jueves, 5 de marzo de 2009

Article 2 African slave owners

Instructions: Read this article and answer the questions below.


A slave owner descendant
Many societies in Africa with kings and hierarchical forms of government
traditionally kept slaves. But these were mostly used for domestic purposes.
They were an indication of power and wealth and not used for commercial gain.
However, with the appearance of Europeans desperate to buy slaves for use in
the Americas, the character of African slave ownership changed.

Growing rich with slavery

In the early 18th century, Kings of Dahomey (known today as Benin) became big
players in the slave trade, waging a bitter war on their neighbours, resulting in the
capture of 10,000, including another important slave trader, the King of Whydah.
King Tegbesu made £250,000 a year selling people into slavery in 1750. King Gezo
said in the 1840s he would do anything the British wanted him to do apart from giving
up slave trade:

"The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and
the glory of their wealth... the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of
triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery."


Living witness

Some of the descendants of African traders are alive today. Mohammed Ibrahim Babatu is
the great great grandson of Baba-ato (also known as Babatu), the famous Muslim slave trader,
who was born in Niger and conducted his slave raids in Northern Ghana in the 1880s.
Mohammed Ibrahim Babatu, the deputy head teacher of a Junior secondary school in Yendi,
lives in Ghana.

"In our curriculum, we teach a little part of the history of our land. Because some
of the children ask questions about the past history of our grandfather Babatu.

Babatu, and others, didn't see anything wrong with slavery. They didn't have any
knowledge of what the people were used for. They were only aware that some of
the slaves would serve others of the royal families within the sub-region.

He has done a great deal of harm to the people of Africa. I have studied history
and I know the effect of slavery.

I have seen that the slave raids did harm to Africa, but some members of our
family feel he was ignorant?we feel that what he did was fine, because it has given
the family a great fame within the Dagomba society.

He gave some of the slaves to the Dagombas and then he sent the rest of the slaves
to the Salaga market. He didn't know they were going to plantations... he was
ignorant."


Listen

Songhay

The young Moroccan traveler and commentator, Leo Africanus, was amazed at the wealth
and quantity of slaves to be found in Gao, the capital of Songhay, which he visited in 1510
and 1513 when the empire was at the height of its power under Askiya Mohammed.

"...here there is a certain place where slaves are sold, especially on those days
when the merchants are assembled. And a young slave of fifteen years of age is
sold for six ducats, and children are also sold. The king of this region has a certain
private palace where he maintains a great number of concubines and slaves."


Swahili

The ruling class of coastal Swahili society - Sultans, government officials and wealthy
merchants - used non-Muslim slaves as domestic servants and to work on farms and estates.
The craftsmen, artisans and clerks tended to by Muslim and freed men. But the divisions
between the different classes were often very flexible. The powerful slave and ivory trader
Tippu Tip was the grandson of a slave.

Listen

The Omani Sultan, Seyyid Said, became immensely rich when he started up cloves plantations
in 1820 with slave labour - so successful was he that he moved the Omani capital to Zanzibar
in 1840.

Punished for keeping slaves
The Asanti (the capital, Kumasi, is in modern Ghana) had a long tradition of domestic slavery.
But gold was the main commodity for selling. With the arrival of Europeans the slaves displaced
gold as the main commodity for trade. As late as 1895 the British Colonial Office was not
concerned by this.

"It would be a mistake to frighten the King of Kumasi and the Ashantis generally
on the question of slavery. We cannot sweep away their customs and institutions
all at once. Domestic slavery should not be troubled at present."


British attitudes changed when the King of the Asanti (the Asantehene) resisted British colonial
authority. The suppression of the slave trade became a justification for the extension of
European power. With the humiliation and exile of King Prempeh I in 1896, the Asanti were
placed under the authority of the Governor of the Gold Coast and forced therefore to conform
to British law and abolish the slave trade.

Slavery decreed by the gods

In 1807, Britain declared all slave trading illegal. The king of Bonny (in what is now the
Nigerian delta) was dismayed at the conclusion of the practice.

"We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the
priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade
ordained by God himself."


According to this article, it seems that having slaves working for you was ok until slaves were taken to the Americas. What is your opinion? Why was it different to have slaves in Africa, Europe and in America?

25 comentarios:

  1. According to this article, it seems that having slaves working for you was ok until slaves were taken to the Americas. What is your opinion?
    I still do not think it is right, but in this case it is a little bit better. It was part of their culture and they didn't think it could be another way. It is what kept their "economy" going and what made their people strong in a way.





    Why was it different to have slaves in Africa, Europe and in America?
    yes I feel there is a difference, because in Africa they enslaved their own people, in europe they enslaved other people, and in America they didn't start slavery until a little while later

    ResponderEliminar
  2. That was sammy Mohney ^^^^

    ResponderEliminar
  3. I think it was wrong since the start since it is inhuman and against what I believe. It was different because we started half way through the whole thing started and only did it for the cheap labor. Africa was the start and did it because they needed more workers.
    -Devan Jones

    ResponderEliminar
  4. I do not think it is right to have a slave, whether or not they come from your own country, it was a bit better in this case.They basically were use to it, and it pretty much was a part of their culture.

    I feel that there is a slight difference in slaves in Africa, Europe, and in America because in Africa, the slaves were basically there own people. In Europe, they have enslaved their own people, but usually under circumstances, such as you didn't pay me, now you must work for me, etc. But in America, the concept was new. And instead of getting their own people to work for them, the resorted to just basically taking people from another land and doing the work for them.

    -- Ava Gumowski

    ResponderEliminar
  5. I think it is okay in Africa. As far as I know they were unknown to what they were doing and seemed to treat them okay. But I could be wrong my knowledge on this is not great. I think slaves brought to America are wrong. They were mistreated and not equal to others. Also taken away from families and put on boats to small for the amount of people they chose. Some spread diseases and a huge amount of them died. Some even jumped of the ship to kill themselves, than carry on. They also were not fed enough. All in all Africa slaves it’s on people while Europe and America took people from other countries.

    ~Ashley

    ResponderEliminar
  6. i think they saw it as ok because they didn't feel like ti was totally new way of life for the slaves. when you start sending them tot different continents and across oceans the reallity becomes more real. i don't think there should be a differenc, it's all slavery and forced bondage. however their mindset was probably different because when they were still on the same soil they could see and reap the benefits. but when they couldn't it made them really see what was happening.

    -joanna

    ResponderEliminar
  7. Possibly in Africa, they treated their slaves differently, maybemoras employees. it is still wrong, wherever you live, to own a person, you should pay people for the work that they do.
    -Roya

    ResponderEliminar
  8. According to this article, it seems that having slaves working for you was ok until slaves were taken to the Americas. What is your opinion?
    It seems like slave trade was normal to the Africans, and they were used only for domestic purposes. The British didn't seem to mind either. But once the slaves were being sent off away from their homeland, the British tried stepping in. I think the British thought it was wrong for people to be sent off away from their homeland.

    Why was it different to have slaves in Africa, Europe and in America?
    It seems like the labor would be worse, and the conditions would be even more unbearable. Also, they'd be sent away from their homeland, away from their family, and away from everything they knew.

    -Lauren Gedris

    ResponderEliminar
  9. I think that slavery is not okay in any way. Even though africans did it themselves they doesnt make it right. These people that had the slaves were benefiting from it while the actual slaves were being mistreated

    ResponderEliminar
  10. woops for got to put my name the one on top of this was made by Javier

    ResponderEliminar
  11. i dont think that having a slave anywhere is ok...but i think that it is different because the americans went over to africa with no warning and took the africans from there home land and took them back to a foreign land.

    -jharid boosamra

    ResponderEliminar
  12. Commenting On:

    Lauren: I like the way you had explained your answer on why it was different to have slaves in Africa, Europe, and in Africa. I like hiw you said that they had lost their family, and everything they had known, like their sense of self.

    Ashley: I liked how you summed up how in Africa the people were probably much better treated as slaves than the ones in Europe and America.

    Javier: I like your answer, but I think it is too short, although you stated your opinion and then backed it up, even though it was all in one sentence.

    - Ava

    ResponderEliminar
  13. Roya,
    "Possibly in Africa, they treated their slaves differently, maybemoras employees"
    if they were employees than they would have gotten paid
    -Javier

    ResponderEliminar
  14. Roya,
    I wanted to point out a flaw for you answer. The question states,
    "Why was it different to have slaves in Africa, Europe and in America?"
    You only stated the difference for Africa. Also, it seems that your answers lack an opinion for each article.
    -Devan Jones

    ResponderEliminar
  15. joanna,
    i like your comment. it was very well explained and i agree withit completely
    -javier

    ResponderEliminar
  16. Devan: I agree about how we assumed that slavery was okay, because the Africans were doing it themselves.

    Joanna: I agree that their mindset would change if they were on different soil.

    Ashley: I agree that the conditions of slaves in Africa compared to America were much better.

    -Lauren Gedris

    ResponderEliminar
  17. Lauren,
    i think its still wrong no matter where they do it. the people were taken advantage of and were taken away from their freedom

    ResponderEliminar
  18. I agree with Jharid, it is wrong under all circumstances, but it is even worse when you take someone without them knowing anything about where they are going or about to be enduring.

    Lauren...the british did not think it was wrong to send people away from their homeland, in fact the british actually benefited economically from slavery. the only reason the british were the first to stop trading slaves was because its people (the brits) started an abolition movement...but, remember the british only stopped trading slaves, this didn't mean that slave already in england were free.

    i definately agree with Joanna, but i doubt the reaped a lot of benefits, even though they were still in Africa, they were still slaves and that only meant that they were slaves in their city or wherever.
    -Roya

    ResponderEliminar
  19. roya: how could they not reap the benefits? they had the slaves, and were trading the slaves.(i'm talking about the slave traders)

    -joanna

    ResponderEliminar
  20. roya: "Possibly in Africa, they treated their slaves differently, maybemoras employees."
    i agree with this. in africa they probably did treat them better because they knew where they were from (what tribe, nation, etc.). it's a whole different story when they start being shipped from a land that you've never been to and are only brought here to work. it makes the whole thing more surreal.

    -joanna

    ResponderEliminar
  21. i agree with jharid when he said "different because the americans went over to africa with no warning and took the africans from there home land and took them back to a foreign land." the fact that it was a foreign land makes a big difference.

    -joanna

    ResponderEliminar
  22. It was a little bit better because it was part of their culture and they weren't in foreign lands. I do still kind of believe that it is wrong to have slaves because everyone should have the right to freedom no matter what and I keepon saying this becvause it is true that the people should be paid for working no matter how big or small their job is. Whitney Burney... Once again Sorry this is late but I just got internet back... And the original was e-mailed to you the day we frist started the blog

    ResponderEliminar
  23. Joanna/ Jharid- I agree with both of them, The fact that the land that they were taken back to was foriegn makes a big difference in the impact of the situatuion

    Lauren- I agree that the conditions that the slaves were under were a lot more unbearable than that in Africa nad Europe

    Sammy- I like the fact that you do admit that it wasa helping hand to the economy but it's still not of correct moral value

    Whitney Burney

    ResponderEliminar
  24. I cant believe how many people are trying to justify African slavery as "not that bad"
    sure, there are tiers to it, but apart from the journey to foreign lands, it's never ok and doesn't excuse it. And just because something is part of a cultural norm doesn't mean it's ok!

    ResponderEliminar
  25. Any type of Slavery, bondage, kidnapping of any human being is most egregious. This does not have anything to do with culture tyranny is unacceptable in any form. Slavery was about wealth building by any means necessary. Why is it that the continent of Africa does not teach the truth about what part they played in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. They are ashamed. And rightly so.

    ResponderEliminar