#Slavery Myths

[blackstarlineage]

Debunking the Myth: “Africans Sold Each Other” in the Transatlantic Slave Trade – A Garveyite Perspective

From a Garveyite perspective, the claim that Africans sold each other into slavery is a deliberate distortion of history designed to absolve European and Arab slave traders of their crimes, weaken Pan-African unity, and undermine Black solidarity. This false narrative, which has been heavily promoted by colonial historians and mainstream education, seeks to blame Africans for their own suffering while ignoring the brutal realities of European deception, military invasion, and economic coercion that fueled the transatlantic slave trade.

Garveyism is rooted in historical accuracy, self-determination, and the rejection of colonial propaganda. To truly understand the transatlantic slave trade, we must dismantle Eurocentric myths and reclaim an African-centered understanding of history.

This in-depth analysis will expose:

The truth about African involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.

How European powers manipulated and forced African leaders into trade agreements.

Why the “Africans sold each other” myth is dangerous and destructive to Black unity

The role of Arab slavers and European military invasion in the expansion of slavery.

How Garveyism rejects this narrative to promote Pan-Africanism and global Black unity.

1. The Myth of “Africans Selling Each Other” is a Colonial Lie

One of the most common distortions in discussions about the transatlantic slave trade is the claim that Africans willingly and enthusiastically sold their own people to European slavers. This narrative is not only historically inaccurate but also intentionally misleading.

The Truth:

Africa was made up of different nations, kingdoms, and ethnic groups—not a single united state. The idea that all Africans saw each other as the same “people” in the way we do today ignores historical context.

In pre-colonial Africa, prisoners of war or criminals were sometimes enslaved, but this was not the same as European chattel slavery, where people were treated as property for life and their descendants enslaved forever.

Europeans introduced large-scale, race-based slavery, forcing African rulers into unequal and exploitative trade agreements that had never existed before.

Garveyite Takeaway: The idea that Africans willingly “sold” their own people is an oversimplification that ignores the role of deception, military force, and European manipulation in the slave trade.

2. Europeans and Arabs Used Deception, Military Force, and Economic Coercion

Europeans did not simply show up and purchase slaves like goods at a market. Instead, they used a combination of deception, warfare, and economic destabilization to force African leaders into the trade.

The Truth:

Armed European forces raided African villages, kidnapping people directly and burning down entire settlements.

European weapons, bribes, and threats forced African leaders to comply. Some African leaders resisted, but they were often met with military retaliation.

The Portuguese, British, Dutch, French, and Spanish used divide-and-conquer strategies, pitting African nations against each other and fueling wars that increased the number of captives available for trade.

Example: The Kingdom of Kongo, under King Afonso I, tried to resist the Portuguese slave trade, but the Portuguese continued kidnapping his people and destabilizing the region. His letters pleading for an end to the slave trade were ignored.

Garveyite Takeaway: The slave trade was not an equal transaction—it was an invasion, a war, and a system of global exploitation imposed on Africa by external forces.

3. The Role of Arab Slavers in the African Slave Trade

While the transatlantic slave trade is often the focus, the Arab slave trade lasted over 1,400 years and played a significant role in the African enslavement industry. Many of the same coercion, kidnapping, and military tactics used by Europeans were also employed by Arab slavers.

The Truth:

Millions of East and Central Africans were captured and sold into slavery by Arab traders in a trade that predated European involvement.

Arab slavers castrated male African slaves to prevent reproduction and erased African presence in the Middle East.

The Swahili coast, Zanzibar, and North African traders facilitated human trafficking networks that devastated African societies.

Garveyite Takeaway: The African slave trade was not just a European crime—it was a global system of oppression that involved Arab traders as well. Africans were victims of foreign exploitation, not willing participants in their own destruction.

4. The “Africans Sold Each Other” Myth Is Used to Destroy Black Unity

This colonial myth is not just a historical lie—it is actively used today to divide Black people and weaken the Pan-African movement. By pushing the idea that Africans are to blame for slavery, it creates distrust between Africans and the African diaspora, preventing unity and progress.

How This Myth Is Weaponized Today:

It is used to excuse European and Arab involvement, shifting blame onto Africans while ignoring the systems of colonialism, imperialism, and racial capitalism that enabled slavery.

It fosters diaspora wars where African Americans, Caribbeans, and continental Africans blame each other instead of working together toward liberation.

It discourages Pan-African unity, making it harder to build strong global Black institutions and economies.

Garveyite Takeaway: Marcus Garvey taught that “Africa for the Africans” means uniting all Black people worldwide. We can not allow historical distortions to divide us when we should be working toward common goals.

5. Many African Leaders Resisted the Slave Trade

While some African leaders were forced into participating in the trade, many others fought against European and Arab slavers. The heroic resistance of African kings, queens, and warriors must be recognized.

Examples of African Resistance:

Queen Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba (Angola) led military campaigns against Portuguese slavers in the 1600s.

The Fante and Ekpe fought against European forces trying to control their lands and enslave them.

The Zulu Kingdom under Shaka Zulu resisted colonial incursions.

Garveyite Takeaway: Not all Africans participated in the slave trade—many fought to protect their people, and we must honour their legacy by continuing the fight for Black sovereignty today.

Conclusion: The Truth About the Transatlantic Slave Trade

From a Garveyite perspective, the idea that Africans sold each other into slavery is a weaponized falsehood designed to shift blame away from Europeans and Arabs while weakening Black unity. The reality is:

The transatlantic slave trade was not an African business—it was a European war against Africa.

Africans did not sell “their own people” in the way this myth suggests.

European and Arab slavers used deception, military force, and economic pressure to extract captives.

Many African leaders resisted, but European and Arab powers overwhelmed them with superior weapons and divide-and-conquer strategies.

This myth is still being used today to create division among Black people and prevent Pan-African unity.

The real lesson from Garveyism is that Black people must reject false colonial narratives and work together to rebuild what was stolen from us. The only way forward is unity, economic independence, and global Black solidarity.

[thorough-witness-enjoyer]

For a game with central themes such as „every being should have a right to self-determination and autonomy“, „inclusionary communities forms bonds strong enough to protect themselves from forces that seek to prey on it“, „free will, though scary and potentially leading to harmful actions, is something worth defending for every being“, and „the cruelty the universe can spawn can be overcome with the will to continue on and do better for your people“, I find it so disappointing we‘ve had little lore that give psions the spotlight, let alone a narrative that focuses on their struggle to build back their culture and lives after who-knows-how-many-years of servitude.

I feel like the psions are the most underdeveloped in-game species, and when we do get development for them, it’s always in the context of them serving the cabal empire or the Conclave taking on antagonistic roles to sabotage the efforts of the Vanguard. I love the development of the eliksni and how in recent years, the game has really been pushing stories that humanize them, validates their struggles, and gives them hope for the future of their species, I just wish psions got the same courtesy.

Yes, they were freed under Caiatl‘s rule, but that wasn‘t given much narrative emphasis as they either continued to act for the empire or joined the Conclave, neither of which gave them a stronger presence in the story or a character that joins our cast of allies .

What was their servitude like? How much cruelty and discrimination did they face? Were there revolutions and movements for better legal protections? What parts of their culture, besides religion, did they bring with them when they were taken by the empire? Is there still anti-psion sentiments present in Uluran culture? What was their home planet like and do elder psions remember it like Riis-born eliksni remember Riis?

The psions have been influenced by Nezarec/the Witness, have been a part of the cabal empire and it’s turmoils for an extended period of time, posses incredible intelligence and psionic powers (that may have connections to the darkness), have a religious schism that was affected by Nezarec’s disappearance and the empire preventing open practices of their beliefs, and yet they are always treated as an afterthought (usually antagonistic), a one-off character in lore, or given a subservient role.

Psions are so cool and deserve the universe, yet we are given crumbs when we could have meals that accentuate the messages Destiny is trying to craft, such as respecting the right of others to have beliefs and perceptions of their own. Psions feel less like people and more like characters playing side roles to progress smaller story beats. It’s so infuriating and I don’t know if Bungie is just too timid to tackle a story involving slavery, there wasn’t enough time to develop them, or Bungie never intended for them to be more than what they currently are. I have hope we will get something soon though!!!

Acasia I haven’t forgotten about you and I never will!!

[nando161mando]

[socialjusticeinamerica]

Debunking the myth of the Lost Cause: A lie embedded in American history...

[victusinveritas]

Reminder, the idiot commenter is wrong. The Irish Enslavement thing is a myth. An easily swallowable myth, one I believed quietly until college because it was told to me by people I trusted until I realized that they were in fact idiots, and there is a gulf of difference between indenture and transportation (which happened, sucked but not in the way that the Transatlantic Slave Trade sucked) and chattel slavery.

[blondebrainpowered]

Behind the Myth of Benevolence, 2014

Artist: Titus Kaphar

Subjects: Thomas Jefferson and Unnamed African American woman

[nando161mando]

The myth of "hard work"

[mercutiotakethewheel]

everytime i rewatch black sails, i find myself like vane more and more ngl. the first season really tries hard to trick you into thinking he’s just unnecessarily, banally, and uncompellingly an asshole (in the overwhelmingly compelling asshole show), whose one redeeming feature is that he’s kinda pathetic too. but geez s2 really nails home everytime that hes the best and the coolest and the most honest (maybe even most compassionate) of the mcs up until this point, barring anne of course. and on top of that i actually kind of think he has the best pre-s3 speeches. like obvs s4 flint is yknow s4 flint. and s3 max is so insane i actually cant handle it. but oh my god charles vane’s letter and his fuck your legitimacy eleanor speech and his hanging speech are so good. and fuck what i said earlier isnt even true. bc his s1 speech while hes looking in the eyes of the little boy he used to be is actually like the bestest. like fuck ok. charles vane is the best actually. #1 anarchist boy. 10/10 would want him in my commune. hed point blank refuse to help with the dishes tho so 😬.

[pomodoriyum]

halloween

[planet4546b]

went to the library EXPLICITLY saying to myself ‘ok you’re here for two things exactly, you haven’t been reading that much lately so DONT go overboard’. and then they had neither thing and i left with 6 books. unfortunately my local library does really really good seasonal displays and their staff picks section is great. so shoutout to the staff with good taste

[arinzechukwuture]

Myth No. 3: Enslaved Africans were brainwashed by a White man’s ‘pie-in-the sky’ Christianity

In the Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC, there is a special exhibit of an artifact that is so rare that there are only a handful now in existence. It is what historians call a “Slave Bible.” It is a copy of a Bible that was used by British missionaries to convert enslaved African Americans. Published in 1807, the Bible deletes any passages that may inspire liberation – about 90% of the Old Testament is missing along with half of the New Testament.

“They literally blacked out, portions of the Bible that had anything to do with freedom, anything to do with equality, anything to do with God delivering folk,” says Leon Harris, a theology professor at Biola University in California.

There is misconception that Christianity was successfully used to create docile slaves who were conditioned to heed New Testament passages such as “slaves obey your earthly masters.” Malcolm X derided Christianity as a White man’s religion used to brainwash Black people to “shout and sing and pray until we die ‘for some dreamy heaven-in-the-hereafter’” while the White man “has his milk and honey in the streets paved with golden dollars right here on this earth!”

But historians like Harris say most slaves disdained the type of Christianity that was taught to them. Many instead discovered those missing passages in the Slave Bible, such as the Old Testament stories of God freeing the Israelites from Egyptian captivity. It’s no accident that many Black leaders who have led freedom struggles, from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., were Christian ministers.

“Instead of Christianity being a religion of African oppression, many interpreted it as a religion of freedom,” Harris says.

[littlesparklight]

I'm going to sit here in my feelings over how Paris in the mainstream version(s) grows up a slave and only knows any sort of privilege somewhere in the upper teens. From when he's twenty at the oldest.

[protoslacker]

Jews will sit down to a Seder this year with many mixed feelings. The trauma of October 7; the humiliation, the anger, the desire for retribution, and justifications for the horrific violence in Gaza to innocent victims. And there may be added enthusiasm to utter, toward the Haggadah’s finale, just before the door is opened to welcome Elijah the Prophet: “Pour out Your wrath to the nations who do not know You.” But Tamares’ teaching should also be present: “Do not become like Pharaoh.” Dissonant as it may sound, in Tamares’ view, it’s the gift that Jews as inheritors of Torah are meant to bring to the world.

Shaul Magid in Religion Dispatches. To One Early 20th Century Anti-Zionist Rabbi Passover Isn't Simply A Celebration Of Freedom--It's a warning

[mystarwarsmatters]

I think it would be cool if Shmi passed down knowledge of mechanical engineering and tinkering to Anakin. It’s a sorely missed opportunity to not have her skills passed down to her only child, tbh.

[ctraceywrites]

I've gotten into so many arguments about the Myth of Irish slavery and everyone who argues that it for sure happened always cites this book (if your only source is one badly put together book you might want to rethink your stance) so I figured I'd see how bad it is for myself.

I've read About this book before, so I was already aware of some of its problems (historian Liam Hogan who did a good analysis of this book and all the Irish slave myth stuff you find online, I suggest looking at that here. Even just in the introduction he's cherry picking information and none of the quotes he uses are properly sourced. More of the quotes in the first chapter are just the English bad mouthing the Irish instead of more useful quotes to back up much of the information he's on about.

I imagine this is going to be a pain of a week while I sludge through this book. X_x

___________

In To Hell Or Barbados, the author Sean O'Callaghan mentions the research of Reverend Aubrey Gwynn and attributes the number of "50,000 innocent people [who] would be sent [to Barbados] as slave labor." There are 3 sources listed by Gwynn in this book, I just finished reading the first, "Cromwell's Policy of Transportation" on jstor. Here's the link if you want to read it too (you need an account, but you can make a free one easy).

In "Cromwell's Policy of Transportation", Gwynn already disproves any idea of Irish Slavery, and the 50,000 number O'Callaghan attributes to him. Gwynn mentions a few records calling for the request of some hundred prisoners to be sent out and schemes to entice the Irish to volunteer, but is clear that we don't have a clear number on the amount of people who were actually shipped out.

Gwynn is also clear that it was indentured servitude, not slavery, explicitly stating as much. He does mention that the conditions of the Irish where horrible, but doesn't list them. However, once these conditions were made clear (the whole thing lasted about 5 years), it was made illegal for Irish prisoners to be forcibly sent to Barbados.

The Irish went though many horrible events, several of which were clear genocides perpetrated by the English, but a system of slavery, especially one at anyway comparable to what happened to black people in the United States, flat out did not happen.

I also should mention, Gwynn states in the source above that the idea of selling some Scotsman off as slaves to somewhere else was bright up as an idea, but doesn't appear to have actually happened, citing that it would have been too much of a cost mostly.

Despite the horrible working conditions the Irish found themselves in when they arrived in Barbados, and without the money and clothes they were offered if they volunteered, they were still seen as People and legal action was taken to prevent the continued suffering of the Irish who were forced from their home in this instance.

Black people who were forced into chattel slavery were not seen as people. They were property. They weren't even given the false promise of being able to work off their debt.

The Irish slave myth is used by white supremacists to undermine black people and the tortures they went through under slavery and jim crow and the Civil rights movement and their continued struggle today. Let this harmful myth fucking die already.

[youtwitinmyface]

The "Irish Slavery" Myth explained