A HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AFTER FRANCE ABOLISHED SLAVERY
The impact of the slave trade on Africa
On 27 April 1848 Victor Schoelcher, the French
under-secretary of state for the colonies, signed a decree abolishing slavery.
To force the decision through, he had warned of the danger of a general
uprising if nothing was done. Resistance by the slaves themselves was thus of
capital importance in the French government’s decision, and freedom, when it
came, was due more to Africa’s own efforts than to a sudden burst of
humanitarian feeling on the part of the slave traders.
The course of human history is marked by
appalling crimes. But even the hardened historian is filled with horror,
loathing and indignation on examining the record of African slavery. How was it
possible? How could it have gone on for so long, and on such a scale? A tragedy
of such dimensions has no parallel in any other part of the world.
The African continent was bled of its human
resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from
the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of
slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the
nineteenth). Then more than four centuries (from the end of the fifteenth to
the nineteenth) of a regular slave trade to build the Americas and the prosperity
of the Christian states of Europe. The figures, even where hotly disputed, make
your head spin. Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four
million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine
million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million
(depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean (1).
Of all these slave routes, the “slave trade”
in its purest form, i.e. the European Atlantic trade, attracts most attention
and gives rise to most debate. The Atlantic trade is the least poorly
documented to date, but this is not the only reason. More significantly, it was
directed at Africans only, whereas the Muslim countries enslaved both Blacks
and Whites. And it was the form of slavery that indisputably contributed most
to the present situation of Africa. It permanently weakened the continent, led
to its colonisation by the Europeans in the nineteenth century, and engendered
the racism and contempt from which Africans still suffer.
While specialists squabble about the details,
the basic questions raised by the enslavement of the Africans have scarcely
varied since the eighteenth century, when the issue first became the subject of
public debate as the result of the efforts of abolitionists in the Northern
slave states, the demands of black intellectuals, and the unremitting struggle
of the slaves themselves. Why the Africans rather than other peoples? Who
exactly should be held responsible for the slave trade? The Europeans alone, or
the Africans themselves? Did the slave trade do real damage to Africa, or was
it a marginal phenomenon affecting only a few coastal societies?
Trade or go under
We need to take a fresh look at the origins
of the Atlantic slave trade. They shed light on the enduring mechanisms that
established and maintained the vicious spiral. It is not certain that the
European slave trade originally derived from the Arab trade. For a long time
the Arab slave trade appears to have been a supplement to a much more
profitable commerce in Sudanese gold and the precious, rare or exotic products
of the African countries. Whereas, despite some exports of gold, ivory and
hardwoods, it was the trade in human beings that galvanised the energy of the
Europeans along the coast of Africa. Again, the Arab slave trade was geared
mainly to the satisfaction of domestic needs. In contrast, following the
successful establishment of slave plantations on the islands off the coast of
Africa (Sao Tomé, Principe, Cap Verde), the export of Africans to the New World
supplied the workforce for the colonial plantations and mines whose produce
(gold, silver and, above all, sugar, cocoa, cotton, tobacco and coffee) was the
prime material of international trade.
The enslavement of Africans for production
was tried in Iraq but proved a disaster. It provoked widespread revolts, the
largest of which lasted from 869 to 883 and put paid to the mass exploitation
of black labour in the Arab world (2). Not until the nineteenth century did
slavery for production re-emerge in a Muslim country, when black slaves were
used on the plantations of Zanzibar to produce goods such as cloves and
coconuts that in any case were partly exported to Western markets (3). The two
slavery systems nevertheless shared the same justification of the
unjustifiable: a more or less explicit racism with a strong religious
colouring. In both cases, we find the same fallacious interpretation of
Genesis, according to which the Blacks of Africa, as the alleged descendants of
Ham, are cursed and condemned to slavery.
The Europeans did not have an easy time
establishing the trade in “ebony”. At first, they simply raided the coast and
carried people off. The powerful images in Alex Haley’s Roots (4) are confirmed by the Guinea Chronicle written in the
middle of the fifteenth century by a Portuguese, Gomes Eanes de Zurara. But the
regular exploitation of mines and plantations required an ever larger
workforce. A proper system had to be established to ensure a steady supply. In
the early sixteenth century the Spaniards began to issue “licences” (from 1513)
and asientos or
“contracts” (from 1528) under which the state monopoly on the import of Blacks
passed into private hands.
The great slaving companies were formed in
the second half of the seventeenth century, when the Americas, and other parts
of the world which the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and various papal edicts
had reserved to the Spaniards and Portuguese, were redistributed among the
nations of Europe. The whole of Europe - France, England, Holland, Portugal and
Spain, and even Denmark, Sweden and Brandenburg
shared in the spoils,
establishing a chain of monopoly companies, forts, trading posts and colonies
that stretched from Senegal to Mozambique. Only distant Russia and the Balkan
countries were missing from the pack - and they received their own small
contingents of slaves via the Ottoman Empire.

In Africa itself, sporadic raids by Europeans
soon gave way to regular commerce. African societies were drawn into the
slavery system under duress, hoping that, once inside it, they would be able to
derive maximum benefit for themselves. Nzinga Mbemba, ruler of the Kongo
Kingdom, is a good example. He had converted to Christianity in 1491 and
referred to the king of Portugal as his brother. When he came to power in 1506,
he protested strongly at the fact that the Portuguese, his brother’s subjects,
felt entitled to rob his possessions and carry off his people into slavery. It
was to no avail. The African monarch gradually allowed himself to be convinced
that the slave trade was both useful and necessary. Among the goods offered in
exchange for human beings, rifles took pride of place. And only states equipped
with rifles, i.e. participating in the slave trade, were able to resist attacks
from their neighbours and pursue expansionist policies.
The African states fell into the trap set by
the European slavers. Trade or go under. All the states along the coast or
close to the slave trading areas were riven by the conflict between national
interest, which demands that no resource necessary to security and prosperity
be neglected, and the founding charters of kingdoms, which impose on sovereigns
the obligation to defend the lives, property and rights of their subjects. The
states involved in the slave trade strove to keep it within strict limits. In
1670, when the French requested permission to establish a trading post on his
territory, King Tezifon of Allada made the following clear-sighted reply: “You
will make a house in which you will put at first two little pieces of cannon,
the next year you will mount four, and in a little time your factory will
metamorphosed into a fort that will make you master of my dominions and enable
you to give laws to me (5)”. From Saint-Louis-du-Sénégal to the Congo estuary,
the local societies and states mostly succeeded in pursuing an ambiguous policy
of collaboration, suspicion and control.
In Angola, Mozambique and certain parts of
Guinea, however, Europeans got directly involved in the African warfare and
trade networks with the help of local black accomplices or half-castes who were
the offspring of white adventurers. These adventurers had a reputation that was
unenviable even in an age of extreme cruelty. At the beginning of the sixteenth
century the Portuguese lançados (those
who dared to “take off” into the interior) were described as “the seed of the
devil”, “the essence of evil”, and “murderers, thieves and degenerates”. In
time, this group of intermediaries grew large enough to constitute, at several
points along the coast, the class of “merchant princes” on whom the slave trade
came to rest.
How profitable was it? Scrupulous accounts
were kept of the slaving ships’ outgoing cargo. They give us a very clear
picture of what was traded in exchange for millions of African lives. Rifles,
gunpowder, brandy, cloth, glassware, and ironmongery. A surprisingly unequal
exchange? Perhaps. But the same sort of thing is still going on today. The
countries of the North stop at nothing to convince African heads of state to
import white elephants in exchange for mediocre personal profit.
Clearly, the ideological weapons used to
justify the slave trade reflected neither the reality nor the dynamics of
African society. Africans, like all other peoples, had no particular liking for
slavery. Slavery was generated and maintained by a specific system. While the
revolts of black slaves during the Atlantic crossing and in America are well
documented, there is much less awareness of the scale and diversity of
resistance to slavery within Africa. Both to the Atlantic slave trade as such
and to the slavery in Africa which it induced or aggravated.
One long neglected source is Lloyd’s List. It throws unexpected
light on the rejection of the slave trade in the African coastal societies. It
is packed full of details of damage to vessels insured by the famous London
company from its foundation in 1689. The figures show that in more than 17% of
cases, the damage was due to local rebellion or plundering in Africa. The perpetrators
of these revolts were the slaves themselves, assisted by the coastal
population. It is as if there were two separate interests at work: the interest
of states that had allowed themselves to become incorporated in the slavery
system, and the interest of free peoples who were under constant threat of
enslavement and were moved to act in solidarity with those already reduced to
slavery.
As for slavery within African society itself,
everything appears to indicate that it grew in parallel with the Atlantic slave
trade and was reinforced by it. It similarly gave rise to many forms of
resistance: flight, open rebellion, and recourse to the protection afforded by
religion (attested in both Islamic and Christian countries). In the Senegal
valley, for example, the attempts by certain monarchs to enslave and sell their
own subjects gave rise, at the end of the 17th century, to the Marabout war and
the Toubenan movement (from the word tuub, meaning to convert to Islam). Its founder, Nasir
al-Din, proclaimed that “God does not permit kings to pillage, kill or enslave
their peoples. He appointed them, on the contrary, to preserve their subjects
and protect them from their enemies. Peoples were not made for kings, but kings
for peoples.”
Further south, in what is now Angola, the
Kongo peoples invoked Christianity in the same way, both against the
missionaries, who were compromised in the slave trade, and against the local
powers. At the beginning of the 18th century a prophetess in her twenties,
Kimpa Vita (also known as Doña Beatrice), turned the slave traders’ racist
arguments on their head and began to preach that “there are no Blacks or Whites
in heaven” and that “Jesus Christ and other saints are black and come from the
Congo”. Similar appeals to religion are still a feature of demands for freedom
and equality in various parts of Africa. Clearly, the slave trade was far from
marginal. It is central to modern African history, and resistance to it
engendered attitudes and practices that have persisted to the present day.
A continent of “savages”
The ideas of abolitionist propaganda, which
certain ways of commemorating the abolition of slavery tend to reinforce,
should not be accepted uncritically. The desire for freedom, and freedom
itself, did not come to the Africans from outside, whether from Enlightenment
philosophers, abolitionist agitators or republican humanists. They came from
internal developments within the African societies themselves. Moreover, from
the end of the 18th century, merchants in countries bordering on the Gulf of
Guinea, who had mostly grown rich on the slave trade, began to distance
themselves from slavery and send their children to Britain to train in the
sciences and other professions useful for the development of commerce. That is
why, throughout the 19th century, African societies had no trouble responding
positively to the inducements of industrialised Europe, which had converted to
“lawful” trade in the produce of the land and was henceforth hostile to the
“unlawful” and “shameful” trade in slaves.
But the Africa of the 19th century was very
different from the continent which Europeans had encountered four hundred years
earlier. As the Trinidadian historian, Walter Rodney, has tried to show, Africa
had been drawn by the slave trade down a dangerous path, and it was now well
and truly underdeveloped (6). The racism rooted in the slave-trade era
blossomed anew in these propitious circumstances. European discourse on Africa
now centred on the “backwardness” and “savagery” of the continent. On the basis
of such value judgements, the West was postulated as a model. African upheavals
and regression were attributed, not to real historical developments in which
Europe had played a part, but to the “innate nature” of the Africans
themselves. Emergent colonialism and imperialism cloaked themselves in
humanitarian garb and invoked “racial superiority” and the “White Man’s
burden”. The former slave-trading states now spoke only of liberating Africa
from “Arab” slavers and the black potentates who were also engaged in slavery.
However, once the colonial powers had carved
up the continent between them, they took great care not to abolish the slavery
structures they had found in place. Any change would have to be gradual, they
argued, and “native” customs had to be respected. Slavery thus persisted within
the colonial system, as we can see from the League of Nations surveys conducted
between the two world wars (7). Worse still, in order to drive the economic
machine, they created a new type of slavery in the form of forced labour.
“Whatever it is called, nothing can disguise the fact that forced labour is de facto and de jure simply the
reintroduction and promotion of slavery (8).” Here again, to look no further
than the French example, the impulse for freedom came from Africa. It was due
to the efforts of the African deputies, led by Félix Houphouët-Boigny and
Léopold Sédar Senghor, that forced labour was at last abolished in 1946.
REFERENCE
http://mondediplo.com/1998/04/02africa
Social Plugin