What effects did the transatlantic slave trade have on the relevant areas in Africa?

What effects did the transatlantic slave trade have on the relevant areas in Africa?
You'd think that the relative shortage in virile men would cause them to revert to some kind of matriarchy, no?

Except whole tribes were deported. Not just the men.

Nah. The Africans were selling the slaves to the Europeans usually through conflict. The Europeans didn't have the infrastructure to capture the amount of slaves in hostile territory.

Basically the Africans had no problems with it though since they winning tribes earned a lot of money out of the transaction.

I remember reading the ratio of men to women was like 2.5:1. I can't find the source at the moment unfortunately.

>shortage in virile men would cause them to revert to some kind of matriarchy, no?
No, they didn't have strict monogamy so dudes left behind just impregnated multiple remaining women.

Most slaves were taken first as prisoners by other tribes during wars or raids and then literally sold down the river; their goods and lands and shit were all spoils of war - and considering that Africans were doing that to each other way before whitey ever showed up, all that the transatlantic trade really did was make lots of African slave traders very, very rich men. They complained very loudly when the trade was shut down because it meant that their gravy train has finally departed.

West African forms of enslavement and social assembly were extremely different than those found in Europe and later the Americas. It's a false equivalency to think what happened before and the immense drain during and after had no substantial affect.
there were numerous effects. It's extremely hard to just say it all so be more specific but I have a feeling this is homework for you or something.

It wasn't that different, the yuros were just much more efficient.

Slave trade made rich jews

There was no export market nor a plantation economy/system, race based slave identification or even a static land with which people saw as state.

There literally is nothing similar except black people were involved.

the African form of slavery was far worse than the European one - insofar as free people were enslaved at the 'point of a sword' (whereas european slavers purchased people who had already lost their freedom)

you may not know this, but it was illegal during this time under English law for an Englishman to enslave another man. Those Africans has no such moral compunctions however

liberal intelligencia prefer to ignore or act as apologists for African slavery because it complicates moral issues around the trans Atlantic slave trade and makes the attribution of blame less straightforward

>there were numerous effects. It's extremely hard to just say it all so be more specific but I have a feeling this is homework for you or something.
OP really doesn't sound like homework of any kind. Demographic effect of slavery? That's a question for a PhD.

delet this

>Export market
Slaves were regularly traded as goods to relatively distant locales.

>Plantation economy
Agricultural labor was one of the most common tasks for slaves and many slaving peoples practiced extensive agriculture.

>Race-based slave identification
Sure, it was usually based around ethnic or tribal lines.

>Static land that people saw,as a state
The only reason it wasn't static,was because people kept fighting over it. That's like saying that Poles don't have a regional identity because their neighbors have a habit of re-drawing borders on their own initiative.

In a way the effect was like with oil economies: selling slaves to whites was so profitable and large scale that economic development stagnated. You could compare the social impact to that of war, since communities lost critical amounts of able-bodied men and experienced systematic violence by the gangs of kidnappers.

What kind of retard logic is this? The people Europeans were buying are formerly free men too, just because they don't go out and capture slaves themselves doesn't make them any better.

Basically, the peoples on the inland became more brutal, militarized and centered around warring to enslave the captives. Either this or they became militarized to defend themselves from the others. The sahel became a very shitty place to live, specially considering it was the cradle of impressive empires in the past.

The states in the coast obtained the slaves mostly from this inland peoples and sold them to the europeans for great profit. This allowed some of those coastal peoples to become very powerful and thriving.

Arguments like "africans were enslaving africans" and "they did it before the europeans showed up" are not very valid. Those are not false statements, but they're not very informative of the situation.

The arrival of european slave traders did change everything, just not in the way most people think. It supposed a massive increase on demand whose effects went way beyond "make lots of African slave traders very, very rich men". The adaptation to this new situation really harmed the region, even if it enriched a minority, since like you guys mentioned slaves were obtained through conflict. To satisfy the european demand, africans needed to "produce" more i.e. warring more and more brutally. The slave trade harmed those parts of africa way more than colonization for this reason.

Last but not least, I have to say that this by no means removes the african part of the blame. Those slave traders were not forced by arms to supply more slaves, it was thirst for profit in both sides that caused this tragic situation.

There was no plantation cash crop economy that required extensive plantation systems facilitated by a slave based society when every West Africa polity was primarily made up of farmers.

Neither was the sword a primary point with which people were moved or bound to a man, things actually contrary to what early Europeans stated about West African social life which shows your own ignorance on the topic at hand.
The way they posited the question has to be high school levels, anyone whose done even cursory reading would have been much more specific.
That last part I disagree with. Much like the Musket wars Europeans actively weaponized warring people forcing unarmed people's to enslave others to attain guns themselves forpe defensive purposes.

It's also important to not underestimate the degree with which European went bush and assimilated into African matrifocal societies to further their influence and the influence of the crown.

I still don't get how folks here don't get the King Ghezos of the last period were the result of centuries of market manipulation, alteration and the shifting of cultural and societal structures of a regional scale.

>The way they posited the question has to be high school levels, anyone whose done even cursory reading would have been much more specific.
What's more specific than "x causes y because z"? This is how you postulate a thesis.

very nice

Nah not that like what aspect of the "transatlantic"

Euro-Afro contact/exchange
market creations and shifts
Agricultural exchanges
Effects of christianization
Break down of tribal and cheiftain power structures

There are so many umbrellas that have their own lists, books can be fill with just one sub categorical topic.
Ayyyyyeee

Nice quints

So West Africa had nowhere near the level of societal or technological sophistication that would allow slaves to be used on cash crop plantations. Does this make them morally superior to the Europeans? No. We can be sure that if West Africa had cotton gins and other such implements, they would have used their slaves in the same way whites did. Africans got rich off of selling slaves, Euros and Americans got rich off of buying and using them.

Simply because African slaves were treated better in Africa by Africans does not mean the slavers were not equally at fault. As if none of them ever thought to ask "Hey, about all of these people from the next tribe over that we just sold to you, what do you plan on doing with them?"

is this map accurate? i thought most slaves were taken to north america where they built the current USA at their expense

Brazil and the Caribbean were the main destinations

I love how /pol/ tries to whitewash the slave trade by stating that they enslaved each other and had for centuries.
So what, low level inter tribal slavery is totally different from the mass exportation of millions of people.

Compare the percentage of blacks and mulatoes in Brazil and the caribbean, compared to the USA, even today.

It's accurate, why do you think the Caribbean islands are entirely made up of black people? They're definitely not the natives, the native Carib people were wiped out long ago.

>the African form of slavery was far worse than the European one - insofar as free people were enslaved at the 'point of a sword' (whereas european slavers purchased people who had already lost their freedom)

This is fucking retarded. The fact that the Europeans purchased their slaves didn't suddenly mean the lot of somebody who was a slave to a European wasn't considerably worse than one who was a slave to an African.

So the horrible ship journey where half of them died doesn't matter?

European culture had evolved to the point where it was considered deeply shameful to enslave another member of your ethnicity/ society. This idea took root in England and surrounding areas and spread from there. The further from England you are, the more likely it is that you will be in a society with slaves, with some exceptions. Even Polish society was heavily organized around serfdom and forced labor well into the Enlightenment period. French peasants only became fully free in the early 19th century.

tl;dr Universal liberty is a concept that was invented by the Anglos and Dutch and spread from there

Serfdom is entirely different from slavery, though. Especially in early modern Europe with arrangements like copyholding and such.
I agree in spirit though.

So what?

All you're saying is Europeans didn't enslave other Europeans while Africans enslaved other Africans. The act of enslaving somebody is only one of a myriad unpleasant features of slavery, and being sold to a European was a considerably worse fate than remaining a slave to an African in a majority of cases. Even being sold to an arab was usually less bad, though it still had a pretty decent chance of being shit.

wasted

Different from slavery, sure, but still a system in which one person owns another and in which there is a forced extraction of labor. Those features are common to both and are of the greatest significance when considering economic viability vs a free society.

Of course the act of enslavement is only one of many unpleasant aspects of slavery. The point Im illustrating is that societies which practice slavery are less economically viable (in the modern/ industrial era) than societies in which all members are free. But there is a sliding scale. Some societies say that literally anyone may become a slave. These are the least developed. Some societies say that only people outside of your tribe may be enslaved. These are slightly more developed insofar as the "radius" of freedom is expanded. The larger this radius is, the more economically viable the society.

The feudal lord doesn't exactly own the serf; rather the serf and the lord are both obliged to each other via contract (usually though not necessarily of indefinite duration).

For the most part serfdom could be described as follows: imagine you live in a house that's mortgaged to you; you can never pay back the mortgage in its entirety, but the landlord can't throw you out as long as you do the amount of work that's stipulated in the contract.

>Woah! Woah! We dindu nuffing, you rayciss cracka! It's the white boi that forced us to raid and captures other homies and sell them to whitey with their shiny golds and shied.

Were serfs permitted to leave their landlords estate?

Depends. In Russia they most certainly weren't. In Western Europe sometimes they were, under certain conditions. Keep in mind that back then leaving even for a short trip means you won't be able to toil the field for several weeks at the very least, so it's a lot of lost labor.

>What effects did the transatlantic slave trade have on the relevant areas in Africa?
It facilitated the rise of warlike slaver states like Dahomey and Oyo who, fueled by guns and gold from the slave trade, went on to dominate the former cultural and economic heartlands of W. Africa. Further North in the Sahel roaming bands of slavers devastated the countryside. Basically shit was fucked.

Really interesting time period though.

Weren't there already matriarchal societies in West Africa?