Hacker News Reader

Buganda didn't really get into the slave trade until Arab colonialism broke into the Bugandan markets after the 1840s, when Buganda was already established and growing. Even then, the slave trade was primarily on the edge of the economy, in order to exchange for guns. Most of the economy was built on iron, salt, and food trade. See [1], specifically chapter 3, on the formation of monarchies.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/277585.The_Great_Lakes_o...

View on HN

Does that only count "slave trade" as exporting slaves? I.e. it does not count local slavery, such as that of their subjugated neighbors.

There does to me seem to be a significant difference between neighboring communities enslaving each other (and knowing that they could be next) and transporting people across the world to suffer and die under a regime that denied them any humanity whatsoever.

I see. So despite the sources saying that "these subject peoples were then exploited for cheap labor", and, presumably, were also used for the documented human sacrifice, we know that they otherwise treated their slaves relatively well? How do we know this?

You also say "enslaving each other", but from what was written so far it seems to have been mostly Buganda enslaving its neighbors - they didn't take turns.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com