What countries Apologized for the Atlantic Slave Trade??? Let's take a look

WaveGang

Superstar
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
15,944
Reputation
3,306
Daps
35,790
Reppin
NULL
How and when?
Owning slave ships, profiting from shares etc... Look it up, I remember researching it and it was facts.

This is how the WHOLE of Europe got rich. There ain't really a European country that wasn' iinvolved in some capacity tbh.
 

BlackPrint

The Mayor
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
3,705
Reputation
3,075
Daps
30,274
Reppin
NYC
Repped

:salute:

Please elaborate on the first part of your post?
It's alot to get into, i've had the argument countles times on here.. But crudely, it breaks down sorta like this..

The initial stages of the trans-atlantic slave trade had very little trade to it, Portroguese and Spanish merchants, were granted licenses by the various merchant guilds, to go into coastal African lands that weren't terrible well defended, and kidnap the people that lived there and bring them back to Europe to work as slaves and eventually the New World.. This went on in different capacities for almost the length of the slave trade.

One of the earliest examples would be Lançarote de Freitas, this is a White Portoguese man.

rince Henry furnished each ship with a banner of the Order of Christ. The whole journey is well described in The Chronicles of Guinea by Azurara. Here is an excerpt describing the capture of the Africans in what is now Mauritania -

" We saw the Moors with their women and children coming out of their huts as fast as they could, when they caught sight of their enemy. Our men, crying out St James, St George and Portugal, fell upon them killing and taking all they could. There you might have seen mothers catch up with their children, husbands, their wives, each one trying to flee as best he could. Some plunged into the sea, others thought to hide themselves in the corners of their hovels, others hid their children underneath the shrubs that grew about there, where our men found them. "

The Portuguese attacked several other villages, and returned with no less than 235 captives. They were taken to Lagos in Portugal, and on the 8th August 1444, the captives were disembarked and marched to a meadow on the outskirts of town. And there was held Europe's first slave market. Azurara was there, and was moved by the terrible treatment of the Mauritanians:


Roots of the Atlantic Slave Trade - The Lifeline Expedition - Healing the past, transforming the future.

(I try to use WHITE publications because oftentimes Black sites are easily dismissed as "hotep afrocentric bla blah".

Another Portoguese slave raider, Nuno Tristao, literally got killed while trying to take (not purchase..TAKE..kidnap, steal) Africans as slaves. There were no (or sometiems few) reported native Africans in these expedition camps. This was literally White European men going into Africa with guns and stealing Black people. No "selling their own" or any of that.

Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade | HuffPost



Ontop of that, you've gotta remember that although the "colonial era" of Africa is understood to have taken place inthe 20th century, many polities in Africa (Free states, Companies and figurehead "Kingdoms" were established by White European overlords with White European governors practicing hegemonic influence over large groups of Black Africans.. Thus, the monies being exchanged went from white hands to other white hands.. Many of these 'expeditions" we read about were in actuality Slave raiding expeditions whos objective was to take Blacks.Additionally, almost all of the Native african kingdom (and unincorporated villages) that took up arms against the European and lost, had their people enslaved (Not purchased.. taken) and shipped off to the New World.. I'll pull up some more on it later I gotta run.


But basically, I don't wanna externalize Blame from the Chiefs/Kings/whoever that sold other Blacks into bondage (though it was ethnic, not racial.. There are ColiBrehs who constantly say HYON when we talk about Somali and Haitian brehs being abused and allat in the contemporary) but just understand that this idea that ALL slaves were sold by fellow Africans is absolutely false, there was a constant stream of STOLEN (not purchased..taken.. kidnapped by WHITES) Africans being shipped to the shores of America.

When we do this "they sold us" thing, it's coming from that white mouth and is a way to blame eachother for something that was engineered by someone that doesn't look like us.
 

ba'al

Vasectomy Gang
Supporter
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
30,485
Reputation
28,815
Daps
184,558
I peeped that slick shyt. This site is ripe with black division
The world is rip with the division the hell ya'll cats be talking about? It's been tribal wars before it was a damn coli. Before crackers started to label us with color codes people went by their nationalities, and ethnic names. I don't think their was a time period when all black nations on the earth were in unison and agreement don't know why ya'll act like it was no racial group is all in agrmeent.
 

Amestafuu (Emeritus)

Veteran
Bushed
Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
73,521
Reputation
14,967
Daps
310,418
Reppin
Toronto
I’ve fought tooth and nail to show that many European powers (particularly the Portuguese) fought wars against Native Africans and took (not purchased..taken) them as slaves for the New World. This isn’t a small amount by any means and took place virtually through the entire slave trade.

Much of TheColi is based on Black division though so it’s understandle why you’ll see threads like this where the African apologies are in big red letters and the American apology (which wasn’t really an apology) is an after5ought at the bottom of the page, words like “European slave raiders” simply don’t compute for your average person on TheColi.
The Portuguese were doing this on the East Coast and South of Africa.

There's Portuguese forts in the coastal regions of East Africa from those era's still standing.
 

Amestafuu (Emeritus)

Veteran
Bushed
Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
73,521
Reputation
14,967
Daps
310,418
Reppin
Toronto
It's true. And well-documented.

What really bothers me - is how many Africans and AA today claim (or think....) it was such a small percentage of tribes, chiefs and kingdoms involved - but we know that is not true.

Almost 13 million people don't get sold/kidnapped without major African assistance/support to help.
It was a minority I think what is lost on a lot of people is the size of the continent. You can tell this by the genealogy of the people and where they came from.

Depending on the European nations and where they touched down different techniques by the British, Dutch, Portuguese, Belgians. Some traded and some waged war.

There's tons of slaves that never left on boats but were wiped clean off the earth via genocide in places like the Congo (millions) and Namibia.
 

Ya?

Banned
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,516
Reputation
-1,400
Daps
11,209
The Portuguese were doing this on the East Coast and South of Africa.

There's Portuguese forts in the coastal regions of East Africa from those era's still standing.
And west Africa. Nigeria capital Lagos was founded by the Portuguese.

The Portuguese were one of the early explorers in the African continent.
 

xoxodede

Superstar
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
11,068
Reputation
9,290
Daps
51,676
Reppin
Michigan/Atlanta
It was a minority I think what is lost on a lot of people is the size of the continent. You can tell this by the genealogy of the people and where they came from.

Depending on the European nations and where they touched down different techniques by the British, Dutch, Portuguese, Belgians. Some traded and some waged war.

There's tons of slaves that never left on boats but were wiped clean off the earth via genocide in places like the Congo (millions) and Namibia.

I definitely understand. But, in the context of the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the exportation of the enslaved via West Africa — it wasn’t a minority.

I do acknowledge their was some resistance but it was more complacency and assistance.

The “second” Atlantic Slave trade consisted mainly of English/British shipping most of the enslaved out of West Africa.

The technique was trading people for guns and goods.

The Congo genocide was from 1885-1908 - 20 years after the American Civil War/Emancipation.
Atrocities in the Congo Free State - Wikipedia

Namibia Genocide was 1904 and 1908.
Herero and Namaqua genocide - Wikipedia

As horrific as they were - and my heart goes out to the victims and their families - neither are related to the transatlantic slave trade.
 
Last edited:

Amestafuu (Emeritus)

Veteran
Bushed
Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
73,521
Reputation
14,967
Daps
310,418
Reppin
Toronto
I definitely understand. But, in the context of the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the exportation of the enslaved via West Africa — it wasn’t a minority.

I do acknowledge their was some resistance but it was more complacency and assistance.

The “second” Atlantic Slave trade consisted mainly of English/British shipping most of the enslaved out of West Africa.

The technique was trading people for guns and goods.

The Congo genocide was from 1885-1908 - 20 years after the American Civil War/Emancipation.
Atrocities in the Congo Free State - Wikipedia

Namibia Genocide was 1904 and 1908
Herero and Namaqua genocide - Wikipedia


As horrific as they were - and my heart goes out to the victims and their families - neither are related to the transatlantic slave trade.
There's a lot that we still don't know but the Portuguese who are some of the earliest players were not trading when they started as mentioned in here. At some point they did but that was later. They had been doing this long before the British.

I was also surprised to see Uganda listed as part of countries apologizing for the Atlantic Slave trade. That can't be accurate.

Individual tribes themselves know which ones practised slavery and which ones didn't. It was ultimately a cultural thing as horrible as that is.
 
Top