From the information I have found, it seems that the British were first attracted to Africa because of gold and ivory, not slaves. the Dutch followed them to Africa for this reason, as did many other nations such as France and Sweden. However the Dutch were more assertive than the British and made their way into the slave trade more quickly.
According to a JSTOR article on this topic, the Dutch slave trade in reality only consisted of about 5% of the total Atlantic slave trade and spanned over three periods of time from 1600 to 1800. During the first period, the slave trade transported the most slaves, apparently because the French and the English had not established their own slave trade.
In the beginning, the Dutch used larger, older ships to transport the slaves which resulted in large numbers of slave deaths, however this fact changed once those ships were banned and better ships were implemented to reduce mortality. Not only was the change in the ships responsible for reducing the morality, they also shortened the middle passage.
In Africa, both the Dutch and the British built forts. The Dutch were first with their fort at Elimina in 1642 and the British followed them with their fort at Kormatine in 1651 and ten years later another fort at Cape Castle. Constantly at war, the Dutch destroyed the British forts, except the largest one at Cape Castle. This didn't discourage the British, however, who were attracted back to Africa becuase of profits from the slave trade.
Yet even in this crazy fight for Africa, the British had their own problems back home. The public was astonished at the inhumanity of the slave trade and had it abolished in 1807. Yet this didn't end the British presence in the slave trade, only private companies. The British government was still involved.
The interesting thing that I found is that in February of 2006, the Anglicans apologized for their role in the African slave trade. They say they recognize that they were responsible for what happened to many slaves because they were at the heart of what was happening in Africa during that time.
According to a JSTOR article on this topic, the Dutch slave trade in reality only consisted of about 5% of the total Atlantic slave trade and spanned over three periods of time from 1600 to 1800. During the first period, the slave trade transported the most slaves, apparently because the French and the English had not established their own slave trade.
In the beginning, the Dutch used larger, older ships to transport the slaves which resulted in large numbers of slave deaths, however this fact changed once those ships were banned and better ships were implemented to reduce mortality. Not only was the change in the ships responsible for reducing the morality, they also shortened the middle passage.In Africa, both the Dutch and the British built forts. The Dutch were first with their fort at Elimina in 1642 and the British followed them with their fort at Kormatine in 1651 and ten years later another fort at Cape Castle. Constantly at war, the Dutch destroyed the British forts, except the largest one at Cape Castle. This didn't discourage the British, however, who were attracted back to Africa becuase of profits from the slave trade.
Yet even in this crazy fight for Africa, the British had their own problems back home. The public was astonished at the inhumanity of the slave trade and had it abolished in 1807. Yet this didn't end the British presence in the slave trade, only private companies. The British government was still involved.The interesting thing that I found is that in February of 2006, the Anglicans apologized for their role in the African slave trade. They say they recognize that they were responsible for what happened to many slaves because they were at the heart of what was happening in Africa during that time.
1 comment:
your pictures are awesome! I especially liked the one about slave selling aboard the ships. Its crazy what people will do to others and try to justify it. Sadly, its still true today.
Post a Comment