>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.