Talk:Atlantic slave trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)

Contents 1 Nonsensical Sentence 2 Opening definition needs work 3 Over-biased? 4 Mockery of the African Holocaust 5 References Please 6 Resistance 7 Do not remove links 8 Identifying the language of an oppressor 9 Minority of Africans involved 10 Jews and the African Slave Trade 11 End of the slave trade 12 More refernces needed 13 Indian slavery 13.1 challenge 14 Hundreds of slave ships existed 15 Pre-Euro slave trade & african part in Euro trade 16 History is complex 17 Were Slaves Immortal? 17.1 Good Point 18 Book references and further reading 19 IDIOTS 20 Why in the African-American section, see: New World Destinations 21 Coffee Houses 22 reference for ethnic groups

[edit] Nonsensical Sentence

The following sentence in the intro does not make sense, could someone delete or edit it?; "Some contemporary historians estimate that 12 million availability of African slaves at affordable prices (beginning in the early 18th century for these colonies) resulted in a shift away from Indian slavery."

[edit] Opening definition needs work

The Atlantic slave trade was going on for about 100 years before the first slaves were brought to the Americas. Plus, it was not started by the Spanish, and the process of obtaining slaves was far more complex than simply saying they were "kidnapped." So perhaps a more encompassing introduction would be appropriate. M.J.Willett 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over-biased?

The introduction makes the important and under-appreciated point that slavery existed in Africa before Europeans arrived and "industrialized" slavery, but seems to be stepping over a line into offensiveness when it claims that slaves' lives were improved by slavery versus poorhouses.

[edit] Mockery of the African Holocaust

Please sign your remarks, so we know who you are. To compare Slavery in the Americas or the trade in Africans by Europeans to scattered loose forms of bondage found in Africa is perverted. The reality of systems of enslavement or bondage was not a venture "industrialized" by Europeans it was a system invented and perpetuated by Europeans against African people. It destroyed language, religion and culture. It erroded identities and ethnicities, devalued human beings into commodities--chattel. I would appreciate some respect be shown. I would love to see you making these statements on the Jewish Holocaust site. Where in the European trade was the so-called slave a member of the family, or could become the king of a country re: Sunni Ali Ber? Some so-called slaves in Africa were rich; they owned land and were legal administrators of territories. Dare to compare.--Halaqah 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This often resulted in a better socio-economic position and survival rate than the poorest freeborn (e.g. in poorhouses), who often also suffered cruelties including physical punishments that many slaves were spared.

Look at the above. Has any read about the survival rate of a slave in islands such as Barbados, they had a life expectancy of 15 years. It was cheaper to work them to death than care for them. --Halaqah 12:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References Please

i Have counted 3 proper references in this entire article 2 come from my additions. I have added numerous calls for references, It isnt that i disagree with the submission but we must always site sources to keep this page "worthy" the first thing people would say "it isnt valid" "where is the source" to keep it on the mark please please please use references to anything you add (especially when you know people will attack it)--Halaqah 13:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resistance

I have always noticed how abolishment of slavery is sold as a "white" project. There needs to be a section discussing African resistance and also the truth behind the so-called abolishment of slavery. Myth has it that is was a moral move on the part of the European powers, reality offers a different situation; The end of the Arab slave trade by the European powers also had other agendas, namely the leveling of the playing field to allow the industrial revolution. If Arabs and others were allowed to profit from slavery it would disrupt Europe's economic edge and political persuasion in their industrialization designs.--Halaqah 13:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not remove links

Sankofa is one of the most profound films on the Atlantic Slave trade, even more respected than Roots. I know you dont know this but then you should with out reason start chopping links just because you see them selling something. Why on Gods earth did you delete African Holocaust, which is dedicated to the transatlantic slave trade, you google it thats what comes up. Maybe you dont like their politics. Why dont you delete PBS, arent they OVERTLY COMMERCIAL AS WELL? Its funny how Sankofa is commercial and PBS isnt. --Halaqah 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identifying the language of an oppressor

Let me show anyone reading something There is an excellent article on the topic of language that is on the black people page. linguistics blah blah cant remember.

• Africans would capture other Africans: Only Europeans with an agenda would write this. Would you say this about a Eurpean conflict.
• black slaves/African slaves: They werent slaves they were people or captives. they were not by any defintion slaves like corn waiting to be picked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Its pretty clear that whomever has been editing this page has a pretty racist agenda. I am researching for a paper and hoped that I could find something useful here...I was wrong. If I want to read a racist anti-white rant I'll go to the nation of Islam website.Terriga 06:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

PLease note that your edits will be reverted if you make silly changes based upon your POV, this page has been worked on by a diverse group of people and we will not have you without any evidence disturbing it, clearly you have an agenda from your above statement and that agenda isnt welcomed here. Unless u have serious evidence do not alter anything here!--Halaqah 07:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minority of Africans involved

If it wasnt a minority then who were the people being shipped ? they must have been the majority, this is logic. One king selling 2000 people is a minority of Africans involved in the trade. A majority were not trading another majority into slavery. By this estimate 10 million people would have needed 5 million people to be slavers. Or 10 million people sold into slavery would mean 20 million did the selling. A minority of Jews worked for Hitler, A minority of Native Americans worked for the French. A minority of Africans helped the whites invade Zulu land. A minority of Chinese allowed China to be annexed by the Khans. This is the constant logic of history. --Halaqah 07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a world of difference when this minority is the one in power, and remains so. When the king of Dahomey or Asante sells a couple thousand sub-saharan africans (more like a couple tens of thousands, which in the case of Dahomey are probably done for anyway), it's not Joe Public who's doing it, it's the government. 74.13.207.139 14:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

U need to look at who helped the French in expanding into North America, And who helped the Khans into the gates of China, it is always the leadership. The leadership is who you seduce in the art of war called betrayal, It was the leaders of the Jewish community, not the scrapper on the street. War is about logical victory and the course of success is the art of seduction. I am stealing words from somewhere, but the point is a few kings where not the governors of the terroritories, one gun in the hands of one man, doesnt form the statement "africans sold africans to Europeans", and nowhere can you show it was any significant majority of Africans, adding to that the social conditions which forced people into the dilemma of sell or be sold. The role of the oppressor as Maulana Karenga says is to reassign blame for the oppression against others, all oppressors do this. YOu dont have the figures read the letters of Alfonso and Umara Tall and see what was going on, using politics to divide and conquere, now african r left to harbour blame.--Halaqah 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The wording under debate is whether a sentence should say many or a minority "of African kings and merchants" were involved. There is nowhere that it states that the majority of the entire population was involved. - SimonP 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews and the African Slave Trade

I'm in the process of looking in to this, but MUCH more research needs to be done about the VERY prominent role that these Charleston Jews played in the African slave trade, the slave trade which was overwhelmingly centered in the city of Charleston in North America (especially after The American North became increasingly abolitionist-oriented) until about 1807, when the slave trade was outlawed (though it certainly continued, albeit quietly).

Also, South Carolina eventually had more African slaves living in the state than non-slaves (as Wikipedia says: "For most of its history, black slaves made up a majority of South Carolina's population.") and the slave owners constantly feared a large slave-uprising or insurrection; indeed, even in modern times African-Americans are about 1/3 the population of the state of South Carolina, possibly a bit more.

It seems that wherever there was a very early North or South American synagogue or large Jewish presence you also find a prominent slave market, both in North and South America (along with the Caribbean and North Africa). All evidence points to the fact that it was a very large role that Jews played -- not to mention the fact that many of these Sephardic Jews hailed from the Netherlands (after being expelled from Spain/Portugal), and everyone knows that the Dutch played a huge part in the African slave trade (History of the Jews in the Netherlands), and that they had been recently expelled from Spain and Portugal (Alhambra decree), but the crypto-Jews remained -- Spain and Portugal were both THE dominant shipping powers around this time. The oldest synagogue in North or South America was established in 1636 (the Kahal Zur synagogue in the Dutch capital of Recife, Brazil). Eventually Brazil had more African slaves than any other place on Earth. There were also many Sephardic Jews living in North Africa (a traditional Sephardi area) which served as a jumping off point where the slaves were gathered (see Triangular trade) by both local Arabs and these Sephardi Jew collaborators and then shipped to North or South America.

There was also an amazingly large slave market in Newport, Rhode Island, which is the site of the oldest synagogue in North America (Touro Synagogue); check out these stats: "As early as 1708 African slaves outnumbered indentured servants in Rhode Island eight to one. In fact, between 1705 and 1805, Rhode Island merchants [could they be Jews owing to the first synagogue there?] sponsored at least 1,000 slaving voyages to West Africa and carried over 100,000 slaves back to America. More slave ships would leave Colonial Newport than any other American port of that time. By 1770, one out of every three Newport families owned at least one slave" [1].

Does anyone have any reliable links or book recommendations so that we can write a section about this on the page? I've found many but am looking for more. Thank you. --Pseudothyrum 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The allegations of heavy Jewish involvement in the slave trade are both old and throughroughly discredited. There is overwhelming evidence that Jews, while involved, were peripheral both to the slave trade and in slave ownership. The most recent text in this area is Eli Farber's well regarded Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade. He finds that throughout the Americas Jews were less likely than average to be slave owners and played only minimal roles as investors in or operators of the slave trade. - SimonP 03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely you do not base you argument on only a handful of sources, as there haven't even been a dozen reliable books written in English on the subject yet; SimonP: does this one book, one view, one author answer ALL of the questions regarding this topic? Be reasonable now: surely it does not... --Pseudothyrum 11:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We should not fear exploring this topic. But I think both views are inaccurate, they were not heavily involved and they also did not play a minimum role. I think the problem is focusing on their Jewishness, they were more European than Jew, and their Jewish religion did not help nor hinder their role in slaving, so the entire study is distorted when we say Jews involved in slaving. We can say blue eyed people involved in slaving. The reason is it wasnt on account of being a Jew that made them slavers, thats just a POV i got. But as part of European society they would have been involved no more or less as their numbers in the population allowed, to say they did is biased to say they didnt is biased because it isolates them as either "devils" or "gods" they were people who lived in a slaving culture and some of them, like everyone else would have got involved. I strongly disagree with the conspiracy that they ploted and i also disagree with "minimum" because suggest their religion influenced their involvement--and it didnt. see Tony Martin for Jews and Slavery I really think there is dishonesty on bothsides, but i dont think Tony Martin has ill intent, he is not a antijew, --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Jews, particularly the Sephardic Jews - many who were Crypto Jews throughout the Caribbean and Latin Americas DID PLAY A HUGE ROLE IN THE TRANS-ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE!!!! Next year 2007, it will all be revealed, when we Commemorate the Abolition of the Slave Trade in Britain. Oliver Cromwell allowed the Jews re-entry into Britain in 1656 for International Trading. All the Sephardic Jews (Spanish and Portuguese origins), were Merchants, trading in Slaves - Shipowners, Plantation Owners, Agents, Brokers - networking with Dutch (DWIC and DEIC), and their families - where they had shareholdings. They networked throughout the Trans-Atlantic Slave Routes. After gaining compensation from the Caribbean for the ending of slavery many emigrated to America where slavery took hold much later and they brought their accumulated wealth and knowledge there, where slavery was still legal. (South Africa, was the modern day remnant of the whole system.)

There is plenty of evidence in Archives. They even Anglicized their names when they were given British Naturalisation in 1660's. Hashem will reveal in due course!!!!Lost 10tribes 11:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Lost_10tribes.

Many countries where Jews inhabit covering the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Routes have been celebrating 350years of Religious Freedom and coincides with their SLAVE TRADING!!!!!Lost 10tribes 12:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very intresting, now what you have to do is put in in an encyclopedic context and bring your sources and it can be added here, its that simple.But you have to respect why you will have to do your homework and bring real sources and ref for all statements.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that many sources are still buried in archives and have somehow been 'lost'; much information has mysteriously disappeared from university archives over time (especially in America and Europe). --Pseudothyrum 11:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You all are correct -- all of the information is becoming quite clear and the evidence is beyond overwhelming; it's a rather simple puzzle, it's just that the information is so scattered about and is found in so many different languages and archives. For the North American slave-trade I again point to the VERY LONG and MAJOR Jewish presence in Charleston, South Carolina, USA (see History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina for a TINY bit of info) which was eventually the indisputable capital of North American slavery. In Europe (mostly the UK and the Netherlands where they were settled in large numbers after they were expelled from Spain/Portugal post 1492), the large Jewish presence in both North Africa (Arab) and what was to eventually become South Africa, and the large Jewish presence in Brazil, South America, and the Caribbean throughout the 1500s and beyond (Spain's domain; Spain was where hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from in 1492 during the Inquisition).

Most of all don't forget the Triangular trade, and remember that these expelled Jews were heavily represented in all of these geographical areas and in the major port-cities of these regions (wherever they settled in any substantial numbers throughout their history, Jews have traditionally settled near or around ports, especially in vastly underdeveloped places as the harsh interiors of these places are too underdeveloped and not conducive to commerce). Also, Brazil soon became a Portuguese colony, and remember that after the Jews were expelled from Spain, many of them ended up in Portugal (they were soon expelled from Portugal too, though). This Jewish presence largely explains Portugal's naval/economic power during this time period; when the Jews later moved on, Portugal dropped off the map again as far as world-wide powers go.

Owing to their wide dispersal and shipping/economic expertise, the Jews seemed to be the main organizers and orchestraters and not the ones that actually kidnapped the slaves or the people with the whips on the ship; they simply put it all together owing to the fact that Sephardic Jews lived in all the key areas associated with the slave trade and have always been associated with shipping, commerce (especially international commerce), and port-cities.

Finally, remember that these were overwhelmingly Sephardic Jews that were involved in the African slave trade; the Ashkenazi Jews at this time were still living in very closed off communities (mostly in the Eastern and Central European Pale of Settlement) when all of this was taking place, though there were certainly more than a few Ashkenazis (the ones that had left the Pale of Settlement) working with their Sephardic brethren owing to the fact that they hailed from the same 'tribe.'

Also, you're not liable to find much on the internet about all of this. Much of it seems conveniently 'censored' on the web (to put it lightly...) or is simply not found on it owing to the obscurity of the material involved in research; but as others have written here, archives are finally opening up a bit and this of course helps (we need more BOOKS on this subject!). There have only been a handful of books written on this subject (certainly not enough to base any definitive conclusions on), and the people who wrote them may have had certain 'agendas,' trying to hide a few things in the interests of 'tribal loyalty' shall we say -- but if you examine the logic of this whole complicated enterprise you will discover that it fits together perfectly, like a simple puzzle that I wrote before.

All we need now is someone that can speak 15th-16th-17th-18th-19th Century English, Spanish, Dutch, Sub-Saharan African languages, Arab/North African languages, Portuguese, and other languages and has the resources and time to travel all over the Western hemisphere (about 4 continents!) and study these archives (the North African and European archives may well prove most useful, as it seems that much North American material regarding the Jews' involvement in the African slave trade has somehow been 'lost' over time), even though Jews by and large are excellent keepers of records and always have been. Not to blatantly announce, but certain American archives have had some of this information 'plundered' -- much of it has simply disappeared (as of early 2007) when we KNOW that it once existed. This is especially found in the universities of the American South, where many of these records are now held owing to the previous prevalence of slavery there. Who are/were the people in charge of these archives/libraries now and in the past? Where has this information gone? --Pseudothyrum 11:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, correlation does not equal causation. Even if you can show that Jews lived in places known for slave trading, that is correlation. To show causation you'll need more. Good luck.Pfly 09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews are very much like Catholic and Protestants. Both are Jews but are separate bodies interpreting Judaism in their own unique ways. The Ashkenazi are viewed as Converts to Judaism as opposed to the Sephardi Jews who are viewed as Middle Eastern descendants who often speak Arabic, Portuguese, some African dilects and Hebrew. (Very useful in the trans-Atlantic Trade.) Most Jews do not deny Jewish involvement in the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. It's just the unspoken topic amongst them. Yes, much of the documentation is concealed but they are great record keepers as it comes with the Jewish territory. They did own slaves in Brazil (source:)[2] Unfortunately for Africans they were sold into slavery by their BROTHERS. Just as Joseph was sold into slavery by his same BROTHERS. Lets hope that in finally airing the Truth we can all heal from the deep seated wounds of the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.Lost 10tribes 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC) For further clarity, I mean Black Africans were SOLD INTO SLAVERY by their White JEWISH BROTHERS, just as they sold JOSEPH their OWN BROTHER into Slavery. SELAH!!!! Lost 10tribes 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of the slave trade

I don't think the explanation given for the abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade is either adaquate or entirely correct.

Inadaquate, because uncited, and apparently original research. The claim that "slave revolts were the chief factor inducing the end of the slave trade" is undocumented, and I am uncomfortable with the assertion.

I don't believe it's even a correct assertion. The reason the US abolishes the slave trade in 1808 is because that date had been set 20 years before at the Constitutional Convention -- prior to the Hatian revolt. I know that during the 1850s, there were proposals by many in the South to resume the slave trade; this is inconsistent with a fear of revolt by the slaveholders being the cause for the abolition. The factions in the UK and the US who were most adamant against the slave trade were abolitionists; who I believe were not motivated by fear of revolt.

In addition, the governments of Latin America, who rely on slaves far more than Denmark, moved relatively more slowly towards abolition.

I am interested in researching and revising that section; thoughts?

Asrabkin 20:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

there is a pattern in history books to glorify the actions of Europeans, thus African liberation is marked by charity from white people. slavery and revolt and the cost of continuation of enslaving was not worth it, with the coming of the industrial revolution slavery decreased. Just like African were denied ownership of their lives they were denied ownership of their liberation. but the history books say that slavery in Africa was ended because of some over night "morality".--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two main schools of thought on this issue. One is that of Eric Williams and his successors, who argue that the slave trade was ended because it had ceased to be economically beneficial, and may actually have been harming the economic position of the colonial plantation owners. The opposing view, advanced by scholars such as Seymour Drescher and Robert Antsey, is that the slave trade remained profitable until the end, and that it was the lobbying efforts of abolitionists and the growing distaste of the British public for the trade that led to its abolition. I have never heard fear of revolt advanced as the primary cause of abolition, though it certainly was a contributing factor. - SimonP 00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

revolt was a serious contributing factor, not the prime, it was a combination, clearly we know why they would leave this out. but eric williams view is the more popular."Williams’s study set out the explore the impact of African slavery on British economic development", i think we can even see in our times re: anti-war that simple lobbying has little effect. the moral plea is being viewed for what it is--a joke. this year is the year for this discussion. logic alone shows that profit and politics never oppose each other.and colonialism follows the same pattern.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement: “Virtually every major reform pertaining to the abolition of the slave trade and slavery took place in the immediate aftermath of a major armed rebellion and/or victory by enslaved or formerly enslaved Africans.” is simply not true. Especially as the article only cites the Haitian Revolution.

Not only did slavery continue in neighboring states for nearly 100 years in some cases, but the article incorrectly implies that abolitionist movements only occur after this revolution. Opposition to slavery (within Britain, France, Spain and the US) predates the Haitian revolution.

At fist that opposition was largely propounded by individuals; from the 1750s abolitionist organizations came into existence.

By the time of Haitian Revolution occurred (1791) the US states Vermont (1777), Pennsylvania (1780), Massachusetts (1783), New Hampshire (1783), Connecticut (1784) and Rhode Island (1784) had all formally abolished slavery. In Europe (if not their colonies) abolition occurred in England (1772), Scotland (1776) and Portugal (1761).

Abolition in these states/countries did not occur because of “a major armed rebellion” but rather because of the changes in public opinion within them. Jalipa 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More refernces needed

This article needs much more refs--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian slavery

I just edited and replaced some text on Indian slavery and why Africans became the common slaves in America. In particular I edited this paragraph:

To build the New World, European nations enslaved many of the natives of the New World, but they were not suitable because they were already sick or dying from diseases that the Europeans brought over. The Europeans needed to find an exploitable workforce elsewhere. They chose African slaves for a number of reasons: They were experienced in the type of work required on New World plantations (rice growing, cotton farming, etc.), used to the climate and more resilient to the diseases of the area.

While it is true that large numbers of Indians died from disease, so too did large numbers of Africans. The death rates during the Middle Passage were very high. Even after major epidemics there were still plenty of Indians that could be and were enslaved. Most European colonies were at the mercy of the Indians, who far outnumbered and overpowered the colonists well into the 18th century. That geopolitical reality explains the reluctance of using Indians as slaves -- during the 17th century, when Indian slavery was the norm in South Carolina, Virginia, New York, and New England, the inter-tribal slave-raiding warfare that was required repeatedly led to large-scale Indian rebellions, which almost destroyed each of these colonies. By the start of the 18th century it was clear that what was needed was less chaos and warfare along the colonial frontiers. It wasn't that the Indians were dying or didn't make "good" slaves, but rather that the Indian nations were too powerful to continue exploiting. Up through the middle 18th century Europeans actively sought friendship and alliance with as many tribes as they could. It wasn't until France was out of the picture in North America that the Indians lost their strategic political value.

In addition, the Africa slave trade was at first mostly devoted to supply slave labor to the sugar plantations of the West Indies and Brazil. The value of sugar far outweighed anything being produced with slaves elsewhere in the Americas, and the demand for labor on the sugar plantations was huge and constantly growing. Africa slaves were simply not available in quantity north of the Carribean before the 18th century. The founders of South Carolina came from Barbadoes and brought some African slaves with them from there. But even in early South Carolina, Indian slaves were the norm -- usually being exported to the sugar islands. But during the early 18th century the labor demands in the West Indies slowed, the scale of the Africa trade increased, and the British gained control of the Africa trade. Add to this the near destruction of New England, Virginia, and South Carolina, by Indians, during the late 17th century and early 18th, and the result was the rapid replacement of Indian slavery with African.

In other words, the story that Indians made poor slaves seems to me to be the kind of simple myth that explains something more complex and not well known or understood.

As for this part: The Europeans needed to find an exploitable workforce elsewhere. They chose African slaves for a number of reasons: They were experienced in the type of work required on New World plantations (rice growing, cotton farming, etc.) -- The Europeans didn't look around for some people to enslave instead of Indians and decide on Africans. The history is much more complex than that. It so happened that the African slave trade boomed while the Indian slave trade turned out to be extremely dangerous and politically suicidal. So the one slave trade replaced the other simply because it worked better. Also, the skills that the Africans had with rice was not something the Europeans needed. Rice growing in the New World came about because African slaves with knowledge about how to grow rice were brought there. The case of cotton is even less logical. Cotton was not a crop of note in the Americas until the 19th century, well after the establishment of African slavery. It doesn't make sense to say Europeans "decided" to enslave Africans for their skill with cotton cultivation.

This above text is mainly on North America and the Caribbean, but I believe the same general argument holds for Brazil, while Mexico was never a major center of African slavery -- Indian slavery lasted there for a long time, as it did in Peru.

Anyway, I just wanted to explain my edits to the page. I am short on time and did not provide references, but can as needed later. There are some good ones on the Indian slavery page. Pfly 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] challenge

I have a problem with you deleting that statement. First off, and please believe i mean no disrespect, you don't sound that knowledgible on the dynamics of the African slave trade. You do however sound very knowledgible on Native American histroy of the period and that's something this site and page can benefit from.

Europeans DID seek Africans who knew agriculture and mining (that's why certain slave markets sent more people than others). You have a lot of Akan and Gbe (Mina to be exact) slaves brought to central and south america because the spanish needed people who were miners in their old country. The pre-colonial african states like Asante (an Akan group) used slave labor for the exact same thing and thus had a ready market of slaves for easy purchase. For more info on this you can look at Gwendolyn Midlo Hall's Slavery and African Ethnicities. Furthermore, the vast majority of slaves brought to the Americas (both north and south) were farming societies whereas most of the Native Americans (no discredit to them) were hunter/gathers. Slave purchasers purposely sought out slaves for rice growing and cotton cultivation like the Mende for instance (hence the large population of them in Louisiana and much of the southeast according to slave registers throughout the slave trade). From an economic standpoint it was cheaper to buy African slaves as opposed to Native American slaves (who were also sold thoughout the Americas as i'm sure you know) because you didn't have to train them to perform the task.

The other major point on why I think the original statement should remain is that European disease was a bigger factor than war in shifting from Native slavery to African slavery in both north and south america. The Native Americans were not weak, but they were less tolerant to the european diseases in comparison to their African counterparts. This assertion is backed up by virtually every book on thie subject. This is NOT some urban legend or assumption made by contributors to wikipedia. If the Africans died off from European diseases at the same rate as say Taino natives, it would have been rediculous to buy them when they could have spent less money raiding one of the many natives in the area. The Europeans were going to make war on the Natives anyway so writing off the shift as a need to stay friendly with the indians is nonsense.

I hope you see where i'm coming from on this and keep an open mind to what i've written here. I'm not going to put back the statement you deleted just yet cuz i hope we all can come to a compromise on the subject before we start editing each other's stuff all willynilly. Thanks for your time Scott Free 20:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- I do see your points. Here's my thoughts-- I can believe that Europeans sought out Africans with particular skills and experience. The trouble I had with the statement was that its wording implied that the Europeans chose to start enslaving Africans instead of Indians, or anyone else, because of African experience in growing rice, cotton, etc. Perhaps I read too much into it and the Europeans merely chose to start using the already existing African slave trade system on a much larger scale. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the African slave trade across the Atlantic was well established before rice became a New World staple (first about 1710 in South Carolina, I think) and long before cotton did (end of the 1700s?). Indian slavery was in sharp decline or gone completely by the era of rice and cotton plantations. The statement seemed to imply that these kinds of plantations were well established in the New World before Indian slavery declined and African slavery began.

With mining, I don't know. My understanding was that Indian slaves were used in the Mexican mines for a long time. I don't know about Peru though. New World sugar plantations go way back, and I could believe that Africans with experience with sugar (or at least farm work in general) were sought. But were Africans sought instead of Indians for working the sugar plantations? My sense is no-- while the natives of the sugar islands were rapidly wiped out and African slaves brought in, Indian slaves were also imported to the West Indies until the end of Indian slavery in the early 1700s. Before 1715, South Carolina exported more Indian slaves than imported African. Nearly all of the Indian slaves were exported to the sugar islands of the West Indies -- about 50,000 between 1670-1715.

On the topic of Africans being farmers and Indians being hunter-gatherers -- the Indians of the American Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions as well as those of Mexico and Peru, were farmers. The main food staple of early Virginia and New England was maize, the cultivation of which was taught to the English by the Indians. It involved more than just planting seeds -- forest land had to be quickly cleared for crop fields, something the English had little experience with. Also, the Spanish in Florida during the late 1600s used Indian slaves (more like serfs or indebted laborers) for the purpose of growing crops. As far as I know, very few African slaves were imported to Spanish Florida before the English destroyed it around 1705 (or more precisely, the Indian allies of the English, who did most of the destroying work). During the 1700s Indians increasingly abandoned farming for a variety of reasons, but for the first century or two of European-Indian contact, agriculture was the norm.

On economics, I'm not sure that African slaves were less expensive then Indian slaves before 1715 or so, outside of the sugar islands. There may have been a savings with Africans who didn't have to be trained, as you wrote, but that would be offset by a rather steep tax on African slaves and slave trading companies operating under monopolistic power. Indian slaves, in contrast, shipped from Carolina to the West Indies, were not taxed. War with France, an almost constant situation in those days, made the African slave coast dangerous and trans-Atlantic shipping risky, increasing the price of African slaves in places like Barbadoes dramatically. In contrast, South Carolina's Indian slave trade was little effected by war with the French (in fact, it helped by giving an excuse to attack French-allied tribes), and the transport to Barbadoes was relatively short and done in relatively small ships with less risk of attack. The price difference was so great that sometimes, like during Queen Anne's War, South Carolinians found they could make a profit exporting their African slaves as well as Indians. And the price difference in the northern English colonies like Pennsylvania, New York, and New England, was greater still -- up until Indian slaves were banned in the north during the early 1700s -- laws passed not because Indian slaves died easily, but because they were said to be "revengeful" and "surly", and could more easily run away and rejoin their people than could Africans. Before King Philip's War in 1676, New England had been an exporter of Indian slaves. The export stopped not because African slaves were cheaper or better, but because the Indian attack of King Philip's war nearly wiped New England out completely. And afterwards the main Indian power facing New England was the Iroquois, who far outpowered New England at the time. Thus, New England stopped exporting Indian slaves.

Finally, on the topic of Indians falling prey to disease-- yes, huge numbers died, up to 95% or more. I didn't mean to suggest that Indians were not less susceptible to disease than Europeans or Africans. Some Indian societies were totally eliminated by disease. Yet in general, Indians still far outnumbered Europeans in the colonies outside the sugar islands well into the 1700s. And I don't mean all Indians, but Indians living within or on the frontiers of European mainland colonies far outnumbered the Europeans and the Africans. South Carolina took a census in 1708 and found the population within the colony's borders to be just over 4,000 whites, 4,000 blacks, 1,400 Indian slaves, and 6,300 Indians within 200 miles of Charleston, over 10,000 within 300 miles, well within the colony's frontier. Just beyond that were tens of thousands more, already tightly bound into political and economic systems with the English. So, yes, epidemic disease took an unbelievable toll on the Indians, but they had a bit of a head start over the Europeans living in the New World. That the Indians continued to be the most powerful group in America can be seen in the French and Indian wars of the middle 1700s. The wars were the English fighting with the French, yet most of the actual armies and troops were Indians. In the middle 1700s in North America, if a European power wanted to make war against another, alliances with Indian powers were essential. The Europeans were going to make war on the Natives anyway so writing off the shift as a need to stay friendly with the indians is nonsense. -- I think if you look at the political attitude of European powers toward the Indians up to the late 1700s, the need for friendly relations and alliances for the purpose of making war were essential, and a tremendous amount of money and resources were spent in order to gain the friendship of Indian powers.

Anyway, gotta go, I didn't mean to write this much, and I hope it comes off as friendly and open-minded as I mean to be. Sometimes I can write in a stronger tone than I intend. And I can certainly be wrong about things! Pfly 23:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for replying and you have made some very very good points. You've enlightened me on some info i didn't know and i'm glad I didn't make any changes to your statement. whether you can believe europeans sought specific african for specific work doesn't really matter. They did according to the books i mentioned earlier. African slaves seemed to have been used first and foremost for labor and secondly fo agriculture. Natives did possess farming in certain regions as you mentioned, but labor wise the africans seemed t outlast them on the mainland. you do bring up a good point about the high mortality rate on the islands. This can be attributed to the seasoning camps, which emloyed torture or "conditioning" on the new arrivals that weren't used on the natives. Also, the africans were sought not only for rice or cotton cultivation but for their experience in similar work environs as well (many african slaves in the americas were also slaves in africa doing similar hard labor though under different conditions since chattel slavery didn't exist in most of sun-saharan africa).

I think where we both get our facts wrong is our generalizations (my bad). I forgot that many Natives were farmers in the US. And if not for these farmers (especially in the plymouth county and carolinas) the european colonies would have never got off the ground. The spanish in florida did bring a lot slaves prior to the 18th century. Many of those slaves were freed in return for defending against the florida native americans. this definately feeds into your statement about the political dynamics of war/slavery with the natives. I do believe making alliances with the natives were essential as you stated, and I also remember the catholic church stressing a conversion of the natives rather than slavery (or at least conversion while in slavery).

I guess the overarching theme as to the shift from native to african slavery (at least in north america) was mortality rate due to disease. But the political situation cannot be excluded and you have thoroughly swayed me into believing that it must be mentioned. I'm all ears as to what should be put in that paragraph. i also believe that the shift from native to african slavery should have its own section in the article. Thanks 4 ur input and time. Holla Scott Free 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hundreds of slave ships existed

Fighting in Haiti did not deter slaveholders in the United States from buying slaves. Slavery increased after the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s made it possible to become rich by trading cotton. Prior to 1790, very little cotton had been traded in and shipped across the sea by American planters. The number of slaves in the United States tripled (more or less) from 1810 to 1860. Many were home-grown mixed-raced people, but many were newly-introduced fresh from Africa. The claim that fighting in Haiti affected Americans by scaring Americans is nonsense. GhostofSuperslum 10:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Euro slave trade & african part in Euro trade

This article completely fails to adequately account for the slave trade existing between various tribes that existed pre-Euro, an additionally forgets the extreme roll that africans played in the trade with the Euros. Although the euro's are undoubtedly the key players in the intercontinental trade of slaves and the exploitations of slavery for purely financial purposes, the trans-atlantic slave trade that existed for almost have of the last millenium was completely fueled by the natives. The key thing that many people miss about this issue is that the Euro's did NOT simple turn up, kidnap natives and cart them off. The vast majority of slaves that ended up in america were intitially captured by Africans, who transported other africans to the coast, to sell them on to the white slave merchants.

I don't at this time have time to make substantial edits, but am ii the process of writing a thesis on the subject and will try to incorporate my findings at a later point.

Please dont see me as shifting the blame off the europeans, i am expressing the dire truth.

Feel free to talk to me, Greengiraffe 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We have seen this pattern of edits which seek to blame Africans for their holocaust, clearly you wouldn’t think of doing this with the Jewish Holocaust as it would bring down the heaviest hammer imaginable. Any controversial edits and original research are not allowed and any attempt to downgrade and violate the tragedy on Africans by Europeans will be seen for what it is by this editor. everything you have said above is clearly in error and no sources what so ever exist for the above crazy statements. If you are interested in "TRUTH" then explore the social consequences of enslavement on the social development of Africans, yet you would find this kind of topic less notable. It wasnt enought to enslave and continue to brutualise African people, no the historical reduction also must also occur. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, i must point out that I have no intent on verging from the dire truth of the "the social consequences of enslavement on the social development of Africans", but it saddens me to think that you, like most of the rest of the world seem to hold the belief that euro simply kidnapped africans & sent them to america. The slave trade would have been completely impossible without the intra-continental logistics by africans driving slaves. You want "sources"?. Any book on the topic by a reputable historion. Greengiraffe 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Some Africans did take part in the Slave Trade. African Kings, merchants and kidnapers actively took part. The victims did not turn up at the coastal slave forts of their own volition. Nor did Europeans conduct raids into the African interior. African slaves were sold to the Europeans by other Africans. This is well documented.

Expanding the article to cover the African slave trade before the discovery of America would be valid. Although the nature of African slavery* was quite different to American Slavery, the export of slaves from Africa pre-dates Columbus. Arab Merchants from North Africa had already developed an African Slave trade, both overland & by sea; and were probably the first to sell African slaves to the Portuguese & Spanish.

Thankyou. Two intelligent people. Greengiraffe 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• This article is primarily about the Atlantic slave trade rather than slavery within Africa. Jalipa 23:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see African Slave trade this article is about the Atlantic Slave trade, the first Europeans to deal in Slavery went in under Prince Henry and captured them by force. Prior to this we would be talking about a more ancient trade between North Africa and Rome, Spain etc. Many Europe nations did raid the interior i have no idea why this myth is running around. They were trading guns and fighting wars against many African nations so why would capturing Africas be so taboo? The absolute languages is very worrying "They DIDNt conduct raids". Well documented bring the documents, like 3 sources, they are also many documents of the wars Europeans funded to generate enslaved Africans. Well Documented by the Europeans is what you should say, And how will the victors write history? to make them guilty or make them look as passive as possible? When adding content we need to bear this in mind.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History is complex

The thing about history is the the deeper you look into it, the more complex it is. The terms "European" and "African" are both extremely broad and don't always serve well in describing a centuries long, extremely large process such as the "Atlantic slave trade". There had always been slavery and slave trading in Europe and Africa, and most everywhere in the world. The kind of slavery that developed after about 1500 was dramatically different from that which existed before. Still, it is not wrong to say that the Portuguese, exploring down south of Cape Blanco, contacted and tapped into an existing trade network with Mauretanian merchants and Muslim caravans, which, in addition to a wide variety of trade goods included slaves -- perhaps a few hundred per year. The early Portuguese trading post was at Arguin Island and the slaves were sent to Lisbon, Madeira, and elsewhere, for work on estates, in galleys, etc, as was an ancient tradition. However, in the mid-1400s, Madeira underwent a sugar boom, followed by São Tomé and Príncipe and Fernando Po. On these islands the new slave systems evolved. Some key differences from the ancient system included: extensive use of mass labor for cash crops and mining, slaves as a commodity to be used up and replaced, a large system of supply at low prices, formalized debasement of slaves, links to skin color and slavery. As the New World and especially Brazil began to boom, the system expanded all the more. The Cape Verde Islands became a major trade center. While it is true that some European ships penetrated the African mainland on slave raiding missions, the mortality rate for Europeans on the mainland was far too high for any lasting colonization, except on islands and protected peninsulas. On Cape Verde and other trading centers, a mulatto population of European-African mixture rapidly developed. Mixes of Portuguese, Genoese, Castilian, Wolof, Sereer, Malinke, Joola, and others, came to dominate these trading islands. The people were, to European eyes, African or mulatto, but the culture was Portuguese and Christian. Of these mixed peoples, one type called Lançados were important slave traders -- speaking creole and several African tongues, professing to be Christian but often practicing otherwise, they became "resident brokers" on the mainland, procuring slaves from a vast network. This is in the late 1400s and early 1500s. After that, the Atlantic slave trade grew by magnitudes and the Portuguese were ousted by other powers. But the roots of the trade can be found in Portuguese 15th century places like Cape Verde, El Mina, Sao Tome, Madeira, and Brazil.

The layers of European-African mixing, with many shades in between, complicate the simplistic arguments pro or con about whether and how much Africans participated in the slave trade. Do 15th century mulattos on Cape Verde Islands, speaking Portuguese and following Portuguese customs, count as "African"? Do the lancados? Are they European? The questions are too simple for a history so complex. Pfly 08:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one thing that isnt complex, the slavery that came with Europe transformed Africa and the rest of a World in a way that was never seen in the history of humanity. The entire subject of modern racism, the targeting of an entire "race" based on skin color was never done before. The so-called Arab trade was not an exclusive Arab enterprise and it didn’t only pick Africans. Slavery in Africa, or so-called slavery in Africa didn’t destroy Africa's potential or its economy. When its people started being shipped across the Atlantic being stripped of culture and becoming objects that was when things changed. When we look at the Exodus and see the condition of Jews in Kemet (true or false) we realize they were Jews, they had Jewish names, Jewish customs and a Jewish God. Not so the enslaved African. When we look at the Holocaust we look at those who controlled it, those who tapped it, and in Africa the who is the European. They didn’t tap into an existing system, they created a brand new one by exploiting people (they did it with India, with Native America, everywhere). No System in Africa made humans into units of trade, or removed their names and culture. This system is 100% different. Notice that with all of the transSahara trade it never had the destruction of African civilizations with it, isnt it funny that when this trade came to Africa all of the African kingdoms collapsed.

And if mixed race people are being brainwashed and used to do evil, who is the primary agent of enslavement?, the primary benefactor was the European, and this behavior saw the destruction of every single indigenous person they meet, i think legacy speaks as loud as a cannon, every single culture that they touched was destroyed and i find it funny there can ever be a discussion on who did what to who, next i bet it was the fault of the Caribbean people that the Europeans destroyed them, And the Native Americans. Everyone was just fine until they showed up.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the transformation of the old systems of slavery into the modern diabolical one is the thing. Yes it was terrible and destructive and evil. It is hard for me to believe that the reason for the transformation was because Europeans were evil, terrible people more so than anyone else on the planet. There are evil people everywhere. It is fine to lay blame on the people who have done wrong, but it would be useful to look into contributing factors that allowed such vast evil to occur. One factor in the commodification is, I think, the rise of capitalism and mercantilism, with company stockholders never having to see firsthand the effects of their investments. Still, the local peoples who did witness and participate were not stupid. Saying the Cape Verde people of the 15th century were "brainwashed" to do dehumanize them. As for Native Americans, they too participated and collaborated with Europeans. To paint them broadly as innocent victims of European genocide is a similar dehumanization. Pfly 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Within every horror there is an element of blame, which can be put at the victims feet. The aspects of collaboration is un weighted. A woman takes a wrong turn or gets in an unmarked taxi late at night is by some arguments contributing to her rape, her action was poor in judgment. She is the victim of a rape. Native Americans were just fine before the Europeans arrived. Likewise all the civilizations Europeans destroyed. Fine means they were alive and doing what they do like all human beings. We can explain it away, or find reasons to soften the reality, call them whatever but i find it strange the destruction visited on this planet by one group of people.

Take a look around, no Mongol army, no Khan subjugated the entire world. If they got the chance maybe they would have. The reality is most Europeans probably didn’t take part, but they all profited (western Europeans), and still today they continue to enjoy absolute domination due to that period (which hasn’t ended) because of that horrid "trade". The history books, the films all soften this reality. And this in part is the legacy of the greatest Holocausts (plural) in history (African,jewish, Native American, Indian, Austrailian, Arab, etc). And one of the key reasons for slavery ending was again capitalism, not morality, so the morality we see today is only there 2nd to capitalistic interest. And I find that worrying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

I titled this section "History is Complex" for a reason. The closer one looks the more one discovers that individual people around the world have always been basically the same -- mostly decent, intelligent people trying their best and faced with various hardships both personal and external. There is plenty of blame in historical writing. What I find more interesting is trying to understand how groups of basically decent people can have managed to create such things as the Atlantic slave trade. That's the challenge of history. Calling a large portion of the planet's population, like "Europeans", evil is simple bigotry, not history, which is, as titled, complex. Pfly 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If I had gained much wealth from my ancestors trade in the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, I would be a wealthy decent person today as well. They would have taken me out of many hardships of the "POOR" in this life. Did you know many of these people became MILLIONAIRES in the 18th and 19th century???? That wealth did not disappear.Who do you think they are TODAY???Don't even begin to SOFTEN the atrocities of the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. People TODAY without their TRUE IDENTITIES because of the GREED of EUROPEANS. Who also became LAW ENFORCERS to continue their FREE TRADE and PLUNDER of AFRICA. They have left BILLIONS of African descendants without their TRUE NAMES, LANGUAGES, ANCESTRY, HERITAGE and even BLOODLINE. This is SERIOUS DAMAGE AND NEED REPAIR!!!!!

The type called the Lançados, were jews escaping the Spanish Inquisition. Every route of the trade was covered by the Jews. You don't need a lot of people to make a strong network.They made a LOT OF MONEY. The White merchants constantly wanted them thrown out of the Caribbean and Latin America due to their underhand practices.(Read their history books) Lost 10tribes 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Were Slaves Immortal?

I see no mention of slaves dying during the voyage from Africa to anywhere. I see no mention of slaves dying from lynching or harsh treatment. Even this talk page mentions Native Americans dying instead. I think the point the article tries to reach is that slaves never died and live among us today, centuries old. The only time death is mentioned in this article is when English would punish others for transporting slaves after they declared the international slave trade illegal. Hail Mary! Hail George! Hail England! I'm sure the slaves still living today thank those wonderful British. Another example of the slant on wikipedia. --Docjay8406 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So find us some references - this is an encyclopaedia, not a Ph.D. thesis. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is some reference to slaves being killed in History of slavery in the United States which appears to have an extensive reference list, although not linked to individual paragraphs. There is mention of high death rates in transit in Triangular trade, but no references at all in that article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Point

I was pretty sure I had added something to this article about the death rates associated with the slave trade. I took a look through after reading your comment, Mr. Davis and you are right on. I guess we all get so caught up in the little details we sometimes miss the bigger picture of this tragedy. I am an African-American myself, and was pretty embarrased when I realized no numbers were present on the deaths resulting from this stain on humanity. I took the liberty of adding a section (see: Human Toll). The numbers are pretty reliable. I looked the info up about two summers ago. I will site the sources ASAP, but I thought it was more important to get the numbers up then wait a second longer. Thanks for looking out. We all owe you a round of applause. Scott Free 07:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to applaud. I only got here by reading the article as a followup to something only vaguely related on television. Having given an abrupt response, I figured I needed to check a few other articles to soften my comment somewhat. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book references and further reading

WP:CITE prefers that page numbers are provided where possible, but says ISBNs are optional. When formatted properly ISBNs provide magic links to sources to buy or borrow the book. Could people with access to the books please consider adding page numbers and ISBNs to the references? Thankyou. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IDIOTS

i'm going to stop adding info to this page if wiki doesn't get on the ball about vanadalism. this place is full of idiots who have nothing else to do but destroy valubale information about important topics. meanwhile the rest of us try our hardest to shed light on complicated issues. where the hell are the bots?Scott Free 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

request protection, it is how they operate. if there was no vandalism we wouldnt have to stay on this site 24/7 protecting work. so wiki wins--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why in the African-American section, see: New World Destinations

I'm curious why this is in the African-American section, when slavery in the United States, while a huge destination, did not account for anywhere near the majority of African slaves brought to the Americas. Is it for simple classification? Does this represent the vast majority of slaves and their descendents who don't live in the United States, but live in South America and the Carribean? Should we reclassify it to represent all slaves and their descendents? Just a thought.

I'd also like to see expansion of the New World Destination topic with citations. As it stands, it is a sad attempt that lacks citation and professionalism. Moreover, if we are talking about the New World destinations, why is Europe included? Perhaps we should change the title? Here is the current entry:

Central America only imported around 200,000. Europe topped this number at 300,000, North America, however, imported 500,000. The Caribbean was the second largest consumer of slave labour at 4 million. South America, with Brazil taking most of the slaves, imported 4.5 million before the end of slavery.[citation needed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theboondocksaint (talk • contribs) 15:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

The section is a useful one to have, but I am relocating it in the article, as it does not sit comformatbly where it is. Peterkingiron 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee Houses

I have added 'fact' (asking for a citation) to

75% of all sugar produced in the plantations came to London to supply the highly lucrative coffee houses there.

The implication is that all this sugar was used to sweeten coffee. I suspect that some one has misunderstood something they have read. I am quite prepared to believe that part of the sugar that reached London was traded IN coffee houses. This may well have been where the commission agents to whom the sugar was consigned met the sugar bakers who bought it, but I do not think the coffee houses can have been the destination of the trade itself! Peterkingiron 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reference for ethnic groups

Does anybody have the source for which ethnic groups were most effected by slave trade? That would really help me. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.153.61 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

• All the info for the ethnic groups was put there by me. I got the information from the following book:

Hall, Gwendolyn Midlo: Slavery and African Ethnicities in the Americas: Restoring the Links. The University of North Carolina Press, 2006

it's truly a fantastic source. Scott Free 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)