Historians are unable to adequately form a consensus on the events that transpired which lead to the Atlantic slave trade. However, through a detailed analysis of records, specialized accounts, and other documentation, one can establish an acceptable argument to the causes of the slave trade. The belief that the trade was for an economic virtue, based on the grounds of race, or the mere need for personal servitude are all products of one’s own unique ideologies. The fact that the slave trade did occur and had everlasting effects is, however, not a belief.
Why Enslavement Occured
The question of why enslavement occurred can be answered with a number of theories set forth by the historians in Northrup’s The Atlantic Slave Trade. The four thoughts presented represent a range of possibilities for enslavement. In “Economics, Not Racism, as the Root of Slavery,” Eric Williams states that slavery was a succession activity. Williams writes “England and France, in their colonies, followed the Spanish practice of enslavement of the Indians” (Williams 3). He alludes that England and France, who used the Negro as a laborer as opposed to the Indian, did not create the practice of enslaving. If William’s hypothesis is correct, then the basis of race should have no emphasis on servitude. Therefore, Williams believes that Negro slavery began as a mere economic venture. He shows this by the example of the Barbados governor stating, “three blacks work better and cheaper that one white man” (Williams 6). According to Williams, the Negro slave origin was strictly “economic, not racial; it had to do not with the color of the laborer, but the cheapness of the labor” (6). The Negro form was more “superior” simply because of its cheapness, not because of a work ethic or a racial definition (6). However, Winthrop Jordan conceived an alternate view. While Jordan does not entirely disagree with Williams, he does cite the event of racism towards the Africans was due to the English’s belief that the world “black” symbolized evil (Jordan 9). Jordan notes the English concept that black implied thoughts such as “filthiness,” “sin,” and ultimately, “the devil” (9). White however, presaged the opposite. As if the Negro presented enough downfalls in the eyes of the Englishmen, their lack of religion, otherwise known as “heathenism,” played an important role in the enslavement process (Jordan 10). Ironically, Christian’s embedded a belief that being civilized and Christian were one of the same; whereas being black was associated with an uncivilized individual.
The Comparative Approach
David Brion Davis takes an alternate approach from both Williams and Jordan by focusing on how slaves did not originate in the English colonies of the 17th and 18th centuries. In his theory, “Sugar and Slavery from the Old to the New World.” Davis proposes that the origin of the slave in English colonies actually developed out of sugar plantations in the Mediterranean. He puts a heavy focus on chronology as opposed to economic or social origins to Atlantic slavery. He does credit “sugar and the small Atlantic islands” in shaping New World slavery (Davis 18). The fact that slaves worked on the early sugar plantations may contribute to both Williams and Jordan who proposed economic reasons for enslavement. While the focus on economic reasons for slavery is well represented, the lack of cultural reasons is not understood until David Eltis’ theory in “The Cultural Roots of African Slavery.”
Eltis focuses on the fact that Europeans did not enslave their own people, a common practice during the era when serfdom was implemented. However, the English only used their own people when it came to convict labor, a practice defined as chattel slavery (Eltis 25). The English were also more expensive, with a value of 16 pounds versus 6 pounds for an African (25). Eltis notes that the British man would only work for about ten years while an African would do hard labor for life (25). His most apparent argument states that since British ships landed at Chesapeake, why couldn’t British convicts replace Africans? His conclusion is that “few societies in history have enslaved people they consider to be their own” (Eltis 28). In fact, the British may have feared a fate of slavery in the New World if their fellow countrymen were laborers.
Examining Offered Theories
A close examination of the theories put forth by Williams, Jordan, Davis, and Eltis show alternating views regarding the beginnings of the Atlantic slave trade. All of the accounts are somewhat plausible, but Eric Williams’ idea is the most convincing. When broken down, Williams’ hypothesis makes sense. The “racial twist” Williams alludes to is a product of anger toward the enslavement of a specific group due to economic cost (Williams 2). Jordan’s account contradicts this statement by citing the color “black” to the influx of slavery (Jordan 9). It only makes sense that the Europeans would choose the cheaper alternative to perform the labor. One may compare what happened in the 1600’s to America’s system of outsourcing today. Americans may show hatred toward another race because of a loss of economic opportunity. For example, the Chinese may be disliked in certain locations because they are taking American jobs. This example may aide in the support of Davis’s theory, which focuses on more of a worldly cause as opposed to a regional cause of slavery. However, the cheaper alternative is to outsource jobs to another country when people are willing to do the work for far less monetary return. According to Williams, a white man’s ten-year services could be bought with the same amount of money that would supply a landowner with a Negro for life (Williams 5-6). Money, then, can be seen as the true slave-owner, not the white man. Furthermore, as Williams states, the white man demanded more in return for his labor efforts. The white worker “expected land at the end of his contract; the Negro…could be kept permanently divorced from the land“ (Williams 5). While the economic price was a burden on the English’s shoulders, the possibility of and undermining of British industry was a fear. Williams writes “white laborers in colonies would tend to create rivalry with the mother country in manufacturing” (5). Skilled workers in the New World would mean competition across the pond. All in all, slavery inevitability caused racist thought, but its motives are strictly economically based, not racially charged.
The African Impact
To fully understand the slave trade, one must take into account the toll this historic occurrence took on Africa. As John Hawkins writes in “An Alliance to Raid for Slaves,” Negros were prepared for the raiding that took place on their land. Hawkins account shows the men were “well defended” and ultimately surprised the unsuspecting British who were merely searching for cooperation (Hawkins 103). When raiding failed to answer to the European’s needs, trading was established with primitive tribes. Most of this trading involved the precious mineral, gold. Walter Rodney explains the trading and the raiding in “The Unequal Partnership Between Africans and Europeans.” Gold was important to African trade, but when gold was discovered in Brazil, “African slaves became more important than gold” (Rodney105). The Gold Coast in Africa became a larger supplier of slaves rather than gold. This change from “gold mining to slave raiding,” caused population loss and a stringency of the economy for centuries (105). Rodney goes far enough to call the European trade a “direct block” which stifled invention and technological advancement by “removing millions of youth...who are the human agents from whom inventiveness’ springs” (Rodney 109). The most important aspect of the slave trade was the loss of “development opportunity,” or the possibility to thrive as a first world country. Without the slave trade, Africa may very well be a key player in the world economy today.
The socio-demographic aspects of the Atlantic slave trade were an extensive effect on Africa as well. As Patrick Manning writes, the interpretations of the slave trade “have left their mark” (Manning 111). While some countries ultimately benefited from the trading, the majorities are seen as victims. Internal political struggles resulted in warfare and along with slave exports, aided to the loss of Africans. As discussed by Rodney, the exportation of the young adults and youth resulted in a revamping of African society. The “surplus of women” meant that nearly all work was completed by females due to a lack of males. There was also a time when the effects of slavery were so painful some areas decided to take strides in ending the trade altogether, which was only sometimes successful (Manning 119). Most compelling, however, is the fact that so many Africans voluntarily partook in the practice of slave trading, a thought devised by John Thornton.
In “Africa’s Effects on the Slave Trade,” Thornton cites the Africans as playing “a more active role in developing the commerce” than the Europeans (125). This is almost to say Africans are responsible for enslavement. Where they hoping to venture to the New World and make a new start? Most likely, that was not the case. Instead, Thornton criticizes the African economy as needing to be fed by the European merchants. For example, the textile industry in Africa was the driving force of its economy and eventually became outsourced by Europeans (Thornton 127). The internal competition to win over merchants in the north continued to drive the slave trade. Furthermore, the legal basis of wealth, which was “the idea of transferring ownership of people,” was a flourishing commodity, because people could work and textiles could not (Thornton130). Thornton’s point is valid simply because Africa did not reject the slave trade. As cynical as it may seem, Africans generally welcomed the trade.
Why It Matters
This “legal basis of wealth” which Thornton speaks of along with other theories of the effect of the Atlantic slave trade on Africa shows that because of what occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries, Africa is what it is today (130). The lack of innovation and technological power can be attributed to young men being traded for cheap gin and a ride to the New World to work on plantations. The competition split countries in fragmented pieces that may never be repaired. Over time, the salve trade has caused an endless succession of family warriors who fight for seemingly no reason. Such political instability can be attributed to the corruption of offering a country’s men to the Europeans for low quality goods. One must question what is the price of a life? To some Africans, that price was merely a number.
One may be apt to say that the slave trade was the overlying cause of the decline of Africa and the image of the continent today. Nothing we buy has “Made in Uganda” on the tag, nor do we regularly travel to Kenya on honeymoons. The fact is, what the slave trade shows us about Africa is that history has a way of catching up with a location. The decisions made, the transactions completed, and the people lost to the New World can never be undone. However, one may not contribute the faults of this epic time in history to one person alone. The effects are ongoing and the slump may never be overcome. Because history is a teacher, the effects of what happened in Africa during the slave trade are the ultimate lesson.
Source:
The Atlantic Slave Trade. Northrup, David, 2nd Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002
Corey Morris - Hello There! I'm a senior at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia and an avid reporter for the campus newspaper, The Rotunda. A ...
Join the Conversation