Talk:Atlantic slave trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cassare not understandable[edit]

In the "African participation in the slave trade" section the concept of "cassare" is not explained at all. It seems that European men were marrying African women, but the connection to slavery is left unexplained. For example, does the woman become a slave, or did the marriage help establish a connection between a European slave trader with an African supplier of slaves? Or something else? Minimum change right now is the addition of [further explanation needed] (which I cannot do because the article cannot be modified by me.)

In the same section, it tries to minimize white control of the trade saying they didn't go to the interior areas out of fear, when in fact they didn't have to, there were plenty of locations on the coast to raid. And perpetuating the myth the majority of the trade came from blacks selling captives to whites, when that was only a small portion of the overall trade. White trades didn't buy slaves or want to if they didn't have to. Why buy what they could take. This myth of blacks selling their own as a major part of it is a myth perpetuated by white supremacists to excuse the white history and say, 'they are just as bad'. Look at the historical locations of the trade it was raiding the coasts not the interior. Sad wikipedia perpetuates this whitewashing 96.31.177.52 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Not "whitewashing", just facts Yellowgirl44x44 (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The various African tribes had numerous and frequent wars between each other and the taking of their enemies as captives was a means of providing slaves that could be traded on the coast with Moslem traders which is why within the Ottoman Empire the majority of slaves were black Africans. The various tribes didn't have Prisoner of war (POW) camps so the only alternative to killing captives was to sell them as slaves.
The majority of the African interior was unknown to 'whites' as these areas did not get known to the rest of the world until the likes of David Livingstone and Henry Stanley explored them, hence the existence of 'slave ports' on the coasts where Africans could be bought and sold at such places as Mozambique and Zanzibar.
BTW, within the Ottoman Empire there were plenty of 'white' slaves, the English term 'slave' originating from the Slavs who made up a large proportion of the white slaves within that empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I could see a Disney movie being made about cassare. African princess is arranged to be married to a European slave-trading head honcho, but she doesn’t want to marry him because she is against slavery. Instead she falls in love with a slave! Granted it’d be a dark Disney movie, but it certainly wouldn’t be the only one. 63.231.140.53 (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018[edit]

I strongly dispute the way the idea that West Africans selling their fellows into slavery was the majority of the capture of slaves as opposed to Europeans conducting slave raids themselves or with the help of a few Africans. This needs to be corrected. 74.96.226.203 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D ( • ) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

regarding table: Distribution of slaves (1519–1867)[105][edit]

Reference 105 is based on data from David Eltis, 'A Brief Overview of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade,' Voyages: The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyage/about. In addition, regarding reference #105, the data is from page 263, please add the page number. Please add the reference to the table in addition to #105.

Thank you.

Cristian Riella, MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.110.22 (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Seafaring technology bloopers[edit]

"For centuries, tidal currents had made ocean travel particularly difficult and risky for the ships that were then available, and as such there had been very little, if any, maritime contact between the peoples living in these continents.[9] In the 15th century, however, new European developments in seafaring technologies resulted in ships being better equipped to deal with the tidal currents, and could begin traversing the Atlantic Ocean."

This is utter nonsense. I don't know if it was stated like this in the cited text or not, but the idea that seafarers could not cross the Atlantic until "tidal currents" were mastered is ludicrous nonsense made up by someone who knows nothing about seafaring -- tidal currents create challenges near shore only and are not even noticeable offshore, so were no impediment whatsoever to transatlantic exploration. The real technological challenge was navigation and cartography, but the Age of Discovery is anyway not really the product of technological change -- it resulted more than anything from simply knowing that there was another continent over there.

This silly passage should be deleted.