The African Origin of the Slave Trade

0
646

by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:

For decades liberals have beat into the heads of white Americans that they are racists responsible for enslaving blacks.  The insistence on white racism was  music to the ears of black activists.  Here is racial provocateur Al Sharpton 21 years ago:

“The first thing we need to do is acknowledge that you robbed me. Let’s start there with reparations.  . . .  America must admit its sins in Africa and its sins against people of African descent.”

This lie has become institutionalized in the media, black racial preferences, and in university black studies departments and their graduates.  Enough white Americans have been indoctrinated that the public has accepted black racial privileges in university admissions, employment, and promotion for more than a half century.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Americans have been falsely blamed, and no historian, no scholar, no investigative reporter  stood up to correct the blatant misrepresentation of history.

For many years I have reported  that the slave trade was an African institution.  The black kingdom of Dahomey was the slaver state.  The Dutch, Portuguese, British, and French ship captains were the transporters of blacks enslaved by other blacks to the new world.  Apparently, Brazil was a larger market for enslaved blacks than England’s North American colonies. 

Dahomey was a highly organized almost absolute monarchy as efficiently organized as the United States today, and perhaps more so, but with far more unity and social cohesion than exists in the United States. Dahomey had powerful enemies over whom Dahomey eventually prevailed due to its success in slave wars.  The slaves provided trade goods for European firearms that Dahomey used to build its armies, including a regiment of Amazons, who proved themselves an effective fighting force.  

Survival required that Dahomey was organized for war to expand its boundaries and to take captives from opposing forces as slaves, who were used to work the royal plantations that supplied food for the army and to trade to Europeans for weapons.  In effect, it was the soldiers of Dahomey’s army who were the slavers. Every soldier to whom gun powder was issued was required to bring to the king the head of an enemy or at least one prisoner as a slave.  Many of the enslaved blacks brought to the New World were black warriors captured as prisoners of war, and some were royal personages.

During the years that US universities were destroyed by foolish liberals permitting the inauguration of “women’s studies” and “black studies,” propaganda operations in which lies were propagated to ruin relations between men and women and between blacks and whites, I reported that the actual history of the slave trade was once well known and could be found, among other sources, in Karl Polanyi’s book, Dahomey and the Slave Trade.  I regarded the fact that accounts of slavery blaming Americans and the US Constitution could flourish–as for example, the New York Times false “1619 Project”–to be evidence that education had disintegrated into rank anti-white propaganda. If black studies was really interested in scholarly undertaking, why was Karl Polanyi’s Dahomey and the Slave Trade kept out of print and unavailable?

The answer was obvious.  Frauds have a narrative, and they are opposed to all facts.

Recently, a reader brought to my attention that a new edition of Karl Polanyi’s Dahomey and the Slave Trade had appeared, published as Monograph 42 by the American Ethnological Society.  I don’t know what this society is, and I haven’t investigated it, but praise to the society for bringing back a definitive study of the slave trade.  Little doubt that the classic will be dismissed by black studies departments as “white supremacy.”

Read More @ PaulCraigRoberts.org