The enslavement of Africans was nothing novel in Africa due to it existing for many years prior to the involvement of the Western Powers. Slavery was globalised and not relegated to Africa and very common in and with countries like Egypt, Ireland and Haiti. This means that the slavery performed by African Kings did not equate to the enslavement performed by the western Colonisers because they had very distinct and differing methods. Following the western involvement, a new layer and sub-category was instilled where enslavement translated to the subjugating of one group in society- black Africans – and in essence added the race barrier. Slavery was thus redefined from being the transportation of humans to the transportation of black Africans. The underlying reason for the involvement of African Kings in the slave trade can be narrowed down to their economic needs and necessities. For the western powers, their primary motives can be argued as expansion and colonisation. This leads us to the overarching argument that the exclusivity of slavery to Africans was a western invention facilitated by the kings but the result of western intervention and enforced ideology, Africans lived by a system of slavery, but the West redefined the meaning of slavery in itself.
Our debate can be narrowed and focused on the domestic situation of Dahomy which a key African country in depicting the enslavement of Africans from the Kings and the Western powers. Dahomey took part in the triangular trade which was a model representing the Atlantic Slave Trade. They traded cheap goods which were not particularly useful however, this later developed into the middle passage where slaves began being traded from Africa to America. This isolated and publicised a part of the slave trade and the inhumane conditions associated with the latter. There was high demand for slaves due to the low life expectancy of only 3 years because of the poor work conditions of being overworked and the high death rates among slaves. Twelve million slaves were exported between 1450-1490 by African merchants through the popular whydah port and sold into slavery due to this high demand- particularly stemming from the Europeans. Power in Dahomy was established through the exportation of slaves and ultimately the slave trade. Some were exchanged for European firearms and other commodities which allowed these merchants to have a monopoly over slave trade, paving way for monarchic power to be demonstrated visually through the emphasis on supremacy, authority and power stemming from this economic monopoly. The superiority complex within Dahomey is also key in illustrating the power dynamic. ‘Executions’ of people captured would be assigned to youthful ‘boys of the army’ as a mockery of the enemies armies and depicted the overarching power of Dahomy kings. As well as this, this can also be seen as a security measure and necessity to try and deter any further interjections. This meant that power was established domestically, and they were recognised internationally as a trading port because they had access to the international market which was offered by the Europeans. The Dahomy society continued gaining money from the Atlantic Slave Trade by continuing to engage in the trading of slaves but can be seen to reflect a new perspective on the Slave Trade because it highlighted a country which took part due to economic necessity. When reading this contemporaneously, it’s important to understand that slavery was a normalised and a common practice and therefore regarded as a means of trade and economic practice by the kings and the people. By ‘rationalising this world in socio-economic and political terms’ we can understand and can obtain a greater understanding of this ‘social group and… its situation as a society.’ It was reported that ‘economic hardship compelled certain persons to become slaves while there were some who were pawned by their family for purely economic reasons.’ This categorises Dahomian society as economically instable for civilians who had to volunteer for enslavement as a means of surviving financially. When comparing this economic hardship to that of Europe, it is clear that European intervention and engagement with Africa is harder to explain and justify because their economic state was flourishing at the time (unlike Dahomy) which would remove the possibility of their ventures being for economic necessity but rather capitalist and the desire for profit which lead the exploration and Atlantic Slave Trade. It is important to not completely dismiss Dahomy from all responsibility but to understand the significant imbalance. The western powers had a greater impact and a more significant role in influencing the Atlantic Slave Trade in both the long and short term. They successfully enforced a race ideology into the enslavement of Africans which surpassed slavery and continued as a race dispute which a modern readership can clearly relate to.
A historian who furthers my argument is Joel Kovel who argues in his book White Racism that the west (primarily America) are largely responsible for the enslavement of Africans because of the long-term impact they had onto furthering the trade and increasing its scope. He states that the primary reason for colonialism is the ‘acquisition of property’ which he doesn’t limit to objects and commodities but including African slaves: ‘he (being western imperialists) first reduced the human self of his black slave to a body and then reduced the body to a thing…dehumanised his slave , made him quantifiable and absorbed him into the rising market of productive exchange.’ The underlying capitalist desire here is prevalent of the westerns aims for slavery. They did not, like African kings, do it for economic necessity but economic greed and imperialistic motives. This here distinguishes the two parties and illustrates the capitalist ideology embedded in their conscious. Their desire for acquiring property and profit is key. An example of this is the profits made by Britain which paved way for the industries to benefit greatly from factory made goods in exchange for African slaves. The extra surplus of profit was then later used to facilitate investments by these businesses who profited greatly and were able to set up some of the biggest institutions which still exist today if traced back. Contrastingly, if we compare this to the economic situation in Dahomey, the juxtaposition is clear. Dahomey had a centralised economic system where agriculture was local and decentralised, and the economy relied on taxation to fund public spending. This is illustrative of their need to expand beyond these markets and take part in global trade through the use of slaves as economic necessity to uphold and maintain Dahomy’s economy. This explains why enslavement of Africans was already happening among other countries without an ideological undertone prior to western involvement and was primarily in place for economic necessity.
Alternatively, some may argue that the early British empire was also primarily motivated by economic obligation and wasn’t ideological at the early stage of being a colonial power. This is because they argued to mainly be motivated by trade: ‘commercial, maritime and free.’ This can be corroborated by the historian David Brion Davis who completely counters Kovel’s argument and supports the alternative argument that the African Kings were complicit and to blame for the enslavement of Africans because ultimately, the west merely wanted to liberate Africans and offer them ‘happier lives in a Christian community in the New World.’ He states that through the enslavement, merchants could offer these ‘Negros’ a ‘European’ way of life under the ‘law of their own country.’ This statement is laden with irony because most time, when working under a European household, slaves were treated worse and subject to worse living and working conditions. This is therefore suggestive that the west used this as an excuse to conceal their capitalism and imperialism with the façade of being a saving power figure. Despite their claim to only be trade-driven, they had unfortunately already infiltrated the African psyche by this point and established themselves as superiors through their civilising mission which means that the Africans obedience to their request in taking part in the enslavement was pre-ordained. Despite their earlier intention, this was short lasting and was quickly shifted to an imperialistic focus which can also be evidenced from other countries who faced a similar fate.
It is also interesting to examine the scope of which the west took slavery by reducing these Africans to ‘subhuman status.’ Their lack of ownership, lack of individuality, lack of freedom and ultimately lack of power provides for a clear distinction between African slave owners and Western slave owners. This dehumanisation alludes to the extent of which African’s were reduced in status and mistreated for being seen as lesser by the white man. Slavery became the western invention used categorically against black Africans and was a clear shift towards a new form of slavery. Kovel argues that it also lead to the long-term consequence of a ‘black man … become[ing] the nucleus of our present day racism,’ showing that not only were they successful in starting a new wave of enslavement but also planting a deep rooted racist ideology which pervades history and still exists to the modern day in some. Despite slavery already being entrenched in societies like Dahomy, the Western powers catalysed and triggered the development of a different abhorrent form of slavery: ‘property became totally identified with people who happened to have black skin , the colour that had always horrified the West. Here we strike the root of our racism.’ Kovel effectively summarises the works of the west in reshaping the culture of Africa and ultimately reducing the power of the kings and replacing the latter with their own. When France forcefully sent troops in 1894 to Dahomey, and were victorious against Dahomey, the king was exiled. Not only did the powers reshape their culture and society, their political running was also reformed by Western invaders. This would therefore support the argument that it was ultimately the imperialistic ideology of the west which is what fueled the long-lasting impact of slavery because they forcefully transformed its primary nature and shaped it into a detested regime which is still remembered today.
Finally, through analysing a primary source by the King of Dahomy addressing the European countries, we can critically analyse the underlying hateful and scornful tone which condemns Europeans for their actions and interactions with Dahomy. The king addresses their political ignorance through making remarks to their lack of knowledge regarding the politic al and economic running of the country which the West light-heartedly compare to their own without realising the ‘disproportion between the magnitudes of the two countries.’ He goes on to mock their façade of ‘communicating with the whole world’ and having a natural superiority over others by highlighting their ignorance: ‘There is a remarkable difference between the countries we inhibit.’ Through this speech, we are given a first-hand insight into the opinions of a King who clearly doesn’t seem to appreciate not want the intervention of a Western power who asserts a self-awarded dominance and power over Dahomy without having a thorough understanding of the complexity of a country. It is true, the differences in these countries are crucial in delegating their different agendas and economic situations. This increases the value of his narrative because he mentions their desire for defense and security to preserve their economy which we know to be continuous issues which was being addressed and dealt with at the time. The provenance of the source is somewhat reliable because of the weakened form of this speech. The audience of this book would be the general public and the King’s support base. This could suggest that the hidden agenda here is to maintain a cold stance against the West resulting in the narrative being slightly hyperbolic at times. This however does not weaken its overall usefulness because its valuable in offering a personal insight of contemporary value which upholds the argument at hand.
In conclusion, to say that the African Kings were completely absolved of responsibility is simply not true however, there reason for slavery was predominantly due to economic necessity and desire for increased trade power and security. The West on the other hand were motivated by colonisation and believed that exploration equated to nobility, for them it was cultural which is arguably worse. Not to mention that slavery continued and escalated because the West insisted on it at the later stages. It is true that it was facilitated by kings and agreed upon, but the offer was proposed by a White man whose intentions were predominantly egotistical and imperialistic