Atlantic slave trade vs. Old world slaves trades, Afro-American narrative vs. Histori

litwin · Feb 19, 2014

J0NAH said: ↑

Black historians believe there is simply no comparison between the transatlantic slave ships and plantations, with all its’ torture and humiliation, and mere servitude within African societies.

Much mainstream debate at during the bicentenary of so-called abolition has failed to draw this distinction.

Some commentators, such as Daily Mail writer Melanie Phillips, have actively sought to put the Maafa and African “slavery” on the same level.

Yet while Europeans whipped, raped and boiled their captives, stripping them of their names and history, many African “slaves” were often indistinguishable from the wider community.

Generally they were well clothed and fed, and had decent living quarters. In fact many Africans came to be “slaves” not just as a result of tribal wars, but sometimes as a punishment for heinous crimes like murder.

Anyone convicted of killing a child, for example, was handed over to a life of servitude to the village of the victim. Other “slaves” were simply widows or people who had left their village of birth, perhaps out of shame or disgrace, and settled in a new society.

The Fulani and Kerebe peoples were known to “adopt” orphaned children from other tribes and the children obliged to fill a servitude role.

In the Malinke Empire, covering present-day Gambia and Guinea, slavery was sometimes a means to connect individuals where no biological or marriage bond existed.

And while African “slaves” were frequently at the bottom of the social order they had rights and could refuse to be sold to an owner they objected to, or complain to elders if they were beaten by their master.

Atlanta-based African studies expert Omowale Za said these types of social order were world’s apart from the raw brutality of chattel slavery and the Middle Passage.

‘What we were subjected to was a war of enslavement by the Europeans where the enslaved person does not have any human value.

‘Other forms of slavery did not seek to dehumanise. Actually I don’t even consider other kinds of slavery to be slavery.’

Esther Stanford, from the Pan-Afrikan Reparations Coalition, added: ‘There is a problem when we use English words like “slavery” which don’t reflect the concept of servitude in African society, which is not dehumanising.

‘We need to look at African servitude not through a European lens, but an African one, and unlearn the lies and half truths we’ve been told.’

Unlike African servitude, European transatlantic slavery reduced the slave as existing only for the purpose of physical labour.

And while whites nurtured race hatred towards their captives, in Africa masters valued their servants as equal human beings.

It was also not uncommon for “slaves” to marry into the village and shake off their former lowly status, not least in the Kanem Bornu Empire, covering Chad and Nigeria.

The ability to marry non-slaves shows that these “slaves were part of the fabric of the society they lived in. Such social mobility was completely absent in chattel slavery.

In Africa there are several notable examples of how “slaves” within society rose to become great kings and army chiefs.

The revered 19th century King Jaja, who ruled over Igboland in modern-day Nigeria, was a sold to a chief as a twelve year old boy, but later ruled a breakaway kingdom that became rich trading powerhouse.

At the height of his rein King Jaja (pictured above) was captured by the British, who desperate to get their hands on his land and wealth as the colonial scramble for Africa followed the ending of transatlantic slavery.

The British lured him to a meeting and shipped him to St. Vincent in the Caribbean. Another towering figure was Mansa Sakura, who was born as a “slave” into the royal household of Sundiata Keita in 13th Century Mali.

He became an army general and seized power amid a succession squabble. Such slaves have little, if anything, in common with slaves seized by traders from Britain and Europe who perpetrated the African Holocaust, taking between 20 and 50 million lives.

As white plantation owners inflicted terrible violence on chained Africans in order to subjugate them, Africans who were “slaves” to other Africans were free to go as they pleased.

Slaves in the 15th Century Songhai Empire, which superseded the Mali Empire, used to pay a share of their harvest to their master but were able to eat and trade with the rest.

Many were paid wages and were able to accumulate property. They often bought their own freedom and could then achieve social promotion.

African slavery was more akin to an arranged marriage; whereas chattel slavery was part of an organised economic machine with no benefit whatsoever for the slave.

Pennsylvanian historian, professor Igor Kopytoff, in his book African Slavery as an Institution of Marginality, argues that there was very little difference between the free workers and slaves.

He wrote: “There were many types of involuntary servitude, which varied from tribe to tribe, but the common feature was respect for life and dignity.”

In many respects, what we saw in Africa was similar to the feudal systems that existed in Europe, with peasants and landowners – and in lots of ways was worse.

With the British media continuing to perpetrate the line that African-against-African ‘slavery’ was equal to the transatlantic slave trade and middle passage, we need to be setting our own parameters for debate regardless of what is happening in the mainstream.

Western African “slavery” may have been related to agriculture, but in Ethiopia it was essentially domestic, yet both forms allowed the slave to keep their own religion and culture AND NAME. Not all African servitude was benign, though.

http://cllrlesterholloway.wordpress...-africa-before-the-transatlantic-slave-trade/
Click to expand...

your point is that slaves in African have had it better ? i am not an expert on this subject but A is a huge continent, in some places they lived in the pure hell somewhere they lived almost like free people

litwin · Feb 19, 2014

By the seventeenth century, most trade in West Africa concentrated on the sale of slaves. São Jorge da Mina played a significant part in the Atlantic Slave Trade. The castle acted as a depot where slaves were bought in bartering fashion from local African chiefs and kings. The slaves, often captured in the African interior by the slave-catchers of coastal tribes, were sold to Portuguese traders in exchange for goods such as textiles and horses. The slaves were held captive in the castle before exiting through the castle’s infamous “Door of No Return” to be transported and resold in newly colonized Brazil and other Portuguese colonies.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmina_Castle

litwin · Feb 19, 2014

Problems also arose between Diogo and the Portuguese settlers at Sao Tome known as Tomistas. According to a treaty between Kongo and Portugal, the former were only to trade within the latter's realm for slaves. That meant the Portuguese were restricted to the slaves offered by King Diogo or those he authorized to sell slaves. Every year the Tomistas would come with 12 to 15 ships to carry back between 400 and 700 slaves (5000-10000 slaves a year). This was not enough to take advantage of Kongo's ever-growing supply of slaves thanks to wars on its eastern frontier. The captains would try to overload their cargos, resulting in revolts. However, the factor that actually broke the deal was the Tomista habit of sailing upriver to the Malebo Pool to purchase slaves from BaTeke traders who were increasingly taken with European goods over the nzimbu shells the manikongo offered them. Enraged by this breach of contract, King Diogo broke off relations in 1555 and expelled 70 or so Portuguese living in his realm (many of whom had lived there for a long time with African wives and mixed-race children).
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo

Aleksander Ulyanov · Feb 19, 2014

Interesting, interesting, second reference is the only one I've ever seen saying what happened to ancient slavery in Medieval times.

However,if you wanted to be really thorough you should have included at least one source mentioning the Swedish Viking slave trade, which is how slavery was named. The best slaves were those the Swedes took from the areas around the Pripet Marshes. (While they sometimes cooperated, in most cases Swedes went East, to the Russian Rivers and the Norwegians went to England and Europe.) Now the Vikings called slaves thralls, but the people who bought them would often ask them what they called themselves. The answer was Slav which (I think) means "glorious" or "shining" or it might just mean "people" I dunno, but anyway, it was what they called themselves. Now the Slavs were smart and also good workers if you fed them well and didn't beat them a lot, (after all, slavery was good a deal compared with most tribal life) So Slavs became the slaves in demand, and, eventually, everyone everywhere who wanted to sell a slave called them a Slav, or a slave.

And now you know that story.

Aleksander Ulyanov · Feb 19, 2014

litwin

Wasn't there something about the way one of the main tribal groupings in Africa took slaves or did warfare or something which gave them a surplus of male prisoners, and wasn't this what made them revive the slave trade, starting with selling slaves to the Arabs after the Vikings gave it up around the late 1000's? I seem to remember reading about this somewhere but everytime I go to look it up I'm buried with Kunta Kinte and whites enslaved blacks just because they were mean bull(*)(*)(*)(*). (And no, I'm NOT trying to totally blame blacks for slavery. The main reason for the Atlantic Slave Trade was to supply labor for the plantations in North America, first indigo and sugar then later cotton. However, everyone also admits the blacks had to have helped or it wouldn't have happened. The whites couldn't resist black diseases, which is why their real penetration into Central Africa is very limited to this day)

litwin · Feb 20, 2014

Aleksander Ulyanov said: ↑

Interesting, interesting, second reference is the only one I've ever seen saying what happened to ancient slavery in Medieval times.

However,if you wanted to be really thorough you should have included at least one source mentioning the Swedish Viking slave trade, which is how slavery was named. The best slaves were those the Swedes took from the areas around the Pripet Marshes. (While they sometimes cooperated, in most cases Swedes went East, to the Russian Rivers and the Norwegians went to England and Europe.) Now the Vikings called slaves thralls, but the people who bought them would often ask them what they called themselves. The answer was Slav which (I think) means "glorious" or "shining" or it might just mean "people" I dunno, but anyway, it was what they called themselves. Now the Slavs were smart and also good workers if you fed them well and didn't beat them a lot, (after all, slavery was good a deal compared with most tribal life) So Slavs became the slaves in demand, and, eventually, everyone everywhere who wanted to sell a slave called them a Slav, or a slave.

And now you know that story.
Click to expand...

any link? some historians think that PM(islands on pripiac´) was actually Rus people (Variags) birth place

there are many other hypothesis about semantic words Slav - slave. Eastern roman empire , Venice, etc

litwin · Feb 20, 2014

Aleksander Ulyanov said: ↑

litwin

Wasn't there something about the way one of the main tribal groupings in Africa took slaves or did warfare or something which gave them a surplus of male prisoners, and wasn't this what made them revive the slave trade, starting with selling slaves to the Arabs after the Vikings gave it up around the late 1000's? I seem to remember reading about this somewhere but everytime I go to look it up I'm buried with Kunta Kinte and whites enslaved blacks just because they were mean bull(*)(*)(*)(*). (And no, I'm NOT trying to totally blame blacks for slavery. The main reason for the Atlantic Slave Trade was to supply labor for the plantations in North America, first indigo and sugar then later cotton. However, everyone also admits the blacks had to have helped or it wouldn't have happened. The whites couldn't resist black diseases, which is why their real penetration into Central Africa is very limited to this day)
Click to expand...

and overpopulation of many states in Western Africa ,

J0NAH · Feb 20, 2014

litwin said: ↑

and overpopulation of many states in Western Africa ,
Click to expand...

nonsense. pointing the finger always litwin

J0NAH · Feb 20, 2014

Esther Stanford, from the Pan-Afrikan Reparations Coalition, added: ‘There is a problem when we use English words like “slavery” which don’t reflect the concept of servitude in African society, which is not dehumanising.

‘We need to look at African servitude not through a European lens, but an African one, and unlearn the lies and half truths we’ve been told.’

Pennsylvanian historian, professor Igor Kopytoff, in his book African Slavery as an Institution of Marginality, argues that there was very little difference between the free workers and slaves.

He wrote: “There were many types of involuntary servitude, which varied from tribe to tribe, but the common feature was respect for life and dignity.”

In many respects, what we saw in Africa was similar to the feudal systems that existed in Europe, with peasants and landowners – and in lots of ways was worse.

With the British media continuing to perpetrate the line that African-against-African ‘slavery’ was equal to the transatlantic slave trade and middle passage, we need to be setting our own parameters for debate regardless of what is happening in the mainstream.

Western African “slavery” may have been related to agriculture, but in Ethiopia it was essentially domestic, yet both forms allowed the slave to keep their own religion and culture AND NAME. Not all African servitude was benign, though.

litwin · Feb 20, 2014

J0NAH said: ↑

nonsense. pointing the finger always litwin
Click to expand...

my friend, with out overpopulation , big scale slavery (industrial) is impossible , last example - Bangladesh, and Bangladeshis in general

J0NAH · Feb 20, 2014

litwin said: ↑

my friend, with out overpopulation , big scale slavery (industrial) is impossible , last example - Bangladesh, and Bangladeshis in general
Click to expand...

Not really. It lasted 300 years, maybe thats how it became 'big scale'.

litwin · Feb 21, 2014

J0NAH said: ↑

Not really. It lasted 300 years, maybe thats how it became 'big scale'.
Click to expand...

with out overpopulation It ´d last 300 years...google: overfishing

litwin · Feb 21, 2014

J0NAH said: ↑

Esther Stanford, from the Pan-Afrikan Reparations Coalition, added: ‘There is a problem when we use English words like “slavery” which don’t reflect the concept of servitude in African society, which is not dehumanising.

‘We need to look at African servitude not through a European lens, but an African one, and unlearn the lies and half truths we’ve been told.’

Pennsylvanian historian, professor Igor Kopytoff, in his book African Slavery as an Institution of Marginality, argues that there was very little difference between the free workers and slaves.

He wrote: “There were many types of involuntary servitude, which varied from tribe to tribe, but the common feature was respect for life and dignity.”

In many respects, what we saw in Africa was similar to the feudal systems that existed in Europe, with peasants and landowners – and in lots of ways was worse.

With the British media continuing to perpetrate the line that African-against-African ‘slavery’ was equal to the transatlantic slave trade and middle passage, we need to be setting our own parameters for debate regardless of what is happening in the mainstream.

Western African “slavery” may have been related to agriculture, but in Ethiopia it was essentially domestic, yet both forms allowed the slave to keep their own religion and culture AND NAME. Not all African servitude was benign, though.
Click to expand...

i am actually for sort of Reparations, i m for the total restitution. "Franks" pay you for low-qualified (manual) labor, you pay for them in return for food, transport, security. infrastructure, medicine, roads, new lands (Caribbeans, etc.) , ports, European languages ,Christianity, philosophy- democracy , Modern form of governances, huge investments, new technologies- knowledges , flourishing farms, death of 1000 000s white pioneers back in Africa. what do you think?

can my people get something from Crimean Tatars/Turks for many 100 years of kidnappings, terror, sex- slavery for millions women and girls ? take my words we got nothing in return, except 10 000s burn down cities-villages , millions of dead and injured, plunges, lootings and destruction of southern parts of the GDL and Poland

J0NAH · Feb 21, 2014

litwin said: ↑

...google: overfishing
Click to expand...

Eerrrrrrrrr, ok.

litwin · Feb 21, 2014

J0NAH said: ↑

Eerrrrrrrrr, ok.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing
sound terrible , but Principle the same

J0NAH · Feb 21, 2014

litwin said: ↑

can my people get something from Crimean Tatars/Turks for many 100 years of kidnappings, terror, sex- slavery for millions women and girls ? take my words we got nothing in return, except 10 000s burn down cities-villages , millions of dead and injured, plunges, lootings and destruction of southern parts of the GDL and Poland
Click to expand...

When did this take place?

J0NAH · Feb 21, 2014

Anyway, lets not derail this with a thread about reparations. Idont believe in that either so whats the point in discussing, iagree with you.

litwin · Feb 21, 2014

J0NAH said: ↑

When did this take place?
Click to expand...

S. Herberstein, an ambassador from Emperor Charles V to Muscovy wrote about Mehmet Ghirey's slave-hunting expedition of 1521 "He took with him from Muscovy so great a multitude of captives as would scarcely be considered credible; they say the number exceeded eight hundred thousand, part of whom he sold in Kaffa to theTurks, and part he slew. The old and infirmed men, who will not fetch much at a sale, are given up to the Tatar youths, either to be stoned, or to be thrown into the sea, or to be killed by any sort of death they might please."

Mikhalon the Lithuanian wrote around 1550 in his book "De moribus Tatarorum Lituanorum et Moscorum" : "The Crimean Tatars have much more slaves than livestock. Therefore they supply them also to other lands. Many ships loaded with arms, clothes and horses came to them one after another from beyond the Pontus and from Asia, and left always from them with slaves. ……. So these plunderers always are in possession not only of slaves for trade with other people but also have slaves for their own estates and to satisfy at home their cruelty and waywardness. In fact we often find among these unfortunate people very strong men, who, if not castrated, are branded on the forehead or on the cheek, and are tormented by day at work and by night in dungeons."

The Crimean Khanate existed as a slave-hunting outpost of the Ottoman empire. Its whole economy was based on slave raids and slave trade. As one scholar points out in his work "The Crimean Tatars and their Russian captive slaves" "From the beginning of the 16th century until the end of 17th century the Crimean Tatar raider bands made almost annual forays into agricultural Slavic lands searching for captives to sell as slaves... the slave trade was the most important basis for the Crimean Tatar economy in the 16th and 17th centuries. During these centuries, the Crimean Khanate remained the main supplier of Slavic slaves, almost all of which were captured in southern Poland or Muscovite Russia, and brought back to the Crimea by their raiders. Most of their raids seemed neither to have had any military purpose, nor politico-territorial ambitions. The taking of captives and the selling them as slaves for the Crimean Tatars was purely an "economic" activity. R. Hellie refers to the Crimean Tatar's raiding activities as their "industry":

Slave raiding into Muscovy reached crisis proportions after 1475, when the Ottomans took over the Black Sea slave trade from the Genoese and the Crimean began slave raiding as a major industry, especially between 1514 and 1654....The sale of slaves brought great profit to the Crimean raiders, because they were in great demand from the Ottoman Empire."

As long as the victims didn't learn how to defend their lives, their property and their families the slave hunters' system worked perfectly "well".

"The Crimean raiders have to hand over ten percent of their human booty to the government as a kind of custom tax at the frontier of the Crimean Khanate. Most captives were usually driven to Kaffa, the largest slave market of the Crimea under the direct administration of the Ottoman Empire, and were sold there to the slave merchants....Nearly seventy percent of the slaves sold in Kaffa were driven onto ships and dispatched to Istanbul... When they arrived, the Ottoman officials first examined the new "cargos" and chose the best slaves: the most beautiful women for the sultan's harem, the most handsome and the strongest men for his palace service. The remaining ones were purchased either by the government for navy, or by the slave merchants of Istanbul..."

It is estimated that c. 1 000 000 Poles were captured by the Tatar slave-hunters to be sold into Moslem slavery and a corresponding number of Russians
Click to expand...

he Crimean Tatars supplied the larger part of the Ottoman market, specializing, so to speak, in the business. Raids and expeditions into Poland, Circassia, and Russia became a regular occupation of vital economic importance for the tribal aristocracy of the khanate, so much so that often their relations with their khans or with the Ottoman Sultans were determined by their policies on this fundamental issue. Muscovite lands became the main field of operations from the time of Muhammed Girey I (1514-1523); and large scale expeditions became regular after 1534 when the legacy of the Golden Horde in the Volga basin was the subject of a long struggle between Muscovy and the Crimea. The Crimeans naturally considered their actions as a Holy War against an enemy who occupied the sister Muslim khanates in the Volga basin and threatened the Crimea itself.

The slave trade was indeed the foundation of the Crimean economy,. Essentially it was the economic pressures resulting from immigration or from drought and famine, a frequent occurrence in thc region, that thrust thousands of men, tribal warriors as well as commoners, into Russia and Poland for raids. Revenue accruing from the sale of slaves, contemporary observers asserted, constituted a real relief for the country at such times. Nogays, pure nomads of the steppes outside the Crimea, were absolutely dependent on the slave trade, selling their captives wholesale to the merchants coming to their headquarters. Most of the slaves were exported to the Ottoman market, but an important part of the captives was employed by the Crimean tribal aristocracy itself as agricultural slave labor to grow cereals for the city of Istanbul. Obviously that was the reason why they sometimes tried to capture and move whole families in their raids. If Evliya Celebi's statement can be trusted, there were 400,000 slaves in the Crimea as against 187,000 Muslims (100,000 of the latter were, he added, commoners and 87,000 military) in 1667.

Raids by the Crimeans into Russia or Poland, usually in small parties from 200 to 1000, were continual occurrences irrespective of the formal peace between the Crimean Khanate and those countries. During their raids, the Crimeans avoided as much as possible the line of defenses which consisted of a series of the fortified towns with garrisons on the frontier. Scattered along an extensive frontier line, the Russian forces were often powerless before large scale Tatar invasions carefully organized under the chiefs of the tribal aristocracy or members of the Girey dynasty. In these raids slaves were considered as real booty, and their safe transport was always the chief concern of the raiders: they usually tried to avoid fighting, and doing anything which might lessen the value of their human chattel.

As under the Genoese, Caffa (Turkish Kefe) and Kerch were the principal trade centers for slaves in the Crimea. The other less important centers in the region were Azov (Azak), Taman, Copa and Sokhum where Tatar, Circassian and Ottoman slave merchants met. Slave trade and taxation in the Crimea and Azov were regulated under special laws which apparently were made on the Genoese models. The slave tax, taken as a rule at Caffa, was quite high: 210 akce, per slave, and with some additional dues reaching 255 akce (about four gold ducats at the end of the fifteenth century) .

At the height of the Crimean raids into Russia and Poland between 1514-1654 captives are reported in unusually great numbers. In 1578 annual customs revenue from the slave tax at Caffa was estimated at 4,463,196 akce. Divided by 255, the highest tax rate, the figure 17,502 slaves per year is obtained. In 1614 following the large-scale expedition of Djanibek Girey Khan each Tatar soldier came, according to Russian sources, with five to ten slaves and prices at Caffa went down as low as 10 or 20 gold ducats per adult male slave, while average price was over forty gold ducats in Edirne during this. About thirty major Tatar raids were recorded into Muscovite territories between 1558-1596.

Whenever a peace with Muscovy, unpopular though it might be, was imposed upon the tribal aristocracy they often forced the khan to lead them in expeditions into Circassia, the second important region for slave raids during this period. Excuses were easy to find since the majority of Circassians were pagans at this time, and their chieftains refractory to the Crimean suzerainty. Sahib Girey Khan (1532-1551) who intensified the anti-Muscovite policy of the Khanate was also responsible for large scale expeditions into Circassia which resulted in mass enslavements. In the 1530s Kansavuk, Circassian chieftain of the Jana agreed to send a yearly tribute of one thousand slaves to the Ottoman Sultan and five hundred to the Khan. Upon his failure to keep his promise, Sahib Girey led an expedition against him in 1539, and took, according to his court chronicler, 50,000 captives. We learn from the same source that in his subsequent expedition against Kabartay ( Caberda ), the Tatars captured 10,000 Circassians, and in that against yedukh (Bjaduk) and Aliyuk 40,000 or 50,000. Circassians then came to exchange their captured noblemen for 20 to 100 common slaves.
Click to expand...

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst373/readings/inalcik6.html

litwin · Feb 21, 2014

and

The number of people involved can only be estimated. According to Alan Fisher[1] the number of people deported from the Slavic lands on both sides of the border during the 14th to 17th centuries was about 3 million people.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean-Nogai_raids_into_East_Slavic_lands

litwin · Feb 21, 2014

J0NAH said: ↑

Anyway, lets not derail this with a thread about reparations. Idont believe in that either so whats the point in discussing, iagree with you.
Click to expand...

Johan do you agree with posts, if you dont, can you write why, maybe with some links
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=343813&p=1063620395#post1063620395
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=343813&p=1063620475#post1063620475
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=343813&p=1063620549#post1063620549

J0NAH · Feb 21, 2014

dont be shy, just ask, iwont bite your head off.

litwin · Feb 21, 2014

J0NAH said: ↑

dont be shy, just ask, iwont bite your head off.
Click to expand...

The slave trade was also important for the economic development of West Africa. ..... Slave labour made it easy for the Akan people to shift from small scale agriculture to large scale agriculture (Giblin 1992). The shift transformed the Asante kingdom and it developed a wealthy agricultural and mining economy...
Click to expand...

do you agree that Asante kingdom success was based on slavery ?

clarkatticus · Feb 21, 2014

Slavery is a constant throughout history. It took hold in the Americas' because the Africans had a tolerance to the type of malaria existing in the south (including Central and South America). The Europeans were no strangers to malaria but of a type indigenous to England and southern Europe. Europeans died in droves south of the Mason-Dixon line so Africans were used for labor. The economy became dependent upon slave ownership, property being up to 70% of the economy is some places. It should also be noted that malaria was brought to the Americas by the Europeans, one of their many gifts through the Columbian exchange, the Native Americans suffered worse than all races.

J0NAH · Feb 22, 2014

litwin said: ↑

do you agree that Asante kingdom success was based on slavery ?
Click to expand...

what success?

litwin · Feb 22, 2014

J0NAH said: ↑

what success?
Click to expand...

economical, political

Log in or Sign up

Atlantic slave trade vs. Old world slaves trades, Afro-American narrative vs. Histori

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

J0NAH Banned

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

J0NAH Banned

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

clarkatticus New Member

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Atlantic slave trade vs. Old world slaves trades, Afro-American narrative vs. Histori

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

J0NAH Banned

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

J0NAH Banned

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

litwin Well-Known Member

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

clarkatticus New Member

J0NAH Banned

litwin Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches