ABSTRACT
Slavery has been known in Africa for a long time – how long is not known because of a lack of documentation. However defined, slavery has been important in the history of Africa; indeed there have been major transformations in the political economy of Africa over the past millennium that can be attributed to slavery. The evidence suggests that slavery was indigenous, as was also the case elsewhere in the world. The trade in enslaved people, moreover, was multifaceted. Slavery affected social and political structures from early times to the present. This chapter examines the nature of slavery, from enslavement to trafficking, and the impact on Africa of the external trade in slaves across the Sahara, Indian Ocean and Atlantic. An examination of the uses and abuses of enslaved individuals demonstrates that the persistence of slavery is a factor in African history (Lovejoy, 2000a). In addition, this chapter examines how patterns of slavery in Africa changed over time. Slavery, no matter how otherwise defined, involved the possibility that individuals
could be bought and sold, with little and usually no consultation with the enslaved. Should we be concerned about whether or not we can use the term “slavery”? This philosophical question has challenged history and anthropology to define terms. The fact that people could be bought and sold affected the ideological context of society, which is important in understanding the relations of dependence and exploitation that are here defined as “slavery”. Slavery was ubiquitous both in Africa and in the various parts of the world where Africans went, but the context varied and circumstances changed, often influenced by religious, sociological and political factors, and by opportunity. Slavery involved absolute power over another person, often resulting in psychological subordination, with intermittent expressions of resistance and attempts at escape. The relationships inevitably contained tensions that helped to define slavery in each situation. Language reflected the nature of this relationship, the word for “slave” being different in virtually every language, attesting to the ubiquity and antiquity of the practice of slavery. We can translate “slave” into any language in Africa, such as nikla (Tamasheq), bawa (Hausa), but also bella (Songhay), maccuBe and rimaaybe (Puular), ‘abd (Arabic), jam (Wolof), among others. Sometimes, it has been argued, “slavery” did not exist in Africa, but whatever we
are talking about is confused with other social relationships that are better described through the use of local terminology, which varies widely according to language and even dialect, as is argued by Joseph Inikori (1996). It could be argued equally
convincingly, however, that the great variety of terms for “slavery” indicates the antiquity of the institution, evolving with each language and the people who spoke these languages, rather than being borrowed from other cultures or imposed from outside. Indeed, it is essential to distinguish slavery from other forms of servitude, such as human pawnship, some forms of marriage, and the status assigned to those freed from slavery. Usually these social relationships of dominance and subordination were specifically contrasted with, and referred to through the use of terms different from, slavery. Hence the descendants of slaves who were considered free were called buzaye in Tamachek, the language of the Tuareg, so that former slave status was remembered although the people in question could not be bought or sold legally.
