Something I don't understand. The Mali were trading slaves through the northern trans-Saharan route before the Europeans arrived seeking gold and slaves. Why didn't the Songhai (who were at the height of their power in the 16th cent) not take advantage of rising European demand for slaves at the time? And what was going on in the region between 1591 and the early 1800's?
The Saadi Moroccans destroyed the Songhai in 1591. That was the battle of Tondibi. There were other Mandinka empires but they never had that level of control and territory again. Morocco basically had Berbers and Tuaregs as vassals who controled gold hubs like Gao, Timbuktu, and Jenne.
I am not sure if I understand your question but hopefully this answers it. Europeans couldn't ender inside Africa until the late 1700/early 1800 because malaria and tstse fly so they worked with costal tribes to grab slaves in exchange for guns, food, and etc. Perfect examples are the Yoruba city states, Dahomey, Kongo Kingdom, and my tribe the Ashanti.
However there were still landlocked empires in the 1800s like the Fulani Sokoto Calphiate
It is my understanding that the Europeans could not venture into the interior and so were unable to acquire slaves directly. Rather, they bought slaves from the coastal polities. My figures for the Dutch and English indicate 1.7 million slaves exported over the 2nd half of the 18th century. I don't think the coastal tribes enslaved their own people for foreign exchange. (Is this true?) Did they instead acquire the slave exports by making war on tribes in the interior?
You are correct about the interior, as said before diseases like malaria, yellow fever, and tsetse fly killed europeans and prevented them from going inside Africa until the 1800s. Only the coasts and Southern Africa were mild enough for european habitation until they developed medical treatments for those diseases.
There was foreign exchange like Cowry shells and gold served as international currency. Sometimes there was bartering too for alcohol, textiles, guns, and weapons in exchange.
Coastal tribes either sold war captives, criminals, or people from other tribes. Selling people was a way of gaining a technological edge over other tribes.
Here are some links from different African empires
Ashanti (my empire, my grandparents even told me about how their families sold Africans from tribes they hated & subjugated like the Fanti, GA, Ewe)
The native tribes of what is now the southern US traded guns for slaves. The northern tribes traded animal pelts. There's a good book on the gun trade there, Thundersticks.
From what I understand, more and more textile products are being transported via air freight due to falling costs. Do you think some moderate investment in airports specialised for cargo handling will enable some landlocked African countries to get their taste of industrialisation? Other textiles what other products (manufactured or otherwise) are being transported via air freight and what products will join the air freight club in the future as costs continue to fall?
Would be a confederation of independent city states be better model for the Sahel as opposed to modern nation states due to their weak cultural links, lack of state capacity, and large nomadic population?
The problem would be establishing the borders. Many of them have overlapping territorial claims. They also tried that which I will get to in part 2 but the leadership didn't really enforce the new regionalism.
I mean if you are confederation why do the borders matter that much. Like you will just have mutual self defense and some coordination for infrastructure (although it would be done bilaterally).
Borders would matter because these states will probably nationalize resources and knowing if Agadez - a place of gold and uranium belongs to one state or another will matter.
Right now Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso (all landlocked poor countries that had a military coup and sell gold) are forming a confederacy. We will see how that works, but chances are they will still have issues... They still have violent extremism issues and the Tuareg may want a separate Berber state still.
Is artisanal mining actually bad? I know western media calls it modern day slavery but they call anything below a six figure salary as exploitation. Like won't artisanal mining where you are directly employing thousands of low skilled locals better than capital intensive mining which would largely employ a few foreign workers.
There are political economy implications as well. If you use capital intensive mining you can totally fuck over the locals. If you're doing artisanal mining you have keep locals happy and they probably unionise.
Australia used to have artisanal mining and that's where the union culture here originates.
I'd imagine artisanal mining is worse than sweatshops but better than subsistence farming. Are my assumptions incorrect?
If criminals, terrorists and people who just want to escape taxes do it, then it is bad. If normal people who can't find opportunities do it then it is what it is.
The issue is more about the export taxes just encourage smuggling.Niger is not that bad as Mali though
Also formalizing an artisinal mining enterprise can be a tad annoying. Lots of licensing and permit stuff to be formalized.
I mean most enterprises in poor countries tend to be informal. When I was growing up in Dhaka in the 2000s we have informal chemical plants in basements.
Also what would be the incentive to formalise the process. Governments are mostly going to waste tax money. It would be better if the government provided low interest loans or subsidies in exchange for formalising the practice instead of trying to regulate it. Artisanal mining is creating jobs so the government shouldn't be taxing it for redistribution purposes anyways.
Something I don't understand. The Mali were trading slaves through the northern trans-Saharan route before the Europeans arrived seeking gold and slaves. Why didn't the Songhai (who were at the height of their power in the 16th cent) not take advantage of rising European demand for slaves at the time? And what was going on in the region between 1591 and the early 1800's?
The Saadi Moroccans destroyed the Songhai in 1591. That was the battle of Tondibi. There were other Mandinka empires but they never had that level of control and territory again. Morocco basically had Berbers and Tuaregs as vassals who controled gold hubs like Gao, Timbuktu, and Jenne.
I see. So was it coastal states that carved out empires in their hinterland?
If not, where did the coastal slave markets which the Europeans tapped source the large numbers of slaves exported in the 18th century?
I am not sure if I understand your question but hopefully this answers it. Europeans couldn't ender inside Africa until the late 1700/early 1800 because malaria and tstse fly so they worked with costal tribes to grab slaves in exchange for guns, food, and etc. Perfect examples are the Yoruba city states, Dahomey, Kongo Kingdom, and my tribe the Ashanti.
However there were still landlocked empires in the 1800s like the Fulani Sokoto Calphiate
It is my understanding that the Europeans could not venture into the interior and so were unable to acquire slaves directly. Rather, they bought slaves from the coastal polities. My figures for the Dutch and English indicate 1.7 million slaves exported over the 2nd half of the 18th century. I don't think the coastal tribes enslaved their own people for foreign exchange. (Is this true?) Did they instead acquire the slave exports by making war on tribes in the interior?
You are correct about the interior, as said before diseases like malaria, yellow fever, and tsetse fly killed europeans and prevented them from going inside Africa until the 1800s. Only the coasts and Southern Africa were mild enough for european habitation until they developed medical treatments for those diseases.
There was foreign exchange like Cowry shells and gold served as international currency. Sometimes there was bartering too for alcohol, textiles, guns, and weapons in exchange.
Coastal tribes either sold war captives, criminals, or people from other tribes. Selling people was a way of gaining a technological edge over other tribes.
Here are some links from different African empires
Ashanti (my empire, my grandparents even told me about how their families sold Africans from tribes they hated & subjugated like the Fanti, GA, Ewe)
https://www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi3/3_wondr1.htm#:~:text=In%20exchange%20for%20guns%20and,they%20prospered%2C%20Ashanti%20culture%20flourished.
Dahomey:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/an-african-country-reckons-with-its-history-of-selling-slaves/2018/01/29/5234f5aa-ff9a-11e7-86b9-8908743c79dd_story.html
The Oyo (Yoruba):
https://academic.oup.com/jrsssa/article/185/3/1247/7068918
Thanks
The native tribes of what is now the southern US traded guns for slaves. The northern tribes traded animal pelts. There's a good book on the gun trade there, Thundersticks.
From what I understand, more and more textile products are being transported via air freight due to falling costs. Do you think some moderate investment in airports specialised for cargo handling will enable some landlocked African countries to get their taste of industrialisation? Other textiles what other products (manufactured or otherwise) are being transported via air freight and what products will join the air freight club in the future as costs continue to fall?
Niger doesn't even export $10M in textiles right now. But I need to look into air freight.
Would be a confederation of independent city states be better model for the Sahel as opposed to modern nation states due to their weak cultural links, lack of state capacity, and large nomadic population?
The problem would be establishing the borders. Many of them have overlapping territorial claims. They also tried that which I will get to in part 2 but the leadership didn't really enforce the new regionalism.
I mean if you are confederation why do the borders matter that much. Like you will just have mutual self defense and some coordination for infrastructure (although it would be done bilaterally).
Borders would matter because these states will probably nationalize resources and knowing if Agadez - a place of gold and uranium belongs to one state or another will matter.
Right now Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso (all landlocked poor countries that had a military coup and sell gold) are forming a confederacy. We will see how that works, but chances are they will still have issues... They still have violent extremism issues and the Tuareg may want a separate Berber state still.
Well historically dictators don't really work well together. Who would have thought?
Is artisanal mining actually bad? I know western media calls it modern day slavery but they call anything below a six figure salary as exploitation. Like won't artisanal mining where you are directly employing thousands of low skilled locals better than capital intensive mining which would largely employ a few foreign workers.
There are political economy implications as well. If you use capital intensive mining you can totally fuck over the locals. If you're doing artisanal mining you have keep locals happy and they probably unionise.
Australia used to have artisanal mining and that's where the union culture here originates.
I'd imagine artisanal mining is worse than sweatshops but better than subsistence farming. Are my assumptions incorrect?
If criminals, terrorists and people who just want to escape taxes do it, then it is bad. If normal people who can't find opportunities do it then it is what it is.
The issue is more about the export taxes just encourage smuggling.Niger is not that bad as Mali though
Also formalizing an artisinal mining enterprise can be a tad annoying. Lots of licensing and permit stuff to be formalized.
I mean most enterprises in poor countries tend to be informal. When I was growing up in Dhaka in the 2000s we have informal chemical plants in basements.
Also what would be the incentive to formalise the process. Governments are mostly going to waste tax money. It would be better if the government provided low interest loans or subsidies in exchange for formalising the practice instead of trying to regulate it. Artisanal mining is creating jobs so the government shouldn't be taxing it for redistribution purposes anyways.