<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gentile @ Jul 11 2007, 12:57 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I see the finger pointed at Africa over slaverly so often it's laughable. Some tribes in Africa enslaved people, but it definitely wasn't based on racial inferiority and the scale by comparison is mighty miniscule.African tribes did not possibly kidnap 10-15 MILLION people over the course of 300 years. If the entire history of slavery on the entire continent was counted, it wouldn't reach 1 million up to the 19th century.Africa didn't cruelly waste lives, killing up to 4 million people on the grueling middle passage neither.There were wars and raids, yeah, but nothing done indigenously even comes close to treating a race of people like chattel.</div>The Benin(I may be wrong about the tribes name, but I think it was the Benin) had amassed a huge empire from slave trading in the late 18th and early 19th century. They would trade Slaves for guns, by the time of the Napoleonic wars they had the 3rd largest army in the world behind France and Brittian, all from the slave trade. Once the European nations banned slavery, and the US reduced the importation of slaves the Benin empire fell apart practically overnight. African tribes, mainly saharan tribes, were involved in black slavery as early as 10th century because. Egypt, Assyria, and Carthage would all use slaves from that part of the world. in the 14th and 15th century slaves from Subsahara Africa were being sent to China via the silk road. The Ottomans were also a big preveyor of African Slavery. they would take young men, and casterate them to guard their harems. 9/10 of their Unics would die, and it's estimated by Ottoman sources that at the height of the Harems there were 150,000 African Unics. so by going by that number, and the fact that only 1/10 lived you're looking at 1.5 million for that purpose alone. that is excluding work based slaves.If you goto the west coast of Africa and visit the European forts, you'll notice that the batteries and cannons are pointed towards the sea, not the land. if the Europeans were raiding for slaves than the defenses would be postioned inland. because, if you kidnap enough people the natives would get restless and would have nothing to lose when they attacked you. also, African tribes would know the region a lot better than any European, they'd be able to raid one villiage and get out and back to their villiage very quickly<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noballer07 @ Jul 11 2007, 01:54 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That has very little to do with the way Africa is now. That's not a good way to see things. If it wasn't for Portugal and the Dutch and the French and their colonization and exploitation of the continent they wouldn't be in so much strife. The fact is is that when the nations were divided up, the European powers paid no attention to tribal borders/lines either because of their extreme ignorance of the continent or just a lack of care because of a desire for profit and land. This is why you see so much genocide and war and conflict in Africa; tribes with European/Western weapons destroying one another for land.</div>There would be striff even without the European powers. one major issue of contention today is Islamic fanatics. long before the world cared about Muslim extremist, Africa was getting distroyed by them. the fighting between Muslims and Christians is what has sparked civil wars in Somalia, Etheopia, Chad, Cote D'Ivorie, Uganda, and many other nations. Then the Muslims began fighting amongst themselves like in Somalia. There is also a lot of bad blood between groups of people which extends back to the precolonial days. one tribe builds up a rivalry with another tribe and it turns to hate. much like England and France have hated each other through the centuries.