Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

The Atlantic slave trade drastically changed west Africa in a way the previously existing saharan slave trade simply hadn't.
The two were completely different.

As well as the longer time period and lower numbers there's also a much bigger area being targeted- the entire east coast of Africa for instance. Europeans meanwhile were overwhelmingly focussed on just one relatively short stretch of the  west African coast.

Also it's a mistake to try and divide the Iberians and north Europeans too much. I recall reading a lot of British slave ships were selling to Brazil.

[Duque de Bragança]

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Grenouilleau

Again, the 17th century, again when Portugal loses its dominance in that area. Yet you keep conflating, Portugal and Spain (never really present there).
The Atlantic slave trade started in 1445. The oriental slave trade, in the second half of the 7th century.

Slave exports, 17th century:

Spain: 146k
Portugal/Brazil: 1M
UK: 428k
Netherlands: 220k
France: 38k

Spain, never really present? Portugal, losing its place?

Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau's book was published in 2004. There has been 19 years of research since then.

I know that book, I even suggested it to people here, last time some posts ago, the ID politics crowd (your comrades) tried to ban it in France.

PS: judging by the last posts of this thread Olivier Pétré Grenouilleau's book: Les traites négrières, essai d'histoire globale does not seem to have been translated into English...
Tidiane N'Diaye's much more polemical The Veiled Genocide, was translated partially however. 

Why don't you mention the numbers of the oriental slave trade or the inter-african slave trade (less impacting however) while you are at it? It's it in the same book.

Also while Spain had no colonial holdings in slave-rich Africa  in the 17th century, they imported through others, namely Portugal, of course.
Yes, Portugal lost its dominance (I did not say place that's your word), specially after 1640 with the wars against the Dutch and English and the loss of the Spanish market.
Spain's role is relatively negligible in Africa for slavery.


Of course, Grenouilleau disagrees about this being simply a matter of comparisons and numbers.

À une question sur la querelle des chiffres concernant le nombre d'esclaves des différentes traites, il répond :

« Il faut d'abord dire que le caractère abominable de la traite n'est pas corrélé aux chiffres. Le fait que la traite orientale — en direction de l'Afrique du Nord et du Moyen-Orient — ait affecté plus de gens ne doit nullement conduire à minimiser celle de l'Europe et des Amériques. En revanche, je suis surpris que certains soient scandalisés que l'on ose parler des traites non occidentales. Toutes les victimes sont honorables et je ne vois pas pourquoi il faudrait en oublier certaines. La traite transatlantique est quantitativement la moins importante : 11 millions d'esclaves sont partis d'Afrique vers les Amériques ou les îles de l'Atlantique entre 1450 et 1869 et 9,6 millions y sont arrivés. Les traites que je préfère appeler "orientales" plutôt que musulmanes — parce que le Coran n'exprime aucun préjugé de race ou de couleur — ont concerné environ 17 millions d'Africains noirs entre 650 et 1920. Quant à la traite intrafricaine, un historien américain, Patrick Manning, estime qu'elle représente l'équivalent de 50 % de tous les déportés hors d'Afrique noire, donc la moitié de 28 millions. C'est probablement plus. Ainsi un des meilleurs spécialistes de l'histoire de l'Afrique précoloniale, Martin Klein, explique-t-il que, vers 1900, rien que dans l'Afrique-Occidentale française, on comptait plus de 7 millions d'esclaves. Aussi n'est-il sans doute pas exagéré de dire qu'il y en eut peut-être plus de 14 millions, pour le continent, sur une durée de treize siècles. »

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Grenouilleau

[Duque de Bragança]

The Atlantic slave trade drastically changed west Africa in a way the previously existing saharan slave trade simply hadn't.
The two were completely different.

"saharan slave trade" (sic) ≠ trans-saharan slave ≠ oriental slave trade

They are different in the sense that one paved the way for the other.

As well as the longer time period and lower numbers there's also a much bigger area being targeted- the entire east coast of Africa for instance. Europeans meanwhile were overwhelmingly focussed on just one relatively short stretch of the  west African coast.

There is also the typical if not systematical oriental islamic practice of castrating, leading some to call it a veiled genocide i.e Tidiane n'Diaye, and requiring more slaves since they can not renewed "naturally" by procreation between slaves.

It even happened in the early middle ages in Europe, with slaves of pagan slavic origin, castrated in Verdun  for the muslim markets of Iberia or North Africa, from Slavic lands bordering Germanic lands.

Also it's a mistake to try and divide the Iberians and north Europeans too much. I recall reading a lot of British slave ships were selling to Brazil.

Iberians as a category would still not make sense, with a Portuguese empire much more relying on Africa than Spain, for obvious reasons.

Not lower numbers, see the book quoted by Oex earlier.

17-18 millions vs 11

The oriental slave trade started way earlier of course end ended later.

Remember that Tintin album (Coke en stock/Red Sea Sharks) you had as an avatar? It alluded to a remnant of that oriental slave trade still going on in the '1950s, when it was supposed to be illegal and ended.

[Sheilbh]

Again, the 17th century, again when Portugal loses its dominance in that area. Yet you keep conflating, Portugal and Spain (never really present there).
The Atlantic slave trade started in 1445.

Because time flows in a linear way. Things that happened before the 17th century have a cumulative, conditioning effect which shapes the 17the century. You can observe their impact growing from 1445 - which is what that book is about. The economic and social impact of the Atlantic slave trade in West Africa from the start until the revolutionary era.

That's precisely when the Dutch and English appear, however.

So your view is basically that the Atlantic slave trade was not destabilising West Africa and profoundly shaping the Americas until the Dutch or English arrive?

Kongo also benefitted from European rivalries by using the Dutch against the Portuguese, at least for a while.

Of course - Africa absolutely wasn't separate from the rest of the world.

Then what is your point?

That the slave trade for Europeans (Britain, Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands) was imperial, but domestic for the US and Brazil. Which means that the repercussions for Europeans were happening somewhere else: West Africa and the Americas. The capital and wealth that was being generated (or extracted) however, was accruing and compounding in Europe. For the US and Brazil some of the repercussions are also domestic, as is some of the wealth being generated.

In Europe I think the legacy of that is ongoing compartmentalisation - or containment of slavery as something happening somewhere else rather than something intrinsic in Europe's imperial project and we need to look at tying that into what was happening domestically in Europe to understand those links.

[Duque de Bragança]

Because time flows in a linear way. Things that happened before the 17th century have a cumulative, conditioning effect which shapes the 17the century. You can observe their impact growing from 1445 - which is what that book is about. The economic and social impact of the Atlantic slave trade in West Africa from the start until the revolutionary era.

That book starts with the oriental slave trade actually. So the second half of the Seventh Century, with a quick recap of the situation during Late Antiquity. Grenouilleau, assuming that's the author you are mentioned, Oex is, alludes to possible arrangements between Byzantine Egypt and Nubia about slaves, extended after the islamic conquest.

That's precisely when the Dutch and English appear, however.

[/quote]

So your view is basically that the Atlantic slave trade was not destabilising West Africa and profoundly shaping the Americas until the Dutch or English arrive?

In the 15th century no. Now, after the discovery and settlement of the Americas, with the focus on Brazil for the Portuguese, 100-150 years later, that's another matter. Also, Mozambique slave trade was not as important as well, later on.

Kongo also benefitted from European rivalries by using the Dutch against the Portuguese, at least for a while.

Of course - Africa absolutely wasn't separate from the rest of the world.

I don't think anyone said otherwise.

Then what is your point?

That the slave trade for Europeans (Britain, Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands) was imperial, but domestic for the US and Brazil. Which means that the repercussions for Europeans were happening somewhere else: West Africa and the Americas. The capital and wealth that was being generated (or extracted) however, was accruing and compounding in Europe. For the US and Brazil some of the repercussions are also domestic, as is some of the wealth being generated.
[/quote]
Imperial with different degrees
Brazil had more importance for Portugal than the US ever had for Britain however. Spain resorted to slavery but the importance varied among its colonial regions and over time. Buenos Aires had a sizable black slave population once.
As for the capital and wealth generated, it filled the coffers of the Portuguese Crown but not the country in general, with some of the wealh going instead to the UK e.g Methuen treaty, Brazilian gold (not relying on slave labour for extraction the same way as sugar cane).

In Europe I think the legacy of that is ongoing compartmentalisation - or containment of slavery as something happening somewhere else rather than something intrinsic in Europe's imperial project and we need to look at tying that into what was happening domestically in Europe to understand those links.

 

Most people in Portugal know that before 1822, Brazil was Portuguese and slaves played a key part, under duress, in its construction.
Later comers to Europe's imperial project might have a different idea.

As for something intrinsic to European imperial projects,  other non-European imperial projects (oriental slave trade) relied on it as well, for a longer time, so I am not sure what kind of difference you are trying to establish.

It's intrinsic to most if not all imperial projects prior to 1850, at the very least.

[Sheilbh]

Well it was from when I was talking to Tamas about the consequences and repercussions of slavery and how an apology might/not help address them. From a British perspective the wealth and the goods ended up here but the repercussions were separate in Africa and (largely) the Caribbean - this is the same as other European states.

That's reflected in a European ability to compartmentalise slavery. It was something that was going on elsewhere, when, actually, it's a significant part of the politics and economy of those countries, but at a step removed at the level of wealth and goods extracted. And those stories of the Caribbean and the Atlantic and early modern Europe need to be seen together far more than they are.

I think it's why there is value in a full formal apology - also because it's been identified by the CARICOM Reparations Commission as the first thing on their action plan. It would acknowledge it, I hope, in a way that broke through the siloes that slavery is kept in as a huge historical event that is, as I say, the other side of the coin of early modern Europe. I think that, unlike in the US, European states have more distancing mechanisms: physical location, only thinking about the actual slave traders (probably in the elite) rather than the wealth circulating domestically or the shift in tastes/availability of goods produced by slaves.

[Duque de Bragança]

Well it was from when I was talking to Tamas about the consequences and repercussions of slavery and how an apology might/not help address them. From a British perspective the wealth and the goods ended up here but the repercussions were separate in Africa and (largely) the Caribbean - this is the same as other European states.

A British perspective indeed. Not just the only one. Given the legendary insularity of the British (Brexit...), hardly a reference for the others.

That's reflected in a European ability to compartmentalise slavery. It was something that was going on elsewhere, when, actually, it's a significant part of the politics and economy of those countries, but at a step removed at the level of wealth and goods extracted. And those stories of the Caribbean and the Atlantic and early modern Europe need to be seen together far more than they are.

Really depends on each particular country.
As for compartimentalising, the slave trade did not start in the 17th century, but in the 7th century.
The 17th was where European powers, involved in various degrees, gained the upper hand over the oriental slave trade.
The plantation system was, according to Grenouilleau, appeared gradually in the 12th century, for instance in the Levant, before black slaves appearead in the mediterrean slave markets, through the oriental slave trade, with Italian merchant republics as middlemen.

I think it's why there is value in a full formal apology - also because it's been identified by the CARICOM Reparations Commission as the first thing on their action plan. It would acknowledge it, I hope, in a way that broke through the siloes that slavery is kept in as a huge historical event that is, as I say, the other side of the coin of early modern Europe. I think that, unlike in the US, European states have more distancing mechanisms: physical location, only thinking about the actual slave traders (probably in the elite) rather than the wealth circulating domestically or the shift in tastes/availability of goods produced by slaves.

Again, different experiences between European colonial powers, or the Italian merchant republics connected to the oriental slave trade.
Until the 1470s, most of the black slaves arriving in European mediterranean ports come through the Sahara.

We are going in circles, so if you can read French, I suggest reading Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau's book, the British experience is given a lot of detail there as well, while dealing with the issue globally.

As for the value of a formal apology, it's political value, mostly. Apologising for what others did, for political profit, à la Justin Trudeau, does not seem very valuable to me, much less sincere.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/traites-negrieres-Folio-Histoire/dp/2070339025/ref=tmm_other_meta_binding_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1682943814&sr=1-1
A French bookshop in London might have some copies as well, it's a well-known book, despite or thanks to the attempts of Taubira and the like to ban it in France.

[garbon]

I think it would be a controversial thesis to posit racialised slavery in the 7th century.

[Duque de Bragança]

I think it would be a controversial thesis to posit racialised slavery in the 7th century.

Grenouilleau's book is not the caricature you imply.
For the controversial thesis, try the Veiled Genocide by Tidiane N'Diaye.

https://www.academia.edu/36690297/The_Veiled_Genocide_A_forgotten_Historic_Tragedy

[Oexmelin]

I have no idea why you keep quoting Pétré-Grenouilleau's book here, and what you think it brings to your argument. Or indeed, what your argument is.

[Duque de Bragança]

I have no idea why you keep quoting Pétré-Grenouilleau's book here, and what you think it brings to your argument. Or indeed, what your argument is.

If that were so, why would some people keep arguing with it and keep on cherry picking about that book, n'est-ce pas Oex?
Quoting only figures for the Atlantic slave trade while doing his best to ignore the oriental slave trade and the internal slave trade.

L'hôpital qui se moque de la charité, à ce que vois, mais point de pire aveugle que celui ne veut point voir. (people who live in glass houses etc. for the non-francophones).

It started with a simple reminder of the slow beginning of the Atlantic slave trade, and UK experiences not being the same as for other countries.


Of course, this being Languish, that evolved into an argument (pun intented).

[Oexmelin]

What are you taking about?

[Duque de Bragança]

What are you taking about?

Try reading earlier posts.

PS: I believe the "debate" with Sheilbh is mostly ended in that we agree to disagree, since we are not  always speaking about the same phenomena, not just the Atlantic slave trade.

[Sheilbh]

But the point we were talking about was the recent trend of institutions commissioning studies into their historic ties to the slave trade (CofE, Guardian, Glasgow University, royal family etc) and, as I would see it, Britain's responsibility to its past. I think you could have similar conversations in many European countries - my point was simply that the history in Europe will be different in the US, it is more likely to be a case of following the money.

I don't see the relevance in that context of the Saharan slave trade, for example.

You do get this argument in the UK normally in the context of wanting to talk about the Atlantic slave trade because it is relevant to our history and someone pointing out the Arab slave trade. I think there's a line between setting out the world economy as it was and role slavery played in it, and the trade in enslaved people from one part of the world to another. But more often in the UK I think it is just "whatabouttery" rather than anything meaningful.

I also think it re-inforces the racial difference at the heart of the Atlantic slave trade because ultimately the only connection between white Balkan boys taken by the Ottomans and white British slavers in the same period is their race. It seems to me a strange thing to be linking those histories in that way (if anything I imagine it would be more productive to compare the enslaving powers).

[Oexmelin]

Try reading earlier posts.

I did, and it still made no sense, or seemed relevant to any of Sheilbh's points. As he reminded you.