Effect ن

Hello @Farida_N . I think I would like to weigh in on this slavery conversation. Yes, Kemi is right. Enough guilt-tripping and condemning Britain for an atrocity that much of the world was historically complicit in. And enough asking a generation that committed no crime to pay for it. To your points: 1. Why is Britain held accountable for slavery when African societies were equally involved? I see your entire argument as one of scale. Britain participated in slavery on a massive scale, and therefore Britain is guilty. But you think African's participation in slavery is modest compared to theirs? You are about to be shocked when you hear about the scale of slavery that existed in Sub-Saharan Africa before colonialism. African states and merchants were major participants in the slave trade. The moment certain African kingdoms achieved centralised political power, many used that power to conquer, subjugate and enslave other Africans. I am Yoruba, so I will start from home. The famous Oyo Empire was itself a formidable imperial power, with a system of conquest, enslavement, territorial expansion and indirect rule. Because of its geographical position, Oyo had access to the northern savannah, where horses could survive much better than in the tsetse-infested southern regions. This gave the empire a significant military advantage through its cavalry. Oyo developed a formidable cavalry, which it used to conquer and subjugate other African cities and kingdoms. Guess how it financed its imperial machine? Slaves. Oyo participated extensively in the Atlantic slave trade. Enslaved people were captured through warfare, raids and tribute arrangements and sold through coastal trading networks. Horses were extremely expensive. Historical accounts indicate that an ordinary horse could cost roughly twice the price of an enslaved person, while larger imported horses could cost considerably more. Where did Oyo obtain many of its captives? From the south. It attacked neighbouring communities, enslaved people and sold them through the Atlantic trading system. That's African-on-African enslavement, with European merchants providing an overseas market. The Oyo Empire didn't end there. It developed a system of indirect colonial-style governance to administer its conquered and tributary territories. It was called the Ajele system. What Frederick Lugard was to colonial Nigeria in terms of representing imperial authority was, in certain respects, what the Ajele was to the Alaafin of Oyo. These officials served as the Alaafin's representatives in provincial towns, monitoring local rulers and helping enforce Oyo's authority. They were also involved in the collection of tribute and taxation in certain territories. The wealth extracted from these tributary territories helped enrich and sustain the Oyo imperial centre. These arrangements were backed by political coercion and military force. In fact, around 1726, the Oyo Empire attacked Dahomey. Funnily enough, the famous female military regiment of Dahomey belonged to a kingdom deeply involved in the slave trade. Dahomey's rulers captured people through warfare and raids and sold many of them into the Atlantic slave trade in exchange for firearms and other goods. After a series of military confrontations, Oyo defeated Dahomey and compelled it to become a tributary state, paying substantial tribute to Oyo. What about the Asante Kingdom in modern-day Ghana? As the Asante state expanded its political and military power in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it also engaged in wars of conquest, enslaving captives and incorporating them into its economy. Thousands of Africans were enslaved through these conflicts. The same applies to the Kanem-Bornu Empire. Mai Idris Alooma, one of Bornu's most celebrated rulers, is remembered for his military campaigns and territorial expansion. Who were many of his opponents? Other African kingdoms and communities. His military campaigns expanded Bornu's influence and generated captives through warfare. There is an especially interesting historical account here. Leo Africanus, writing about Bornu in the early sixteenth century, reported that horses were exchanged for fifteen, and sometimes twenty, enslaved people. That's fifteen Africans exchanged for one horse! This particular account predates Idris Alooma, but it gives us an idea of the relationship between warfare, slavery and the acquisition of military resources in the region. Finally, consider the Sokoto Caliphate, established following the jihad led by Usman dan Fodio. By the time of the British conquest between 1897 and 1903, historians estimate that the Caliphate had a slave population exceeding one million and possibly approaching 2.5 million. What did they do with these slaves? Plantation slavery. Large agricultural estates around cities such as Sokoto, Kano and Zaria relied heavily on enslaved labour. This enabled sections of the ruling elite to enjoy considerable wealth while enslaved Africans worked their plantations. Some enslaved people were also exported through trans-Saharan trading networks. I have no time, but I would also have mentioned the Asante Kingdom and its practice of human sacrifice. Captured people and enslaved persons were among those sacrificed in certain royal and religious ceremonies. These practices were associated with royal funerals and state rituals, including the Odwira festival. So, cumulatively, millions of Africans were transported through the trans-Saharan, Red Sea and Indian Ocean slave trades over many centuries. Why is there so little condemnation of the African states and merchants who participated in these systems? 2. But what did Britain do? Britain was also at the forefront of the organised international campaign to abolish the trade. Britain abolished its transatlantic slave trade in 1807 and subsequently passed legislation to abolish slavery across most of its empire in 183 The British government committed enormous financial and military resources to suppressing the slave trade. Its Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron, intercepted slave ships, and liberated approximately 150,000 Africans between 1808 and 1869. British naval officers lost their lives in the campaign. And this was not merely a symbolic gesture. It was a sustained military and diplomatic undertaking. Britain became one of the principal forces behind the international naval suppression of the Atlantic slave trade. Its contribution to the abolitionist movement was enormous and deserves historical recognition. Why are you now, alongside other so-called 'activists', guilt-tripping and condemning Britain as though it were solely responsible for slavery? Without Britain's sustained intervention, the international suppression of the transatlantic slave trade would have been considerably different. The world is better today because slavery was challenged, opposed, and eventually outlawed across much of the world. Britain led that process. Right now, Britain should receive enormous historical gratitude for the role it played in bringing about that change. 3. The politics of historical guilt Lastly, it is sad that you, as an African, do not see that you are being used as a pawn in the politicking of some globalists. They care not about you. They just need another gullible, victimised 'minority' story to further their political ambitions and weaken the Western values they oppose. I hope no single white person is made to feel inherently evil because of slavery. There are documented cases of slavery, forced labour, human trafficking and sexual exploitation in Libya and Sudan today. The United Nations has documented these abuses extensively. Yet the same intensity of moral condemnation is not always directed towards contemporary perpetrators. But Britain, a country that helped lead the international abolitionist campaign, is constantly held under the cannon of pseudo-morality. It is enough. Britain owes no race or ethnicity an apology or reparations simply because of the colour of its citizens' skin or their ancestry. And the world owes Britain eternal gratitude for its contribution to the abolition of slavery.