Comment by jbmorgado | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbmorgado | Hacker News Reader

It is quite deceiving to mention so greatly - and more than once - the slaves that where kidnapped by Europeans like they where a representative part of the slave trade, they were factually not. Portugal is without doubt a big culprit in the slave trade, but the African slaves themselves were basically all enslaved by other Africans and then sold to the Europeans. Portugal was also the first country to officially forbid the slave trade.

Portugal is quite at ease with the history of its colonial past and its role in the Atlantic slave trade, there is no denial or attempt to hide the historical facts and the slave trade and the role of slavery in the former colonies (specially Brazil) is well discussed during obligatory schooling.

All this to say I can't really understand why Lisbon should acknowledge its slaves to such great length as this post asks to, because in fact Lisbon had very few ones actually living there (it was not well seen in Catholic Europe to own slaves) and was mostly a point of passage (but then again, so were many Atlantic islands).

If you want to check the historical facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

>but the African slaves themselves were basically all enslaved by other Africans and then sold to the Europeans

Paying someone else to do the work doesn't change who was responsible.

>Portugal was also the first country to officially forbid the slave trade.

In mainland Portugal, slavery wasn't abolished in Brazil until 1869.

>because in fact Lisbon had very few ones actually living there (it was not well seen in Catholic Europe to own slaves) and was mostly a point of passage (but then again, so were many Atlantic islands).

Catholic Europe didn't have a huge problem with it until the eighteenth century, they just had enough serfs that it generally wasn't necessary. Plus, this is about Protestant Portugal, and your source mentions that in 1550 10% of Lisbon's population was African slaves.

> "Paying someone else to do the work doesn't change who was responsible."

Never claimed Europeans weren't responsible (in fact I clearly stated the opposite), I factually stated something wrong in the original article: Europeans were not going around kidnapping natives at large like the article suggests, they were buying them from the other natives that were the ones actually enslaving them.

Can't understand why you are trying so hard to hide that part of history.

> "In mainland Portugal, slavery wasn't abolished in Brazil until 1869."

Yes, and this article is about Lisbon. Lisbon, is in mainland Portugal.

> "Plus, this is about Protestant Portugal"

Protestant Portugal? What are you talking about? Protestantism was only allowed in Portugal after the mid XIX century (and after that still mostly inexistent). So, basically when slavery was also forbidden by law in there.

>Europeans were not going around kidnapping natives at large like the article suggests, they were buying them from the other natives that were the ones actually enslaving them.

Again, paying someone else to do the work doesn't change anything. They were kidnapped and enslaved for the Europeans, there is nothing factually wrong in the article.

I'm not trying to hide history here. By saying it was the Africans who did the kidnapping, you're putting the crime on them. But if they refused, they likely would have been enslaved or killed. Their involvement isn't overly important, and it's usually brought up to try to lessen the extreme horrors of European colonialism.

>Yes, and this article is about Lisbon. Lisbon, is in mainland Portugal

Your comments were about how Portugal was at ease with it's slavery past, and came as part of the "Africans were the kidnappers" spiel. Mainland Portugal was in control of Brazil at the time, part of this time involved the court located in Brazil.

The Protestant Portugal was my mistake. Read about the Thirty Years War recently, I thought the break from the Iberian Union was for religious differences. So many countries fighting for so many reasons.

> "By saying it was the Africans who did the kidnapping, you're putting the crime on them. But if they refused, they likely would have been enslaved or killed."

Way to go and completely distort all historical evidence to try and shift the blame. Let's get something clear, the natives selling other natives were from tribes/kingdoms that had been at war for centuries. Europeans clearly created more demand and are at fault for that. But the natives were very clearly and very well documented NOT coerced (like you are trying to claim), they just continued doing what they already did for at least 15 centuries before.

And also, they continued doing it AFTER the Europeans stopped slavery. Thing is, even today there are millions of slaves in Africa and really we can easily agree it's not the Europeans that own them or trade them in present times.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa

> "Your comments were about how Portugal was at ease with it's slavery past, and came as part of the "Africans were the kidnappers" spiel. Mainland Portugal was in control of Brazil at the time, part of this time involved the court located in Brazil."

No, my main comment was that LISBON didn't had the slaving history as the article is trying to put on it and as such, Portugal being the first nation to forbid slavery (even of just in the mainland) goes on to validate my point about LISBON.

>But the natives were very clearly and very well documented NOT coerced (like you are trying to claim), they just continued doing what they already did for at least 15 centuries before.

Again, you're looking at things too directly. If they refused, the offer would go out to their rivals. So unless every group of people refused, you were facing slavery or death if you refused.

You keep mentioning Africa's ancient slave legacy, ignoring your own source saying that it isn't clear chattel slavery was practiced in the area, and that war slaves were a common feature in Europe until the eighteenth century.

>validate my point about LISBON.

Yet you ignored the parts that didn't, like the ten percent of the population part.

> "If they refused, the offer would go out to their rivals. "

Ok, so what? Both you and you rival have something to sell. If I don't buy it from you, I buy it from your rival. Let's face it, the Europeans created a greater demand for a product that the natives were already providing: Slaves. (no disrespect intended by the word product, just an analogy).

> *"ignoring your own source saying that it isn't clear chattel slavery was practiced in the area"

The moment the natives the sold those slaves, even if they weren't chattel slaves before (which I agree with you, was not clear), they started practicing chattel slavery. That's just the definition of it.

In a nutshell, Europeans didn't turn that people into chattel slaves, they where turned into that by the other natives that enslaved them.

> "Yet you ignored the parts that didn't, like the ten percent of the population part."

Yes, the 10% that only occurred for a short time compared to the rest of the all Europe and because you keep accounting for people passing by than only spent there some weeks (i.e. the slaves waiting to be sold).

>Ok, so what? Both you and you rival have something to sell. If I don't buy it from you, I buy it from your rival.

It's not a one time transaction. If they buy slaves from your rivals, they have more money to spend on arms and a need for more people to sell. So refusing wasn't a safe option, creating a larger demand changed the game dramatically.

>In a nutshell, Europeans didn't turn that people into chattel slaves, they where turned into that by the other natives that enslaved them.

You could sell a debt slave with the thought the new owner would abide by the same rules. Or if slaves were treated as members of your household with an free children and a general path back to freedom, you might expect the buyer does the same. If you don't view people as property, you won't expect what someone buying them will do.

>Yes, the 10% that only occurred for a short time compared to the rest of the all Europe and because you keep accounting for people passing by than only spent there some weeks (i.e. the slaves waiting to be sold).

Source? As given how poorly Portugal looks in the slave trade, the last ship of slaves being Portugese to Brazil, that is hard to believe. And are you really happy with the argument "Portugal shouldn't overly acknowledge the slave trade, they barely kept any in the mainland while profiting off their sale and work for centuries."

> "Portugal shouldn't overly acknowledge the slave trade, they barely kept any in the mainland while profiting off their sale and work for centuries."

We are just going around and around in circles.

Again and for the final time: The article and my problem with it, is NOT about Portugal's involvement in the slave trade. I totally admit Portugal was the big motivator of the slave TRADE, yet history let's it very clear that the Natives were the ENSLAVERS and already since at least 1500 years before and have continued to do it UNTIL THE PRESENT, long after the Europeans stopped that.

The article IS about some WRONG idea there is some slave legacy in LISBON - when in fact there is basically none.

Capitalizing random words doesn't make them true, nice dodge out of getting that source and ignoring how being the motivator still makes you the kidnapper. Next you'll tell me about how glorious the reconquista was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com