Hacker News Reader

Comment by danielvf | Hacker News Reader

1) The slave trade is extremely relevant to the article about the “amazons”. In the nation’s annual festival in those days, the Dahomey “amazons” would reenact capturing slaves. The Dahomey military (and the “amazons”) spent most of their fighting time attacking neighboring nations to get slaves to sell.

2) We agree. The place was called Dahomey. The place is now called Benin.

3) The kingdom of Dahomey was less than one third of one percent of the land area of Africa, and yet sold twenty percent of africa’s slaves that went to the new world. If ever there was a nation in Africa that could be discussed in the context of the slave trade, this is it.

View on HN

Some corrections: The place was wrongly called Dahomey, that's why it was changed to Benin. Also the actual place that performed the raids on their neighbors was less than 10% of modern-day Benin. Most of the area of the kingdom (some 1/4 of modern-day Benin), were vassals who would provide slaves as tribute.

Source: born there, lives there.

Why do you say it was wrongly called Dahomey? And maybe you can help me with a question I've wondered about: why was it changed to Benin? Benin was one of the great historical kingdoms of Africa, like Songhai or Ghana (also not in present day Ghana) or what have you, but as far as I know it's not related to the current country of Benin. It was located in present day Nigeria. I suppose maybe the people migrated, or was it more a case of wanting to get rid of the name Dahomey and choosing an inspiring name?

It's named for the Bight of Benin, and again, the name was changed to distance it from the French colony it once was under the name "Dahomey".

Ah, the bight. Of course! That makes sense, thanks.

What was the actual place that performed the raids called?

Abomey

Well, then. This is where Hangbe ruled, where the Royal Palaces of Abomey are located, and where her descendents live. So the point about slavery stands, no?

I didn't discuss your point about slavery. I don't even want to think about agreeing or not since everyone will always have different opinions about it. That's why I started my first comment with "some corrections." Just wanted to correct a few things that were not.

Although I find it jaw-dropping that 20% of the slave trade came from such a tiny place! ;)

Well, I suppose that they were fierce warriors.

Again, that is true of many African states. To get arms, you dealt with slave trading nations for them. To get the slaves to get the arms, you raided other nations. To defend themselves, those other nations needed arms. To get the arms, they dealt with slave trading nations for them. All you're point out is that eventually "winners" emerged. And?

Later

(The comment I replied to was drastically edited after I responded to it.)

Yes, for completeness I added responses to #2 and #3 from your first comment. Good luck - always fun either agreeing with you, or discussing our disagreements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com