thousands of miles away to have the same done to them there, minus the human sacrifice. Sorry but under any stretch of the imagination all that is chattel slavery whether you want to deny it is irrelevant. Admitting that the same terrible thing happened many places around the world throughout history doesn't absolve anyone of guilt as it is calling out everyone who did it - denying it happened in a whole continent is trying to absolve someone of guilt. Tut tut.
Great video. Problem with black folks in the US and Africa is how susceptible we are to being divided - gangs, tribes, blocks, skin tone...etc. Now to your topic -- Whites say: "Africans were selling THEIR OWN PEOPLE." This is always a stupid argument because it's not true. An Igbo man sees a Yoruba man as a different group to this day! It's like saying Russians are killing their own people in Ukraine. No, they're different....or see themselves as such. Black Americans: You Africans sold my ancestors. The truth is those ancestors were the Africans' ancestors too. On 23andMe, you can find descent from Yorubas, Igbos, Hausas, Fulanis, Ashantis, Mandinka, and all other groups were enslaved. So ALL African groups were up for slavery and we ALL (black Americans and Africans) lost.
Susceptible?! Africans have always been divided before the Americas were ever settled by Europeans. Today, black people are beginning to have the conversation about the differences of blacks across the diaspora. It is not to be demeaning or cause ethnic battles but people feelings always come to the surface and the conversation ends and accusations begin.
@@jaypaladin-havesmartswilll5508 Every group has deep seated divisions. Even Jews have sub-groups and divisions. However, black folks are one of the rare groups of humanity that will allow their divisions to destroy all of them. Jews will say, Ashkenazis and Sephardim aren't the same -- don't even worship together usually, but we should unite against Arabs and other anti-semitic gentiles. Black folks will be in street gangs fighting over blocks and avenues. Black folks will sell other tribes into slavery. Black folks will hate each other based on skin tone. It's a fatal flaw we've always had, that all groups have...but when our enemy came into our land, we never truly united. We continued and still continue pulling each other down. From the criminal street gangs to tribes. It's all the same dysfunction.
@@jaypaladin-havesmartswilll5508 Africans were divided, they were and are distinct ethnic groups with different languages, cultures and histories. That's not divided. You wouldn't say that Malay and German people are divided, because why are you lumping these two distinct groups together? Same principle with Africans.
@@wordsbymaribeja1470That's actually kind of the definition of "divided". It was easy to turn ethnics/cultural groups against one another because they were already against one another, and not unified to start with. I don't mean to say all, because I'm sure different countries/nations successfully communicated with each other. But yes, they were divided prior to anything anyone did. Due to them being different cultures and ethnic groups who struggled to communicate.
I think when he says that people view Africans as a pan African people is something that is widely adopted internationally, outside of Africa I am from South Africa, and not only have I learned alot from my own countries diverse ethnic cultures but others as well is that we do not view ourselves in this black is black perspective We actively are vocal and aware of the different cultures that reside within my country... So even with this dialog of pan African people is expressed, I have rarely heard it coming from people in my country because we are so self aware and outward with our different cultures... When you first meet someone we often ask "Are you Sotho?" Or Zulu or Xhosa or Spedi etc. And we can often identify each ethnic group because we are so familiar with the unique teachings, behaviours and beliefs that they each carry as their own If you've grown up here, you'll mostly be able to identify who is who simply by how they carry themselves because of their unique cultural heritage So if you ever find yourself visiting South Africa and interact with the people enough here, you will notify the differences from each culture we have, if we don't tell you first because we are damn proud 😂
@@Jean_Jacques148 I get you... It's almost a double edged sword, diversity and variety is always a beautiful thing in many ways... However depending on the landscape and human nature, it can put invisible borders between people, subtle or otherwise
If you think about it, there is a thing call Pan Europeanism, without saying it, but it's under the term as white. No matter what part of Europe you come from, in America they would be classified as white, and given white privileges, and set white foreigners above black American citizes . Even north African people, no matter skin complexion, can be claimed as white. White-ism is the reason why the African continent was carved up like a Christmas turkey, and robbed of its resources, European people, and Arabs, got under the banner of white-ism, and robbed Africa of its birthright of wealth, and prosperity. Africans were to engulfed in tribalism to see the the outside threat, even siding with outsider against their tribal enemies, and the rest is history, now look at African people, most of them are the poorest people in the world, yet African people have 80% of the world resources. When an elected African official get in office, he still have that tribalism mindset, which is why he doesn't have a problem selling out other African people in a heartbeat. African people will continue to have these problems, until they rid themselves from the Colonized mindset, and ethnic tribalism.
This is because 'black' means black american, which is a small and highly unrepresentative and unAfrican reference point. The perspective you have shared applies all over Africa, yet you get black americans who frame it as 'they divided', no we're 'different'.
You have the colonized mindset....very arrogant and ignorant beliefs who are you to tell a south african about his culture and what they value@arronhaggerty8426
As a older white woman, I realized how little I know about African history. This video has been really interesting and I learned a lot. I’ve subscribed so that I can learn more. Educating ourselves about history and people is important.
Most people know very little about African history. That's why so many people pretend that Africans just threw themselves at white people then gave them instructions on what to do with slavery and race in the Americas. They don't want to acknowledge the truth, that white slavers went to enemy tribes on the coast and used guns to play off of rivalries in order to get participation in abductions just like they did with other races: " *The increased rise of the gun-slave trade forced the other tribes to participate or their refusal to engage in enslaving meant they would become targets of slavers* " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20slave%20trade%20of%20Native,American%20slave%20trade%20by%201750
Did you know the word slave literally comes from the word Slav because the Slavic peoples of Europe were taken into slavery so often that their name was literally synonymous for that
I feel you on this concept. I think it's hard not to have this discussion when you don't also bring up that, anyone that uses "Blacks sold Blacks" is first attempting to obfuscate the barbarity of Western Slave Culture. If and when I have these conversations "Breeding, Buck breaking, Lynching, etc.", these are my hard pivots.
Usually people only bring up that point because typically when any form of slavery is discussed they only speak about the West African slave trade. As if it exists as an anomaly in history. It’s disingenuous to stereotype a group of people based on their skin color alone.
@@skrrskrr99 Yes because that Slave incident was the most transformative on the planet. The implications have rippled for hundreds of years and we are still in the throws of finding resolution.
@Bahiyyudin not really. The Arabic slave trade was more prolific and lasted longer. Muhammad himself spoke racism in his religion, his hadiths, his sunnah. Even today the Arabic word for a black person means slave. The turks also practiced a unique form of slavery where they would kidnap children from the Balkans and have them castrated.
I am reminded by the account of a Slave from the book known as the baracoons. This man was captured by the supposed most notorious enslavers of west Africa. Yet dahomey still needed an excuse to start of war with his people and create the conditions for capturing and selling them to slavers. He recounts how emissaries from Dahomey came demanding for tributes and on the claim that they were disrespectfully declined, launched a brutal attack on the community. The man further recounts how as a captive, they went past other kingdoms and communities that used colored flags to communicate status with the Dahomey tribute collectors. White represented a continued willingness to oblige with paying tribute. Red signified unwillingness to do so and an invitation of war. Black signified that the kingdom was without a leader or the leader was still a child. For me, this creates a more realistic picture for the nature of politics and conflicts that results to the capture and possible eventual enslavement by European merchants. The point of this is to show that even the Dahomey, a kingdom known for sustaining it's economy almost exclusively with the slave trade still needed a well established political excuse to raid enemy communities to get captives for European enslavers. I've heard Europeans describe well established slavery networks in Africa that the Europeans just happen to chance upon including in the kingdom of Benin. This can only be possible in Muslim kingdoms (and not all) where non Muslims were given a perpetual "less than us" status and could be raided without any real reason for conflict (still an assumption though). Even early european agents realized they wouldn't be getting more slaves from Africans without more conflicts to produce them and letters from European kings to their agents told them to do what ever it takes to create the necessary conditions for the slave markets. That doesn't sound like chancing upon a well established slave network to me.
You wanna learn how africa was invaded in simple sketches? Watch angry birds movie. The one with the green pigs stealing eggs from the island while blinding the population with gifts and gadgets.
But the thing is slavery was prevalent in Africa long long long before Europeans got to africa in the 1400's. The Arab slave trade out of east africa went on for thousands of years before the Europeans bought their first slaves from Africa. So yes, Europe "chanced" upon an already well established slave network. but that does not mean they didn't manipulate the slavers to enslave more people for them. before Europe entered the picture, african tribes enslaved other african tribes, but only what they could handle. When the Europeans came, the African Kings were given incentives, (gold, silver, guns, etc...) so they can capture more slaves for trade. Benin became overzealous and collected too many slaves sometimes and then human sacrificed them if they didn't feel like feeding them or if they were running out of food, instead of just letting people go. The Europeans are by no means innocent, but neither are the Africans or Arabs. So it's not a US vs Them thing. It's a part in history where everyone fked up. But history is there to learn from so we don't do the same horrible things again. If we want to move forward as a human race, we'll have to unite regardless of skin tone. None of us are our Ancestors.
@@fabulousilver you're conveniently combining two things that are unrelated in other to have the picture you want. The Arab slave trade wasn't an African slave trade. The Arabs enslaved everyone including Europeans. To combine both as if the European enslavers interacted with the trans Saharan network from the ocean is disingenuous. Europeans initially depended on small scale conflicts to produce captives for their slave trade before deciding to trade exclusively on slavery and causing the instability necessary to create that number of captives. This unlike yours isn't some mental gymnastic theory. This is recorded fact. Wars that wouldn't have been possible would be created by Europeans aligning their military with another African kingdom to fight against another. The African kingdom would get power expansion while the Europeans got captives for slavery. African kingdoms also had no prison systems. So crimes that would today require you to be locked up was met then by banishment either temporally or permanently. Such a banished individual played a crucial role in revealing secrets to the Dahomey about his own kingdom's defences in the story I narrated above. Such individuals (including criminal elements within the kingdoms) were often incentivised to kidnapping and turning in victims to Europeans for rewards. Already you can see a pattern of dysfunction starting to appear with European enslavers at the source of it. If you wanted to overthrow your king, European slave merchants were there to provide you the weapons needed to do it so long as the conflict produced slaves for them. Who ever wanted to change the political narrative could always count on the Europeans so long as slaves would be produced. There were no slave network markets in Africa except those established by Europeans themselves on the coast of Africa. Those buildings still remain till today. No kingdom in Africa sold slaves to Europeans. They sold captives. infact most Africans believed Europeans were cannibals that ate the people they bought.
@@fabulousilver trying to equate what the Europeans did to what was going on in Africa is very very disingenuous. You hide too much under the term, "slave" in order to create an equivalence between two things that are nothing alike. So let me point out the differences for you. Africans did not have slave police that chased down slaves who tried to escape and bring them back to their masters. Africans did not strip the humanity from people in other to own them and their children for life till perpetuity. Europeans did that. Africans did not breed their fellow human beings like cattle and dogs for profit. Europeans did. Africans sold Europeans captives. Europeans made them slaves of the worst kind. This is well spoken of in the baracoons of how when the Dahomey sold them to the Europeans, they were stripped of their clothes and shelved naked below deck. Only brought up to sky light to stretch their legs so they don't get cramped. On getting to america they would lie to people there that the slaves were caught naked like that. You like to you words to make one crime look as grievous as the other. I defend on evil. Africans were not innocent in throwing their enemies to the dogs. But Europeans were the dogs not Africans. Get that straight. Even today, your own laws take great pains to differentiate between kidnapping, human trafficking, and slavery. Despite the fact that the first two create the conditions for the third crime to occur, your law does not call them all enslavers😃. But in reviewing history, you would loose all sense of reason in oder to paint others as black as yourselves. Please, stop. And let's clear on one thing, the Dahomey's rise to power on the economy of slave trading was purely a European creation. Europeans did not meet Dahomey selling people. Europeans enslaved Dahomey through Dahomey enemies who forced them to pay tributes by surrendering their people. In desperation, Dahomey militarized nearly it's entire population and inflicted on both it's enemies and those around it, what it had suffered. Let me tell you, if Europeans did not come selling Dahomey the weapons to get slaves for them, non of the human sacrifices you described would have happened. Do you know that at a time, a Dahomey king tried stopping the slave trade? His European partners refused so he destroyed their slave ports on his territory and freed their slaves. Guess what the Europeans did? They sponsored and armed enemies of Dahomey to attack his kingdom simultaneously. After surviving and maintaining his sovereignty against all odds, he finally agreed to resume slave trading with the Europeans. When certain African leaders found out the hell african slaves went through overseas, they fought to end it but the europeans fought to preserve it. Only when capitalism was ripe enough did they update slavery to colonialism. Again let me emphasize that i dont we Africans as innocent historically. They threw their enemies to the dogs. But make no mistakes, Europeans were the dogs. Not Africans
One of the reasons I found the channel was because of the broad all inclusive history of Africa not providing the actual histories of the cultures. I was tired of the whitewashed history, that is commonly used, creating dehumanizing & insulting assumptions as fact. I wish I knew and understood the dynamics of the multitude of cultures of Africa as well as I do the Greek, Celtic, Roman, etc, but they do not teach that as basic education. They should!💯 All human history is important and vital imo.
I appreciate this. Slavery is often oversimplified by both conservative and progressive pundits. It is a complex topic and understanding the context is important and intellectually honest.
Do make this topic a series, so factual evidence will be available for whenever there's a discussion. Thanks for all your time and effort you put into providing all these information; keep up the marvelous work King👊🏾
I so agreed with this explanation. I have tried to explain this so many times. When we say Blacks sold other Blacks, it's like saying White people invaded other White people's country when discussing Russia's actions against Ukraine. We understand that Europe is a continent made of many countries. And yet people often look at the continent of Africa and think of it as a country.
There also was a fundamental difference between slavery in West Africa and slavery in the Americas: In West Afrika people usually were not enslaved for life nor was being enslaved hereditary.
People say this to feel better.. if we were in those times, would you want to be a slave to whoever? Also I think that is a myth , I've seen documentaries on more recent time where African girls are born into slavery or concubines status because something their grandfather did.
In Africa slavery was just to help in house duties and some time taking daughters as tribute.but for the most part, when your kingdom lost, it just became a vassal state.maening u could continue with your lives long as yall paid tribute at month end
When blacks had slaves it wasn't for ever it was for 7 years maximum it was not slavery it was indentured servitude after the captured members with be enslaved for 7 years in order to get their life back together in order to have some assemblance to a normal life so they wouldn't turn into wild animals with no upbringing😮😢😊
Only a few cultures did. The rest had total slavery. We don't have to talk ourselves out of that, after all we are all human and therefore all capable of the same cruelty!
@@samkelombambo916 Are you saying that "Africans" (which is an incredibly loose term) are some sort of different species than humans? Because all humans are capable of it and share the same cruelty. "Africans" included. They raped, plundered, burned, enslaved, waged wars and murdered like everyone else. They built, taught, cultivated, explored, traded and loved - just like everyone else. Some did more and some less, but in the end they too exercised those human qualities.
@@soda8736 Guess who perpetuated the idea of the "African Cacasians" which in turn initiated the Rwandan genocide, in fact just learn about the Rwandan genocide right here on hometeam and he explains it perfectly Also keep in mind that prior to 19th century European colonisation the Hutsu,Tutsi and Twa had good relations and guess what?!... they were one people because of the intermarriages that had taken place centuries earlier.
This is a very good explanation that makes more sense than other explanations I’ve heard. In America we lump everyone all together because of discrimination and it simply isn’t fair to do that
"Blacks selling blacks" is also an interesting argument because in many cases it amounts to people telling the descendants of slaves that their ancestors kidnapped themselves, transported themselves to the western hemisphere, beat, raped, terrorized and dehumanized themselves. We can acknowledge the role that african groups had in kidnapping other groups and trading/selling them. That shouldn't mean that we ignore the fact that everything after that was done by actual slave owners. For example human trafficking still happens today. If the police were to find that some couple had purchased a child and held them for years against their will, would we really say that the only people responsible were the kidnappers? Would we let the couple off because they "only" purchased the child. Without enslavers purchasing and trading, there can be no slave trade.
@@anthonyjames2021that is pretty factual however I doubt that the raiders knew the horrors that I waited there captives into what degree, I'm just saying it was definitely a time of political unrest in the region
I think you said a lot, but missed the whole point. Why was there a demand for slaves on the coasts and where did it come from, plus what were the Portuguese doing in Africa in the first place? And all of this actually started with the invasion of Africa and Europe by Islamic armies. Within Islam they had laws and edicts that allowed people to be put into bondage. And that system spread across Africa as various groups adopted Islam. This also influenced the Christian church in Europe to adopt similar religious edicts around the time of the expulsion of the Muslims from Spain. This edict was for the Portuguese to be able to subjugate and take everything from any pagan person anywhere. And that was the beginning of the Portuguese going into Africa to take bodies and that made them historically the main intermediaries in the trade of such bodies. That is why they were in Africa, because they were following the edict or other wise known as Papal Bull Dum Diversas because they needed workers ultimately for their colonies. And over time other Europeans followed their lead. Not to mention the tradition of human subjugation was a cultural practice in Europe going back to the Greeks. And this is reflected in the word slave deriving from Slav, as in the Slavic people of Europe. That was the reason for the demand for bodies at the coast. It wasn't part of African culture or tradition. Those Europeans then used divide and conquer to keep those conflicts going and if a kingdom didn't want to stay at war, they were invaded by another kingdom, spurred on by the Europeans, because the same Portuguese worked with both sides of these conflicts.
@JonDove-i1l The fact that you're trying to create a feeble distinction just for you to keep that victim narrative, is so obvious. We were complicit.. Its obvious..
If you can excuse Africans selling Africans into slavery as the idea of black as we think of it today didn’t exist how does that not leave the door open for a case against reparations as owning other people wasn’t wrong or unusual violence at the time under the paradigm at the time?
The real issue with the conservative view of this debate is that it makes the assumption that black peoples problem with slavery is that white people did it. So when they figure out that Arabs and other black people did slavery they immediately jump on it like it’s some kind of gotcha; it’s not. the issue is with the institution and the fact that nations that practiced it have been relatively reluctant in making amends for damage caused by that and colonialism in general. Plus countries like the United States and certain places in North Africa practiced acts of racial suppression which has had devastating effects since. That is the real debate. it’s not about whether certain races also did it because of course they did, and either way that wouldn’t have that much effect on on the descendants of slaves today. Edit: also before anyone skips past this or leaves a negative reply on my final statement, know that even if west and Central Africans DIDNT do slavery before they certainly would start after European and muslim contact. Slavery was a big business and the Africans would happily sell out their own to get weapons and riches (which was why they did exactly that in our own timeline).
Another grear video HomeTeam. I thought to bring to your attention, that were african kingdoms that banned slavetrade and were barely involved. I believe its worth your attention, as i've not found any African History Channel covering this in any meaningful detail.
In my personal research and opinion, this subject as an "extremely difficult topic," is directly due to the late 1600s creation (in pre-United states) of the myth of (Phenotype) Racism by the North american Oligarchs (from Britain) after the Bacon Rebellion. This was done in order to co-opt former downtrodden Europeans (Irish/Welsh/poor British/etc) into serving as slightly privileged overseers and security for the Oligarchs. The myth of "white" race and its ethnic (Phenotype) superiority was (and still is) a social control tactic that merely serves the super-rich Oligarchs. This insanity has somewhat poisoned the world, though not to the effect extent as it has in the United States (Hitler & the Nazi party tried to make it work in Europe, but it could never take hold ... because its a myth that served no value between normal European ethnic division and diversity). I appreciate that Hometeam History continues to highlight the fact that Africa is a Continent and not a Pan-African state. Pan-Africanism has been a logical reaction to the pathetic myth of Phenotype Racism and white Supremacy; however, once this Mythology is exposed and destroyed, Pan-Africanism will not need to hold sway... it's kind of a temporary path... in my humble opinion.
Finaly, someone got the African slavery facts right. In 1487/88 the Portuguese navigator Diogo Cao entered the Congo River and come across of a huge number of Africans on the banks of the river. A great number of them were offered as trading "material" to the Portuguese. This man where defeated by the other ethnic group and therefore, used as trading material. So initial slavery, was practice by tribes-ethnic groups fighting each other and enslaving the prisoners ...
aka the standard slaves. slaves largely come from war prisoners are people who cannot pay up debt. the war prisoner slaves is a great scource as long as you are top dog and know how to use them,especially you want to avoid pushing out the peasant from their jobs replacing them with slaves, because this can blow up in an uprising of the common people
We forget Afrika is big enough for several continents to fit into, it was impossible for them to be unified and collaborative in selling us, there was certainly no benefit for the Continent as a whole. The land mass and terrain should tell to that there were communities isolated and unknown to each other. Why is there never a discussion of Native Americans who raided and captured their own to sell into slavery? The Apache tribe traded people for horses and weapons, this was very common here in US. Any peaceful, agrarian tribe was considered fair game, probably not different in Africa and any place the European groups introduced capitalism as inspiration.
@vintagechild4418 " Why is there never a discussion of Native Americans who raided and captured their own to sell into slavery?" Because Native Americans were pushed out of the way and forgotten about and/or romanticized, whereas black people in America constantly pressed for civil rights. So you got so many people who feel this need to try to throw around misleading out of context half truths about "Africans sold Africans" in order to try to absolve the centuries of bullcrap that white supremacy played, especially with black people. Had Native Americans pushed constantly for rights like black people did, then you'd hear about how Native Americans "sold out their own people" as well as the fact that in plenty of cases where tribes lost their land to whites, whites didn't take over by themselves but oftentimes had help from enemy tribes.
I took an African History elective in college taught by a Beninese professor, and this video summed up a lot of what he tried to convey to the class. Although the syllabus covered a broad spectrum of Africa, being an HBCU, it got bogged down in West Africa and the Slave Trade because that was where most of the interests were. The professor upset a few students because he would be so matter-of-fact about the hows and whys that didn't jibe with their views. Nowadays, I have to refrain from interjecting myself into slave trade talk because most people discuss the topic with an agenda of some sort.
It's a strange narrative indeed. Why are "white" Europeans afforded diversity but "Africans," an entire continent, not? Why do black ppl here adopt the same narrative? Example- "Romans, Greeks, British, French, Italian, Romanians, Bulgarians, Germans, etc. vs "Africans". Europe is a tiny continent and Africa is HUGE with various populations and histories.
Some people do the same when they say all Europeans participated in colonialism for example, when it was mainly Western European countries that did so.
Yes, dear pretty please continue this as a series. I was one of those in the comment sections of Woman King debating with my lil 'twitter fingers', and putting your link as one of the broadest, well articulated, balanced, sources of information on the continent. I appluad all you do, my dear. Over a decade ago, I spent so much time researching ancient civilizations of the world. But could not find a large collection of reliable information of the history of my own people, not to mention nothing on Grebo people. Forever Fan!
Awesome work as always! Thank you so much for your dedication and knowledge. I’d be interested in any series that’s done by my favorite team….. THE HOME TEAM!!! Peace and blessings to you and your family.
There are even subcultures amongst current African Americans. The problem is, we are still being seen as a monolithic people when it comes to any “bad” things we see from darker pigmentation. However, when we talk about intellect, innovation or creativity; many of those outside of the diaspora will be very clear as to mention, “oh that person is from England or Canada or anywhere else”. The control of the narrative is a consistent struggle.
I wouldn't say there are "subcultures" of FBA people. Some have chosen different paths. We are all treated the same (depending on where you live). In my opinion, we just process the experience differently.
@@sinisterballer2592 that’s a different perspective I can respect. At the same time, there are Southern African Americans, Northern African Americans, Western, Eastern, people that come from Africa and become citizens and people from come from other countries and become citizens but are still lumped together as Black with similar cultures. Clearly not as different as the full continent that Africa is but very much lumped as one in the United States.
@RP0810 African Americans and FBA are two different things. You are speaking of Africans that move to the US and become citizens. It's no different than any other ethnic group that moves to the US and become citizens. The difference here is that race trumps ethnicity where on the continent tribal, ethnic and religious realities are the dividing lines. Elon Musk is an African American. So is Charleze Theron. Do you think they get lumped in with you here?
My grandfather's ancestors were traded through Bucksport, South Carolina which connected to the the Atlantic Ocean. Our kin says our African surname is mishoe. I couldn't find nothing with African origin about this word. I found it in Hebrew, German, and French barely. Nothing correlating to African dialect.
Great video! I had always known that most of the selling of slaves in West and Central Africa were tribes selling war prisoners, but I never thought of it with the perspective of how race wasn’t even a concept to these people in West and Central Africa. It’s puzzling how people always lump Sub-Saharan Africans into label as “Africans”(Most people only thinking of Sub-Saharan Africans when they say African) and “Black” and fail to realize the diversity of the whole African continent. Too much of the modern discourse around African history applies modern day racial ideas that are not applicable to ancient history as a whole. I think you should make a video that addresses the other commonly brought up statement to dismiss the discussion of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and its affects on people in the diaspora today which is that white people were sold to Africans in the Barbary slave trade. People who bring up that statement fail to recognize that the Barbary Slave Trade was not based on race like the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade which was driven by the racist ideology that considered Africans as inferior and suitable for enslavement based on their race. This racialized view provided the justification for the brutal and exploitative system of chattel slavery that existed during that time. I also don’t see any modern day disadvantages of people descended from those who were victims of the Barbary Slave Trade.
A great video. It really corrects a lot of issues with what we’re taught, largely a narrative to minimise the responsibility of the west and portray those living in Africa as savages who would sell their neighbours for their own gain. Excellent work.
You're making a straw man argument. The fact that africans delineated and didnt see each other the same does zero to erase the fact that the actions of kidnapping, war or demanding payment of debt still happened. Saying some tribes fell victim to the same slave trade is laughable. Tribes weren't enslaved individuals were and painting all the victims of the slave trade as perpetrators is a low key insult and seems to paint their enslavement as payment of karmic debt.
Great and informative vid. The whole 'Black Africans sold Black Africans' argument is such a fallacy. As Home Team states, Africans aren't a monlithic culture or people and Africa is a huge continent with many geographic biomes/environments. The correct term would've been certain African peoples and polities raided and sold other African peoples (many times their own people). However, as we know, many people that use that fallacious argument tend not to be good at history and tend not to be intellectually honest. They never say, "Europeans raide and sold Europeans" or "Amerindians raided and sold Amerindians", etc. Yet as Home Team stated, this is selective courtesy. This even extends today within media (fictional or otherwise). The whole of Africa is seen as the same. African peoples and cultures are seen as the same as if Yoruba culture is the sme as Kikuyu culture, A Bakongo person is the same as a Mijikenda person or the traditional cosmology of the Akan is the same as the traditional cosmology of the Xhosa. Yet despite the above paragraph, Black people need to hold some accountability for this. We must emphasize that there is no single African history, people, culture, etc but a huge amount of African histories, peoples, cultures, etc. That Africans were never nor will they ever be one people with one state... And that's great.
It's so fitting for popular euro-centric discourse to regard the most culturally and genetically diverse place on earth by many many miles to have all known each other.
Just as you should not blame “błack” people as a whole, as they were unique and separate people. The “whíte” people as a whole should not be blamed, as they too were unique and separate people.
Every group, pride, clan, club, clique, pod, pack, herd, swarm, race, ethnicity, nationality, culture, linguistical biding, creed, religion, spirituality, political party, governmental stance, class, caste, rank, social status, etc have sold someone or something at some periodic term even the more lonely groups like Australian Aboriginals And Torres Strait Islanders yeah.
The first Myth is that there was a Woman King. She was a Woman Queen, or was she a Transman who was Female Appearing and subjectively her identity was that of a Man so she was the Woman King.
does anyone else know of any other TH-cam channels of afrocentric nature/knowledge/spirituality similar to this one? would like more knowledge but this is hard to find as propaganda and lectures is more common than the kind of learning i'm actually actively looking for.
Good day to alllll, It was the beginning off, the black Israeli, that send out of, the far way land, off Africa before the call it Israeli, the ppl travel to West Africa, Central Africa, and East Africa, extra, so them Africa ppl was soul and send to different countries, that why they was alllll black ,but different, background of God ppl, history thxs.
I don't think any other TH-cam channel nor other social media organization is giving the content Home Team gives. And this channel is not as popular as it should be given the content. Whatever it is you are looking for, you've come to the right place.
@@TheBurgessNetwork wrong mama, Unpopular opinion is great and is African Americans and Africans speaking up about many things necessary for the community. Also the African diaspora news channel. Rock Newman show. All Daily content
@@blacklyfe5543 u won't understand if you don't come africa, we don't identify ourselves as black ppl first just as a french man won't identify himself as a white man first
This history sounds a great deal like the history of Europe and Asia. There too warring parties used their captives as slaves. What differentiates the African slave trade from all others is that they were sold in large numbers to distant places in the world rather than directly serving the masters who had defeated them. I'm not aware of a parallel in Europe or Asia, where war captives were shipped and sold in far distant lands.
At the end of the day we're all humans we had some huge beef among us and we needed guns and there's the 'if you cant beat them join em' and by the way if i had to sell my brothers or those historical rivals from the other kingdom that I've been fighting for centuries it's a no brainer...
Excellent video. Totally agree. Sla European systems of slavery in the 15th-19th century were very different from traditional slavery used in Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas. Never before had there been color-based slavery. The Roman slave trade was based on language. The Arab slave trade was based on religion. And all others in general were based on political and social justifications- POWs, criminals, banditry etc. Not to mention social flexibility- freed slaves simply slowed into the rest of the ethnicity. In Colonies, there are still social barriers. Children of slaves could be born free or have their freedom purchased. This was not the case of colonial slavery. Even free people in colonies whose families were never enslaved had racial class segregation. The British shut down the Ashanti slave trade, but their system brought little to no tangible benefits to the freed people. The Spanish conquered the slaveholding Aztecs, but instead simply put all Mexicans in a slave society in all but name. Slavery was abolished in the Western hemisphere, but the enslaved people still make up a socioeconomic underclass because the system hasn't changed to allow equality. It's not true integration. A good way to put it is that whites stopped selling whites much much earlier than they stopped selling blacks. This is not an excuse for slavery, but there is not a moral equivalency here. We see a similar excuse for colonial genocide- the victims were often warlike or empires in their own right. Somehow brutal conquest and genocide are conflated. However, the state of the vanquished in an African empire was very different from that of a European empire. The best thing to happen to a slave in the Dahomey empire is to be kept by a Dahomey. My response to the uproar over the Woman King is "we've been glorifying Romans, Greeks and Vikings for decades. Why do we draw the line at minorities?" There was recent outcry when an Aztec game was announced. And yet white empires, just as violent, keeping just as many slaves, have been glorified in the same media. The Vikings even did the same thing- raid lands for slaves and then sell the slaves...to Constantinople, where the Roman Greeks bought them. (Constantinople had slaves from 667 BC to 1919 AD). It's absolutely racism to treat different ethnicities and policies as a single monolith and is a perpetuation of the attitudes behind European enslavement of Africans to begin with- the stripping of these identities and formation into a new identity only defined by color. In the US we celebrate black history because the historical identity of Africans in this nation was destroyed by our slave system.
The transatlantic slave trade wasn't based on race. The Africans were available and able to be purchased. Also Europeans didn't initially go to Africa was the intentions of slavery but mote trade until they begin to see the already established Arab and African slave markets. The racism was made up later to justify this behavior.
"The best thing to happen to a slave in the Dahomey empire is to be kept by a Dahomey. " You do know that they human sacrificed the slaves they didn't sold right? The Dahomey tribe. If they couldn't feed them, they ritually sacrificed them. That is a known historical fact. So tell me again how these slaves would have been better off with the Dahomey tribe. lol. This channel made a video about exactly that. It's the video I watched right before this one. Wait let me go copy and share the link with you.
The problem is, you can't have it both ways. If "Blacks selling Blacks" is inaccurate because it assumes Blacks were a monolith, then the statement "Whites enslaved Blacks" is equally inaccurate because it assumes Whites were a monolith. After all, not all nations in Europe took part in the transatlantic slave trade, not all peoples within the nations that did were in agreement with it, and many actively spoke out against it.
Great points made, and to further the ethnicity concept.... As pointed out in the video, there was no pan-Europeanism just like there was no Pan-Africanism. Therefore, the fallacy that "white people" are responsible for slavery is an equal fallacy. The majority of "white America" descends from central and eastern European immigrants who came after 1865, didn't have a hand in slav ery in any way, and neither did the countries they came from. Be specific, call it what it really is.... X African nation took captives from Y African nation, sold them to Portuguese/Spanish/English/Dutch traders who in turn sold them to a specific colony ruled by one of those four European nations. As a German-American, I have zero ties to any of this.
I would like to know more about our military history. What book, reports, and articles should I start reading? Thank you for your videos. The knowledge shared in them can connect us to not only each other but also our predecessors.
Then the addition of being taught it repeatedly wrong for generations. Best example the US School System. Showing the "beautiful" differences of {their} European countries and differences of each people. While in return just giving a quick chapter of all people born in Africa are African, black is black. Yes this video laid it clear for those who wanna hear. Keep on doing what you do. This came out on the perfect day for me! Having just finished day 2 at The Legacy Museum and got one more tomorrow. Thank You HomeTeam
It’s so true when in Africa they told me each kingdom has a different personality trait even though we’re all from the so called black race. But the Europeans see us the same when it comes to many things and trying to box us in one box and that’s where this narrative comes in.
Thank you for this video and the channel overall. I really appreciate history and good African focused history is really valuable since we get so little in the U.S.
I would love to see a collaboration between this channel and the Metatron as you are both scholars dedicated to uncovering the truth rather than what looks and sound good.
![Slavery and Suffering - History Of Africa with Zeinab Badawi [Episode 16]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ajI8lkYdmAk/mqdefault.jpg)
The act of "selling your own" isn't exclusive to Africans either. The vikings sold celts to arabs, and the Talmund sold their own to the Malians. It might be useful to do a video on the matter to put things into perspective.
Also, early Danes, Celts, Gauls were swarthy, or tawny..
Also, Also, Morano(Moors), Huguenots, and Ladinos are in america enslaving natives before the 1700s, but he did talk about the Moors of Iberia..
The term “your own” indicates that you are a part of the same group. Which said groups were not. So it would never be a case of “selling your own”. The only people that would consider different African ethnic groups to be the same are racists.
@@nightingaleforrest You are right. However Home team admits that the Yoruba and the Igboo engaged in it. The Igboo can easily be explained as they may have been rival city states. For example, the Spartans and Athenians would still fight each other despite sharing a culture and language. I can't really explain the Yoruba, perhaps the members they sold were prisoners?
But only one groups transgressions are racialized. To try to hand the blame of European race-based slavery off to the people who are the victims of it. 🤡 🌎
Yeah, well, the large scale Atlantic Slave Trade was conducted well into the 19th century so I think everybody had a fuller perspective on the practice by then but nevertheless it continued. Anyway, today there may be differences between people of African descent, but you are hated primarily because you are black. It is a power thing, duh!
And this is problem with “flat blackness” Every specific African group has a specific name, place of origin culture, and language.
Yep but now we are in the age of nationalism. Where you are expected to have a unified front against opposition.
Exactly
Flat Blackness is an accurare term. 👍
Yep.
The people who hate the idea of pan-Africanism, who are largely outside the diaspora, don't want people to figure out that pan Africanism didn't start with black people. They were/are still lumping us all together long before the idea of global racial unity occurred to us.
Nobody identified as 'black' back then it was just ethnic groups and nations. One has to understand the politics of the trans-atlantic slave trade
There is new evidence that a Portuguese writer by the name of Gomes Zurara under the direction of the Portuguese king wrote a book generalizing all of Africa as 'beastly and inferior'. This was said to be done because the king wanted to justify enslavement of African people. This happened in the 1450s.
Scholars also think this was the argument used by Europeans to justify Chattel slavery during the Atlantic Slave Trade in the US.
@@RAconsciousnessArabs did the same.
@@stevenperry5592By far not as barbaric as the Europeans, but it's always Christians and Europeans who try to come up with new lies about the Arab trade.
Blame the Jewish Babalonian Talmud for the idea of slavery and not Europe. It was the Jewish Rabbis who infected Europe with these trash ideas. Europe was never into that until Middle Eastern influence and customs were brought into the land. Many were just farmers and hunters. And when a debt was owed a debt was paid. But Europeans did not believe in usury or putting interest on a debt. And they also didn't believe in putting humans in chains unless they had broken a law. This slave idea all came from Judea. And it's probably what infected Africa as well. But that's up to Africans to settle or figure out. But this is definitely what happened in Europe. And it probably is the same when the Arabs moved into Europe and forced the Islamic conversion. These religions were all created as a way to enslave people either by force or by way of guilt. And sadly, it worked. Even the Norsemen weren't into doing this kind of thing until they saw what others were doing to them. Sultans would often send raiders into European lands to steal sons and daughters of European farmers to be sold into the Military or harems. This happened long before the European slave trade. And even before Rome and Greece the Judean merchant class paid raiders to go into those lands as well and steal people..... The Talmud is one of the most evil collections of books written in human history. It's like an encyclopedia for teaching children how to become master manipulators and sociopaths.
I see where Ron DeSantis gets it from. 😂😂😂😂 This stuff has me in both kinds of tears. You can't black wash history either
Especially in todays world, people naturally allow Europeans to have separate identities and ethic groups. But whenever discussing Africa, all the tribes/nations get lumped together. It’s very annoying.
No only do people in Africa (who are melanated) are all lumped together, but decedents outside of Africa are lumped in there too. Look at what black people are called in America, they are called African Americans, not just Americans, and the irony is even though the term "African American" is for black people who are decedents of slaves in America as an ethic group, black people who migrate to America from the Caribbean and Africa itself who bring their own cultures & ethnicities are lumped into the "African American" category also. So it is like we are all the same to non-black people.
Noooo, its Black Americans who are lumped together because they dont know what tr8bes they came from. Hell most of them dont even know who their daddy is today.
@@amazing50000 I agree. On the internet when white people go to African tribes and make videos, the title is typically “this African tribe” or “they do this in Africa”. Not specifying that it’s a specific tribe.
@@Jean_Jacques148 Right, and it seems like they do not even care to learn about the differences between black / African ethic groups ether.
You have white liberals to thank for that. For once the conservatives are right. African Americans aren't African. They're black descendants of African slaves.
Literally was debating this with my wife who is Senegalese. I'm Jamaican, and my view is the lack of a Pan-African view is what allowed the Europeans/Arabs to carry out their slave trade with so much efficiency; and is what still holds the continent back today in the 21st century. We cant blame our ancestors for not having it back then as it just simply was not a thing due to the amount of cultural/geographical diversity. In light of past events and the black consciousness we have today however, it's pretty much inexcusable to see another black person as "other". We must unite.
Totally agree. Especially with what happened to us in the past
We have no excuses now because we know..
Yea no. Not all people with melanin in their skin will all get along because we are different. You don't see lions with tigers. You don't seed hyenas with bears. We didnt get along before a Arab man and European man. We won't get along today. Why? Because we're not all the same. Hamites never got alone with shemites. And this is the duality of not knowing who you are by God's word. To that end the saying I always love " Not all skinfolk are kinfolk."
@@jeremiahmillan4487 No worries. We'll remember to leave you out 😂. In all seriousness the fact that we know what we do now, it would ridiculous not to make an effort to work together. We live in an age where we can converse, share experiences, and even discover similarities about one another so easily, and THAT is one of the things that can help bridge the gap between us. With all due respect, I'm just not as pessimistic.. and I think this is something worth working toward no matter how long it takes.
DEFI
I Appreciate every single word you wrote our world wide unity is/would be our strength!✌🏾
Why should we expect African history to be different from European history? US white folks had many languages, religions, and cultures. We sold our war captives into slavery. Why do expect Africans to be different. People are people. Evils are evil and good is good. I don't understand how people could own slaves, but my ancestors did own slaves. That is history and I can't change that. I can only change how I think and react. Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious. After 45 years of teaching, I've learned that even the obvious needs to pointed out.
And I’m sure your ancestors were slaves. Not sure I understand your point?
This is why Western Enlightenment should be celebrated. It essentially put a stop to the institution of slavery. An institution that has basically existed since the dawn of man.
Africans never invaded a foreign country the size of America, killed over 10 million native people ( Native Americans) destroyed all their villages and settlements, then invaded another continent enslaved those people and transferred them to be slaves in America and maintained this way of life for over 200 years , Africans are not the same as Europeans , our history proves this ,plus African people didn't start 2 world wars like Europeans, just because white people's history is dominated by acts of evil don't try and normalise this by saying all people are the same ,because that's not true, the history or Europeans is centered around wars, conquest, percussion and tye enslavement of others, Africans don't have that same history
This channel developed to a reliable souce of knowledge about Africa, unbiased and fair. Thanks for your work! Greetings from Poland!
Slavery was never profitable. Except for cursed Egypt GDP always went up when they ended slavery. Slaves cost $$$ !
Excellent summary and strongly agree on "selective courtesy" definition. When I do engage in discussions of the TST, i specifically point out the various ethnic cultures as much as possible. Being Afro descended is within itself is a unique pan african culture that others have to realized wasn't the case in the past ( even present).
Due to a lack of interest , disgust with the atrocities, or avoiding trauma inducing imagery is another hinder in having a introspective discourse on these subjects with people. I continue to study more of the slave trade on both sides of the water and find incredible perspectives & understanding on the African landscape.
I think the coverage of TST (Transatlantic Slave Trade) history could be a separate channel for HomeTeam History. Thank you for the time and wisdom you share.
Blacks sold blacks while whites sold whites.
A Yoruba would differ from an Igbo, however, just as a Roman would have differed from a Celt.
The universal Otherness of someone else
Yes, I'd be very interested in this being a more fleshed out series. Thank you. ✌🏿
A series would be cool.
I'm here for whatever knowledge you have to post
I've been saying this!! It's weird how (especially in USA) people often categorize humans just according to their skin shade. Grouping e.g. all darker skinned people into just "black people" is really stupid and ignorant towards all the diverse cultures in/originating from Africa, or anywhere else in the world.
Confused by this post, the african slaves who arrived were forced to forget those cultures from africa anyway. People in other places in ie. africa today are free to identify however they want i doubt they abide by whats going in America. Those african slaves in america combined together and made their own ethinicty/history "Black American" anyway.
It's more prevalent globally than people want to admit. It's Not a US thing and people, other countries, need to stop pretending that it is in order to make themselves look good. The issue is most other cultures are ethnically homogeneous. So the issue of race and their racism doesn't come up/have the opportunity for them to show their true colors (no pun intended) often. Ask a half black person in Japan what it's like. It Will get real color-specific. Hell, people hate the dark skinned people among Their Own race.
This "America is uniquely preoccupied with race" bit is patently untrue. Just because a Russian may describe themselves as "Russian" instead of White doesn't mean they don't intellectualize things in terms of color or have a racist history/present-day pathology.
@@RepubliconCelebrityPresidents East Asian Society as a whole prefers people with fair or pale skin and people with typical European Features IE hair that is either blonde, brown, red, orange, auburn, or chocolate and or eyes that are blue, green, or hazel yeah.
That was the whole idea to make them forget why was that done who else did that happen to in history can you tell me
@@matthewmann8969 as do South Asians. As do South American Latinos. Check out "blanqueamiento"
Just had a conversation with a client about "Blacks selling Blacks". I asked "Why isn't the Roman slave trade called Whites selling Whites" (I know it wasn't just European slaves)? I explained why people from different tribes were not the same people, same as the English and French not being the same.
Well white people never sold other white people to a different nation unlike black people selling other black people to whites and arabs
Exactly they weren’t selling their own. Different tribes
Yall can only blame black people for the slave trade they were selling blacks to arabs and europeans. Romans never sold romans to other nations like africans that's the difference
@@truth4099they were .
We do talk about that.😂😂
This makes sense because the racial concepts of black and white came about because of the transatlantic slave trade. But this doesn’t excuse Africans role on the slave trade.
The issue is how the political left likes to emphasize the Europeans’ role in it and the political right likes to emphasize Africans’ role. And no one talks about the role of Arabs in the slave trade.
Good point.
Lol... Arabs had theirs. Not the trans Atlantic but trans Saharan slave trade. So theirs is another kettle of fish. A topical issue independent of the European perpetuated trans Atlantic trade...
Very well said! History requires a balanced, non-biased view free of our present impressions. Were Europeans at fault for exploiting Africans for Labor? Yes. Were the Africans themselves responsible (in part) for those members they sold? Yes. However, that's where the blame game ends. To the Africans, race was never an issue the way the rest of the world cast it. Their warring, capturing, buying and selling of slaves was no better or worse than any other civilization before them.
@@chriskewe4238 well I wouldn’t say Arab slave trade wasn’t perpetuated by Europeans at all, because that’s about when we start seeing African descendent slaves depicted in European art. But the Arab slave trade certainly predates TA trade and wasn’t chattel slavery either.
@@reportedstolen3603 who told you it wasn't "chattel slavery"? Hmmm Arab revisionists and apologists. Please do your research. It still goes on today in Mauritania, Yemen, just to name a few. That's how endemic it was that vestiges still exists today. Maybe you don't know that the very founder of Islam owned and traded in black slaves. Please don't get me ruffling feathers today...
Yep and like I tell everybody else the Europeans and the Americans were complacent in it. And of course there was no sense of African nationalism. Much like the Europeans were able to take advantage of the tribalism of Native Americans and the Romans were able to take advantage of the tribalism among Celtic tribes.
The Romans also did that with the Germanic Tribes as well.
there is also no european nationalism yeah people today pretend but try confusing a german with a french or a slovak with a croatian
Even in this period we saw events such as the Napoleonic wars. There was never a sense of "Pan-European" identity in history, it's just a lie spread by white supremist groups
Yes, thank you all for pointing this out among various ethnic and racial groups.
@Chilling the Romams did it to the Latin's. Most of the republic only Roman citizens had advantages over other Latin speakers.
To be concise, just because something is for sale, you do not need to buy it.
Love that. Thank you.
Perfectly put. Europeans made slavery LUCRATIVE.
The Europeans role or the Africans role can not be excused. Slavery was a world issue
@@soda8736 naw, chattel slavery was a different beast.
@@risenshine888 people love to say that to excuse the Africans role , well put like this, if someone sold you into " chatel slavery " would you give them a pass?. Also im not sure chattel slavery wasn't practice in Africa. Even in recent times little girls were made concubines and sex slaves because crimes their grandfather did.
I had a white coworker who had her PhD in History tell me, "well Africans had slavery." I then had to educate her the difference between Afrcian "slavery" and chattel slavery.
I had to do the same with someone else years back.
Yes, Africans had the good kind of "slavery." And the non Africans had the bad kind of slavery.
There you go doing the very same thing this video says not to do - you are denying Africa had chattel slavery when in fact different groups of people in Africa had all types of slavery, this video just mentioned they used slaves in gold, silver and salt mines, on plantations, for human sacrifice and sold millions off - all of which is chattel slavery whether captures in war or bought from a traders if you sell someone you have proven you considered them your property. Not all slavery in Africa was chattel slavery but it did exist and it is a fallacy to deny so.
@@anthonyjames2021 African did not have chattel slavery. Compared to American slavery, African slavery was "light". *Dip-sheet*
@@realpainediaz7473 So being worked to death in mines and on plantations, being used as a sex slave, being beaten, abused and being sacrificed (ie killed) in religious ceremonies all of which happened in some (note not all but some and not to everyone) African states/kingdoms/tribes to you was "light" and that is before counting in selling captured slaves to non-African peoples to be taken thousands of miles away to have the same done to them there, minus the human sacrifice. Sorry but under any stretch of the imagination all that is chattel slavery whether you want to deny it is irrelevant. Admitting that the same terrible thing happened many places around the world throughout history doesn't absolve anyone of guilt as it is calling out everyone who did it - denying it happened in a whole continent is trying to absolve someone of guilt. Tut tut.
Great video. Problem with black folks in the US and Africa is how susceptible we are to being divided - gangs, tribes, blocks, skin tone...etc. Now to your topic -- Whites say: "Africans were selling THEIR OWN PEOPLE." This is always a stupid argument because it's not true. An Igbo man sees a Yoruba man as a different group to this day! It's like saying Russians are killing their own people in Ukraine. No, they're different....or see themselves as such.
Black Americans: You Africans sold my ancestors. The truth is those ancestors were the Africans' ancestors too. On 23andMe, you can find descent from Yorubas, Igbos, Hausas, Fulanis, Ashantis, Mandinka, and all other groups were enslaved. So ALL African groups were up for slavery and we ALL (black Americans and Africans) lost.
Susceptible?! Africans have always been divided before the Americas were ever settled by Europeans. Today, black people are beginning to have the conversation about the differences of blacks across the diaspora. It is not to be demeaning or cause ethnic battles but people feelings always come to the surface and the conversation ends and accusations begin.
@@jaypaladin-havesmartswilll5508 Every group has deep seated divisions. Even Jews have sub-groups and divisions. However, black folks are one of the rare groups of humanity that will allow their divisions to destroy all of them. Jews will say, Ashkenazis and Sephardim aren't the same -- don't even worship together usually, but we should unite against Arabs and other anti-semitic gentiles.
Black folks will be in street gangs fighting over blocks and avenues. Black folks will sell other tribes into slavery. Black folks will hate each other based on skin tone. It's a fatal flaw we've always had, that all groups have...but when our enemy came into our land, we never truly united. We continued and still continue pulling each other down. From the criminal street gangs to tribes. It's all the same dysfunction.
@@jaypaladin-havesmartswilll5508 Africans were divided, they were and are distinct ethnic groups with different languages, cultures and histories. That's not divided. You wouldn't say that Malay and German people are divided, because why are you lumping these two distinct groups together? Same principle with Africans.
@@wordsbymaribeja1470That's actually kind of the definition of "divided". It was easy to turn ethnics/cultural groups against one another because they were already against one another, and not unified to start with. I don't mean to say all, because I'm sure different countries/nations successfully communicated with each other. But yes, they were divided prior to anything anyone did.
Due to them being different cultures and ethnic groups who struggled to communicate.
I think when he says that people view Africans as a pan African people is something that is widely adopted internationally, outside of Africa
I am from South Africa, and not only have I learned alot from my own countries diverse ethnic cultures but others as well is that we do not view ourselves in this black is black perspective
We actively are vocal and aware of the different cultures that reside within my country... So even with this dialog of pan African people is expressed, I have rarely heard it coming from people in my country because we are so self aware and outward with our different cultures... When you first meet someone we often ask "Are you Sotho?" Or Zulu or Xhosa or Spedi etc. And we can often identify each ethnic group because we are so familiar with the unique teachings, behaviours and beliefs that they each carry as their own
If you've grown up here, you'll mostly be able to identify who is who simply by how they carry themselves because of their unique cultural heritage
So if you ever find yourself visiting South Africa and interact with the people enough here, you will notify the differences from each culture we have, if we don't tell you first because we are damn proud 😂
It’s similar with the Congo. There’s so many different ethnic groups and languages. Which has partially been a pet to play in its struggles.
@@Jean_Jacques148 I get you... It's almost a double edged sword, diversity and variety is always a beautiful thing in many ways... However depending on the landscape and human nature, it can put invisible borders between people, subtle or otherwise
If you think about it, there is a thing call Pan Europeanism, without saying it, but it's under the term as white. No matter what part of Europe you come from, in America they would be classified as white, and given white privileges, and set white foreigners above black American citizes . Even north African people, no matter skin complexion, can be claimed as white. White-ism is the reason why the African continent was carved up like a Christmas turkey, and robbed of its resources, European people, and Arabs, got under the banner of white-ism, and robbed Africa of its birthright of wealth, and prosperity. Africans were to engulfed in tribalism to see the the outside threat, even siding with outsider against their tribal enemies, and the rest is history, now look at African people, most of them are the poorest people in the world, yet African people have 80% of the world resources. When an elected African official get in office, he still have that tribalism mindset, which is why he doesn't have a problem selling out other African people in a heartbeat. African people will continue to have these problems, until they rid themselves from the Colonized mindset, and ethnic tribalism.
This is because 'black' means black american, which is a small and highly unrepresentative and unAfrican reference point. The perspective you have shared applies all over Africa, yet you get black americans who frame it as 'they divided', no we're 'different'.
You have the colonized mindset....very arrogant and ignorant beliefs who are you to tell a south african about his culture and what they value@arronhaggerty8426
As a older white woman, I realized how little I know about African history. This video has been really interesting and I learned a lot. I’ve subscribed so that I can learn more. Educating ourselves about history and people is important.
Most people know very little about African history. That's why so many people pretend that Africans just threw themselves at white people then gave them instructions on what to do with slavery and race in the Americas.
They don't want to acknowledge the truth, that white slavers went to enemy tribes on the coast and used guns to play off of rivalries in order to get participation in abductions just like they did with other races:
" *The increased rise of the gun-slave trade forced the other tribes to participate or their refusal to engage in enslaving meant they would become targets of slavers* " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20slave%20trade%20of%20Native,American%20slave%20trade%20by%201750
Did you know the word slave literally comes from the word Slav because the Slavic peoples of Europe were taken into slavery so often that their name was literally synonymous for that
@@Irongiantman007I wonder if these whites went through 400+ yrs of chattel slavery or was it servitude slavery?
Depends on your perspective. Tarzan was king of the Apes.
I feel you on this concept. I think it's hard not to have this discussion when you don't also bring up that, anyone that uses "Blacks sold Blacks" is first attempting to obfuscate the barbarity of Western Slave Culture. If and when I have these conversations "Breeding, Buck breaking, Lynching, etc.", these are my hard pivots.
💯💯
while i agree i do think we should still talk about the fact that blacks sold blacks
Usually people only bring up that point because typically when any form of slavery is discussed they only speak about the West African slave trade. As if it exists as an anomaly in history.
It’s disingenuous to stereotype a group of people based on their skin color alone.
@@skrrskrr99 Yes because that Slave incident was the most transformative on the planet. The implications have rippled for hundreds of years and we are still in the throws of finding resolution.
@Bahiyyudin not really. The Arabic slave trade was more prolific and lasted longer.
Muhammad himself spoke racism in his religion, his hadiths, his sunnah. Even today the Arabic word for a black person means slave.
The turks also practiced a unique form of slavery where they would kidnap children from the Balkans and have them castrated.
Well said. I've had this argument so many times with non blacks
I am reminded by the account of a Slave from the book known as the baracoons. This man was captured by the supposed most notorious enslavers of west Africa. Yet dahomey still needed an excuse to start of war with his people and create the conditions for capturing and selling them to slavers. He recounts how emissaries from Dahomey came demanding for tributes and on the claim that they were disrespectfully declined, launched a brutal attack on the community. The man further recounts how as a captive, they went past other kingdoms and communities that used colored flags to communicate status with the Dahomey tribute collectors. White represented a continued willingness to oblige with paying tribute. Red signified unwillingness to do so and an invitation of war. Black signified that the kingdom was without a leader or the leader was still a child. For me, this creates a more realistic picture for the nature of politics and conflicts that results to the capture and possible eventual enslavement by European merchants. The point of this is to show that even the Dahomey, a kingdom known for sustaining it's economy almost exclusively with the slave trade still needed a well established political excuse to raid enemy communities to get captives for European enslavers. I've heard Europeans describe well established slavery networks in Africa that the Europeans just happen to chance upon including in the kingdom of Benin. This can only be possible in Muslim kingdoms (and not all) where non Muslims were given a perpetual "less than us" status and could be raided without any real reason for conflict (still an assumption though). Even early european agents realized they wouldn't be getting more slaves from Africans without more conflicts to produce them and letters from European kings to their agents told them to do what ever it takes to create the necessary conditions for the slave markets. That doesn't sound like chancing upon a well established slave network to me.
You wanna learn how africa was invaded in simple sketches? Watch angry birds movie. The one with the green pigs stealing eggs from the island while blinding the population with gifts and gadgets.
But the thing is slavery was prevalent in Africa long long long before Europeans got to africa in the 1400's. The Arab slave trade out of east africa went on for thousands of years before the Europeans bought their first slaves from Africa. So yes, Europe "chanced" upon an already well established slave network. but that does not mean they didn't manipulate the slavers to enslave more people for them. before Europe entered the picture, african tribes enslaved other african tribes, but only what they could handle. When the Europeans came, the African Kings were given incentives, (gold, silver, guns, etc...) so they can capture more slaves for trade. Benin became overzealous and collected too many slaves sometimes and then human sacrificed them if they didn't feel like feeding them or if they were running out of food, instead of just letting people go. The Europeans are by no means innocent, but neither are the Africans or Arabs. So it's not a US vs Them thing. It's a part in history where everyone fked up. But history is there to learn from so we don't do the same horrible things again. If we want to move forward as a human race, we'll have to unite regardless of skin tone. None of us are our Ancestors.
@@fabulousilver you're conveniently combining two things that are unrelated in other to have the picture you want. The Arab slave trade wasn't an African slave trade. The Arabs enslaved everyone including Europeans. To combine both as if the European enslavers interacted with the trans Saharan network from the ocean is disingenuous. Europeans initially depended on small scale conflicts to produce captives for their slave trade before deciding to trade exclusively on slavery and causing the instability necessary to create that number of captives. This unlike yours isn't some mental gymnastic theory. This is recorded fact. Wars that wouldn't have been possible would be created by Europeans aligning their military with another African kingdom to fight against another. The African kingdom would get power expansion while the Europeans got captives for slavery. African kingdoms also had no prison systems. So crimes that would today require you to be locked up was met then by banishment either temporally or permanently. Such a banished individual played a crucial role in revealing secrets to the Dahomey about his own kingdom's defences in the story I narrated above. Such individuals (including criminal elements within the kingdoms) were often incentivised to kidnapping and turning in victims to Europeans for rewards. Already you can see a pattern of dysfunction starting to appear with European enslavers at the source of it. If you wanted to overthrow your king, European slave merchants were there to provide you the weapons needed to do it so long as the conflict produced slaves for them. Who ever wanted to change the political narrative could always count on the Europeans so long as slaves would be produced. There were no slave network markets in Africa except those established by Europeans themselves on the coast of Africa. Those buildings still remain till today. No kingdom in Africa sold slaves to Europeans. They sold captives. infact most Africans believed Europeans were cannibals that ate the people they bought.
@@fabulousilver trying to equate what the Europeans did to what was going on in Africa is very very disingenuous. You hide too much under the term, "slave" in order to create an equivalence between two things that are nothing alike. So let me point out the differences for you. Africans did not have slave police that chased down slaves who tried to escape and bring them back to their masters. Africans did not strip the humanity from people in other to own them and their children for life till perpetuity. Europeans did that. Africans did not breed their fellow human beings like cattle and dogs for profit. Europeans did. Africans sold Europeans captives. Europeans made them slaves of the worst kind. This is well spoken of in the baracoons of how when the Dahomey sold them to the Europeans, they were stripped of their clothes and shelved naked below deck. Only brought up to sky light to stretch their legs so they don't get cramped. On getting to america they would lie to people there that the slaves were caught naked like that. You like to you words to make one crime look as grievous as the other. I defend on evil. Africans were not innocent in throwing their enemies to the dogs. But Europeans were the dogs not Africans. Get that straight. Even today, your own laws take great pains to differentiate between kidnapping, human trafficking, and slavery. Despite the fact that the first two create the conditions for the third crime to occur, your law does not call them all enslavers😃. But in reviewing history, you would loose all sense of reason in oder to paint others as black as yourselves. Please, stop. And let's clear on one thing, the Dahomey's rise to power on the economy of slave trading was purely a European creation. Europeans did not meet Dahomey selling people. Europeans enslaved Dahomey through Dahomey enemies who forced them to pay tributes by surrendering their people. In desperation, Dahomey militarized nearly it's entire population and inflicted on both it's enemies and those around it, what it had suffered. Let me tell you, if Europeans did not come selling Dahomey the weapons to get slaves for them, non of the human sacrifices you described would have happened. Do you know that at a time, a Dahomey king tried stopping the slave trade? His European partners refused so he destroyed their slave ports on his territory and freed their slaves. Guess what the Europeans did? They sponsored and armed enemies of Dahomey to attack his kingdom simultaneously. After surviving and maintaining his sovereignty against all odds, he finally agreed to resume slave trading with the Europeans. When certain African leaders found out the hell african slaves went through overseas, they fought to end it but the europeans fought to preserve it. Only when capitalism was ripe enough did they update slavery to colonialism. Again let me emphasize that i dont we Africans as innocent historically. They threw their enemies to the dogs. But make no mistakes, Europeans were the dogs. Not Africans
@@weskerwillie9044 Then don't take my word for it. But it's historical fact.
th-cam.com/video/_NoWIZv96KU/w-d-xo.html
One of the reasons I found the channel was because of the broad all inclusive history of Africa not providing the actual histories of the cultures. I was tired of the whitewashed history, that is commonly used, creating dehumanizing & insulting assumptions as fact. I wish I knew and understood the dynamics of the multitude of cultures of Africa as well as I do the Greek, Celtic, Roman, etc, but they do not teach that as basic education. They should!💯 All human history is important and vital imo.
Not much was written down, very few writing or preservation, you can find a fair amount of southern African history
@@RealLordkiffington but for some reason the AFRICAN people themselves know it inside out even without writing.
I appreciate this. Slavery is often oversimplified by both conservative and progressive pundits. It is a complex topic and understanding the context is important and intellectually honest.
You broke that down beautifully! The details in which you did it is amazing!
I agree that the idea of blackness never existed
Do make this topic a series, so factual evidence will be available for whenever there's a discussion. Thanks for all your time and effort you put into providing all these information; keep up the marvelous work King👊🏾
Slavery brought the worst out of everybody
A sensible POV, in a world of bad faith arguments when it comes to this topic💯
I so agreed with this explanation. I have tried to explain this so many times. When we say Blacks sold other Blacks, it's like saying White people invaded other White people's country when discussing Russia's actions against Ukraine. We understand that Europe is a continent made of many countries. And yet people often look at the continent of Africa and think of it as a country.
But the left hid the truth regardless and "Africans sold Africans" is still a legit statement..
Nowadays is Fba Ados and the acronym gang saying it
There also was a fundamental difference between slavery in West Africa and slavery in the Americas: In West Afrika people usually were not enslaved for life nor was being enslaved hereditary.
Not we’re enslaved people bred, monetized, etc.
People say this to feel better.. if we were in those times, would you want to be a slave to whoever? Also I think that is a myth , I've seen documentaries on more recent time where African girls are born into slavery or concubines status because something their grandfather did.
In Africa slavery was just to help in house duties and some time taking daughters as tribute.but for the most part, when your kingdom lost, it just became a vassal state.maening u could continue with your lives long as yall paid tribute at month end
@@wambokodavid7109 i gues you never heard of sex slaves ,they were doing more than houss duties
@@soda8736 what part of "daughters" didn't u get implied or did you want me to elaborate in detail how they insert a dick into a veggie
People are just sick not all people but the ones with the power
It doesn’t matter who sold them, it matters who bought them and abused them.
Yep, even after the trade ended there was still the segregation period.
I've often said there's no such movement as Continental African Descendants Of Slaves (CADOS) fighting for justice & reparations for a reason
very interesting perspective.....it doesn't matter who sold them
@@thevisitor1012 Which current CRT advocates are trying to reinstitute with "BLACK ONLY" dormitories etc.
I love your content so much. I have nothing to add, but the toobs likes engagement so this is just me loudly listening. Keep being awesome!
When blacks had slaves it wasn't for ever it was for 7 years maximum it was not slavery it was indentured servitude after the captured members with be enslaved for 7 years in order to get their life back together in order to have some assemblance to a normal life so they wouldn't turn into wild animals with no upbringing😮😢😊
Only a few cultures did. The rest had total slavery. We don't have to talk ourselves out of that, after all we are all human and therefore all capable of the same cruelty!
@@RealCodreX I doubt Africans have the same cruelty as other groups though
@@samkelombambo916
Are you saying that "Africans" (which is an incredibly loose term) are some sort of different species than humans?
Because all humans are capable of it and share the same cruelty.
"Africans" included.
They raped, plundered, burned, enslaved, waged wars and murdered like everyone else.
They built, taught, cultivated, explored, traded and loved - just like everyone else.
Some did more and some less, but in the end they too exercised those human qualities.
@Samkelo Mbambo go look up the Rewonda genocide in modern times if you think Africans couldn't be cruel to each other
@@soda8736 Guess who perpetuated the idea of the "African Cacasians" which in turn initiated the Rwandan genocide,
in fact just learn about the Rwandan genocide right here on hometeam and he explains it perfectly
Also keep in mind that prior to 19th century European colonisation the Hutsu,Tutsi and Twa had good relations and guess what?!... they were one people because of the intermarriages that had taken place centuries earlier.
This is a very good explanation that makes more sense than other explanations I’ve heard. In America we lump everyone all together because of discrimination and it simply isn’t fair to do that
I appreciate content like this. Our people need to learn diversity of thought.
Dope video brotha and yes I'm absolutely down for a series!
"Blacks selling blacks" is also an interesting argument because in many cases it amounts to people telling the descendants of slaves that their ancestors kidnapped themselves, transported themselves to the western hemisphere, beat, raped, terrorized and dehumanized themselves.
We can acknowledge the role that african groups had in kidnapping other groups and trading/selling them. That shouldn't mean that we ignore the fact that everything after that was done by actual slave owners.
For example human trafficking still happens today. If the police were to find that some couple had purchased a child and held them for years against their will, would we really say that the only people responsible were the kidnappers? Would we let the couple off because they "only" purchased the child.
Without enslavers purchasing and trading, there can be no slave trade.
But there has to be people willing to capture people from other tribes because they're the only ones to know where to find them.
True
Also without raiders capturing and selling slaves in the first place there would be no slave trade - both parties guilty and should be condemned.
Africans held slaves for themselves. You act as if Slavery did not exist in Africa until Europeans came.
@@anthonyjames2021that is pretty factual however I doubt that the raiders knew the horrors that I waited there captives into what degree, I'm just saying it was definitely a time of political unrest in the region
I think you said a lot, but missed the whole point. Why was there a demand for slaves on the coasts and where did it come from, plus what were the Portuguese doing in Africa in the first place? And all of this actually started with the invasion of Africa and Europe by Islamic armies. Within Islam they had laws and edicts that allowed people to be put into bondage. And that system spread across Africa as various groups adopted Islam. This also influenced the Christian church in Europe to adopt similar religious edicts around the time of the expulsion of the Muslims from Spain. This edict was for the Portuguese to be able to subjugate and take everything from any pagan person anywhere. And that was the beginning of the Portuguese going into Africa to take bodies and that made them historically the main intermediaries in the trade of such bodies. That is why they were in Africa, because they were following the edict or other wise known as Papal Bull Dum Diversas because they needed workers ultimately for their colonies. And over time other Europeans followed their lead. Not to mention the tradition of human subjugation was a cultural practice in Europe going back to the Greeks. And this is reflected in the word slave deriving from Slav, as in the Slavic people of Europe. That was the reason for the demand for bodies at the coast. It wasn't part of African culture or tradition. Those Europeans then used divide and conquer to keep those conflicts going and if a kingdom didn't want to stay at war, they were invaded by another kingdom, spurred on by the Europeans, because the same Portuguese worked with both sides of these conflicts.
Started with the invasion of Africa..? It started with basic trading..
@JonDove-i1l What?!?!?!?
@JonDove-i1l This is possibly the dumbest comment I've seen this year.. haha
@JonDove-i1l The fact that you're trying to create a feeble distinction just for you to keep that victim narrative, is so obvious. We were complicit.. Its obvious..
If you can excuse Africans selling Africans into slavery as the idea of black as we think of it today didn’t exist how does that not leave the door open for a case against reparations as owning other people wasn’t wrong or unusual violence at the time under the paradigm at the time?
Reparations from who
The real issue with the conservative view of this debate is that it makes the assumption that black peoples problem with slavery is that white people did it. So when they figure out that Arabs and other black people did slavery they immediately jump on it like it’s some kind of gotcha; it’s not.
the issue is with the institution and the fact that nations that practiced it have been relatively reluctant in making amends for damage caused by that and colonialism in general. Plus countries like the United States and certain places in North Africa practiced acts of racial suppression which has had devastating effects since.
That is the real debate. it’s not about whether certain races also did it because of course they did, and either way that wouldn’t have that much effect on on the descendants of slaves today.
Edit: also before anyone skips past this or leaves a negative reply on my final statement, know that even if west and Central Africans DIDNT do slavery before they certainly would start after European and muslim contact. Slavery was a big business and the Africans would happily sell out their own to get weapons and riches (which was why they did exactly that in our own timeline).
A series on this topic would be greatly appreciated.
Another grear video HomeTeam.
I thought to bring to your attention, that were african kingdoms that banned slavetrade and were barely involved.
I believe its worth your attention, as i've not found any African History Channel covering this in any meaningful detail.
In my personal research and opinion, this subject as an "extremely difficult topic," is directly due to the late 1600s creation (in pre-United states) of the myth of (Phenotype) Racism by the North american Oligarchs (from Britain) after the Bacon Rebellion. This was done in order to co-opt former downtrodden Europeans (Irish/Welsh/poor British/etc) into serving as slightly privileged overseers and security for the Oligarchs. The myth of "white" race and its ethnic (Phenotype) superiority was (and still is) a social control tactic that merely serves the super-rich Oligarchs. This insanity has somewhat poisoned the world, though not to the effect extent as it has in the United States (Hitler & the Nazi party tried to make it work in Europe, but it could never take hold ... because its a myth that served no value between normal European ethnic division and diversity). I appreciate that Hometeam History continues to highlight the fact that Africa is a Continent and not a Pan-African state. Pan-Africanism has been a logical reaction to the pathetic myth of Phenotype Racism and white Supremacy; however, once this Mythology is exposed and destroyed, Pan-Africanism will not need to hold sway... it's kind of a temporary path... in my humble opinion.
Classifying humans in different races dates further back.
As far back as Egypt. Have you read no Egyptian texts? They have racial classification.
Finaly, someone got the African slavery facts right. In 1487/88 the Portuguese navigator Diogo Cao entered the Congo River and come across of a huge number of Africans on the banks of the river. A great number of them were offered as trading "material" to the Portuguese. This man where defeated by the other ethnic group and therefore, used as trading material. So initial slavery, was practice by tribes-ethnic groups fighting each other and enslaving the prisoners ...
aka the standard slaves. slaves largely come from war prisoners are people who cannot pay up debt. the war prisoner slaves is a great scource as long as you are top dog and know how to use them,especially you want to avoid pushing out the peasant from their jobs replacing them with slaves, because this can blow up in an uprising of the common people
Always love your videos - a unique view which needs to be given more voice. Keep giving more voice to the rich diversity of all African peoples.
Yes I’m interested in a series!!
We forget Afrika is big enough for several continents to fit into, it was impossible for them to be unified and collaborative in selling us, there was certainly no benefit for the Continent as a whole.
The land mass and terrain should tell to that there were communities isolated and unknown to each other. Why is there never a discussion of Native Americans who raided and captured their own to sell into slavery? The Apache tribe traded people for horses and weapons, this was very common here in US. Any peaceful, agrarian tribe was considered fair game, probably not different in Africa and any place the European groups introduced capitalism as inspiration.
@vintagechild4418 " Why is there never a discussion of Native Americans who raided and captured their own to sell into slavery?" Because Native Americans were pushed out of the way and forgotten about and/or romanticized, whereas black people in America constantly pressed for civil rights. So you got so many people who feel this need to try to throw around misleading out of context half truths about "Africans sold Africans" in order to try to absolve the centuries of bullcrap that white supremacy played, especially with black people.
Had Native Americans pushed constantly for rights like black people did, then you'd hear about how Native Americans "sold out their own people" as well as the fact that in plenty of cases where tribes lost their land to whites, whites didn't take over by themselves but oftentimes had help from enemy tribes.
Both crucial comments here.
Well done. Definitely food for thought...
Ty for this clip.
I took an African History elective in college taught by a Beninese professor, and this video summed up a lot of what he tried to convey to the class. Although the syllabus covered a broad spectrum of Africa, being an HBCU, it got bogged down in West Africa and the Slave Trade because that was where most of the interests were. The professor upset a few students because he would be so matter-of-fact about the hows and whys that didn't jibe with their views. Nowadays, I have to refrain from interjecting myself into slave trade talk because most people discuss the topic with an agenda of some sort.
It's a strange narrative indeed. Why are "white" Europeans afforded diversity but "Africans," an entire continent, not? Why do black ppl here adopt the same narrative? Example- "Romans, Greeks, British, French, Italian, Romanians, Bulgarians, Germans, etc. vs "Africans". Europe is a tiny continent and Africa is HUGE with various populations and histories.
Some people do the same when they say all Europeans participated in colonialism for example, when it was mainly Western European countries that did so.
Yes, dear pretty please continue this as a series. I was one of those in the comment sections of Woman King debating with my lil 'twitter fingers', and putting your link as one of the broadest, well articulated, balanced, sources of information on the continent.
I appluad all you do, my dear. Over a decade ago, I spent so much time researching ancient civilizations of the world. But could not find a large collection of reliable information of the history of my own people, not to mention nothing on Grebo people.
Forever Fan!
Awesome work as always! Thank you so much for your dedication and knowledge. I’d be interested in any series that’s done by my favorite team….. THE HOME TEAM!!! Peace and blessings to you and your family.
There’s no way slavery happened the way we’ve been told. None of my ancestors were slaves and none of them were from Africa.
let me guess, you’re an Israelite native american moor?
😂 wrong channel for you than bro
There are even subcultures amongst current African Americans. The problem is, we are still being seen as a monolithic people when it comes to any “bad” things we see from darker pigmentation. However, when we talk about intellect, innovation or creativity; many of those outside of the diaspora will be very clear as to mention, “oh that person is from England or Canada or anywhere else”. The control of the narrative is a consistent struggle.
I wouldn't say there are "subcultures" of FBA people. Some have chosen different paths. We are all treated the same (depending on where you live). In my opinion, we just process the experience differently.
@@sinisterballer2592 that’s a different perspective I can respect. At the same time, there are Southern African Americans, Northern African Americans, Western, Eastern, people that come from Africa and become citizens and people from come from other countries and become citizens but are still lumped together as Black with similar cultures. Clearly not as different as the full continent that Africa is but very much lumped as one in the United States.
@@RPINCo Are you from outside the diaspora?
No that is colorism and it came from whyte supremacy and the American enslavement and breeding industry.
@RP0810 African Americans and FBA are two different things. You are speaking of Africans that move to the US and become citizens. It's no different than any other ethnic group that moves to the US and become citizens. The difference here is that race trumps ethnicity where on the continent tribal, ethnic and religious realities are the dividing lines. Elon Musk is an African American. So is Charleze Theron. Do you think they get lumped in with you here?
My grandfather's ancestors were traded through Bucksport, South Carolina which connected to the the Atlantic Ocean. Our kin says our African surname is mishoe. I couldn't find nothing with African origin about this word. I found it in Hebrew, German, and French barely. Nothing correlating to African dialect.
Lets here about the rebellions, and how kings/queens rebelled.
Fantastic point that needed making. Thank you for this video. Great replies in the comments too.
Great video! I had always known that most of the selling of slaves in West and Central Africa were tribes selling war prisoners, but I never thought of it with the perspective of how race wasn’t even a concept to these people in West and Central Africa. It’s puzzling how people always lump Sub-Saharan Africans into label as “Africans”(Most people only thinking of Sub-Saharan Africans when they say African) and “Black” and fail to realize the diversity of the whole African continent. Too much of the modern discourse around African history applies modern day racial ideas that are not applicable to ancient history as a whole. I think you should make a video that addresses the other commonly brought up statement to dismiss the discussion of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and its affects on people in the diaspora today which is that white people were sold to Africans in the Barbary slave trade. People who bring up that statement fail to recognize that the Barbary Slave Trade was not based on race like the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade which was driven by the racist ideology that considered Africans as inferior and suitable for enslavement based on their race. This racialized view provided the justification for the brutal and exploitative system of chattel slavery that existed during that time. I also don’t see any modern day disadvantages of people descended from those who were victims of the Barbary Slave Trade.
Still anti-Blackness though.
I absolutely would love to see a series of this topic done, brother. It’s a requirement for us in the diaspora to fully understand the subject matter
A great video. It really corrects a lot of issues with what we’re taught, largely a narrative to minimise the responsibility of the west and portray those living in Africa as savages who would sell their neighbours for their own gain. Excellent work.
I really like the sound of your voice. It brings richness and warmth to your stories.
Yes, I'd be very interested in this topic becoming a series. Thank you for all the excellent work you do on this channel. 👍
The American Enslavement and Breeding Industry took it to a Whole ‘Nother Level!!!
I'd love a series about this topic!
You're making a straw man argument. The fact that africans delineated and didnt see each other the same does zero to erase the fact that the actions of kidnapping, war or demanding payment of debt still happened. Saying some tribes fell victim to the same slave trade is laughable. Tribes weren't enslaved individuals were and painting all the victims of the slave trade as perpetrators is a low key insult and seems to paint their enslavement as payment of karmic debt.
Yes a series please
Been waiting for your response
Thank you again. A+ discussion of the historical facts.
Great and informative vid. The whole 'Black Africans sold Black Africans' argument is such a fallacy. As Home Team states, Africans aren't a monlithic culture or people and Africa is a huge continent with many geographic biomes/environments. The correct term would've been certain African peoples and polities raided and sold other African peoples (many times their own people).
However, as we know, many people that use that fallacious argument tend not to be good at history and tend not to be intellectually honest. They never say, "Europeans raide and sold Europeans" or "Amerindians raided and sold Amerindians", etc. Yet as Home Team stated, this is selective courtesy. This even extends today within media (fictional or otherwise). The whole of Africa is seen as the same. African peoples and cultures are seen as the same as if Yoruba culture is the sme as Kikuyu culture, A Bakongo person is the same as a Mijikenda person or the traditional cosmology of the Akan is the same as the traditional cosmology of the Xhosa.
Yet despite the above paragraph, Black people need to hold some accountability for this. We must emphasize that there is no single African history, people, culture, etc but a huge amount of African histories, peoples, cultures, etc. That Africans were never nor will they ever be one people with one state... And that's great.
It's so fitting for popular euro-centric discourse to regard the most culturally and genetically diverse place on earth by many many miles to have all known each other.
Just as you should not blame “błack” people as a whole, as they were unique and separate people. The “whíte” people as a whole should not be blamed, as they too were unique and separate people.
Every group, pride, clan, club, clique, pod, pack, herd, swarm, race, ethnicity, nationality, culture, linguistical biding, creed, religion, spirituality, political party, governmental stance, class, caste, rank, social status, etc have sold someone or something at some periodic term even the more lonely groups like Australian Aboriginals And Torres Strait Islanders yeah.
The first Myth is that there was a Woman King. She was a Woman Queen, or was she a Transman who was Female Appearing and subjectively her identity was that of a Man so she was the Woman King.
does anyone else know of any other TH-cam channels of afrocentric nature/knowledge/spirituality similar to this one? would like more knowledge but this is hard to find as propaganda and lectures is more common than the kind of learning i'm actually actively looking for.
Good day to alllll, It was the beginning off, the black Israeli, that send out of, the far way land, off Africa before the call it Israeli, the ppl travel to West Africa, Central Africa, and East Africa, extra, so them Africa ppl was soul and send to different countries, that why they was alllll black ,but different, background of God ppl, history thxs.
I don't think any other TH-cam channel nor other social media organization is giving the content Home Team gives. And this channel is not as popular as it should be given the content. Whatever it is you are looking for, you've come to the right place.
@@TheBurgessNetwork wrong mama, Unpopular opinion is great and is African Americans and Africans speaking up about many things necessary for the community. Also the African diaspora news channel. Rock Newman show. All Daily content
"From Nothing" is also pretty good if you are interessted in history!
I dont think ive ever heard someone in Nigeria call themself black
The whole blackman whiteman thing is so foreign to us.
How? Everyone in Africa is black that is their race.
@@blacklyfe5543 u won't understand if you don't come africa, we don't identify ourselves as black ppl first just as a french man won't identify himself as a white man first
Its also the reason missionaries taught English, french, and dutch. Multiple African countries still speak French and English as main languages.
This history sounds a great deal like the history of Europe and Asia. There too warring parties used their captives as slaves. What differentiates the African slave trade from all others is that they were sold in large numbers to distant places in the world rather than directly serving the masters who had defeated them. I'm not aware of a parallel in Europe or Asia, where war captives were shipped and sold in far distant lands.
At the end of the day we're all humans we had some huge beef among us and we needed guns and there's the 'if you cant beat them join em' and by the way if i had to sell my brothers or those historical rivals from the other kingdom that I've been fighting for centuries it's a no brainer...
Excellent video. Totally agree. Sla
European systems of slavery in the 15th-19th century were very different from traditional slavery used in Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas. Never before had there been color-based slavery. The Roman slave trade was based on language. The Arab slave trade was based on religion. And all others in general were based on political and social justifications- POWs, criminals, banditry etc. Not to mention social flexibility- freed slaves simply slowed into the rest of the ethnicity. In Colonies, there are still social barriers. Children of slaves could be born free or have their freedom purchased. This was not the case of colonial slavery. Even free people in colonies whose families were never enslaved had racial class segregation. The British shut down the Ashanti slave trade, but their system brought little to no tangible benefits to the freed people. The Spanish conquered the slaveholding Aztecs, but instead simply put all Mexicans in a slave society in all but name. Slavery was abolished in the Western hemisphere, but the enslaved people still make up a socioeconomic underclass because the system hasn't changed to allow equality. It's not true integration.
A good way to put it is that whites stopped selling whites much much earlier than they stopped selling blacks.
This is not an excuse for slavery, but there is not a moral equivalency here. We see a similar excuse for colonial genocide- the victims were often warlike or empires in their own right. Somehow brutal conquest and genocide are conflated. However, the state of the vanquished in an African empire was very different from that of a European empire. The best thing to happen to a slave in the Dahomey empire is to be kept by a Dahomey.
My response to the uproar over the Woman King is "we've been glorifying Romans, Greeks and Vikings for decades. Why do we draw the line at minorities?" There was recent outcry when an Aztec game was announced. And yet white empires, just as violent, keeping just as many slaves, have been glorified in the same media. The Vikings even did the same thing- raid lands for slaves and then sell the slaves...to Constantinople, where the Roman Greeks bought them. (Constantinople had slaves from 667 BC to 1919 AD).
It's absolutely racism to treat different ethnicities and policies as a single monolith and is a perpetuation of the attitudes behind European enslavement of Africans to begin with- the stripping of these identities and formation into a new identity only defined by color. In the US we celebrate black history because the historical identity of Africans in this nation was destroyed by our slave system.
The transatlantic slave trade wasn't based on race. The Africans were available and able to be purchased. Also Europeans didn't initially go to Africa was the intentions of slavery but mote trade until they begin to see the already established Arab and African slave markets. The racism was made up later to justify this behavior.
"The best thing to happen to a slave in the Dahomey empire is to be kept by a Dahomey. "
You do know that they human sacrificed the slaves they didn't sold right? The Dahomey tribe. If they couldn't feed them, they ritually sacrificed them. That is a known historical fact. So tell me again how these slaves would have been better off with the Dahomey tribe. lol. This channel made a video about exactly that. It's the video I watched right before this one. Wait let me go copy and share the link with you.
@@fabulousilver Link please. And something NOT racist, if you please.
@@Tareltonlives th-cam.com/video/4_98fdeWxRs/w-d-xo.html
@@fabulousilveroriginal source....not some website. Keep your racism to yourself
Great video! Thanks for sharing!
Please do more
I am very much interested in a series... PLEASE!
The problem is, you can't have it both ways. If "Blacks selling Blacks" is inaccurate because it assumes Blacks were a monolith, then the statement "Whites enslaved Blacks" is equally inaccurate because it assumes Whites were a monolith. After all, not all nations in Europe took part in the transatlantic slave trade, not all peoples within the nations that did were in agreement with it, and many actively spoke out against it.
Yeah some european countries enslaved ppl from some african ethnic groups
It irks me when people think Ireland is part of England, so I can relate somewhat
Great points made, and to further the ethnicity concept.... As pointed out in the video, there was no pan-Europeanism just like there was no Pan-Africanism. Therefore, the fallacy that "white people" are responsible for slavery is an equal fallacy. The majority of "white America" descends from central and eastern European immigrants who came after 1865, didn't have a hand in slav ery in any way, and neither did the countries they came from.
Be specific, call it what it really is.... X African nation took captives from Y African nation, sold them to Portuguese/Spanish/English/Dutch traders who in turn sold them to a specific colony ruled by one of those four European nations.
As a German-American, I have zero ties to any of this.
Thanks for your work
I would like to know more about our military history. What book, reports, and articles should I start reading?
Thank you for your videos. The knowledge shared in them can connect us to not only each other but also our predecessors.
Like I told my friends Africans didn't lnow Europeans had invented racism so their mindsets hadn't changed.
Then the addition of being taught it repeatedly wrong for generations. Best example the US School System. Showing the "beautiful" differences of {their} European countries and differences of each people. While in return just giving a quick chapter of all people born in Africa are African, black is black.
Yes this video laid it clear for those who wanna hear. Keep on doing what you do. This came out on the perfect day for me! Having just finished day 2 at The Legacy Museum and got one more tomorrow.
Thank You HomeTeam
I would love a series
It’s so true when in Africa they told me each kingdom has a different personality trait even though we’re all from the so called black race. But the Europeans see us the same when it comes to many things and trying to box us in one box and that’s where this narrative comes in.
Good analysis and commentary, but your title is misleading.
Make it a series bro!
Slave trader is such an ugly word, I prefer organic farm equipment dealer.
Thank you for this video and the channel overall. I really appreciate history and good African focused history is really valuable since we get so little in the U.S.
I would love to see a collaboration between this channel and the Metatron as you are both scholars dedicated to uncovering the truth rather than what looks and sound good.
Agree!
Love metatron