Africans in power- Got to make a profit off selling their criminals, debtors, POWs, and misfits
Arabs- Got almost limitless dirt cheep soldiers, slaves, and concubines.
New world colonials- Got a massive pool of cheap labor suited for hard labor in tropical conditions to develop the new world. Also concubines, and soldiers when needed.
The slaves themselves- Most times ened up in better countries and situations than they could have ever hoped for in Africa
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
abolition.e2bn.org
twitter.com
post moar qt negresses
This
The traders in Europe of course, they made an absolute fortune from both the trade itself and the sugar plantations in the Caribbean.
I got you f a m.
>most slaves from Africa ended up in brazil or the Caribbean
> Being a slave in latin american shithole is better then being a free man in africa
id like to COLONIZE her as my kryptonite ifykwim m8
q t
t
Africans that were sold as slaves.
They got away from Africa and received the blessing of living off whitey.
Depends on whether you mean during the trade or over time all the way to present. At the time, this
but as of now, American blacks. What they've gone through in America is really horrible, but I'd pick that over Africa for sure.
They were not free in Africa, which is how they ended up being sold in the first place.
The arabs had the racket going for almost 1000 years. Afrikangz benefited the most though it was part of their social order and by the time other agents were on the scene from Asia and Europe they got stuff they wanted by doing the same thing they always got.
1.afrikangz
2. Arabs
3. Europeans,
Europeans ended their participation earliest outside of a few irrelevant holdouts like dixie. They profited the least.
>Who has benefited the most from African human trafficking
Their descendants of the slaves are profiting from the slave trade the most right now, at least the ones in the US.
They get to live in a country that most of the world would literally kill to live in legally.
The great-grandchildren of the slaves, who eventually got freed benefited from it, compared to the people who's ancestors stayed in Africa.
But plantation slavery was absolute shit. Sugar plantations in the Carrebean were the worst but unless you became a househehold servant (who were like 1 percent) you probably would have fared better staying in Africa, even as a slave.
Also, slave trade ruined West-African states in the long run because the rulers gave away a large part of their workforce for short term profit.
>But plantation slavery was absolute shit.
The Plantation slavery in the Middle East was pretty rough.
That is an oversimplification, it ignores the fact that they are also part European.
>Europeans ended their participation earliest outside of a few irrelevant holdouts like dixie. They profited the least.
Without wishing to be rude you only seem to be aware of US history. Here in Britain the slave trade lasted approx 250 years years and made enormous sums of money, particularly from sugar plantations. British slave ships transported over a 3 millions slaves in total.
In my local city, Bristol, for example it's a massively touchy subject among SJWs because half the city is named after a wealthy philanthropist who paid for a number of historic buildings and made his money almost entirely from the slave trade.
>The slaves themselves- Most times ened up in better countries and situations than they could have ever hoped for in Africa
Maybe the few that got sent to the United States. Those sent to the Spanish and Portuguese colonies (and also in general the sugar colonies in the Caribbean) were basically worked until they died, on the principle that it would be cheaper to just import more.
>Here in Britain the slave trade lasted approx 250 years years
That's nothing. Compared to the arabs (who had it almost 1000 years) and Blacks (who had it forever) it's really nothing.
Britain ran it far more commercially successfully than the Arabs, though. We're good at such things.
No they didn't. The arabs had it down to science.
Britain didn't even run it as well as Portugal, much less the Arabs.
Rubbish, Britain was the best at the slave trade.
Fuck off Nigel.
How is that supposed to prove me wrong?
>I cannot read
You'll have to elaborate more, Britain literally owned Barbados and Jamaica and the territories that became the US prior to the revolution and dominated the shipping your map demonstrates in the latter part of the slave trade.
Yes and as you can see on the map, places like Barbados, Jamaica or the US received fucking nothing compared to the absurd amount of slaves Portugal shipped to Brazil.
Britain shipped slaves to South America as well and the biggest bucks in all of slavery were the sugar plantations in the Caribbean.
>the most profit made from African slavery is British sugar plantations despite other groups practicing it far longer, far more proficiently and to a far greater scale
Please stop.
They didn't practice it in "far larger" numbers, though, you made that up because the only knowledge you have on the subject is one map, which you simplistically interpreted. Spain and Portugal together only shipped about 5 million to our 3 million and they got going earlier, we dominated the latter part of the slave trade and made the most money fueling industrialisation.
You're arguing with at least two separate anons, just a heads up. Once again there's a subhuman brainlet Anglo claiming more credit than he deserves.
I am the Anglo, cheeky.
Yes, I meant you specifically. Thought that was clear.
No it's not terribly clear what you are on about, it appears you've decided to shit up the thread to try and ignore the fact the British were the best at the slave trade.
>WE WUZ IMPORTANT AND SHIT
Nope.
>The slaves themselves- Most times ened up in better countries and situations than they could have ever hoped for in Africa
Kekity.
You resorting to childish memes only means I have clearly won the argument with the more intelligent posters. I'll wait to see if someone else wants a proper conversation on this issue, but I won't be giving you any more 'yous' from Perfidious Albion.
ITT: Western slavery apologists and minimizers.
So far you haven't provided a single proof that Britain dominated the slave trade. The largest bulk of black slaves in the Atlantic trade went to Portuguese colonies, that's a documented fact. Even French colonies probably shipped in more niggers than English ones.
The main argument for the last couple of hours has been which European country was the best at the slave trade, by that I mean the most profitable and effective at running it.
>benefited
Having a bunch of wellfare leeching nigros arround is not a benefit
The niggers themselves benefitted from being rescued from Africa.
>So far you haven't provided a single proof that Britain dominated the slave trade. The largest bulk of black slaves in the Atlantic trade went to Portuguese colonies, that's a documented fact. Even French colonies probably shipped in more niggers than English ones.
I told you, Britain shipped about 3 million in total and Spain and Portugal together shipped about 5 million, and Britain was exporting to South America i,e, the Spanish and Portuguese colonies if you didn't quite understand what I meant by South America. And France didn't come close, why are you just making up things off the top of your head? France barely made it past the one million mark.
Samefag.
Nope.
>I told you
That's supposed to be your proof? Retard.
njet
You can Google it if you like, it's all documented and you haven't provided a single citation either and I know perfectly well posters like you i.e. the make things up brigade, just start criticising the citation instead when I do provide them.
>You can googoo it
Not proof, nigger.
>Samefagging again
Read the rules, lurk 4years before shitposting.
Blast off faggot.
...
Fine, but if your next post is just more shitposting without at least one citation of your own I'm just going to ignore it.
Your article literally proves me right about Portugal you fucking brainlet.
>Only the Portuguese, who carried on the trade for almost 50 years after Britain had abolished its Slave Trade, carried more enslaved Africans to the Americas than the British (the most recent estimate suggests just over 5 million people).
The person I was arguing with was claiming that France shipped more slaves than Britain and that Portugal shipped vastly more slaves than Britain and made more money off it. Either you are not him or you are changing your position.
That person was me and I was wrong about France. Still right about Portugal though.
Probably we will never know who shipped more slaves to África or América.
I know that Spain banned slavery in 1817, but unoficially they still practice slavery in the colonies until 1870 more less
Probably the same happened with Britain, France, Portugal, Netherlands...
Not Britain, they were fully autistic about it and threatened countries that engaged in slave trade with naval blockades.
You think over three million is "absolutely nothing" compared to 5 million? Or that proves Britain didn't more money overall due to dominated the slave trade its height (as your chart indicates).
Are you clinically retarded by any chance?
My family got slaves , should I check my privilege ?
>Portugal alone has almost twice as much as Britain
>BRITAIN DOMINATED THE SLAVE TRADE !!!
Stop backpedaling. I claimed Portugal shipped in more slaves than England here: which you called "rubbish". Stay BTFO and mad.
I have never at any point called it rubbish that Portugal shipped more slaves, in fact I specifically said on more than one occasion that Spain and Portugal (Portugal transported most of Spain's slaves for them for much of the trade) shipped more.
I said Britain made more money and I said the nonsense about Britain shipping "absolutely nothing" was untrue. I'm not backpedalling it's just you unable to follow the specifics of what people say to you. The post you just linked to doesn't say anything about numbers, it was backing my claim made here
>Me: Britain didn't even run it as well as Portugal, much less the Arabs.
>You: Rubbish, Britain was the best at the slave trade.
Your words, faggot. The fact you claimed Britain in the 300 or so years was able to outnumber the 1300 years of Arab slave trade was equally laughable, by the way.
>Britain made more money
Which is something you couldn't back with a single fact. You ramble that Brits have significantly contributed to the Portuguese trade (not really correct), while ironically ignoring the Dutch shipped like 30% or more slaves to the British colonies.
Britain was the best at the slave trade. I said we shipped large numbers (over three million) and that we dominated the slave trade during the latter part before we decided to abolish it and that we used the slave trade to fund industrialisation.
You on the other hand have flopped about deliberately or forgetfully mischaracterising what I actually said and jumping from topic to topic, back to the Arabs now eh?
Almost certainly the colonials. Slave labor in new world plantations and mines allowed europeans to surpass china and india, the previous GDP kings
This is just so random, Britain did ship considerable numbers to South America and I would certainly agree the Dutch were fine slave traders and the UK didn't have a monopoly on shipping slaves to their own colonies. Is this random strawman day?
How can one be the best at buying people?
If you get a better deal on the purchase of them and either the sale of them or utilise their slave labour more effectively to profitable ends and then invest that money wisely in science and technology in order to change the World via the Industrial Revolution.
Arabs and Blacks practiced African slavery for far longer than English. This is undeniable fact. Portuguese practiced for longer too.
>New world colonials
It's actually debatable whether or not slaves were very helpful economically for the American Southerners. You have them all year round even when you don't need them as much. You have to take care of them when they're old and elderly. They have children which are tough to take care of too. And remember, you also have to feed them and such and make sure they don't escape. In the U.S. sometimes Northerners would come and visit the South and tell them that they would save more money if they just hired some Irish during the seasons when they needed them... supposedly.
But maybe slaves were the cheaper solution. Idk. This is just an argument I heard and I found it very interesting.
So straight away I'm thinking they look like 17th or 18th century English town houses, a couple stories of white topped off with what appears to be clay tile gable roofs, all lined up attached, with the roof out-front and gardens behind.
I reckon it's safe to assume "Loango", wherever the fuck that is, probably never looked like this and this is an entirely fanciful account of what some shit hole was like (or perhaps could be with a european touch) produced in an attempt to secure loans, investment, or settlement.
A quick google proves this doesn't pass the sniff test.
You honestly thing pre-colonial Congo looked like that? What are they riding? Okapi or Zebras? kek.
Arabs castrated the negroes we should have done the same
Your mother should have aborted
Leave him alone to preserve the white race
rich guys with a lot of land