Share this
The BBC article I am writing about illustrates the importance of self-study, fact-checking, responsible reporting (which I don’t think has happened in this case), and developing a well-read view of various issues.
The headline “African kings opposed eradicating slavery” is a straw man argument. A straw man argument is a type of fallacy where someone misrepresents or exaggerates their opponent’s argument in order to make it easier to attack or refute.
Here are 4 misrepresentations:
1. If you were to map out the political landscape of Africa during 1833 when slavery was abolished in the United Kingdom, you would find that only 30 out of 2,000 population groups participated in the transatlantic slave trade. There is no evidence to tie 1,970 political regions to the transatlantic slave trade.
2. Not all regions were kingdoms. For instance the San, the Nuer, the Dinka, the Maasai, the Kikuyu, the Pokot, and 40% of the continent were either federations, commonwealths or republics—meaning operating without a king.
3. The implication that all African leaders opposed eradicating slavery. As an example I will show you a letter written by the King of Kongo which we have documented historical evidence of. For significance, 5.7 million people from the region of Kongo were kidnapped. Bear that in mind when you read this letter to the King of Portugal:
“That is why we beg of Your Highness to help and assist us in this matter, commanding your factors that they should not send here either merchants or wares, because it is our will that in these Kingdoms there should not be any trade of slaves nor outlet for them. Concerning what is referred [to] above, again we beg of Your Highness to agree with it, since otherwise we cannot remedy such an obvious damage.”
I repeat “because it is our will that in these Kingdoms there should not be any trade of slaves nor outlet for them.” This is a historical document that you can search for and find online.
When King Afonso I of Kongo, a letter-writing diplomat, noticed that Portuguese traders were engaging in illegal human trafficking, he wrote a letter. Portuguese traders were spiriting away his subjects—his doctors, his artisans, his scholars—as slaves. Afonso’s letters to the King of Portugal show a ruler at his wit’s end. In one letter, he pleaded, “Each day the traders are kidnapping our people—sons of this land, sons of our nobles and vassals, even people of our own family.” It’s heart-wrenching stuff. But did the Portuguese listen? Not really.
Instead, they doubled down. They began to directly undermine Kongo’s political structures, encouraging local governors to revolt against Afonso, supplying guns to rebels, and fanning the flames of conflict wherever they could. The once-cohesive kingdom began to fragment. And that’s how a perfectly functional, remarkably advanced society was systematically dismantled.
4. The implication “slavery was prevalent throughout every society in Africa”. It wasn’t, which I will also demonstrate soon. The San and Himba people for instance didn’t practice slavery at all.
We need to avoid over-generalisations such as “Africans sold their own people”, or “Europeans were all X”. Let me use two examples.
First example: When the Asante faced raids by their Islamic northern neighbors, they called a conference of diverse Akan peoples. Some refused to attend, while others chose to attend. Those who attended formed a federation called the Asante kingdom. To symbolize their unity, they created the concept of the Golden Stool, representing the soul and vitality of the Asante people. Believing that possession of the Golden Stool would ensure their invincibility, they engaged in conflicts to defend and expand their territory. This included attacking neighbors out of fear of being enslaved themselves. Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost. The process of piecing together willing and unwilling Akan groups through alliances and warfare led to the enslavement of millions. The Asante were organized and used violence as state policy for both self-defense and expansion. Notably, the Asante were not Christians.
In contrast, the San people didn’t enslave anyone, NOR have they ever, that we know of. For 80,000 years the San people made up the majority of humanity’s population, outnumbering all non-San African populations and non-African populations combined.
Second example, while certain countries like Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, and Germany invaded Africa during the Scramble for Africa, many other countries didn’t show any intention of invading Africa. During the transatlantic slave trade, we also know that several countries like Estonia and Ukraine were not engaging in kidnap and trafficking.
Several European countries did not participate in African colonization, including small or landlocked nations like Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra, and San Marino, which lacked the resources for expansion. Iceland and Finland also had no colonies, as they were under foreign rule during the colonial era. Additionally, the 15 Soviet republics, such as Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, were part of the USSR and not colonial powers. Other Soviet republics like Georgia, Armenia, and the Central Asian nations were similarly under Soviet control and did not engage in colonization.
The continent has 2,000 ethnicities. There is direct evidence that 30 ethnicities were involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. There is NO evidence 1,970 ethnicities were involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. 1970 out of 2000 isn’t most Africans. Where 5.7 million Africans were taken from the region of the Kingdom of Kongo, we have a letter by King Afonso of Kongo stating, “it is our will that in these Kingdoms there should not be any trade of slaves nor outlet for them”.
This shows why we need to avoid over-generalizations. It provides two clear examples to show the diversity within African and European experiences. The first example contrasts the Asante, who were involved in state-organized slavery, with the San, who historically did not practice slavery. This highlights the complexity of African societies, rather than simplifying them into a monolithic group. The second example distinguishes between European countries that participated in African colonization, those that participated in the transatlantic slave trade, and those that did not, emphasizing that not all Europeans were involved in colonial expansion. The overall point—that generalizations obscure historical nuance—needs to be taken seriously.
