Have Black "sold" their Brothers ?

Last week I attended a literary meeting that featured young writers of African descent. The time available did not allow us to exhaust the content of works in development and I hope, through this article, revisit an issue that was discussed at this meeting. This involves defining the role played by Africans in the deportation of millions of Africans. In other words, it is to retail the argument that Africans from the Continent have "sold" their brothers in the Americas.

Historians who have studied the issue of slavery of Blacks are not unanimous on the actual number of Blacks deported to the West Indies, following the argument that everyone argues, this number is usually between 30 and 60 million, some historians say the figure could exceed 100 million.

To consider that the African leaders have sold men, women and children to Whites traffickers, one wonders why there is no one who became a millionaire. This projection may raise a smile, but you have to look at the figures reveals by the French colonial archives to capture the extent and speed of enrichment related to the slave trade. Jean SEVRY notes in his book entitled Summary Memory of Slavery, the Slave Memory (1998): "The Duc de Broglie, in his speech to the House of Lords on 28 March 1822, mentioned a prospectus arms of a Havre house talking mule (slaves) purchased 500 francs and sold 2700 francs. The gains are not always in that order, he added, but can be counted as part of Ebony (slave) paid 300 to 370 francs is acquiring in the colonies for 1500 and 1800 francs. SEVRY then presents the advantages that Mr. Berthier, Nantes merchant offers to shareholders of a slave ship chartered for the West African coast. "It would take 250 Blacks at an average price of 140 francs each, representing a total expenditure of 35,000 francs which, added to the price of the ship fully armed and worth 49,000 francs, representing an outlay of 84,000 francs. The slaves to be sold, according to him 2,000 francs each, the profits could be large and the shareholders have nothing to fear, all being well covered. The money was real and endless opportunities for enrichment.

Anyone who sells is enriched, is the theorem. The kings of Africa, who meet the most colorful chapters of some doubtful books on slavery are usually taken the responsibility of organizing this abhorrent trade on the African coast. However, the biography of the most famous of them shows that we still have the same phenomenon will say in a thousand years may be that Africans were "sold" their country and sold off their wealth. Indeed, some "heads of state" of African contemporary recall nothing so much as people like Guezo or Lathe of Popo. Is the story being repeated?

Guezo, thirteenth king of Dahomey known for the zeal of his participation in the Blacks trade, ascended the throne by murdering his brother Adandozan, anti-slavery, with the help of Portuguese slave traders. Personal friend of Francisco Feliz de Souza aka Mongo Chacha, he authorized the raids on its territory and somehow tried to erase the memory of his brother in the Memory of the people of Dahomey. Early in his long career as a slaver, the Mongo Chacha were in conflict with King Adandozan about the slave trade. He was imprisoned in Abomey and treated with rudeness and contempt. After several months of imprisonment, he escaped with the help of Guezo that the king had also departed from the Court. Shortly after, Mongo Chacha participated in coup led against Adandozan. In this way, he became a leading dignitary of the Dahomey kingdom during the reign of Guezo, his friend and ally. Situated in Whydah, on the West African coast, he made a first-order warehouse. "The example" of Mongo Chacha was followed by other Europeans of any size: Mongo John in Guinea, Mongo Don Pedro Blanco in Sierra Leone, Jose Domingo Martinez in Benin, to name a few.

In light of the facts mentioned, it is necessary to qualify the discourse which claims a little faster that Blacks have "sold" their brothers on the African coast. Historical truth is not in that sentence thrown in the face of Africa and its children. Apart from these famous Mongos who owned establishments which can hold up to 6,000 slaves, Lacroix note that there all along the west coast of Africa, many Baraccone well hidden, at distances from the sea ranging from 3 to 4 kilometers to 60 kilometers. They were either single branch of the powerful lords or private ownership of small beginnings, merely address a few hundred slaves a year. They included mainly Brazilians (1), Spaniards and Portuguese. These Europeans settled on the coast of Africa which have made the decisive part of the slave trade to the French colonies, England, Holland, Spain and Portugal, with the complicity of some local chiefs, often illegitimate and corrupt, whose ambition was primarily to consolidate their power; firearms obtained from the slave trade to ensure the permanence of their packages. Note that the same "policy" is also observed in some African potentates. In his book The Last Blackbirders Louis Lacroix notes: "The mongo Chacha never failed Ebony (slaves), as the king of Dahomey, who had helped the ascent to the throne, was his partner, and provided number of blacks he wanted (...) ".

Lathe of Popo throne as Mobutu before the letter in the pantheon of kings chiefs Africa's most fantastic. In his book The Slave Trade by the Ancient Regime, Liliane Crete on this this way: "The Lathe of King Popo had also an european lifestyle. He became a merchant who kept very applied despite its wealth to do considerable business (...). He heard three European languages, English, Danish and Netherlands, it now has a son in England and one in Portugal who learn to read, write and calculate, knowledge he could get to him same. His store is always filled with merchandise and when arrives a British ship, the captain is staying with him, he is treated in European and has always bread with him, which is often a rarity even among Europeans! Crete book is also a portrait of King Guezo "the King of Ouidah had Europeanized, in appearance if not in being. The king was furnished in European style and big and rich merchants were trying to imitate: they have enjoyed it much better than other blacks of the European trade (...). They even had instructed cooks to Europeans, who had learned so well the art of cooking that Europeans invited to the table of these lords could not see any difference with those people most sensitive in Europe. They wore wines from Spain, the Canary Islands, Madeira, France, and they were fond of French liqueurs and eau-de-vie and jam, tea, coffee and chocolate, they had the better. They had linen elegant table and ate in the silver and fine china”.

We know the role played by Blacks trade in the development of cities like Bordeaux, Nantes, Le Havre, La Rochelle, St. Malo, Bristol, Chester, Exeter, Liverpool, London, Lancaster, Plymouth, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc.. Louis Lacroix  note to this effect: “The colonial trade, whose base was the slave trade, accounted for France, the element which alone could ensure the balance of trade (...) It is not surprising, for nearly three centuries, our various ministers of the colonies continually prescribe officials in their orders to deploy all the activities necessary to develop the slave trade, the greatest European monarchs, lords of their courses, associated themselves with it as a capitalist and Charles II of England had hit the first gold coins, called guineas in honor of trafficking”.

The contrast is striking when fortune turned to Africa that would have "sold" her children. Here the African coast described by Levingston at Lord Clarendon shortly after the formal abolition of the slave trade in Britain: "A doctor Brysson wrote that the measures taken to combat trafficking had not only increased horrors. I was also seriously claimed that Maravi now killed their captives, they formerly kept for sale to whites. I can assure your Lordship that such an assertion can not come from a man involved, as I am, in the country where traded, and is spread by those who have an interest in traffic . In the extended part of Africa that I know, wars are now very rare and they were obviously caused by trafficking. It is rare to see one slaves caflas (caravan) move toward the coast, and traffickers know that they are more likely to venture their money on the gamble. The Slave Trade, by removing any possibility of industry, is the cause of the complete state of ruin to the east and west Africa.

Can we still seriously claim that it is Blacks who have "sold" their brothers to White slave traders? The answer is no! at least to pursue an ambition which is not an objective knowledge of black history, an ambition which disregards the principle of historical causality. A handful of illegitimate and corrupt kings can not be "Africans" in their entirety. Would we argue that Jews are responsible for the Shoa? There are however among the Jewish elite of 1940 many of them who was guilty of collaboration and has actively contributed to the deportation of thousands of Jewish families to Dachau, Auschwitz or Buchenwald. Would we argue that Native Americans are responsible for their near-extermination? There are yet some among them who have paved roads to the caravans of the Spanish conquest. How many Arawaks kings have tampered with the conquistadors before being enslaved and eventually disappear? Are one or two brutal and unfair kings enough to write a large essay on the people they account for the charge and to make a reality the statement that this people is responsible for the torture it underwent, the ruin it meditate? The torturers are never the victims, and vice versa.

The friendship of Mongo Chacha and King Guezo is the friendship of the Emperor Bokassa the First and President Giscard d'Estaing still sealed on the back of millions of Africans who have asked nothing if anonymously requested to live and prosper in peace. In his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Etienne de La Boétie could write: "In truth, what friendship expect from one who's heart is so hard to hate an entire kingdom that does anything but obey him, and someone who not knowing love, impoverished himself and destroyed his own empire? " This "friendship" touted by prebendaries of the colonial system is an indecent and dishonest combination of interests. "Similarly, when a tyrant king has said, continues La Boetie, all the bad, the dregs of the kingdom (...) those who are possessed of a burning ambition and a significant greed group themselves around him and support him to partake in the booty and to be under the big tyrant, as many petty tyrants. " The unfortunate part of Africa in this sordid affair is that these unworthy leaders agreed to scheme against their own people, for the sole benefit of their immediate interest. It is now up to Africans to undertake a healthy appreciation of their history and draw their own conclusions on this chapter.


The Africans resisted to the King Guezo as they resisted the Mongo Chacha. The story of slave ships, those doctors, priests and officials who accompanied them, inform on this point. Many prisoners who believed that once dead they would return with their families, their homeland, their village. Also, they were suicide as extreme way to escape their tormentors. "The way they used most often, notes Lacroix, was to throw himself into the sea by passing under the rails laid nets high above the deck on the slave (...) If by chance they might hide some forgotten bits of rope on the deck, they used it to strangle each other. The women especially practiced this method of suicide. The smallest instrument of iron or metal left in their scope was used by them to enlarge wounds resulting death from blood loss. Frequently they denied any food in order to starve. In vain, the slave owners used this occasion a special instrument called "speculum oris" intended to remove the jaws when they are tightened; All was useless, and they have been seen to persist in their resolution for eleven days, after which death had completed their suffering". Revolts broke out in the road, at sea, in ports, plantations, wherever the opportunity arose.

In conclusion, better knowledge of the history of the slave trade will necessarily fix the unease that some Africans may have when addressing the question of responsibilities associated with this trade without name. The Africans were victims, not perpetrators. Slavery of Blacks was a concerted, deliberate, unwavering, and the cynicism of his design at least equal the one of the apostles of African participation, accountability must be viewed in terms of profits as a people not as an individual.

Kenya Suwedi

 
(1) Portuguese colon.