6 ms·

Most african kingdoms like that were funded by slave trade. They raided and sold their enemies. Reason for highly organized state was army and trade. Not sure

Most african kingdoms like that were funded by slave trade. They raided and sold their enemies. Reason for highly organized state was army and trade. Not sure about Buganda, but here is a quote from wikipedia: > Subjugating weaker peoples for cheap labor, Buganda grew into a powerful "embryonic empire" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buganda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buganda

throwaway031123 4y ago
The abolition of slavery in Africa is interesting to read about. It was mostly European colonial powers who were trying to end the practice of slavery in Africa, and they often faced a lot of resistance from African leaders. Ethiopia is an interesting example - since it wasn't colonized in the 1800's, it didn't have colonial rulers who tried to end the practice, so it was one of, if not the, last polities on the continent to end slavery. The League of Nations kept pressuring it to end the institution, and it kept dragging its feet. Slavery was only abolished after Italy invaded and took over the country (Italy used the existence of slavery in Ethiopia as one of the pretexts for the invasion).
- prmph 4y ago
  > The kingdom’s state builders had already helped end Indian Ocean slavery, during which three million Africans were enslaved…
  - throwaway031123 4y ago
    Did you look into that claim at all? Michael Twaddle's "The Ending of Slavery in Buganda" seems to be one of the central writings about the end of the slave trade there. It seems that the connection to the Indian Ocean slave trade was through trading with Zanzibar. British colonial administrator Frederick Lugard ended the slave trade with Zanzibar, and freed the slaves there. I've looked at other sources as well, but from everything I can find that seem to be the extent that Buganda "helped end" Indian Ocean Slavery (there British colonial administrator helped end it). If you read historical research on the ending of slavery in Buganda, it's similar to what I said. It was pushed by the British, often against intense local opposition.
- orange8 4y ago
  Europe as a continent benefited the most from the slave trade. So much that the wealth they made powered their economies for the next 200 years. The trans-Atlantic slave trade, which saw over 12 million africans work for free as slaves, was run and controlled by the Spanish, French and British. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/transatlantic-slave-trade https://www.britannica.com/topic/transatlantic-slave-trade
  - nhchris 4y ago
    The Arab slave trade took even more slaves than that - mostly Black, but some 2 million Europeans too. How come they didn't benefit so much from it? In fact, almost every region in the world practiced slavery at some point or another [1]. So how come the relatively small fraction of slaves (e.g. the US is only 12% Black) had such outsized economic benefits for the US and Europe, that didn't manifest in any other instance of slavery? And the US also waged an expensive and bloody war to end slavery. Did we take into account how the lack of such a war would have helped their economy? Or are we only tallying the economic benefits of slavery, and ignoring its costs? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#History
    - orange8 4y ago
      > The Arab slave trade took even more slaves than that ... How come they didn't benefit so much from it? Microsoft sold mobile phones, just like Apple does. How come they didn't benefit so much from it?
    - stonogo 4y ago
      The Arab slave trade took more slaves than that over the course of twelve centuries. The transatlantic slave trade only existed for a few hundred years. The event that led to the slow demise of Arabian slavery, the Zanj rebellion, occurred a thousand years before transatlantic slavery even existed. In short, the Arabian slave trade did benefit, but it was on the way out by the time the Europeans got interested in colonial slave labor. Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone in the world got involved in the slave trade then got out of it at the same time.
llqo 4y ago
Buganda didn't really get into the slave trade until Arab colonialism broke into the Bugandan markets after the 1840s, when Buganda was already established and growing. Even then, the slave trade was primarily on the edge of the economy, in order to exchange for guns. Most of the economy was built on iron, salt, and food trade. See [1], specifically chapter 3, on the formation of monarchies. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/277585.The_Great_Lakes_of_Africa https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/277585.The_Great_Lakes_o...
- nhchris 4y ago
  Does that only count "slave trade" as exporting slaves? I.e. it does not count local slavery, such as that of their subjugated neighbors.
  - macintux 4y ago
    There does to me seem to be a significant difference between neighboring communities enslaving each other (and knowing that they could be next) and transporting people across the world to suffer and die under a regime that denied them any humanity whatsoever.
    - nhchris 4y ago
      I see. So despite the sources saying that "these subject peoples were then exploited for cheap labor", and, presumably, were also used for the documented human sacrifice, we know that they otherwise treated their slaves relatively well? How do we know this? You also say "enslaving each other", but from what was written so far it seems to have been mostly Buganda enslaving its neighbors - they didn't take turns.

throwaway031123 4y ago

The abolition of slavery in Africa is interesting to read about. It was mostly European colonial powers who were trying to end the practice of slavery in Africa, and they often faced a lot of resistance from African leaders. Ethiopia is an interesting example - since it wasn't colonized in the 1800's, it didn't have colonial rulers who tried to end the practice, so it was one of, if not the, last polities on the continent to end slavery. The League of Nations kept pressuring it to end the institution, and it kept dragging its feet. Slavery was only abolished after Italy invaded and took over the country (Italy used the existence of slavery in Ethiopia as one of the pretexts for the invasion).

prmph 4y ago
> The kingdom’s state builders had already helped end Indian Ocean slavery, during which three million Africans were enslaved…
- throwaway031123 4y ago
  Did you look into that claim at all? Michael Twaddle's "The Ending of Slavery in Buganda" seems to be one of the central writings about the end of the slave trade there. It seems that the connection to the Indian Ocean slave trade was through trading with Zanzibar. British colonial administrator Frederick Lugard ended the slave trade with Zanzibar, and freed the slaves there. I've looked at other sources as well, but from everything I can find that seem to be the extent that Buganda "helped end" Indian Ocean Slavery (there British colonial administrator helped end it). If you read historical research on the ending of slavery in Buganda, it's similar to what I said. It was pushed by the British, often against intense local opposition.
orange8 4y ago
Europe as a continent benefited the most from the slave trade. So much that the wealth they made powered their economies for the next 200 years. The trans-Atlantic slave trade, which saw over 12 million africans work for free as slaves, was run and controlled by the Spanish, French and British. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/transatlantic-slave-trade https://www.britannica.com/topic/transatlantic-slave-trade
- nhchris 4y ago
  The Arab slave trade took even more slaves than that - mostly Black, but some 2 million Europeans too. How come they didn't benefit so much from it? In fact, almost every region in the world practiced slavery at some point or another [1]. So how come the relatively small fraction of slaves (e.g. the US is only 12% Black) had such outsized economic benefits for the US and Europe, that didn't manifest in any other instance of slavery? And the US also waged an expensive and bloody war to end slavery. Did we take into account how the lack of such a war would have helped their economy? Or are we only tallying the economic benefits of slavery, and ignoring its costs? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#History
  - orange8 4y ago
    > The Arab slave trade took even more slaves than that ... How come they didn't benefit so much from it? Microsoft sold mobile phones, just like Apple does. How come they didn't benefit so much from it?
  - stonogo 4y ago
    The Arab slave trade took more slaves than that over the course of twelve centuries. The transatlantic slave trade only existed for a few hundred years. The event that led to the slow demise of Arabian slavery, the Zanj rebellion, occurred a thousand years before transatlantic slavery even existed. In short, the Arabian slave trade did benefit, but it was on the way out by the time the Europeans got interested in colonial slave labor. Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone in the world got involved in the slave trade then got out of it at the same time.

llqo 4y ago

Buganda didn't really get into the slave trade until Arab colonialism broke into the Bugandan markets after the 1840s, when Buganda was already established and growing. Even then, the slave trade was primarily on the edge of the economy, in order to exchange for guns. Most of the economy was built on iron, salt, and food trade. See [1], specifically chapter 3, on the formation of monarchies. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/277585.The_Great_Lakes_of_Africa https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/277585.The_Great_Lakes_o...

nhchris 4y ago
Does that only count "slave trade" as exporting slaves? I.e. it does not count local slavery, such as that of their subjugated neighbors.
- macintux 4y ago
  There does to me seem to be a significant difference between neighboring communities enslaving each other (and knowing that they could be next) and transporting people across the world to suffer and die under a regime that denied them any humanity whatsoever.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    I see. So despite the sources saying that "these subject peoples were then exploited for cheap labor", and, presumably, were also used for the documented human sacrifice, we know that they otherwise treated their slaves relatively well? How do we know this? You also say "enslaving each other", but from what was written so far it seems to have been mostly Buganda enslaving its neighbors - they didn't take turns.