Comments by "Ayodeji Olowokere" (@ayodejiolowokere1076) on "Slavery and Suffering - History Of Africa with Zeinab Badawi [Episode 16]" video.

@riaa8689 here we go. Indian indentured servants were coerced and weren't paid. European indentured servants were whipped and compelled to even produce children for labour by force. They weren't legally slaves but were compelled to work for the duration of their contracts. And funny how you ignore Indonesian slaves and Barbary pirate slaves and Slavs. I did not realize you were a kid before typing this but use your head.
3
@riaa8689 white slaves were used in North Africa, the Middle East and Siberia and as indentured servants throughout the Americas. Indian indentured servants which were functionally slaves were used in the Carribean and Africa. Indonesian slaves were used in South Africa by the Dutch. What's your point?
2
@riaa8689 if you want to be a dick at least don't be stupid. I know what the difference is, my point is they were used for labor with it often extracted forcibly. Now go be dense elsewhere.
2
@riaa8689 I'm responding to your comment. Use your brain.
2
@kumbua that wasn't my question.
2
@kumbua still not my question.
2
Angela Bronckhurst the premise of your scenario is self invented nonsense. Sailors went there with the intention and tools to trade for tools by arming chiefdoms with the means to subdue rivals and victim populations. Implying Africans initiated the trade is an deliberate attempt on your part to invent a history you prefer. The trade was instigated and facilitated by Europeans who had encountered a labour shortage in the Americas. Mentioning random African descended peoples who participated in this trade is pretty irrelevant.
2
Angela Bronckhurst you didn't have any data to refute you just made a claim. Here's commonsense being used; how could Africans sell their own if there was no united concept of Africa? Did Europeans sell their own people? The actual history is European colonists in the Americas encountered a labour shortage in the subtropics and tropics. Indians had a high mortality rate and couldn't be reliably exploited, and so Africans were considered because they could tolerate the conditions. Hence, the triangular trade. Everything else you said is just YouTube nonsense.
2
Angela Bronckhurst to your bit about the weapons you admit they received from European slave traders. They used them to capture slaves in exchange for more weapons. You pretty much just proved my point for me.
2
Angela Bronckhurst where are you from even?
2
@cultusgti Moors were North African not black. European slave owners attempted to enslave native Americans before Africans but their mortality rate was too high for feasibility. White didn't end global slavery, the UK did. Africans didn't enslave amd sell their own people as Slavs didn't enslave and sell their own people. Slavery is going on still globally, not in whatever the hell 'Africa' is supposed to be. And finally 'there' and 'their' are different words and 'debt' are different. And to everyone that upvoted your comment: use your brains.
1
@eternaljunker8300 what's wrong with you? Serbs and other Balkan people still lament what Turks did to their ancestors. Go whine elsewhere.
1
@nightslasher9384 what?
1
@benegmond6584 yeah Moldova is more developed than Saudi Arabia. Albania is wealthier than the UAE.
1
@benegmond6584 pretty irrelevant.
1
@kumbua did your ancestors sell themselves?
1
Angela Bronckhurst one, you are a repulsive woman. Two, you just made all that up. There was no Benin in pre colonial times for example. And the primary export of the Sahelian empires was gold. Secondly every culture sold slaves the fact that slaves were sold in some of these empires is irrelevant. And one more thing, there weren't millions of people in African chiefdoms. Try harder but please try, I'm enjoying the spectacle you're making of yourself.
1