
Uncovering Lisbon’s History of Slavery - Thevet
http://www.aaihs.org/uncovering-lisbons-forgotten-history-of-slavery/
======
gonmf
AFAIK the African slave trade is not a visible topic on Lisbon because it was
a very small part of it. While Portugal trafficked millions of people across
the Atlantic, very few would be sent to Europe, since the Christian faith
didn't see it with good eyes, and there was much more demand for hard labor in
the "new world".

~~~
boomboomsubban
The article mentions ten percent of their population were slaves in the
sixteenth century, and Christianity was not what had an issue with it.
Portuguese Brazil was a huge part of the slave trade, and it was the same
Christianity as Portugal.

~~~
gonmf
I don't want to be a downer but that statistic doesn't seem to be backed by
anything. And yes, Portuguese in Brazil were also christian, of course, but
there is a certain "what the eyes don't see, the heart can't feel" feeling
about it. Public opinion and the church would care much less what happened far
away, months away. Many countries would abolish slavery at "home" but tolerate
it in the colonies.

~~~
boomboomsubban
The article provides one source for the statistic, Wikipedia provides two
more. All are from books that I can not access the reference, but one of them
does let me read about the Queen's five Brazilian slaves in addition to the
many African slaves.

The Church may have been a reason, very different than the Christian faith

------
jbmorgado
It is quite deceiving to mention so greatly - and more than once - the slaves
that where kidnapped by Europeans like they where a representative part of the
slave trade, they were factually not. Portugal is without doubt a big culprit
in the slave trade, but the African slaves themselves were basically all
enslaved by other Africans and then sold to the Europeans. Portugal was also
the first country to officially forbid the slave trade.

Portugal is quite at ease with the history of its colonial past and its role
in the Atlantic slave trade, there is no denial or attempt to hide the
historical facts and the slave trade and the role of slavery in the former
colonies (specially Brazil) is well discussed during obligatory schooling.

All this to say I can't really understand why Lisbon should acknowledge its
slaves to such great length as this post asks to, because in fact Lisbon had
very few ones actually living there (it was not well seen in Catholic Europe
to own slaves) and was mostly a point of passage (but then again, so were many
Atlantic islands).

If you want to check the historical facts:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade)

~~~
boomboomsubban
>but the African slaves themselves were basically all enslaved by other
Africans and then sold to the Europeans

Paying someone else to do the work doesn't change who was responsible.

>Portugal was also the first country to officially forbid the slave trade.

In mainland Portugal, slavery wasn't abolished in Brazil until 1869.

>because in fact Lisbon had very few ones actually living there (it was not
well seen in Catholic Europe to own slaves) and was mostly a point of passage
(but then again, so were many Atlantic islands).

Catholic Europe didn't have a huge problem with it until the eighteenth
century, they just had enough serfs that it generally wasn't necessary. Plus,
this is about Protestant Portugal, and your source mentions that in 1550 10%
of Lisbon's population was African slaves.

~~~
jbmorgado
> "Paying someone else to do the work doesn't change who was responsible."

Never claimed Europeans weren't responsible (in fact I clearly stated the
opposite), I factually stated something wrong in the original article:
Europeans were not going around kidnapping natives at large like the article
suggests, they were buying them from the other natives that were the ones
actually enslaving them.

Can't understand why you are trying so hard to hide that part of history.

> _" In mainland Portugal, slavery wasn't abolished in Brazil until 1869."_

Yes, and this article is about Lisbon. Lisbon, is in mainland Portugal.

> _" Plus, this is about Protestant Portugal"_

Protestant Portugal? What are you talking about? Protestantism was only
allowed in Portugal after the mid XIX century (and after that still mostly
inexistent). So, basically when slavery was also forbidden by law in there.

~~~
boomboomsubban
>Europeans were not going around kidnapping natives at large like the article
suggests, they were buying them from the other natives that were the ones
actually enslaving them.

Again, paying someone else to do the work doesn't change anything. They were
kidnapped and enslaved for the Europeans, there is nothing factually wrong in
the article.

I'm not trying to hide history here. By saying it was the Africans who did the
kidnapping, you're putting the crime on them. But if they refused, they likely
would have been enslaved or killed. Their involvement isn't overly important,
and it's usually brought up to try to lessen the extreme horrors of European
colonialism.

>Yes, and this article is about Lisbon. Lisbon, is in mainland Portugal

Your comments were about how Portugal was at ease with it's slavery past, and
came as part of the "Africans were the kidnappers" spiel. Mainland Portugal
was in control of Brazil at the time, part of this time involved the court
located in Brazil.

The Protestant Portugal was my mistake. Read about the Thirty Years War
recently, I thought the break from the Iberian Union was for religious
differences. So many countries fighting for so many reasons.

~~~
jbmorgado
> _" By saying it was the Africans who did the kidnapping, you're putting the
> crime on them. But if they refused, they likely would have been enslaved or
> killed."_

Way to go and completely distort all historical evidence to try and shift the
blame. Let's get something clear, the natives selling other natives were from
tribes/kingdoms that had been at war for centuries. Europeans clearly created
more demand and are at fault for that. But the natives were very clearly and
very well documented NOT coerced (like you are trying to claim), they just
continued doing what they already did for at least 15 centuries before.

And also, they continued doing it AFTER the Europeans stopped slavery. Thing
is, even today there are millions of slaves in Africa and really we can easily
agree it's not the Europeans that own them or trade them in present times.

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa)

> _" Your comments were about how Portugal was at ease with it's slavery past,
> and came as part of the "Africans were the kidnappers" spiel. Mainland
> Portugal was in control of Brazil at the time, part of this time involved
> the court located in Brazil."_

No, my main comment was that LISBON didn't had the slaving history as the
article is trying to put on it and as such, Portugal being the first nation to
forbid slavery (even of just in the mainland) goes on to validate my point
about LISBON.

~~~
boomboomsubban
>But the natives were very clearly and very well documented NOT coerced (like
you are trying to claim), they just continued doing what they already did for
at least 15 centuries before.

Again, you're looking at things too directly. If they refused, the offer would
go out to their rivals. So unless every group of people refused, you were
facing slavery or death if you refused.

You keep mentioning Africa's ancient slave legacy, ignoring your own source
saying that it isn't clear chattel slavery was practiced in the area, and that
war slaves were a common feature in Europe until the eighteenth century.

>validate my point about LISBON.

Yet you ignored the parts that didn't, like the ten percent of the population
part.

~~~
jbmorgado
> _" If they refused, the offer would go out to their rivals. "_

Ok, so what? Both you and you rival have something to sell. If I don't buy it
from you, I buy it from your rival. Let's face it, the Europeans created a
greater demand for a product that the natives were already providing: Slaves.
(no disrespect intended by the word product, just an analogy).

> *"ignoring your own source saying that it isn't clear chattel slavery was
> practiced in the area"

The moment the natives the sold those slaves, even if they weren't chattel
slaves before (which I agree with you, was not clear), they started practicing
chattel slavery. That's just the definition of it.

In a nutshell, Europeans didn't turn that people into chattel slaves, they
where turned into that by the other natives that enslaved them.

> "Yet you ignored the parts that didn't, like the ten percent of the
> population part."

Yes, the 10% that only occurred for a short time compared to the rest of the
all Europe and because you keep accounting for people passing by than only
spent there some weeks (i.e. the slaves waiting to be sold).

~~~
boomboomsubban
>Ok, so what? Both you and you rival have something to sell. If I don't buy it
from you, I buy it from your rival.

It's not a one time transaction. If they buy slaves from your rivals, they
have more money to spend on arms and a need for more people to sell. So
refusing wasn't a safe option, creating a larger demand changed the game
dramatically.

>In a nutshell, Europeans didn't turn that people into chattel slaves, they
where turned into that by the other natives that enslaved them.

You could sell a debt slave with the thought the new owner would abide by the
same rules. Or if slaves were treated as members of your household with an
free children and a general path back to freedom, you might expect the buyer
does the same. If you don't view people as property, you won't expect what
someone buying them will do.

>Yes, the 10% that only occurred for a short time compared to the rest of the
all Europe and because you keep accounting for people passing by than only
spent there some weeks (i.e. the slaves waiting to be sold).

Source? As given how poorly Portugal looks in the slave trade, the last ship
of slaves being Portugese to Brazil, that is hard to believe. And are you
really happy with the argument "Portugal shouldn't overly acknowledge the
slave trade, they barely kept any in the mainland while profiting off their
sale and work for centuries."

~~~
jbmorgado
> _" Portugal shouldn't overly acknowledge the slave trade, they barely kept
> any in the mainland while profiting off their sale and work for centuries."_

We are just going around and around in circles.

Again and for the final time: The article and my problem with it, is NOT about
Portugal's involvement in the slave trade. I totally admit Portugal was the
big motivator of the slave TRADE, yet history let's it very clear that the
Natives were the ENSLAVERS and already since at least 1500 years before and
have continued to do it UNTIL THE PRESENT, long after the Europeans stopped
that.

The article IS about some WRONG idea there is some slave legacy in LISBON -
when in fact there is basically none.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Capitalizing random words doesn't make them true, nice dodge out of getting
that source and ignoring how being the motivator still makes you the
kidnapper. Next you'll tell me about how glorious the reconquista was.

