Dear Editor,
There is a thin line between facts and fiction, and the latter appears to contrive a narrow and rigid perspective of the slave trade, whereas the former is accepted by many based on their world view of religions and politics.
Although most historical accounts of slavery expose the ills of one of the most tragic events in human history, in the same way, they fail to explain the underpinning and benefits of the slave trade and how it changed the lives of countless descendant of Africans and former slaves.
Let us agree that slavery was abhorrent from a human rights perspective. The plight and suffering of the slaves during their trans-Atlantic voyage should not be overlooked. They were forced from their ancestral homeland into slavery, not because of their skin colour, but for reasons overlooked by many. And by all accounts, it was a time of renewal in preparation for the great Industrial Revolution.
The benchmark used to define the slave trade and prepare the way for integration and prosperity for African-Americans is the success of middle-and upper-class families within the African-American community and other Caribbean islands with predominately black and Indian majority, in comparison to inhabitants of African countries, namely: Benin, Chad, North and South Sudan, and other west African nations.
Likewise, even though agonising to accept, slavery was not a black and white issue as most people believed. In fact, it was forced migration for the wrong purpose; but it worked together for good in the end.
In 1517, the trans-Atlantic slave trade officially began. As slave trading developed into big business, European countries vied for dominance. By the 17th and 18th centuries, the main traders were Dutch, French, and English companies. While independent traders existed, the Dutch West India Company and the English Royal African Company monopolised trading relations on the African coast. However, in the end, England came to dominate trading, and began providing slaves to not only its own colonies, but to other countries’ colonies.
The slave trade was purely for economic and commercial reasons that required massive human capital to harvest grains, sugar cane, beet, banana and cotton, and Africa was targeted because of its porous borders and tribal segregation. In a land where only the strong survived, warlords and their scouts — deceived and enticed by foreign commodities — chased and captured their own people from servile clans and sold them into slavery to the merchants from Europe.
If it had not been for the collaboration between the merchants and the local warlords the slave trade would have taken a different turn. Nevertheless, some egotistical black scholars still view the slave trade as a racial disparity between black and white and have encouraged silent and sometimes open resentment for the descendants of European colonists. Their motive still remains until this day for posterity of African descendants to perpetuate resentment and unforgiveness in their heart without the main reference points of slavery. Merchants from England, Spain, Portugal, Holland and France did not get up one day and decide that they dislike, blacks, Chinese and Indians to have them bundled on ships to nowhere. Instead, they were concerned about their economic interest and crop in the field and needed human capital to harvest their priceless commodities. Africa was the place to go.
Byron Malcolm
Boca Raton, USA
bgmgmaj@gmail.com
There is a thin line between facts and fiction, and the latter appears to contrive a narrow and rigid perspective of the slave trade, whereas the former is accepted by many based on their world view of religions and politics.
Although most historical accounts of slavery expose the ills of one of the most tragic events in human history, in the same way, they fail to explain the underpinning and benefits of the slave trade and how it changed the lives of countless descendant of Africans and former slaves.
Let us agree that slavery was abhorrent from a human rights perspective. The plight and suffering of the slaves during their trans-Atlantic voyage should not be overlooked. They were forced from their ancestral homeland into slavery, not because of their skin colour, but for reasons overlooked by many. And by all accounts, it was a time of renewal in preparation for the great Industrial Revolution.
The benchmark used to define the slave trade and prepare the way for integration and prosperity for African-Americans is the success of middle-and upper-class families within the African-American community and other Caribbean islands with predominately black and Indian majority, in comparison to inhabitants of African countries, namely: Benin, Chad, North and South Sudan, and other west African nations.
Likewise, even though agonising to accept, slavery was not a black and white issue as most people believed. In fact, it was forced migration for the wrong purpose; but it worked together for good in the end.
In 1517, the trans-Atlantic slave trade officially began. As slave trading developed into big business, European countries vied for dominance. By the 17th and 18th centuries, the main traders were Dutch, French, and English companies. While independent traders existed, the Dutch West India Company and the English Royal African Company monopolised trading relations on the African coast. However, in the end, England came to dominate trading, and began providing slaves to not only its own colonies, but to other countries’ colonies.
The slave trade was purely for economic and commercial reasons that required massive human capital to harvest grains, sugar cane, beet, banana and cotton, and Africa was targeted because of its porous borders and tribal segregation. In a land where only the strong survived, warlords and their scouts — deceived and enticed by foreign commodities — chased and captured their own people from servile clans and sold them into slavery to the merchants from Europe.
If it had not been for the collaboration between the merchants and the local warlords the slave trade would have taken a different turn. Nevertheless, some egotistical black scholars still view the slave trade as a racial disparity between black and white and have encouraged silent and sometimes open resentment for the descendants of European colonists. Their motive still remains until this day for posterity of African descendants to perpetuate resentment and unforgiveness in their heart without the main reference points of slavery. Merchants from England, Spain, Portugal, Holland and France did not get up one day and decide that they dislike, blacks, Chinese and Indians to have them bundled on ships to nowhere. Instead, they were concerned about their economic interest and crop in the field and needed human capital to harvest their priceless commodities. Africa was the place to go.
Byron Malcolm
Boca Raton, USA
bgmgmaj@gmail.com