5 ms·

Uncovering Lisbon’s History of Slavery

20 points by Thevet 9y ago

gonmf 9y ago
AFAIK the African slave trade is not a visible topic on Lisbon because it was a very small part of it. While Portugal trafficked millions of people across the Atlantic, very few would be sent to Europe, since the Christian faith didn't see it with good eyes, and there was much more demand for hard labor in the "new world".
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  The article mentions ten percent of their population were slaves in the sixteenth century, and Christianity was not what had an issue with it. Portuguese Brazil was a huge part of the slave trade, and it was the same Christianity as Portugal.
  - gonmf 9y ago
    I don't want to be a downer but that statistic doesn't seem to be backed by anything. And yes, Portuguese in Brazil were also christian, of course, but there is a certain "what the eyes don't see, the heart can't feel" feeling about it. Public opinion and the church would care much less what happened far away, months away. Many countries would abolish slavery at "home" but tolerate it in the colonies.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      The article provides one source for the statistic, Wikipedia provides two more. All are from books that I can not access the reference, but one of them does let me read about the Queen's five Brazilian slaves in addition to the many African slaves. The Church may have been a reason, very different than the Christian faith
jbmorgado 9y ago
It is quite deceiving to mention so greatly - and more than once - the slaves that where kidnapped by Europeans like they where a representative part of the slave trade, they were factually not. Portugal is without doubt a big culprit in the slave trade, but the African slaves themselves were basically all enslaved by other Africans and then sold to the Europeans. Portugal was also the first country to officially forbid the slave trade. Portugal is quite at ease with the history of its colonial past and its role in the Atlantic slave trade, there is no denial or attempt to hide the historical facts and the slave trade and the role of slavery in the former colonies (specially Brazil) is well discussed during obligatory schooling. All this to say I can't really understand why Lisbon should acknowledge its slaves to such great length as this post asks to, because in fact Lisbon had very few ones actually living there (it was not well seen in Catholic Europe to own slaves) and was mostly a point of passage (but then again, so were many Atlantic islands). If you want to check the historical facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >but the African slaves themselves were basically all enslaved by other Africans and then sold to the Europeans Paying someone else to do the work doesn't change who was responsible. >Portugal was also the first country to officially forbid the slave trade. In mainland Portugal, slavery wasn't abolished in Brazil until 1869. >because in fact Lisbon had very few ones actually living there (it was not well seen in Catholic Europe to own slaves) and was mostly a point of passage (but then again, so were many Atlantic islands). Catholic Europe didn't have a huge problem with it until the eighteenth century, they just had enough serfs that it generally wasn't necessary. Plus, this is about Protestant Portugal, and your source mentions that in 1550 10% of Lisbon's population was African slaves.
  - jbmorgado 9y ago
    > "Paying someone else to do the work doesn't change who was responsible." Never claimed Europeans weren't responsible (in fact I clearly stated the opposite), I factually stated something wrong in the original article: Europeans were not going around kidnapping natives at large like the article suggests, they were buying them from the other natives that were the ones actually enslaving them. Can't understand why you are trying so hard to hide that part of history. > "In mainland Portugal, slavery wasn't abolished in Brazil until 1869." Yes, and this article is about Lisbon. Lisbon, is in mainland Portugal. > "Plus, this is about Protestant Portugal" Protestant Portugal? What are you talking about? Protestantism was only allowed in Portugal after the mid XIX century (and after that still mostly inexistent). So, basically when slavery was also forbidden by law in there.

20 points by Thevet 9y ago

AFAIK the African slave trade is not a visible topic on Lisbon because it was a very small part of it. While Portugal trafficked millions of people across the Atlantic, very few would be sent to Europe, since the Christian faith didn't see it with good eyes, and there was much more demand for hard labor in the "new world".

boomboomsubban 9y ago
The article mentions ten percent of their population were slaves in the sixteenth century, and Christianity was not what had an issue with it. Portuguese Brazil was a huge part of the slave trade, and it was the same Christianity as Portugal.
- gonmf 9y ago
  I don't want to be a downer but that statistic doesn't seem to be backed by anything. And yes, Portuguese in Brazil were also christian, of course, but there is a certain "what the eyes don't see, the heart can't feel" feeling about it. Public opinion and the church would care much less what happened far away, months away. Many countries would abolish slavery at "home" but tolerate it in the colonies.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    The article provides one source for the statistic, Wikipedia provides two more. All are from books that I can not access the reference, but one of them does let me read about the Queen's five Brazilian slaves in addition to the many African slaves. The Church may have been a reason, very different than the Christian faith

jbmorgado 9y ago

It is quite deceiving to mention so greatly - and more than once - the slaves that where kidnapped by Europeans like they where a representative part of the slave trade, they were factually not. Portugal is without doubt a big culprit in the slave trade, but the African slaves themselves were basically all enslaved by other Africans and then sold to the Europeans. Portugal was also the first country to officially forbid the slave trade. Portugal is quite at ease with the history of its colonial past and its role in the Atlantic slave trade, there is no denial or attempt to hide the historical facts and the slave trade and the role of slavery in the former colonies (specially Brazil) is well discussed during obligatory schooling. All this to say I can't really understand why Lisbon should acknowledge its slaves to such great length as this post asks to, because in fact Lisbon had very few ones actually living there (it was not well seen in Catholic Europe to own slaves) and was mostly a point of passage (but then again, so were many Atlantic islands). If you want to check the historical facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

boomboomsubban 9y ago
>but the African slaves themselves were basically all enslaved by other Africans and then sold to the Europeans Paying someone else to do the work doesn't change who was responsible. >Portugal was also the first country to officially forbid the slave trade. In mainland Portugal, slavery wasn't abolished in Brazil until 1869. >because in fact Lisbon had very few ones actually living there (it was not well seen in Catholic Europe to own slaves) and was mostly a point of passage (but then again, so were many Atlantic islands). Catholic Europe didn't have a huge problem with it until the eighteenth century, they just had enough serfs that it generally wasn't necessary. Plus, this is about Protestant Portugal, and your source mentions that in 1550 10% of Lisbon's population was African slaves.
- jbmorgado 9y ago
  > "Paying someone else to do the work doesn't change who was responsible." Never claimed Europeans weren't responsible (in fact I clearly stated the opposite), I factually stated something wrong in the original article: Europeans were not going around kidnapping natives at large like the article suggests, they were buying them from the other natives that were the ones actually enslaving them. Can't understand why you are trying so hard to hide that part of history. > "In mainland Portugal, slavery wasn't abolished in Brazil until 1869." Yes, and this article is about Lisbon. Lisbon, is in mainland Portugal. > "Plus, this is about Protestant Portugal" Protestant Portugal? What are you talking about? Protestantism was only allowed in Portugal after the mid XIX century (and after that still mostly inexistent). So, basically when slavery was also forbidden by law in there.