Why Were People from Africa Mainly Traded as Slaves?
Scholars and historians often debate the intricate nuances behind the extensive trade of African slaves during the transatlantic slave trade era. Factors ranging from historical events to natural circumstances, have contributed to the phenomenon's prevalence. This article explores why people from Africa were primarily traded, focusing on global conflicts, historical practices, and the impact of diseases exacerbated by colonialism.
Africa as a Source of Slaves
While the primary sources of slave trading for Western Europeans earlier were the Slavic regions and the Ottoman Empire, the shift to Africa was influenced by a combination of factors. The powerful Ottoman Empire had effectively restricted European access to Slavic slaves. Additionally, African societies themselves often engaged in the practice of enslaving defeated foes, a common occurrence in regions undergoing frequent conflict and arm races. These practices resembled the scenarios in which Europeans or Asians conquered territories and implemented forced labor systems.
Slavery in Historical Context
Slavery, unfortunately, was not a phenomenon confined to Africa or the transatlantic trade. Across the globe, various cultures and civilizations had a complex relationship with the practice. In Europe and Asia, despite the decline in widespread slavery, the act was still prevalent, albeit regulated to some extent. The English word 'slave' itself is etymologically linked to the Slavic peoples of the Balkans, who were captured and enslaved by Viking invaders and utilized by various cultures.
The English and European empires sought new sources of labor due to the increased need for resources to sustain both colonial and commercial endeavors. Africa became a key source of this labor, primarily because certain African groups were seen as valuable commodities for their rich natural resources.
Enslavement Practices in Africa
A distinctive aspect of African societies at the time was their practice of enslaving whole groups after conflicts. This practice persisted for centuries and led to a consistent supply of captives for the global slave market. Conversely, in Europe and parts of Asia, after such conflicts, the defeated parties were often integrated into the victor's hierarchy, allowing them to continue contributing to the economy.
An interesting point to note is that the African continent, despite being rich in resources and diverse in culture, did not always adopt the same level of centralized or systematic exploitation often observed in other regions. This is likely due to the continent's more decentralized political and social structures, which made large-scale forced labor less prevalent compared to more consolidated political entities.
Natural Forces and the Impact of Diseases
The role of natural circumstances, particularly diseases, cannot be underestimated. The indigenous populations of the Americas were decimated by diseases such as smallpox and measles, which were brought by Europeans but of which the Native Americans had no immunity. This made African slaves, who had built some immunity to these diseases, more desirable as they could work in the exploitative environments without rapidly succumbing to these illnesses.
Initially, the Spanish and other Europeans resorted to using indigenous peoples as labor, but as they perished due to these diseases, African slaves became the preferred choice. This shift was driven by the sheer utility of the slaves, who could labor without the rapid death rates seen among the indigenous populations.
Conclusion
The extensive trade in African slaves was the result of complex and intertwined factors, including global conflicts, local political practices, and epidemiological consequences. While the transatlantic slave trade primarily focused on Africa, it is crucial to remember that slavery was, and remains, a global issue with roots in human history.
Understanding these historical circumstances not only provides a broader context for the transatlantic slave trade but also highlights the continued relevance of addressing and learning from the past to prevent similar injustices in the future.