300 years of atlantic Slave trade - Animated

[Islandman]

You may be right, I may have shifted my view somewhat. Yes I would be interested in that book.

[Stonigut]

Funny thing though is our success in the track is the amazing convergence of some unusual circumstances both deep in the culture some hard work, some early success and a whole lot of luck. Can we package it and export it? No! We can't even get MVP, jaaa and Issa on the same page, we can hardly replicate the knowledge created by DJ, Franno, Mills even though the growing success of Akan is giving me great hope. But the proposal is good can we package it in a box replicate it and institutionalize it elsewhere that is the real question.

[Rudi]

Beg to differ I-man. Capitalism as envisioned by Adam Smith never included slavery. Smith was against capitalistic monopolies and said that governments should always be vigilant against capitalists forming monopolies. Smith thought that as long as labour was paid its marginal product wages would rise. Slavery was responsible for the success of western capitalism and one just has to read the capitalists own account to get this. Capitalism at it's core is about the accumulation of capital which can then be reinvested in more efficient mechanisms. Western slavery allowed for the accumulation of capital on a scale unknown before that. The cost of the labour input was approximately zero this allowed for the incredible capital formation that could therefore finance industrial innovations which you now refer to as the industrial revolution. It is no coincidence that the countries associated with the industrial revolution were all at one time or the other slave economies.

[Gamma]

it never excluded it either, did it? the market decides.

the slavers were capitalists and the triangular trade was completely about capitalism. textile and glass beads and trinkets to from England to Africa, human cargo to the West Indies from Africa and cotton sugar and rum to England from the West Indies ... then repeat...

[Islandman]

I don't disagree that Western slavery was an extremely profitable industry for a few centuries and allowed Europe to accumulate great wealth. It clearly did.

Where I disagree with many is the idea that Europe would not have dominated those centuries, say 15th-19th, had African slavery not existed. I believe they would still have as they were already pulling away in the areas of science, technology and innovation before Western slavery based on African labor really took off. They were already ahead and African slavery allowed them to go further ahead.

Had there been no African slavery there would have been some other form of exploitation as there has always been exploitation by dominant civilizations with the best technology and military of the day. The same type of exploitation that built non-European wonders like the Pyramids of Egypt and the Great Wall of China during their periods of dominance.

My view is that those were simply thier centuries to dominate in the long history of the world , just as Asian and African civilizations had dominated in prior eras.

I understand the need to put todays reality in its proper historical perspective but we are dreaming if we believe that at the dawn of the 15th century say, Africa was in a position to be competitive with Europe in the century ahead. I have seen no evidence which suggests that to be the case.

[Rudi]

No it didn't. I doubt that when Smith was writing he considered blacks as human labour. The point is slavery gave capitalism gift of labour cost of zero which enabled everything that came after. In the case of Haiti France demanded that the Haitians pay for the privilege of no longer being slaves kind of a reverse severance. No one knows better how slavery paid for the industrial revolution than the captains of industry at the time.

[Gamma]

I guess my point is "cheap" labour is the backbone of capitalism (minimise production costs to increase your return on investment) and slavery fitted nicely into that paradigm which he did not seem to have a problem with.

[Islandman]

I would not disagree with that, taking the idea of capitalism in its pure form.

As to Adam Smith specifically, he has another less known book named The Theory of Moral Sentiments, written before the Weath of Nations in which he does appear to argue that morality has a role to play in determining an individuals self-interests. Most ultra conservatives who have distorted the nature of capitalism ignore this important area of Smiths work and world view.

[Rudi]

Disagree again. The millions performing labour at zero cost allowed for an accumulation of wealth unheard of before in Europe especially Britain. This was the platform for European domination. There were always innovations here and there but what allowed for the transformation was the impetus form the exponential capital formation on the backs of millions of African slave labour.

[Islandman]

I hear you. Well I guess we will agree to disagree. I think the only difference would have been the extent of the domination.

The Renaissance would have continued, though likely at a slower pace. They would still have sailed around the world as they were already doing, they would still have conquered new lands and native people, they would have still migrated to the New World in large numbers and fought each other while doing so.

Without an African slave labor force they would have found something else to do. Less profitable perhaps but profitable nonetheless.

[Islandman]

Good point. Did a little research on it , see below. The question then is what accounts for the large population of North American blacks? Can't be mostly post-slavery migration can it?

....how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.

In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/hist...s_fiction.html

[Gamma]

remember, in the Caribbean that they attempted to use the taino who were not suited for that kind of work and treatment. it was then that they turned to the African continent on a wholesale basis.

so, I am supporting the argument that they did not just happen upon slavery as driving their productivity in the newly captured territories. their own workforce was inadequate .... so in a way it was gonna happen.

put another way, the massive drive for labour to Britain in particular post ww2, is not so far removed from the slavery thing

[Don1]

Had there been no African slavery there would have been some other form of exploitation as there has always been exploitation by dominant civilizations with the best technology and military of the day. The same type of exploitation that built non-European wonders like the Pyramids of Egypt and the Great Wall of China during their periods of dominance.

My view is that those were simply thier centuries to dominate in the long history of the world , just as Asian and African civilizations had dominated in prior eras.

I understand the need to put todays reality in its proper historical perspective but we are dreaming if we believe that at the dawn of the 15th century say, Africa was in a position to be competitive with Europe in the century ahead. I have seen no evidence which suggests that to be the case.

Iman the point of historical accuracy and proper perspective is not about who would have been ahead or how or why. Those are hypotheticals we can only speculate about....and which no one knows what the course of history may have been.
You indicate only one of the multitudes of possible outcomes which you see as most likely had their been no slavery. Some even believe Slavery was a "blessing in disguise" for Africans as it meant an association with the wonderful Europeans

While it's a HUGE ask for me to believe that removing a key foundation of the modern world (Slavery) would result in no great changes in the current order....At the end of the day those historical hypotheticals are not relevant.

The point of accuracy is that people know the truth...and reject the propaganda we've been programmed to accept.

Propaganda imprisons the mind...Truth sets it free

Unfortunately most of us live in that mental prison...with the walls being Babylon propaganda and lies people accept as truth ..i.e. The Matrix

As Bob teach wi... we're to...Emancipate ourselves...yuh dun know di balance ah dat

[Islandman]

Gamma, you raised an interesting question on Adam Smith, I knew he did not approve of slavery from a moral standpoint but I had not thought about what his views were purely as an economic model.

I was surprised to find that he didn't think it was an efficient model:

From the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by free men comes cheaper in the end than the work performed by slaves. Whatever work he does, beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance, can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own

Somehow I thought this was more of a 19th century idea , when technology had really started to replace the need for physical human labor. However he was of this opinion when he wrote the Wealth of Nations in the late 18th century when British slavery was at its zenith. Quite interesting.

The key is the "in the end" phrase , most people couldn't see that far or didn't want to.

[Don1]

I wonder what was the motivation to transport them from way over there?

That's where the colonialists, agents and traders the slavers contracted had their supply of "raw material"

Today some would invest in the equities of the slave companies...just as they would invest in the "raw material" Babylon processes, packages and ships daily to its corporate prison shitstem