Culture 'My Nigerian great-grandfather sold slaves'

1595166478451.png



Amid the global debate about race relations, colonialism and slavery, some of the Europeans and Americans who made their fortunes in trading human beings have seen their legacies reassessed, their statues toppled and their names removed from public buildings.

Nigerian journalist and novelist Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani writes that one of her ancestors sold slaves, but argues that he should not be judged by today's standards or values.



My great-grandfather, Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, was what I prefer to call a businessman, from the Igbo ethnic group of south-eastern Nigeria. He dealt in a number of goods, including tobacco and palm produce. He also sold human beings.

"He had agents who captured slaves from different places and brought them to him," my father told me.

Nwaubani Ogogo's slaves were sold through the ports of Calabar and Bonny in the south of what is today known as Nigeria.

People from ethnic groups along the coast, such as the Efik and Ijaw, usually acted as stevedores for the white merchants and as middlemen for Igbo traders like my great-grandfather.

They loaded and offloaded ships and supplied the foreigners with food and other provisions. They negotiated prices for slaves from the hinterlands, then collected royalties from both the sellers and buyers.




1595166514289.png

Several European nations had slave compounds in what is now Nigeria



About 1.5 million Igbo slaves were shipped across the Atlantic Ocean between the 15th and 19th Centuries.

More than 1.5 million Africans were shipped to what was then called the New World - the Americas - through the Calabar port, in the Bight of Bonny, making it one of the largest points of exit during the transatlantic trade.


1595166538733.png



The only life they knew

Nwaubani Ogogo lived in a time when the fittest survived and the bravest excelled. The concept of "all men are created equal" was completely alien to traditional religion and law in his society.




It would be unfair to judge a 19th Century man by 21st Century principles.

Assessing the people of Africa's past by today's standards would compel us to cast the majority of our heroes as villains, denying us the right to fully celebrate anyone who was not influenced by Western ideology.

Igbo slave traders like my great-grandfather did not suffer any crisis of social acceptance or legality. They did not need any religious or scientific justifications for their actions. They were simply living the life into which they were raised.

That was all they knew.


Slaves buried alive

The most popular story I've heard about my great-grandfather was how he successfully confronted officials of the British colonial government after they seized some of his slaves.




The slaves were being transported by middlemen, along with a consignment of tobacco and palm produce, from Nwaubani Ogogo's hometown of Umuahia to the coast.

My great-grandfather apparently did not consider it fair that his slaves had been seized.

Buying and selling of human beings among the Igbo had been going on long before the Europeans arrived. People became slaves as punishment for crime, payment for debts, or prisoners of war.

The successful sale of adults was considered an exploit for which a man was hailed by praise singers, akin to exploits in wrestling, war, or in hunting animals like the lion.

Igbo slaves served as domestic servants and labourers. They were sometimes also sacrificed in religious ceremonies and buried alive with their masters to attend to them in the next world.

Slavery was so ingrained in the culture that a number of popular Igbo proverbs make reference to it:

  • Anyone who has no slave is his own slave
  • A slave who looks on while a fellow slave is tied up and thrown into the grave with his master should realise that the same thing could be done to him someday
  • It is when the son is being given advice that the slave learns
The arrival of European merchants offering guns, mirrors, gin, and other exotic goods in exchange for humans massively increased demand, leading people to kidnap others and sell them.


How slaves were traded in Africa

1595166657624.png



  • European buyers tended to remain on the coast
  • African sellers brought slaves from the interior on foot
  • Journeys could be as long as 485km (300 miles)
  • Two captives were typically chained together at the ankle
  • Columns of captives were tied together by ropes around their necks
  • 10%-15% of captives died on the way


Resisting abolition

The trade in African people continued until 1888, when Brazil became the last country in the Western hemisphere to abolish it.


When the British extended their rule to south-eastern Nigeria in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, they began to enforce abolition through military action.

But by using force rather than persuasion, many local people such as my great-grandfather may not have understood that abolition was about the dignity of humankind and not a mere change in economic policy that affected demand and supply.

"We think this trade must go on," one local king in Bonny infamously said in the 19th Century.

"That is the verdict of our oracle and our priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God."



1595166697885.png

The Missionary Society was formed in London in 1799 by British anti-slavery campaigners



As far as my great-grandfather was concerned, he had a bona fide trading licence from the Royal Niger Company, a British company that administered commerce in the region in the last quarter of the 19th Century.

So when his property was seized, an aggrieved Nwaubani Ogogo boldly went to see the colonial officers responsible and presented them with his licence. They released his goods, and his slaves.

"The white people apologised to him," my father said.


1595166728083.png

Adaobi's father, Chukwuma Hope Nwaubani, lives on land that was owned by Nwaubani Ogogo


Slave trade in the 20th Century

Acclaimed Igbo historian Adiele Afigbo described the slave trade in south-eastern Nigeria which lasted until the late 1940s and early 1950s as one of the best kept secrets of the British colonial administration.

While the international trade ended, the local trade continued.

"The government was aware of the fact that the coastal chiefs and the major coastal traders had continued to buy slaves from the interior," wrote Afigbo in The Abolition of the Slave Trade in Southern Nigeria: 1885 to 1950.

He added that the British tolerated the ongoing trade on political and economic grounds.


1595166770733.png

British traders were at the heart of the slave trade, before the UK government abolished the trade



They needed the slave-trading chiefs for effective local governance, and for the expansion and growth of legitimate trade.

Sometimes, they also turned a blind eye rather than jeopardise a useful alliance, as seems to have been the case when they returned Nwaubani Ogogo's slaves.

That incident deified Nwaubani Ogogo among his people. Here was a man who successfully confronted the white powers from overseas. I have heard the story from relatives, and have read about it.

It was also the beginning of a relationship of mutual respect with the colonialists that led to Nwaubani Ogogo being appointed a paramount chief by the British administration.

He was the government's representative to the people in his region, in a system known as indirect rule.




Records from the UK's National Archives at Kew Gardens show how desperately the British struggled to end the internal trade in slaves for almost the entire duration of the colonial period.

They promoted legitimate trade, especially in palm produce. They introduced English currency to replace the cumbersome brass rods and cowries that merchants needed slaves to carry. They prosecuted offenders with prison sentences.

"By the 1930s, the colonial establishment had been worn down," wrote Afigbo.

"As a result, they had come to place their hope for the extirpation of the trade on the corrosive effect over time of education and general civilisation."

Working with the British

As a paramount chief, Nwaubani Ogogo collected taxes on behalf of the British and earned a commission for himself in the process.

He presided over cases in native courts. He supplied labourers for the construction of rail lines. He also willingly donated land for missionaries to build churches and schools.


The house where I grew up and where my parents still live sits on a piece of land that has been in my family for over a century.

It was once the site of Nwaubani Ogogo's guest house, where he hosted visiting British officials. They sent him envelopes containing snippets of their hair to let him know whenever they were due to arrive.

Nwaubani Ogogo died sometime in the early 20th Century. He left behind dozens of wives and children. No photographs exist of him but he was said to have been remarkably light-skinned.

In December 2017, a church in Okaiuga in Abia State of south-eastern Nigeria was celebrating its centenary and invited my family to receive a posthumous award on his behalf.

Certificate

Nwaubani Ogogo donated land to Christian missionaries



Their records showed that he had provided an armed escort for the first missionaries in the area.

My great-grandfather was renowned for his business prowess, outstanding boldness, strong leadership, vast influence, immense contributions to society, and advancement of Christianity.

The Igbo do not have a culture of erecting monuments to their heroes - otherwise one dedicated to him might have stood somewhere in the Umuahia region today.

"He was respected by everyone around," my father said. "Even the white people respected him."
 
They still wanted to secede from the nation. They're essentially traitors and were fighting for their right to own slaves. Screw them.

If your state seceded and your hometown and family were attacked, would you say "eh well we were wrong, time to get what we deserve" or take up arms and defend them?
 
Last edited:
@Hollywood Hulk Hogan read that article I posted upthread. I must have done something wrong in archiving it, so I just screenshotted the whole thing. Anyone who wants to know why the civil war happened needs to read that, it's a condensed version of the reasons we fought ourselves.
 
Which can be rectified with one google search, or one trip to a library. Bias in education =/= a lack of viable sources.

So the Japanese can learn on their own if they so wish and come to their own conclusions without being guilt-tripped into feeling ashamed or vilified by their own history.

I imagine some Japs don't give a flying fuck about WWII atrocities and don't feel the least bit bad about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sanshain
Wrong. Statues and monuments were used as propaganda to create an aggrandized impression of events from a single perspective. When those monuments created an impression new governments disagreed with, they were removed. Why do you think we have hundreds of statues dedicated to Greek and Roman victories, yet none telling of their disastrous defeats? Why do you think we don't believe that the Egyptians actually threw back the Sea People during the Bronze Age collapse, despite numerous reliefs and monuments supposedly erected to display their superiority over the invaders? I'll tell you why; because they were constructed with an agenda, in support of a version of history that objective evidence says never happened.

I disagree with the idea that statues ought to be taken down purely to satisfy the feelings of people vaguely associated with parties wronged by the figure said statue is meant to represent, but I will also call the idea that statues have intrinsically been used to tell historical truths exactly what it is: a lie.
Personally I disagree with treating the Confederacy and rebel flag the same way we treat Nazis and the Swastika but I also disagree with it's lionization.
 
All of you pro-nigger morons have missed the point entirely.

This article was published by the BBC, part of the same media machine encouraging and cheering on the destruction of the west and peddling "white guilt" and reparations.

This is a clear effort to get out in front of the fact that Africans were the driving force of the slave trade before that fact gets widely circulated on it's own.

The excuse for niggers selling each other as property is backed in and makes this practice of blacks the fault of white people. I'm paraphrasing, but "Well, sure slavery existed in Nigeria, but we would have stopped if the British told us to so it's really white people's fault!" That's the entire point of the section titled "The only life they knew"; to frame why the Africans just went along with what the British allowed them to do and transfer responsibility.

Pat yourselves on the back for calling this reasonable all you want, but know that you fell for the propaganda. My initial post was just shit posting, but now that I've actually read the article, it's patently clear that all this is is an optics piece meant to transfer responsibility for African practices to white people.

Congratulations, you played yourselves.

Before the British came and deliberately destroyed their entire civilization out of nothing but spite and a desire not to have rivals in the rubber industry, the Benin Kingdom had defensive works significantly longer than the great wall of China. The Mali were so rich that a single pilgrimage to Mecca caused the collapse of the European economy due to the amount of gold the Mali king handed out as gifts. The Ashanti had a sophisticated modern army, palaces larger than anything seen in Europe, and libraries that rivaled Alexandria at its peak. The idea that Africa was a backwards continent is laughable propaganda.

If they were so sophisticated they would have remained that way throughout the period of colonization. Further, if they were so powerful and competent, how did they lose to the same Empire that got it's ass kicked by a bunch of farmers?

To get to the Middle East from Africa you go by boat not land. The only way for the actions of the Mali to have had ramifications for European powers is if they were already a colony. And to hand out that much wealth for free sure sounds like Zimbabwe economic policy to me.
 
If they were so sophisticated they would have remained that way throughout the period of colonization. Further, if they were so powerful and competent, how did they lose to the same Empire that got it's ass kicked by a bunch of farmers?

To get to the Middle East from Africa you go by boat not land. The only way for the actions of the Mali to have had ramifications for European powers is if they were already a colony. And to hand out that much wealth for free sure sounds like Zimbabwe economic policy to me.

Your ignorance of history is absolutely comical. You are exactly the kind of moron that gives groups like the BBC ammunition to say they're justified in pursuing their social crusade. Educate yourself before you start writing 'HAH, GOTCHA's that even a single casual look at wikipedia would disprove.
 
Your ignorance of history is absolutely comical. You are exactly the kind of moron that gives groups like the BBC ammunition to say they're justified in pursuing their social crusade. Educate yourself before you start writing 'HAH, GOTCHA's that even a single casual look at wikipedia would disprove.

You act like Africa has contributed anything to modern society beyond the discovery of the peanut.
 
If they were so sophisticated they would have remained that way throughout the period of colonization.
Who says that they didn't? Or, alternatively, maybe...just maybe...the ever-so-sophisticated Britbongs just shat everything up?

urther, if they were so powerful and competent, how did they lose to the same Empire that got it's ass kicked by a bunch of farmers?
The reasons for the American victory in the Revolutionary War are so much more complex than "muh bunch of farmers" that it's comical that you would even bother going for this low-tier meme.

To get to the Middle East from Africa you go by boat not land.
As mandated by literally who or what?

The only way for the actions of the Mali to have had ramifications for European powers is if they were already a colony.
That...literally doesn't follow at all.

Do you think trade networks and interconnected economies literally didn't exist before the 20th century?

And to hand out that much wealth for free sure sounds like Zimbabwe economic policy to me.
It would sound like it...if (hypothetically and analogously) Zimbabwe by itself had 70% of all the world's oil and natural gas reserves.

Mali was rich and it's mansas (especially Mansa Musa) were famed for their wealth, because they were in a position to tax trade within and without the kingdom (being in the middle of trade routes tends to give one such distinct advantages), with the kingdom's own products being gold (in vast quantities), salt (extremely important in the medieval Old World), and copper (an important metal). To deny this is an exercise in futility.
 

If you're on a religious expedition to Mecca, you're going to take the most direct path. It's pretty common sense. Even if you did decide to go by land, once you leave the dark continent via North Africa you're already in Arabia. You're not going to fuck off on a side-quest into Europe.

Your argument doesn't reflect well on the Kongs. If they were so awesome, how'd they end up lost and so far north that poor economic policy damaged the economies of all of the European powers? To get to Mecca from Africa is pretty simple. Cross a bunch of shitty oogabooga territories > Arrive in Egypt > Turn East > Cross the desert of garbage > pay taxes to get into Jewland > go to the Mosque.

I'm not denying the wealth of the country in question. But giving it away for free is right in line with "just print more" thinking. So much for "white people didn't teach us economics".

As for apes getting knocked into the stone age by Britain, if there defensive works were as powerful as Forever Sunrise claims, they should have fared better. Particularly since Britain wasn't the only European power fucking around on Kong Island.

And getting back to apes losing their sophistication; "Who says they didn't?"

Rawandan Genocide, Genocide in Darfur, Boko Haram, Crisis in the Congo, the fact that South Africa was once the worlds' largest exporter of grain yet after the whites left the locals can't even farm enough to feed themselves, GRIDS crisis, belief in the supernatural, and the collapse of the Zimbabwe dollar all prove that they didn't maintain this wonderous level of sophistication you claim they possessed before becoming colonized. And you can't lay the blame on "well, they lost what they had while the Whites ruled!". I concede they lost some of it, but if white interference were the sole cause of dysfunction on Kong Island, India would be a much worse shithole than it is.

It's also telling that in your rush to defend Africa you've failed completely to acknowledge my criticism of the article in question and instead focused on the shitposting part of my post. Good job.
 
Using the fact that statues are put up as Propaganda to make the conclusion that they have no historical value is dumb. Propaganda can tell a lot about a civilization: What are it's values, what are they not showing or representing in their works, what are the materials used to build them, etc. There is a reason the study of ancient architecture is important in the field of Classics, as they they supplement information lost due to the lack of historical records.

Of course the enteral anglo hates their own past, so they attempt a new form of cultural imperialism to convince everyone around them that they also need to rip down their own problematic history. Never listen to a user of British heritage on their opinions about history, as their minds are poisoned.
 
All of you pro-nigger morons have missed the point entirely.

I'm far from a nigger-lover, but I'll ask it again: Does this guy bear responsibility for the sins of his great-grandfather? Is he wrong to point out the good things his ancestor also did with the bad?

Is your problem with reparations the idea itself or who would be paying?
 
Last edited:
I'm far from a nigger-lover, but I'll ask it again: Does this guy bear responsibility for the sins of his great-grandfather? Is he wrong to point out the good things his ancestor also did with the bad? You seem to agree with the left that a people being associated with slavery at one point is basically original sin, only you apply it to blacks instead of whites.

Is your problem with reparations the idea itself or who would be paying?

The issue is the hypocrisy of this being published by the BBC and being set up as a justification of why slavery was acceptable for blacks but not whites.

No one alive today who hasn't owned or sold a slave has done nothing wrong. At no point have I said anything in regards to the author of the article. I've criticized the article itself and it's publishing. How you could possibly come to your conclusion is either an absolute mystery or an admission of poor reading comprehension skills.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: ConfederateIrishman
The issue is the hypocrisy of this being published by the BBC and being set up as a justification of why slavery was acceptable for blacks but not whites.

No one alive today who hasn't owned or sold a slave has done nothing wrong. At no point have I said anything in regards to the author of the article. I've criticized the article itself and it's publishing. How you could possibly come to your conclusion is either an absolute mystery or an admission of poor reading comprehension skills.

TL;dr

Nigger says nigger ancestor dindu nuffin

You're probably right about the BBC's motivations, but you clearly did criticize the author for not entirely condemning his great-grandpa. The article also acknowledges slavery was a practice among the Igbo way before whitey came, so it's not exactly dindu nuffin territory. It's pretty reasonable for the BBC on the surface, which is why I agree we should be suspicious of it.
 
If you're on a religious expedition to Mecca, you're going to take the most direct path. It's pretty common sense. Even if you did decide to go by land, once you leave the dark continent via North Africa you're already in Arabia. You're not going to fuck off on a side-quest into Europe.
I wasn't saying that Mansa Musa went to Europe. I will say that he went from the Mali Empire to Arabia for the Hajj along North African trade routes.

Your argument doesn't reflect well on the Kongs. If they were so awesome, how'd they end up lost and so far north that poor economic policy damaged the economies of all of the European powers? To get to Mecca from Africa is pretty simple. Cross a bunch of shitty oogabooga territories > Arrive in Egypt > Turn East > Cross the desert of garbage > pay taxes to get into Jewland > go to the Mosque.
I literally never said they went any other route than that. I think you must have gotten me confused with some other person.

As for the gold thing affecting Europe, it was indirectly (IIRC) because of all the gold Musa was carrying around.

I'm not denying the wealth of the country in question. But giving it away for free is right in line with "just print more" thinking. So much for "white people didn't teach us economics".
I would think giving gold away for free falls in the line of "gift-giving", especially given the context under which the trip was taken in the first place.

As for apes getting knocked into the stone age by Britain, if there defensive works were as powerful as Forever Sunrise claims, they should have fared better. Particularly since Britain wasn't the only European power fucking around on Kong Island.
China's great walls were bypassed by the Mongols. It didn't prove that China itself wasn't (relatively) an advanced culture overall.

The failure of some work doesn't prove that the country isn't (relatively) advanced overall. Of course, now we have to define what an "advanced" and "sophisticated" civilization means in this context, as they can mean different things in different areas of the world and different contexts.

And getting back to apes losing their sophistication; "Who says they didn't?"

Rawandan Genocide, Genocide in Darfur, Boko Haram, Crisis in the Congo, the fact that South Africa was once the worlds' largest exporter of grain yet after the whites left the locals can't even farm enough to feed themselves, GRIDS crisis, belief in the supernatural, and the collapse of the Zimbabwe dollar all prove that they didn't maintain this wonderous level of sophistication you claim they possessed before becoming colonized. And you can't lay the blame on "well, they lost what they had while the Whites ruled!". I concede they lost some of it, but if white interference were the sole cause of dysfunction on Kong Island, India would be a much worse shithole than it is.
I was talking about the Kingdom of Benin and you just swerved into all these different (and frankly unrelated) African crises as if they somehow tied into it.

And if political upheavals, ethnic conflict, Islamic terrorism, AIDS, economic collapse, bad agricultural practices, and/or genocides are proof of "unsophistication", then Europe itself wasn't "sophisticated" throughout the entire 20th century. Countries can have problems without those problems necessarily being proof of "unsophistication".

It's also telling that in your rush to defend Africa you've failed completely to acknowledge my criticism of the article in question and instead focused on the shitposting part of my post. Good job.
If you're talking about the hypocrisy of the BBC printing this story out to "justify"/"downplay"/"handwave" slavery from blacks, while constantly pumping out anti-white propaganda, well then...okay. I agree. Yes, the BBC are hypocritical when they put different standards of "sins of the father" to blacks than white. You still didn't have to be a sperg about it, though.
 
You're probably right about the BBC's motivations, but you clearly did criticize the author for not entirely condemning his great-grandpa. The article also acknowledges slavery was a practice among the Igbo way before whitey came, so it's not exactly dindu nuffin territory. It's pretty reasonable for the BBC on the surface, which is why I agree we should be suspicious of it.

The issue here is that as white people are waking up to the fact that it was blacks catching and selling blacks, this article has emerged solely focusing on why we shouldn't just black people by the morals of today but historical white people need to be judged by modern standards.

The article wasn't "historical people need to be judged by historical values" but "my great-grandape did nuffin wrong cuz yos crackas was buyin' !" For this article to appear NOW is incredibly suspicious.
 
Does this guy bear responsibility for the sins of his great-grandfather? Is he wrong to point out the good things his ancestor also did with the bad?
His ancestors did nothing good...

if thats your stand point, why dont you praise Nazi Germany daily for inventing all the stuff? Praise war criminal von Braun everyday for giving you satellite communication.
 
I literally never said they went any other route than that. I think you must have gotten me confused with some other person.

fail.JPG

As for the gold thing affecting Europe, it was indirectly (IIRC) because of all the gold Musa was carrying around.

I would think giving gold away for free falls in the line of "gift-giving", especially given the context under which the trip was taken in the first place.

So some dumb nigger goes out showing off his bling like a typical nog, gives it all away (which is rather atypical, mudslimes aren't known for being charitable) ruining the economy of his own nation and all others that he touches, and I'm supposed to accept this as the actions of an intelligent and sophisticated person?

I was talking about the Kingdom of Benin and you just swerved into all these different (and frankly unrelated) African crises as if they somehow tied into it.

And if political upheavals, ethnic conflict, Islamic terrorism, AIDS, economic collapse, bad agricultural practices, and/or genocides are proof of "unsophistication", then Europe itself wasn't "sophisticated" throughout the entire 20th century. Countries can have problems without those problems necessarily being proof of "unsophistication".

It's all Africa. If "we wuz kangs" then why do their descendants live in such squalor? If I'm supposed to accept that such a wonderful nation once existed in Africa, then there ought to be a strong nation somewhere on Kong Island in a sea of failures, yet there are none.

Europe sucks, too. I'm not a fan of Europe, either.

If you're talking about the hypocrisy of the BBC printing this story out to "justify"/"downplay"/"handwave" slavery from blacks, while constantly pumping out anti-white propaganda, well then...okay. I agree. Yes, the BBC are hypocritical when they put different standards of "sins of the father" to blacks than white. You still didn't have to be a sperg about it, though.

Yes I do. I'm on kiwifarms to rustle peoples jimmys and entertain myself. Guess they call themselves "BBC" for a reason, though.
 
Back