af

Before I start I am going to make the following point: This post is not interested in how the notion makes people feel, it is only about reality and making sense of it. If you want to say how something makes you feel, the price is an actual contribution to the discussion first, which is something factual before you give your opinion. This is not advocacy for slavery or violence, but a look into cultural evolution and how it differs among civilizations and the effects of intermingling cultures and interests. I have no qualms with being wrong, but I want to be proven wrong, not told I am an idiot for not blindly following your beliefs, so let us begin.

 

I am confused by the notion that slavery held back Africans at a social level. At the time of slavery they were tribal, similar to the Aztecs, while the main players of Europe were in a Victorian age, including the developing USA. Before the Europeans even arrived, they were already behind in their evolution of civilization. While nations don’t necessarily progress the same, certain notions of aggression and mutuality of interest did evolve in similar manners. Essentially tribal cultures would give way to towns and cities of increased numbers and reduced actions of hostility between neighbors, but instead over a common enemy that was more distinctly different in their appearance and/or culture. Or in Europe’s case, Protestantism versus Catholicism as the primary point of contention or at least as the excuse to raid and conquer.

 

Now I am focusing on sub-Saharan Africa, where Europe had not been making contact like Spain with Morocco and Rome with Egypt. The culture was still many different small tribes with many different gods and very little cooperation, which was a major factor in the eventual enslavement. These tribes would war with each other for sport and religion similar to the Aztecs, and then those captured would be sacrificed to their deities. As most know, numerous slaves later down the line were intended for sacrifice but what the Portuguese offered was always more than enough to bring out the greed in the tribal leadership.

 

I would argue that right prior to the incursion of Europe into sub-Sahara Africa, the equivalency was that of the Etruscans at best, and that this area never held a formalized Empire which would have a mutual sense of security through cooperation. This was alongside a lack of innovation, whether it would be technological, intellectual, or philosophical. With this being said, I argue that the sub-Saharan Africans were already very far behind nearly all other cultures in the world, and had Dark Ages level progression at the time.

 

Now going into slavery, where the initial push by the Portuguese had issues with navigating the land and dealing with the unknown flora and fauna that brought the natural push for alliances with the locals by using their technologically enhanced wealth to attain their loyalty. They would then use the locals raiding parties to get their stock that they would then ship on to Cuba or the West Indies to be processed. So in this transition the slaves would change from primitive clothing to smocks and pants, some were taught to read and write to bolster their ability to serve their master’s, and they became exposed to the various fundamental elements of a more advanced civilization. Like an intern working inside Google, getting the general idea of the complexity of the business and its processes from a low position while working for those that were experienced and knowledgeable.

 

These Africans were pulled kicking and screaming from their homes, and then forced to accelerate past several phases of cultural evolution, like if we were to bring a Roman citizen to the 21st century and they had to completely change their way of thinking. They were given bits and pieces over time that accumulated into Frederick Douglass’s that were leaps ahead intellectually then if they had stayed in Africa, oblivious to the enlightenment on the other side of the equator. So the argument that African-Americans are behind socially due to slavery is incorrect, they are actually ahead of the curve compared to if Europe never went into Africa. This by no means justifies slavery, just like Hitler pulling together a broken nation does not justify the Holocaust, but I believe the argument of forced social delinquency due to slavery is not beneficial to society going forward as it is a false claim, and decisions are better made when the actual facts are understood.

 

TL;DR Honestly, if you do not wish to read my argument in full, as far as I am concerned, your opinion is the same as the person who says that this offends them and that their feelings are justification to shut down an idea.

 

Special note to Grammar enthusiasts: I have probably made numerous grammatical errors in this post. If you find it fun to point such errors, please use a list format and civility so I may actually learn something.