"How could so few white people rule so many black people? This is the thing you should want to know…The white man today will tell you that thousands of years ago, the black man in Africa was living in palaces; the black man was wearing silk; the black man in Africa was cooking and seasoning his food; the black man in Africa had mastered the arts and sciences. He knew the course of the stars in the universe before the man up in Europe knew that the earth wasn't flat. Is that right or wrong?"

I first heard the quote above in one of my early Africana Studies classes while watching a 1994 PBS film titled Malcolm X: Make It Plain (American Experience | Malcolm X: Make It Plain | PBS). The first line of questioning had such a profound impact on me that it literally changed the course of my studies, so much that I minored in it.

I often wondered how the European people were able to steal so many African people over such a long period of time. I was informed that the Europeans attempted to enslave the indigenous people of the "New World," but their efforts were futile (they just vouched for genocide instead). Why then were they so unsuccessful with the indigenous people of what is now called America, but so successful with us? What was it about African people that made them such "good" slaves as opposed to other people on the earth? What was it about our mindset, our culture that would allow more than 30 Million human beings to become enslaved and transported across the world? But more importantly, what was it going to take for us NOT to be enslaved again?

A possible answer came to me when I was watching a more recent PBS (got to love PBS) special titled Guns, Germs and Steel (based on the book by the same title by Jared Diamond). Part of the discussion centered on the domestication of the cow, and what the criteria were for the domestication of animals in general. According to Diamond there have only been 14 mammals that man has been able to successfully domesticate, and in the film they name four major characteristics needed for domestication: size, temperament/pleasant disposition, growth rate and diet. The Australian Broadcast System (ABC) had a similar program called The Animal Attraction (The Animal Attraction - Program 2 - Fact Sheet 1) and it adds to the equation: happy to breed in captivity, unlikely to panic, and social hierarchy.

After watching the program, I noticed that a lot of the characteristics shared amongst domesticated animals were also shared amongst indigenous African cultures. I wondered could this possibly be one of the major reasons why so many of us were enslaved. Could the answers lie in this PBS program? A quick summary will help to make things clearer for this discussion; I will only talk about the most relevant characteristics.

Pleasant Disposition

One of the things African people are known for is their pleasant disposition. Chapter XXI of a book titled Six Months in Ascension (1878) by Isobel Black Gill talks about an encounter on Ascension Island (located inbetween Brasil and the Kongo in the Atlantic ocean) with some of, what the narrator calls, Kroomen. Kroomen were African sailors recruited locally in the British Royal Navy during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, who were experienced fisherman from the Kru ethnic group of Sotta Krou, which is now Liberia West Africa. The Kru people are also one of the greatest resisters to European colonialism in Africa's history (it's worth looking them up). The author goes on to state:

"We became deeply interested in the history and character of these men—whose industry, honesty, and imperturbable good-nature make them such valuable servants. Physically, the Kroomen are well-formed; of a medium height, and stoutly built, with woolly pates, and of an open, pleasant countenance, black-very black, though it be." (emphasis mine)

Having a pleasant disposition is so important to African people that, according to George B. N. Ayittey, it was a part of the Indigenous African Constitution. In his book Africa Betrayed, pg. 329, he gives an indigenous constitution derived from oral tradition and under the "Nature of Government" he states:

"The people, the source of all power, shall be governed by a chief (not a soldier), chosen by the founding or ancestral lineage. This criteria must be combined with others such as intelligence, bravery and a pleasant disposition…" (emphasis mine)

Although this is a characteristic to be desired, our general "niceness" contributed heavily to our downfall. Our general kindness and respect for human life was a major cause of the land takeover in Africa. In his book Of Water and the Spirit, pages 41-42, Dr. Malidoma Some shows just how the Dagara people's humaneness contributed to them being colonized in Africa. One of the Dagara elders recalls:

"A long, long time ago, the whites came into the land of our people and waged war against us…Then one day, one of the men who guarded the women's secret hiding place came and told us a strange story. He said some white men were in the women's quarters giving them food, medicine, and clothing. The messenger himself was clothed like a white man. We were confused about what to do, for our law says that you do not hurt someone unless they hurt you. A war council was ordered and we agreed to make peace with the enemy. Oh, woeful decision, fools as we all were! No demands were made, no compromises decided, we simply ended the war by refusing to fight." (emphasis mine)

I think this, and countless other stories, sheds some valuable light on how we may in the future need to shut off this feature of African culture to protect our livelihood.

Growth Rate

"Large, generally docile mammals who then take years to mature, can also be ruled out. To be economically viable, domesticated animals should grow quickly and reach their full potential within a few years. This criteria rules out elephants, for example, who can take up to fifteen years to reach adult size. At heart, domestication has an economic incentive, and some propositions are better than others. Cattle take just two or three years to mature." – Jared Diamond

African men and women were put to work as early as eight years of age (in Jamaica as early as four). In order for American slavery to be cost efficient for the slave masters, the slaves had to be put to useful work as early as possible. Being put to work early also helped to socialize the youth into their role as property to the business owners.

Happy to Breed in Captivity

Another reason why African slavery was so successful was due to forced "breeding." This saved individual business owners from actually going across seas to "steal" more Africans. However, the birth rate for slaves was low due to diseases, work exhaustion, and malnutrition, and this often "forced" European slave owners to seek more imported slaves as the domestic slaves couldn't produce children fast enough.

Now, I am fully aware of the many documented examples of resistance by African captives, and I do acknowledge them. However, what cannot be denied is that the overwhelming majority of African people in the Americas accepted their enslavement and did not attempt to revolt (otherwise it wouldn't have lasted so long). Also, while I would say that African people were not "happy" to breed in captivity, we did nonetheless, and our continual birthing of more future slaves is one of the reasons why we made such "perfect slaves" for European people.

Social Hierarchy

According to the producers of The Animal Attraction,

"With the exception of the cat, all the major domesticants are group animals used to operating in a dominance hierarchy with strong leadership. To get compliance, all the human has to do is insert him or herself into the social structure— preferably at the top!"

This speaks to the communal nature of our social structures and the acceptance of outsiders within our social sphere. One of the things that has upset me the most about African people is how we are so quick to allow persons of other ethnic groups into our social circles and allow them into the high ranks of our organizations. Our problem is we expect other human beings to act like human beings and we expect them to have the same courtesies that we have. We are too accepting of people.

Because of this, we can never have an organization that is strictly for us. Some may see this as being separatist, but throughout our history we have seen that our downfall was caused by allowing European people into our social hierarchy. This by no means negates any problems that have, or would have come if left to our own devices. It, however, speaks about how more devastating it is for outsiders to come in with hidden agendas to infiltrate your ranks than it is a "domestic" threat. Dr. Chancellor Williams, in his seminal work The Destruction of Black Civilizations, articulated this throughout his book. This was the reason for the downfall of ancient Kmt (Egypt) and the strategy has not change since.

The question is, "Why haven't we learned our lesson if they keep employing the same tactics to destroy us?" How can you radically oppose a people when you have those who belong and are loyal to their ethnic group and heritage in your ranks? This is probably one of the reasons the NAACP isn't as effective as it could be, because its major supporters, from inception to the present, have always been European people. This was the center of the beef between W.E.B. Dubois and Marcus Garvey.

On another note, I have always had a problem with accepting European people in Black Greek-lettered organizations. It's nothing against White people (for the sake of them being White), but these organizations were created to be a support network for African/Black people because of the hostile social dynamics of the United States during early Jim Crow. How can you mount an effective campaign against European hegemony when the next president of your organization could be White? You can't deny them the position if they worked hard to earn it. What is the benefit of European people joining these organizations if they already have countless organizations and a political and educational system that reaffirms who they are? Power recognizes power and you can't get power while being dependent on your opposition to provide you with the resources for your liberation.

When other people outside of your culture and heritage are allowed in your sphere of influence, then there is a tendency to shape the goals and aspirations to that which fits their ideals on how it should function. There is nothing wrong with that, but it can pose a problem because their interests may not coincide with the needs of the organization's core constituency. Organizational constitutions are rooted in its founding ethnic heritage. The philosophy that motivates the organization's members comes from a deep ethical tradition that is rooted in the dominant culture from which it sprang.

We Black folk sure did attempt to change the dynamics of how the United States operated because our cultural heritage said you shouldn't oppress human beings and that you should be fair and create the conditions so that each human being within your borders has the opportunity to reach their full human potential. Anyone familiar with the Civil Rights Movement should know how much of a stir that ideology caused.. Our rich tradition in moral ethics clashed with the European "concept" of morality and it caused friction.

Conclusion

These characteristics are not the sole reasons for African enslavement in the Americas. This is just my own hypothesis of why African people seemed easier to enslave than those of other ethnic groups. This admittedly is an over simplification of the possibilities as it does not discuss the nature of the skills the Africans possessed that attracted the European enslavers; our resistance to certain diseases the indigenous Indians could not fight off; our lack of advanced weaponry to successfully ward off European colonialism; and our reliance on external spiritual beings to fight our battles. Although our humanity is our greatest gift to the world, it has also been the source of our downfall. I think in this day and age we need to learn from our past. Although we may not want to, for the sake of our health and children, we have to learn to say NO!


Asar Imhotep (The Black Lotus) is a philosopher, activist, poet and author of the book Esodus: Internal Reflections and Conversations with the Sun. He is also the founder of MOCHA Urban Hang Suite, www.mochasuite.com. He can be reached at info@asarimhotep.com or Home

Thanks for that! It is always empowering and uplifting to know that many of your brothers and sisters out their (including you of course) are not prepared to put the blood of the white before our own. This is the very pain that we cause to ourselves.
Talking of 'blood' now I may be in the wrong arena but I am having a tough time with the NHS-Negro Hating So and So's. Don't get me wrong there are may good folk in there and I know many of our beople have been helped but there are some medical professionals who are giveng the NHS a bad reputation byn the way that they CHOOSE to approach black people.
I mean I had to tell the doctor I am not a slave so he could not expect me to behave. I notice there is very little discussion in the media about ineualities in health and now i never hear of anyone having a hard time. It is just me that's having a bad time?

I appreciate you all checking out the article. It is a chapter in my book Esodus: Internal Reflections & Conversations with the SUN.

I would love to hear other people's take on this subject and what are some solutions to ensure that we as a people are never enslaved again.

Good idea behind this post, but there should be more facts in it.

the primary reasons why slavery didn't work on a widescale on native peoples in north america were

-Natives knew the land and could easily escape

-the natives didn't have immunity or defenses against European diseases(if you read guns,GERMS, and steel.....this is highlighted)


These 2 factors worked in the opposite way when the slavers began bringing in African people. We were displaced and knew Nothing of the areas we were brought to...and apparently...the Middle Passage with it's filth and brutality weeded out all but the most physically durable of us(including our most germ resistant folks).


Again...i like the idea, but root it more on facts.

Was going to say the same, not sure about comparing us to animals either, ''Happy to breed in captivity'' ???....

We were at war with the Arabs on the continent, genocides and forced conversions abound there, they brought alot with them to spain and portugal along with new weapons, inventions and ideas from greater Asia. The Arab invasion sparked mass migrations of peoples from the north of the continent to the south to escape arab enslavement.

Not as though we and the caucasians were complete strangers, they would sit around and learn from/about us well before taking up arms against us just as they did with the Amer-indians. Religious conversions and an instilling of their way of life upon us won them recruits as you mentioned neither us or the amer-indians etc had a problem allowing them to practice their religion and culture in our lands.

Language and culture differences played a part in resistance during the enslavement of us as a peoples. Easily divided along those lines.

We don't feel threatened on an individual level by the caucasians as they do us, deep seated psychological problems drove and still drive their genocides against us and other peoples.

europeans during the middle ages were tribal, allowing the Arabs to attack them and rule there for 700 years, they rallied around christianity to unify themselves and their ideals, we have a tendency to create cultures to survive within as you mentioned, no unified code if you will. All too happy to take up foriegn religions... certain draw backs to being the first peoples.

yeah..factually...the emerging of Spain's conquest for new land in western hemisphere......and the EXISTING slave market industry already in Africa...is what led to the mass importing of enslaved Africans over here....



the EXISTING ethnic/tribal/regional conflicts...and the way this was exploited by the slavers......

I appreciate all of the feedback.

To answer your concerns, I mentioned in the article about the resistance to diseases and also N. Americans knowing the land. I also mentioned Arab, Jewish and African involvement in the slave holocaust.

The point wasn't to rehash the already well known but, as was mentioned in the article, to do a comparison of the process of animal domestication and to see what social factors are comparable between African cultures & animal culture. Slavery and domestication are the same thing. We were branded as "animals." In order to make a being a slave, certain factors have to be in place. This is just for us to see what possible factors contributed to our "domestication" and if true, how we can tidy that up so we won't be enslaved again.

I think you made a premise and you're finding things to fill that premise.


If you worked the other way..you'd produce more interesting results.......do the research and arrive at a premise logically.


Until the international slave trade was "legally abolished" in early 1800s....the slavers found it easier to purchase people than to "breed" us. So your premise is talking about roughly 160 years.....in the united states .The population of Africans never rose significantly until the 1800s because there was a ready supply of labor to be purchased.

Imhotep06,

I love what you are doing. For future reference, if we ever have occasion to disagree, and believe me, we will, please know that I regard your work as invaluable to our struggle.

I believe your point carries a double edge to it. On the one hand there is the question of how was the African or Africa ripe for enslavement? On the other hand, how were the African slaves, once removed, domesticated so “easily”? You could write volumes addressing these questions and spend years trying to do it. The answers are extremely complicated, and to your credit you have already acknowledged that your assessment cannot help but to be an oversimplification. That being said, your analysis as well as all of the other analyses offered thus far need not mutually exclude one another.

On the question of why was Africa ripe for the slavery campaign? I would have to agree with both Black Lion and DtotheJ

However, on the question of “Why were the Africans so easily domesticated?” I have four answers:

1) I have already alluded to the strategy of systematically attacking the “alpha males.” If you want to kill a snake, naturally, you cut off the head. This was not a casual, or occasional practice in slave-controlling cultures; it is the oldest means of control in slave-controlling cultures. It is older than the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and older than the Portuguese or Arab Slave Trades. It is not a footnote in pursuit of knowledge about how to manage your slaves for generations; it is the paradigm through which all of our cause-effect analysis should be filtered. We produced scores of revolutionaries, revolters, freedom fighters, “proud Negroes”, rabble-rousers, Ante-Bellum agrarian suicide bombers, strategists, and straight-up white man “Mandingo” nightmares, but all of them, I repeat, ALL OF THEM, were tortured, killed or maimed without mercy. With this in mind, the length and depth of our enslavement is not a commentary on our less-than-indomitable will, but rather, it is a testament to the unprecedented brutality and low-regard for life that White Supremacy wrought in the cultures of Europe and its Diaspora. It was, simply put, the extreme perfection of a very old practice.

2) Writing and printing made it possible for Europeans to institutionalize the business of slavery and to disseminate “Best-Practices”, plans and strategies to active, or would-be slave entrepreneurs, with an efficiency (i.e., printed materials) never before seen by the world. In other words, writing was “technology” and then, just like today, we are years behind the curve.

3) It’s been said before and I will say it again in much the same satirical way that the one who said it before said it: “Guns, lots and lots of guns.”

4) Africans were better candidates than Native Americans because of their significantly superior resistance to disease.

One more thing, imhotep06 wrote:
Now, I am fully aware of the many documented examples of resistance by African captives, and I do acknowledge them. However, what cannot be denied is that the overwhelming majority of African people in the Americas accepted their enslavement and did not attempt to revolt (otherwise it wouldn't have lasted so long).

I am not sure if you mean this in a casual kind of tongue and cheek way, or if you are really apt to use the length of American slavery as a legitimate measure for the breadth of slave-resistance in America. It reminds of the controversial article published in Asia Weekly last year by a Kenneth Eng, entitled “Why I hate Blacks.” Remember, he argued that the length of the African enslavement is proof of their inferiority. In classic Bill Cosby style, he blamed the victims for the nature and effects of their oppression. I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt Mr. imhotep06 and hence, I know that you do not mean it in this way. Nonetheless, you must admit that the two propositions: A) slavery lasted a long time, and B) over that period of time the slaves appear to have become “domesticated”; are not sufficient to arrive that the categorical syllogism: “therefore the overwhelming majority of African people in the Americas accepted their enslavement.”

Remember, slave revolt leaders were killed and many of them did not write.

Thank you for reading.

Holla!