African Slave Trade and West African Underdevelopment

African Slave Trade and West African Underdevelopment This paper looks at whether the Atlantic slave trade contributed to the underdevelopment of West Africa. The paper argues that the issue of African underdevelopment is extremely complex, including many factors, aside from the Atlantic slave trade, that have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the underdevelopment of Africa. The paper begins with a review of the slave trade, in terms of the numbers of people involved in this, and the immediate effects of this trade on local economies. The effects of this trade on importing economies is then reviewed, and it is shown that many importing countries benefited massively from this trade, through increased labour supply and through monetary gains which were then applied to developing industry in the importing countries. The repercussions of this industrial development are then discussed, in terms of its effects on Africa. The paper then moves on to look at the effect of the slave trade on Africa, in terms of the demographic imbalances this caused, and the effects this had on the development of African countries, in terms of social, political and economic development. The paper then moves on to look at the roles, and effects, of the colonial powers on African countries, in terms of exploitation of Africa’s natural resources and the immediate and long-lasting effects this has had on Africa, and the continuing exploitation of Africa, through development loans, for example, which cripple the economies of many African countries, through the massive interest payments required, which leaves little money for investment to develop local industry, or social projects. The paper thus sees African underdevelopment as a holistic problem, involving far more than the slave trade, and having far-reaching implications for future generations of Africans. In addition to looking at the effects of the slave trade on African underdevelopment, the term ‘underdevelopment’ will be discussed in an African context. As will be seen, Rodney (1972) argues, in his book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, that there is no such thing as ‘underdevelopment’, that underdevelopment is not an absence of development, rather that it can only be understood in the context of comparisons, of ‘more developed’ with ‘less developed’ nations, for example, and that it is best understood in the context of exploitation, as, for Rodney, most currently underdeveloped countries are also the countries that are exploited by others, through capitalist, imperialist or colonialist means (Rodney, 1972; p. 110-112). The paper will conclude that capitalist exploitation of Africa began with the slave trade and continues to the present day and is, as we have see, the major factor that was, and continues to be, responsible for th e comparative underdevelopment of African nations. As we have argued, the slave trade per se did not contribute to the comparative underdevelopment of Africa, rather a complex mixture of exploitation, lack of opportunity, and capitalist interests contributed to the underdevelopment of Africa. It is estimated by Curtin (1969) that 9,566,100 slaves were exported from Africa to the Americas and other parts of the Atlantic basin, from it’s beginning in 1451 to when this trade ended in 1870. Many subsequent researchers have, however, provided evidence which shows that this figure is an under-estimation; for example, Stein (1978) has presented a figure some twenty per cent higher than Curtin’s (1969) estimation and Lovejoy (1982) used new calculations, and new shipping data, to put the figure at some 11,698,000. Whatever the exact figure, however, it is clear that demographically, this trade had a massive impact on West Africa, with Thornton (1980) showing that there are marked differences in economic, demographic, political and social development between slave-depleted areas, slave-importing areas and slave-trading areas. The debate that subsequently surrounded Curtin’s estimation of the number of people involved in the Atlantic slave trade has therefore i nvolved much more than a disagreement about numbers: it rests more, now, on whether the slave trade was actually a contributing factor in the current underdevelopment of West Africa. This paper expands the ideas presented by Curtin (1969), and Thornton (1980), looking at the social, economic and political effects of the slave trade on Africa. Rodney (1972; p9-10) argues very strongly that development is characterised by growth in economic production, equity in the distribution of social product and autonomy in control over social processes, and that, as such, underdevelopment is not a state that can be overcome as ‘backward’ societies move through the same stages of growth as ‘advances’ societies, as, instead, Rodney sees capitalist development and underdevelopment as two sides of the same coin (Legassick, 1976). Rodney argues strongly, throughout his book, for African capability, but argues that deeply rooted, externally imposed structural constraints prevented, and prevents, the further development of African society[1]; for example, he argues that what he terms the ‘determinative power’ of the colonial state was one factor that contributed to the underdevelopment of West Africa, not necessarily, therefore, that it was the slave trade per se that contributed wholly to the underdeve lopment of West Africa; this argument is somewhat supported by Brett (1973), who argues strongly throughout his book that the colonial state presence prevented industrialisation in the East African countries he studied, arguing that resource allocation led to peasant agricultural systems becoming the dominant form of agriculture in these countries, for example. It is interesting, then, that both these authors see colonial rule (i.e., political structure) as being the dominant force shaping underdevelopment in Africa, with Brett (1973) arguing that this was the sole factor important in shaping underdevelopment, and Rodney (1972) arguing that colonial rule was but one factor shaping underdevelopment in Africa, in concert with, for example, the demographic skews caused by the slave trade. As such, as Brett (1973) and Rodney (1972) argue, the presence of a colonial power in Africa prevented the development of political structures which would have been conducive to a coherent and holistic development of an industrialised society in Africa; without a political structure which supported assessments of the international economy, from an African perspective, and without political power with an African interest, Africa was left high and dry, unable to develop on African terms, and left at the mercy of the colonial political power, who made decisions based on their own interests, not decisions that were best, in the short or long term, for Africa. The presence of the colonial power thus, itself, led to the underdevelopment of Africa, politically, which had, and continues to have (as we shall see) massive repercussions for African society, in terms of its economic and social development. This academic argument over the numbers of slaves involved in the slave trade shadows the massive scale of the problem: slaves were preferred to be between the ages of fifteen and thirty five, and more men were taken than women, at a ratio of 2:1, skewing the demographics of the towns and villages from where the slaves were taken (Rodney, 1972). As we have seen, 9,566,100 slaves were exported from Africa to the Americas and other parts of the Atlantic basin, from it’s beginning in 1451 to when this trade ended in 1870. Many subsequent researchers have, however, provided evidence which shows that this figure is an under-estimation; for example, Stein (1978) has presented a figure some twenty per cent higher than Curtin’s (1969) estimation and Lovejoy (1982) used new calculations, and new shipping data, to put the figure at some 11,698,000. Whatever the number of slaves that were exported, however, the slave trade essentially extracted all of the healthy men, of reproductive age from African countries involved in the slave trade: this, essentially, led to a lack of a suitable workforce with which to forge ahead with agricultural, social or technological developments, leading to a lack of internal development within Africa, which, couple with the import of cheap goods in to Africa from industrialising nations (i.e., the colonial powers) led to the death of the African manufacturing industry. This, coupled with the lack of a coherent African political power with a presence, and an influence in the region, led directly to the underdevelopment of African countries. In essence, due to the slave trade and the presence of the colonial power, Africa (African leaders) never had a chance to assess itself and to make decisions as to how to go forward and develop political, economic or social structures that would have led to econo mic success. This alone has contributed to the lag in development of Africa, if, indeed it is a lag, if Africa can ever come out of the underdeveloped state it is in, which is a moot point, and which many argue can never happen. This, in conjunction with the massive exploitation of Africa’s natural resources, such as oil, diamonds, bauxite, copper, by external companies (owned by individuals based within the colonial powers) seeking to make a profit from these resources has, many argue, doomed Africa to perpetual underdevelopment. This, in conjunction with ‘aid’ loans given by the World Bank, for example, which have left the economies of African countries in massive debt, with the interest, alone, crippling the economies of these countries, has, again, left Africa in a situation from which it is difficult to see a recovery, let alone a move towards any form of meaningful economic development. The raping of Africa: it’s people, it’s resources, it’s opportun ities, is therefore something that has been present throughout it’s history and which continues to the present day. Thus, not only did the Atlantic slave trade contribute to the underdevelopment of Africa, through the many routes that have already been discussed, but the colonial presence in Africa which led to the raping of Africa’s natural resources, and the domination of these natural resources by external, foreign, companies, has led directly to underdevelopment. These resources were not available for exploitation by Africans, and so Africans were not able to profit from these resources, and were not able to invest these profits in growing industry or technological developments. As such, many scholars argue, Africa was, by the very fact of the raping of its natural resources, doomed to underdevelopment. This coupled with crippling levels of debt that have been incurred through ‘developmental aid’ loans with unfairly high levels of interest, from previous colonial powers, has led to the continued underdevelopment of many African countries. Current campaigns to ‘drop th e debt’ in many African countries may, it has to be said, have come far too late to have much effect, especially when one considers the other, more deadly, scourge which is altering African demographics today: HIV, which, it is estimated, culls more of the African population in many African countries than was ever taken by the slave trade. This new demographic threat is even more deadly considering that drugs are available to treat the disease caused by this virus, but that the current colonial powers, and the companies that are protected by laws of these colonial powers, do not allow these drugs to be sold at a reasonable cost to Africa, essentially blocking off a route to treatment, and condemning a whole generation of Africans to death, and through this, condemning Africa to decades, if not centuries, of continued underdevelopment. In light of this historic pattern of the raping of Africa, perhaps the question should not be how did the slave trade contribute to Africa’s underdevelopment, but, rather, how did the imported slaves contribute to the rapid development of the host countries. For example, African slaves were used in gold and silver mining in the Americas, and certainly speeded up Europe’s technological development, with, for example, English ports involved in the slave trade, such as Liverpool, growing economically with the importing of slaves, and then this economic growth fuelling development in this region which, ultimately, led to the Industrial Revolution. Other specific examples from an English context include individuals who became wealthy through dealing in the slave trade who then used this money to set up successful firms; the Barclays, for example, used money earned from the slave trade to set up Barclays Bank, and Lloyds coffee house expanded in to Lloyds banking and insuranc e following involvement in the slave trade. James Watt, of steam engine fame, also accepted money from slave traders to fund the development of his steam engine; without the slave trade, therefore, many technological developments in Europe, particularly England, would not have happened, and Europe, the world, would not be so well-developed. Imagine a world without the Industrial Revolution: it would, ironically, perhaps look something like Africa looks today. This simplistic analysis of the effects of the importing of slaves is just that: simplistic, but it shows, in rough terms, how the slave trade contributed to economic development and societal progress in the importing countries. This, then, fuelled the rise, the development, of these societies, at the expense of the exporting countries, fuelling longer and stricter periods of colonial rule in the exporting countries, and causing yet more underdevelopment in these countries. This process, in concert with massive demographic depletions, which left, realistically, no workforce in some regions of West Africa, contributed to the underdevelopment of these societies, economically, socially and politically, as, we have seen, is argued by Brett (1973) and Rodney (1972)[2]. In addition, as many current scholars argue, it was, perhaps is, the inability of African societies to come to terms with the consequences of the slave trade that has also held the development of Africa back in realistic terms. For example, many of the African slaves were actually sold to Europeans by Africans themselves, either African leaders or traders, who often conducted raids to collect (i.e., kidnap) suitable subjects for sale in to slavery. Some of these African slave traders became very rich on the profits of their trade, but, unlike in Europe, as we have seen, these traders did not invest their profits in African society or in technological developments; they simply used the money for personal gain and personal interests. The interests of African slave traders in the slave trade, and their reliance on this trade, was shown to be extremely strong following the discussions to abolish this trade; much of the opposition to abolition was from African slave traders themselves, wh o were worried that they would lose out on a massive source of income. Indeed, many did lose income from the Atlantic slave trade and then turned to internal slave trading as a means of generating income. Thus, the slave trade, whilst lessening in volume, did not cease entirely in many African countries, and continued to contribute to a disruption of local societies and to a lack of holistic development of social, political and economic forces within many African societies, in which the slave traders (often rulers, as we have seen) began to act, to take the role of, the colonial power, forging similar patterns of underdevelopment to those described by Brett (1973) for colonial powers in Africa. In addition, much of the profit from the slave trade made by African slave traders was not invested in infrastructure or social projects, or in planning for development through technological improvements; most of the profits, as we have seen, were invested in arms for warfare or in consumer goods. This flood of consumer goods, produced outside of Africa, in Europe for example, had the effect of destroying the few local industries there were, with the long-term effect of destroying many of the manufacturing industries in Africa and, as such, denying Africans the basic conditions for economic growth. The slave trade did not encourage African societies to enter in to the international economy in a positive way, rather it encouraged Western economic development, through, as we have seen, providing a source of labour and income, and by providing markets for some of the new products that were being produced by the Industrial Revolution. This paper will conclude, therefore, that the Atlantic slave trade did not per se cause underdevelopment in Africa, rather that the slave trade is but one piece of a complicated jigsaw of effects that, as a whole, forced Africa in to underdevelopment. The slave trade did take massive numbers of young males out of Africa, thus causing severe depletions in the African workforce, and meaning that the African population growth was curtailed for many years, through lack of breeding, for example[3]. In addition, the import of a workforce in to Europe caused inflations in the local economies at the importing ports, which had cascade effects on the local areas; the slave trade also meant that many individuals became rich, and were able to fund technological developments, which helped to fuel, in part, the Industrial Revolution, for example. This meant that the colonial powers could govern more effectively and for a more prolonged period; meaning that political and social systems of control w ere not developed internally within the African slave-importing countries, this itself fuelling years of political and social underdevelopment. Thus, many factors, not just the slave trade per se contributed to the underdevelopment of West Africa. A statement such as â€Å"the Atlantic slave trade contributed to the underdevelopment of West Africa† is far too simplistic to describe the whole cascade of effects that were, have been, and continue to be important in the underdevelopment of West Africa. James Baldwin’s statement, â€Å"The past is what makes the present coherent, and the past will remain horribly incoherent for as long as we refuse to assess it honestly† is particularly apt for the current discussion of this issue. Scholars of different persuasions (whites vs. blacks, Marxists vs. non-Marxists etc) all have their own interpretations of this period of African history, but it is the responsibility of all mankind to assess this situation responsibly, to acknowledge the continued underdevelopment of Africa as a global, moral, responsibility of all humankind, and not to distort the past and use it to cause continued repression and underdevelopment of this continent. Recent plans, and recent events, for example, leading to the privatisation of water in many African countries is, for example, nothing more than a repeat of colonialism in Africa, a repeat of the raping of Africa, with foreign firms entering in to African economies and destroying them: water privatisation has been shown, for example, to devastate local economies, through ground-up failures in local businesses who can no longer afford to use water. That this has been allowed to happen is a travesty, an insult to Africa, and to all underdeveloped nations; it is a continuation of the exploitation of Africa, its people and its resources, that began at the time of the inception of the slave trade and which continues until the present day. It should ideally be that governments learn from their mistakes through analysis of historical records, not that these mistakes are hidden and repeated in future. As Brett (1973) and Rodney (1972) argue strongly, however, money talks more than moral resp onsibilities, and capitalism will always have two sides: one side that wins and another that loses, facing underdevelopment and poverty as a consequence of losing this battle. As we have seen, this paper has looked at whether the Atlantic slave trade contributed to the underdevelopment of West Africa. The paper has argued that the issue of African underdevelopment is extremely complex, including many factors, aside from the Atlantic slave trade, that have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the underdevelopment of Africa. The paper began with a review of the slave trade, in terms of the numbers of people involved in this, and the immediate effects of this trade on local economies. The effects of this trade on importing economies was then reviewed, and it was shown that many importing countries benefited massively from this trade, through increased labour supply and through monetary gains which were then applied to developing industry in the importing countries[4]. The repercussions of this industrial development were then discussed, in terms of its effects on Africa, showing that local industry was destroyed as a result of cheap imports of textiles, for example, following the manufacturing of this in England following the Industrial Revolution. The paper then moved on to look at the effect of the slave trade on Africa, in terms of the demographic imbalances this caused, and the effects this had on the development of African countries, in terms of social, political and economic development. It was shown that African economic development was held back directly, due to the lack of a workforce and the decline in population growth in Africa over the period the slave trade was active. The paper then moved on to look at the roles, and effects, of the colonial powers on African countries, in terms of exploitation of Africa’s natural resources and the immediate and long-lasting effects this has had on Africa, and the continuing exploitation of Africa, through development loans, for example, which cripple the economies of many African countries, through the massive interest payments required, which leaves little money for investment to develop local industry, or social projects. The paper thus concludes that African underdevelopment as a holistic problem, involving far more than the slave trade, and having far-reaching implications for future generations of Africans. The future is bleak for Africa, and it should be the responsibility of all mankind to act to improve the chances, the opportunities for, all African children, so that the cycle of underdevelopment is not repeated in future. Whether this will happen, however, is dependent on governments, who are run on capitalist principles, and as history has shown us, capitalist, whilst having its shining glories also has a very dark side, which is, essentially, underdevelopment. As we have seen, in light of this historic pattern of the raping of Africa, perhaps the question should not be how did the slave trade contribute to Africa’s underdevelopment, but, rather, how did the imported slaves contribute to the rapid development of the host countries. African slaves were used in gold and silver mining in the Americas, harvesting gold and silver, which was then used to develop these countries. Slavery also certainly speeded up Europe’s technological development, with, for example, English ports involved in the slave trade, such as Liverpool, growing economically with the importing of slaves, and then this economic growth fuelling development in this region, which, ultimately, led to the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution led the world in to industrialisation, or rather, those sections of the world which had political, economic and social systems in place to realise the implications of the Industrial Revolution and to jump on board of it before they got left behind and exploited. As we have seen, other specific examples from an English context include individuals who became wealthy through dealing in the slave trade who then used this money to set up successful firms; the Barclays, for example, used money earned from the slave trade to set up Barclays Bank, and Lloyds coffee house expanded in to Lloyds banking and insurance following involvement in the slave trade. James Watt, of steam engine fame, also accepted money from slave traders to fund the development of his steam engine; without the slave trade, therefore, many technological developments in Europe, particularly England, would not have happened, and Europe, the world, would not be so well-developed. Thus, there is a direct line linking the slave trade with industrial development in the industrial world. Imagine a world without the Industrial Revolution: it would, ironically, perhaps look something like Africa looks today. That Africa was not part of this development, despite the fact that Africans he lped fuel this development is a cruelly ironic historical fact. This simplistic analysis of the effects of the importing of slaves is just that: simplistic, but it shows, in rough terms, how the slave trade contributed to economic development and societal progress in the importing countries. This, then, fuelled the rise, the development, of these societies, at the expense of the exporting countries, fuelling longer and stricter periods of colonial rule in the exporting countries, and causing yet more underdevelopment in these countries. This process, in concert with massive demographic depletions, which left, realistically, no workforce in some regions of West Africa, contributed to the underdevelopment of these societies, economically, socially and politically, as, we have seen, is argued by Brett (1973) and Rodney (1972). As we have seen, this paper thus concludes that African underdevelopment is a holistic problem, involving far more than the slave trade, and having far-reaching implications for future generations of Africans[5]. The future is bleak for Africa, and it should be the responsibility of all mankind to act to improve the chances, the opportunities for, all African children, so that the cycle of underdevelopment is not repeated in future. Whether this will happen, however, is dependent on governments, who are run on capitalist principles, and as history has shown us, capitalist, whilst having its shining glories also has a very dark side, which is, essentially, underdevelopment. As we have seen, Rodney argues that there is no such thing as ‘underdevelopment’, that underdevelopment is not an absence of development, rather that it can only be understood in the context of comparisons, of ‘more developed’ with ‘less developed’ nations, for example, and that it is best understood in the context of exploitation, as, for Rodney, most currently underdeveloped countries are also the countries that are exploited by others, through capitalist, imperialist or colonialist means (Rodney, 1972; p. 110-112). Capitalist exploitation of Africa began with the slave trade and continues to the present day and is, as we have see, the major factor that was, and continues to be, responsible for the comparative underdevelopment of African nations. As we have argued, the slave trade per se did not contribute to the comparative underdevelopment of Africa, rather a complex mixture of exploitation, lack of opportunity, and capitalist interests contributed to the underdevelopment of Africa. That this can be allowed to continue in to the present day is a blight on the whole of mankind, on everyone who allows this to happen, and on everyone who stands by whilst it happens. In this day and age, when children of eight years old have mobile phones and laptop computers in the ‘developed’ world, it is a travesty that many Africans are having to pay for their water, that many Africans die of AIDS because drug companies refuse to sell drugs to Africa at a reasonable cost, that the legacy of colonialism is still alive in Africa, causing continued suffering, death and exploitation. Africa, romantic, beautiful Africa, of sunsets and safaris, is more than that: it is a rich country, with strong cultures, the birthplace of mankind, and, as such, it deserves more than continued exploitation. Why should an African child’s life be worth less than an English child’s life? In this day and age this modern form of slavery, i.e., lack of opportunity, is as harmful as previous forms of slavery, if not more harmful, and is little more than a repeat of previous forms of slavery, in terms of condemning Africans to a life of misery whilst, all around, everyone else enjoys the benefits of development. Bibliography Brett, E.A., 1973. Colonialism and underdevelopment in East Africa: the politics of economic change. London: Heinemann Educational Books. Curtin, P.D., 1969. The Atlantic slave trade: a census. Madison: Wisconsin. Henige, D., 1986. Measuring the immeasurable: the Atlantic slave trade, West African population and the Pyrrhonian Critic. The Journal of African History 27(2), pp.295-313. Legassick, M., 1976. Review article: perspectives on African development. Journal of African History 17(3), pp.435-440. Lovejoy, P.E., 1982. The volume of the Atlantic slave trade. The Journal of African History 23(4), pp.473-501. Rodney, W., 1972. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. London: Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications. Stein, R., 1978. Measuring the French slave trade 1713-1792/3. Journal of African history 19(4), pp.515-521. Thornton, J., 1980. The slave trade in eighteenth century Angola: effects on demographic structures. Canadian Journal of African Studies 14(3), pp.417-427. 1 Footnotes [1] In the same vein, Rodney argues that there is no such thing as ‘underdevelopment’, that underdevelopment is not an absence of development, rather that it can only be understood in the context of comparisons, of ‘more developed’ with ‘less developed’ nations, for example, and that it is best understood in the context of exploitation, as, for Rodney, most currently underdeveloped countries are also the countries that are exploited by others, through capitalist, imperialist or colonialist means (Rodney, 1972; p. 110-112). [2] As has been argued, the slave trade essentially extracted all of the healthy men, of reproductive age from African countries involved in the slave trade: this, essentially, led to a lack of a suitable workforce with which to forge ahead with agricultural, social or technological developments, leading to a lack of internal development within Africa, which, couple with the import of cheap goods in to Africa from industrialising nations (i.e., the colonial powers) led to the death of the African manufacturing industry. This, coupled with the lack of a coherent African political power with a presence, and an influence in the region, led directly to the underdevelopment of African countries. In essence, due to the slave trade and the presence of the colonial power, Africa (African leaders) never had a chance to assess itself and to make decisions as to how to go forward and develop political, economic or social structures that would have led to economic success. [3] Rodney, for example, in his book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa shows that whilst the population of Europe quadrupled over the period when the slave trade was functioning, the population of Africa grew by only twenty per cent. [4] For example, we have seen specific examples from an English context, including individuals who became wealthy through dealing in the slave trade who then used this money to set up successful firms; the Barclays, for example, used money earned from the slave trade to set up Barclays Bank, and Lloyds coffee house expanded in to Lloyds banking and insurance following involvement in the slave trade. We have also seen how James Watt, of steam en