HISstory- Part 1

['X']

Guess What?:

* Columbus didn't discover America.

* Slavery didn't come from Black people selling each other.

* Nazi Death Camps were not history's greatest mass murder.

* Lincoln never freed a single slave.

"What do you mean you're not an Indian? This has to be India!"
Christobal Colombo had a problem.

After he "discovered" the "American" continent in 1492, he found that the forty million people already there made terrible slaves.

But then what can you expect of people too silly to look under their toes to "discover" the continent themselves.

First of all these people were too ungrateful to appreciate being "discovered" and kept trying to hold on to their own land; (I find it ironic that Colombo's descendants get pissed off if someone crawls through their living room window and "discovers" their DVD Player).
Next these natives refused to admit they were Chinese, then they were too stingy to bring Columbo piles of gold even when the Spanish cut off their ears and other body parts as an incentive.

To top it off, the native people suffered from great plagues of common European diseases like flu, smallpox and cholera that they had never been exposed to before (imagine having the nerve to die before they could be worked to death in the silver mines)!
Millions of native "Americans" died of diseases brought by the Europeans. Within twenty years whole cultures had been wiped off the face of the earth, killed by disease and the spears of hunting parties organized by Columbo. Caribbean islands and Central America had been teeming with people; they were reduced to empty villages filled with rotting corpses.

It dawned on the Europeans that it was going to be hard to get dead "Indians" to work. "White" convicts who were brought in by the thousands as slave labor didn't appreciate being whipped or beaten for no pay either; they ran away or wanted their own slaves when their "indenture" was over in seven years.

Britain set up penal colonies in America, South Africa and Australia to provide a slave labor force for their rich plantation owners. They emptied their jails of the dregs of London, Birmingham and Liverpool; sending thousands of white thieves, pimps, prostitutes, rapists and murderers into the growing colonies.

Modern "whites" like to think that their ancestors came to America on the Mayflower seeking religious freedom. About twenty "whites" came on the Mayflower; millions more came to the colonies chained in prison ships after standing before a judge who gave them the choice between seven years of slavery in the colonies or a hangman's noose.
But "whites" didn't hold up well under the lash either. Who was going to clear forests and build roads and dig ditches and build cities and chop cotton and tote barges and lift bales without dropping dead in the heat?
Hmmm . . .

To Kidnap a Continent
Just as Joseph Kennedy made his fortune selling illegal booze for the Mafia during prohibition, many New England "blue bloods" can trace their fortunes to the sale of human beings during slavery.

Requiring less expensive equipment and a shorter turn around time than a whaling voyage, old sailing ships could be outfitted with chains and a few months worth of beans and corn meal and return in six months with a human cargo valued at $50,000 to $100,000, a small fortune at the time.

One of the favorite rationalizations "white" people have for slavery is that "African chiefs sold their own people to slave traders, so it's not our fault". Reading the journals of slave ship captains quickly pokes a hole in that pile of crap. I've read dozens of first hand accounts of slave ship captains from the sixteeth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; a typical journal reads like the following one by Sir John Hawkins, Queen Elizabeth I's personal "privateer" (pirate).

In 1567 Hawkins set out from England in six ships paid for by the queen and her cronies (investors), including his flagship, the "Jesus of Lubec". They stopped in Africa to pick up slaves to sell to the Spanish colonies in the Caribbean during their pirate cruise:
"(We reached) the coast of Guinea, and arrived at Cape Verde, the eighteenth of November: where we landed 150 men, hoping to obtain some Negros (sic), where we got but fewe (sic), and those with great hurt and damage to our men, which chiefly proceeded of their envenomed arrowes (Africans shot Hawkin's men up badly with poisoned arrows)." Hawkins describes the poison as being unusual: the arrows left small wounds, but his men died ten days later with their mouths paralyzed shut.

Hawkins continues: "From thence we passed the time upon the coast of Guinea, searching with all diligence the rivers from Rio Grande, unto Sierra Leona (sic), till the twelfth of Januarie, in which time we had not gotten together a hundreth and fiftie Negros . . .
"(On) the 15 of Januarie (we) assaulted a towne of the Negros which had in it 8000 Inhabitants, being very strongly impaled and fenced after their manner, but it was so well defended that our men prevailed not, but lost six men and fortie hurt (the slavers had six of their men killed and forty injured): so that our men sent forthwith to me for more helpe."
Sir John came with reinforcements and they "assaulted the towne, both by land and by sea, and very hardly (strongly) with fire (their houses being covered with dry Palme leaves). We obtained (took) the towne, and put the inhabitants to flight, where we took 250 persons, men, women and children. Now had we obtained between foure and five hundred Negros, wherewith we thought it somewhat reasonable to seeke the coast of the West Indies . . . whereunto we proceeded with all diligence, furnished our watering, tooke fuell, and departed the coast of Guinea the third of Februarie . . ."

Hawkins reports that the hold of the Jesus was filled to overflowing with human cargo.
By the eighteenth century Europeans had snatched most of the Africans living near the coasts and rivers, and slaves were harder to obtain. Whites then equipped huge armies of blacks to hunt slaves for them. Whole communities were rounded up and captured and sold to white traders, who built large slave trading forts on the coast.
Kidnapped from Guinea in 1735, six year old Venture Smith was the son of a wealthy African trader. He later wrote that Guinea had been "invaded by a numerous army from a nation not far distant, furnished with . . . all kinds of arms . . . they were instigated by some white nation who equipped and sent them to subdue and possess the country" (capture black people as slaves). "The army of the enemy was large, I should suppose consisting of about six thousand men."

Venture's family fled the invading slave catchers with the family of their King; he later describes their capture: "They then came to us in the reeds, and the very first salute I had from them was a violent blow on the back part of the head with the fore part of a gun, and at the same time a grasp round the neck. I then had a rope put about my neck, as had all the women in the thicket with me, and were immediately led to my father, who was likewise pinioned and haltered for leading." Venture's father was tortured and murdered by his captors when he didn't reveal where his money was stored.

"All of us were then put into the castle [a European slave trading post], and kept for market." He was later sold to the steward on a slave ship and brought to Connecticut: "I was bought on board by one Robert Mumford . . . for four gallons of rum, and a piece of calico (cloth), and called Venture, on account of his having purchased me with his own private venture. Thus I came by my name."

Tight Pack
John Barbot, an agent for the French Royal African Company, made at least two voyages to the West Coast of Africa, in 1678 and 1682. He reported how slaves were sorted before shipment:

"Such as are allowed good and sound, are set on one side, and the others by themselves; which slaves so rejected are there called Mackrons, being above thirty five years of age, or defective in their limbs, eyes or teeth; or grown grey, or that have the venereal disease, or any other imperfection. These being set aside which have passed as good, is marked on the breast, with a red- hot iron, imprinting the mark of the French, English, or Dutch companies, that so each nation may distinguish their own. In this particular, care is taken that the women, as tenderest, be not burnt too hard."

"Many of those slaves we transport from Guinea to America are prepossessed with the opinion, that they are carried like sheep to the slaughter, and that the Europeans are fond of (eating) their flesh; which notion so far prevails with some, as to make them fall into a deep melancholy and despair, and to refuse all sustenance (when) much compelled and even beaten to oblige them to take some nourishment: notwithstanding all which, they will starve to death; whereof I have had several instances in my own slaves both aboard and at Guadalupe. And tho' I must say I am naturally compassionate, yet have I been necessitated sometimes to cause the teeth of those wretches to be broken, because they would not open their mouths, or be prevailed upon by any entreaties to feed themselves; and thus have forced some sustenance into their throats...."

Barbot continued: "One thing is to be taken notice of by sea-faring men, Fida and Ardra slaves are the most apt to revolt aboard ships, by a conspiracy carried on amongst themselves . . . and will therefore watch all opportunities to deliver themselves, by assaulting a ship's crew, and murdering them all, if possible: whereof, we have almost every year some instances (where this happens) in one European ship or other, that is filled with slaves."

Captured Africans were herded into pens, branded like cattle, and then chained lying down in the hold of a wooden sailing ship for the six to eight week voyage to America.
Lucky slaves were chained in a loose pack, giving them 24 inches of space to lie in. Greedier slavers opted for a "tight pack" spacing of 18 inches between slaves, which meant more than a month of lying chained in your own and other people's excrement. Tight pack usually meant more deaths among the captives; it was not unusual for 20% to 30% death rate among the slaves during the crossing.

This so called "Middle Passage" resulted in the deaths of millions of black people, which intensified in the early nineteenth century when one of the greatest slaving nations on earth, England, outlawed slavery and sent its navy to attack slave ships on the open sea and arrest their crews.

Millions of blacks were thrown overboard still chained together when British warships were sighted. Historians estimate that somewhere between 30 and 60 million black people were murdered by slavers during the Atlantic crossing during three hundred years of the slave trade.
This constitutes the greatest act of mass murder in the history of the earth.

[A Ghost]

* Slavery didn't come from Black people selling each other.

I agree with everything else but that is true, in addition to whites coming in and taking slaves from Africa, Africans themselves were selling other Africans to slave traders.

[perongregory]

I like the 1st hand accounts, I didn't know that whites were succesful in capturing blacks by themselves or that they even did it to that amount. Hmmm, gotta study hard, read the first hand accounts, always.

['X']

* Slavery didn't come from Black people selling each other.

I agree with everything else but that is true, in addition to whites coming in and taking slaves from Africa, Africans themselves were selling other Africans to slave traders.

Can you clarify what you mean? The article states "Slavery didn't come from Black people"...

I took that as how it orginated...

[A Ghost]

* Slavery didn't come from Black people selling each other.

I agree with everything else but that is true, in addition to whites coming in and taking slaves from Africa, Africans themselves were selling other Africans to slave traders.

Can you clarify what you mean? The article states "Slavery didn't come from Black people"...

I took that as how it orginated...

You mean like who were the first slaves?

Im confused now

[perongregory]

Whites then equipped huge armies of blacks to hunt slaves for them. Whole communities were rounded up and captured and sold to white traders, who built large slave trading forts on the coast.
Kidnapped from Guinea in 1735, six year old Venture Smith was the son of a wealthy African trader. He later wrote that Guinea had been "invaded by a numerous army from a nation not far distant, furnished with . . . all kinds of arms . . . they were instigated by some white nation who equipped and sent them to subdue and possess the country" (capture black people as slaves). "The army of the enemy was large, I should suppose consisting of about six thousand men."

This is the problem, even though blacks back then didn't necessarily see in race, but letting other people manipulate you. Happened in the streets of LA with the Iran contra weapons trafficking BS, and still happens in Africa today.

[MiChuhSuh]

* Slavery didn't come from Black people selling each other.

I agree with everything else but that is true, in addition to whites coming in and taking slaves from Africa, Africans themselves were selling other Africans to slave traders.

Can you clarify what you mean? The article states "Slavery didn't come from Black people"...

I took that as how it orginated...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#Routes

Routes

Caravan trails, set up in the 9th century, went past the oases of the Sahara; travel was difficult and uncomfortable for reasons of climate and distance. Since Roman times, long convoys had transported slaves as well as all sorts of products to be used for barter. To protect against attacks from desert nomads, slaves were used as an escort. Any who slowed down the progress of the caravan were killed.

Historians know less about the sea routes. From the evidence of illustrated documents, and travellers' tales, it seems that people travelled on dhows or jalbas, Arab ships which were used as transport in the Red Sea. Crossing the Indian Ocean required better organisation and more resources than overland transport. Ships coming from Zanzibar made stops on Socotra or at Aden before heading to the Persian Gulf or to India. Slaves were sold as far away as India, or even China: there was a colony of Arab merchants in Canton. Chinese slave traders bought black slaves (Hei-hsiao-ssu) from Arab intermediaries or "stocked up" directly in coastal areas of present-day Somalia. Serge Bilé cites a 12th century text which tells us that most well-to-do families in Canton had black slaves whom they regarded as savages and demons because of their physical appearance.

[MiChuhSuh]

As for slavery in general, people have always enslaved each other and used many, many different excuses, including but not limited to race.

[se11]

Modern "whites" like to think that their ancestors came to America on the Mayflower seeking religious freedom. About twenty "whites" came on the Mayflower; millions more came to the colonies chained in prison ships after standing before a judge who gave them the choice between seven years of slavery in the colonies or a hangman's noose.
But "whites" didn't hold up well under the lash either. Who was going to clear forests and build roads and dig ditches and build cities and chop cotton and tote barges and lift bales without dropping dead in the heat?
Hmmm . . .

you forgot to mention, how many european people, actually came here not with "negros chained under their ships" but as poor immigrants on a huge cluttered boat, after slavery had near been abolished for 50 years. you forgot to add that piece of the puzzle, because this little section just does an oh-so-great job at making white people look more like the bad people as a whole and you just love that.

This constitutes the greatest act of mass murder in the history of the earth.

although, some historians, may think that 30-60 million died over 300 years, there is undeniable proof, that there have been much for effective genoicdes in much shorter spans. the native americans decreased by 24,000,000 after the europeans actually landed(article didn't mention that), the congo had 22 million dead is just over fifteen years, hitler killed 11 million, in just a few years, and i think his friend stalin who confiscated all of russias food, had a famine which affected 40 million, at least one quarter of which starved to death. burundi had a death toll of 1,000/day at one point.


i am the first one to admit, the african slave trade was probably the worst thing to happen to this side of the world. it was a terrible, horrific, and tragic event that took place over a huge span. but your article has much unproven, inaccurate, and distorted information. one of the reasons why, i always feel the need to contest the accuracy of anything you put up.

[Sentenza]

^^Yea the shit the Belgians did in Congo was really bad too.

[black]

although, some historians, may think that 30-60 million died over 300 years, there is undeniable proof, that there have been much for effective genoicdes in much shorter spans. the native americans decreased by 24,000,000 after the europeans actually landed(article didn't mention that), the congo had 22 million dead is just over fifteen years, hitler killed 11 million, in just a few years, and i think his friend stalin who confiscated all of russias food, had a famine which affected 40 million, at least one quarter of which starved to death. burundi had a death toll of 1,000/day at one point.

exaggerating numbers i see.

As much as i hate leopold i got to say that i don't think his reign of terror killed that many people, and stalins famine didn't kill know 40 mil you need to smack your history teacher for that wack fact. And your numbers about the number of jews killed by hitler has been blown out of proportion.

[Sentenza]

^^The numbers about all of those things vary very much though, depends on who you ask.

[black]

^^The numbers about all of those things vary very much though, depends on who you ask.

Yeah but i its usually reasonable numbers, usually not more than 8 mil. I don't believe the numbers of the jewish holocaust though. alot of funny shit with that.

I read his thing about stalin wrong, he thinks 10 mil died which is still wrong.

[se11]

although, some historians, may think that 30-60 million died over 300 years, there is undeniable proof, that there have been much for effective genoicdes in much shorter spans. the native americans decreased by 24,000,000 after the europeans actually landed(article didn't mention that), the congo had 22 million dead is just over fifteen years, hitler killed 11 million, in just a few years, and i think his friend stalin who confiscated all of russias food, had a famine which affected 40 million, at least one quarter of which starved to death. burundi had a death toll of 1,000/day at one point.

exaggerating numbers i see.

As much as i hate leopold i got to say that i don't think his reign of terror killed that many people, and stalins famine didn't kill know 40 mil you need to smack your history teacher for that wack fact. And your numbers about the number of jews killed by hitler has been blown out of proportion.

actually man, i got all of those numbers from wikipedia. a very reliable source of online encyclopedia. and i said the famine only killed probably 1/4 of the 40 million, but it left the rest malnourished, diseaseased, and weak and who knows what else.

[Young Deuce]

although, some historians, may think that 30-60 million died over 300 years, there is undeniable proof, that there have been much for effective genoicdes in much shorter spans. the native americans decreased by 24,000,000 after the europeans actually landed(article didn't mention that), the congo had 22 million dead is just over fifteen years, hitler killed 11 million, in just a few years, and i think his friend stalin who confiscated all of russias food, had a famine which affected 40 million, at least one quarter of which starved to death. burundi had a death toll of 1,000/day at one point.

exaggerating numbers i see.

As much as i hate leopold i got to say that i don't think his reign of terror killed that many people, and stalins famine didn't kill know 40 mil you need to smack your history teacher for that wack fact. And your numbers about the number of jews killed by hitler has been blown out of proportion.

actually man, i got all of those numbers from wikipedia. a very reliable source of online encyclopedia. and i said the famine only killed probably 1/4 of the 40 million, but it left the rest malnourished, diseaseased, and weak and who knows what else.

no offense but wikipedia is not a reliable source i had to redo a project because some of the info i got was false....some colleges ban wikipedia for sources.....but anyway i agree with u about the genocides in shorter spans....

[A Ghost]

wikipedia. a very reliable source of online encyclopedia.

I aint trying to start anything but Wikipedia is a horrible source of information. Its the complete opposite, its actually the worst.

[Sentenza]

^^The numbers about all of those things vary very much though, depends on who you ask.

Yeah but i its usually reasonable numbers, usually not more than 8 mil. I don't believe the numbers of the jewish holocaust though. alot of funny shit with that.

I read his thing about stalin wrong, he thinks 10 mil died which is still wrong.

The numbers i know from the top of my head are: 6 million jews, 12 million people in Congo, 25-50 million native americans in South America, 4 million in North America, and a few dozen million (up to 50 million i heard) chinese during Maos reign...I dont know any reliable numbers about Stalin and black slaves though, so its interesting to learn about that.

[Sentenza]

wikipedia. a very reliable source of online encyclopedia.

I aint trying to start anything but Wikipedia is a horrible source of information. Its the complete opposite, its actually the worst.

Well some articles are good, but many are crap. At my college you fail class if you list that as a source.

[A Ghost]

wikipedia. a very reliable source of online encyclopedia.

I aint trying to start anything but Wikipedia is a horrible source of information. Its the complete opposite, its actually the worst.

Well some articles are good, but many are crap. At my college you fail class if you list that as a source.

same here

[black]

^^The numbers about all of those things vary very much though, depends on who you ask.

Yeah but i its usually reasonable numbers, usually not more than 8 mil. I don't believe the numbers of the jewish holocaust though. alot of funny shit with that.

I read his thing about stalin wrong, he thinks 10 mil died which is still wrong.

The numbers i know from the top of my head are: 6 million jews, 12 million people in Congo, 25-50 million native americans in South America, 4 million in North America, and a few dozen million (up to 50 million i heard) chinese during Maos reign...I dont know any reliable numbers about Stalin and black slaves though, so its interesting to learn about that.

Yeah thoughs are resonable numbers i can ride with that give or take.

[black]

wikipedia. a very reliable source of online encyclopedia.

I aint trying to start anything but Wikipedia is a horrible source of information. Its the complete opposite, its actually the worst.

Well some articles are good, but many are crap. At my college you fail class if you list that as a source.

same here

some articles are okay but it's still not a good source of info. My professors will flunk you to if come to class saying you qouted wiki.

[Sentenza]

wikipedia. a very reliable source of online encyclopedia.

I aint trying to start anything but Wikipedia is a horrible source of information. Its the complete opposite, its actually the worst.

Well some articles are good, but many are crap. At my college you fail class if you list that as a source.

same here

some articles are okay but it's still not a good source of info. My professors will flunk you to if come to class saying you qouted wiki.

But i have to say, i use it too when i have to look some things up quickly.

[Young Deuce]

wikipedia. a very reliable source of online encyclopedia.

I aint trying to start anything but Wikipedia is a horrible source of information. Its the complete opposite, its actually the worst.

Well some articles are good, but many are crap. At my college you fail class if you list that as a source.

same here

some articles are okay but it's still not a good source of info. My professors will flunk you to if come to class saying you qouted wiki.

But i have to say, i use it too when i have to look some things up quickly.

i use it fa pop culture/media refrence....

[LcBwC]

Wikipedia is just like urban dictionary that other people were talking about in other forums. Anyone can go on there and post up. Some things are right and some are wrong. Just have to be knowledgeable and do more research in order to know if what ur reading is true or not.

['X']

wikipedia. a very reliable source of online encyclopedia.

lol...

[se11]

i'd trust wikipedia more than i'd trust what "some historians may have estimated".

[NICKELS]

wikipedia. a very reliable source of online encyclopedia.

lol...

LMAO................

[Sentenza]

i'd trust wikipedia more than i'd trust what "some historians may have estimated".

You can get good links of Wikipedia very often though.

[Sentenza]

First of all these people were too ungrateful to appreciate being "discovered" and kept trying to hold on to their own land; (I find it ironic that Colombo's descendants get pissed off if someone crawls through their living room window and "discovers" their DVD Player).

LOL

Next these natives refused to admit they were Chinese, then they were too stingy to bring Columbo piles of gold even when the Spanish cut off their ears and other body parts as an incentive.

To top it off, the native people suffered from great plagues of common European diseases like flu, smallpox and cholera that they had never been exposed to before (imagine having the nerve to die before they could be worked to death in the silver mines)!
Millions of native "Americans" died of diseases brought by the Europeans. Within twenty years whole cultures had been wiped off the face of the earth, killed by disease and the spears of hunting parties organized by Columbo. Caribbean islands and Central America had been teeming with people; they were reduced to empty villages filled with rotting corpses.

"Funny" thing is that the Spaniards caught several diseases in the jungles too, one of them was amebea-diarrhea to which lots of Spaniards succumbed later on.
The disease was called "Moctezumas revenge" from that point on.
But yea, mostly the natives suffered from the diseases.

It dawned on the Europeans that it was going to be hard to get dead "Indians" to work. "White" convicts who were brought in by the thousands as slave labor didn't appreciate being whipped or beaten for no pay either; they ran away or wanted their own slaves when their "indenture" was over in seven years.

Britain set up penal colonies in America, South Africa and Australia to provide a slave labor force for their rich plantation owners. They emptied their jails of the dregs of London, Birmingham and Liverpool; sending thousands of white thieves, pimps, prostitutes, rapists and murderers into the growing colonies.

Modern "whites" like to think that their ancestors came to America on the Mayflower seeking religious freedom. About twenty "whites" came on the Mayflower; millions more came to the colonies chained in prison ships after standing before a judge who gave them the choice between seven years of slavery in the colonies or a hangman's noose.
But "whites" didn't hold up well under the lash either. Who was going to clear forests and build roads and dig ditches and build cities and chop cotton and tote barges and lift bales without dropping dead in the heat?
Hmmm . . .

To Kidnap a Continent
Just as Joseph Kennedy made his fortune selling illegal booze for the Mafia during prohibition, many New England "blue bloods" can trace their fortunes to the sale of human beings during slavery.

Requiring less expensive equipment and a shorter turn around time than a whaling voyage, old sailing ships could be outfitted with chains and a few months worth of beans and corn meal and return in six months with a human cargo valued at $50,000 to $100,000, a small fortune at the time.

One of the favorite rationalizations "white" people have for slavery is that "African chiefs sold their own people to slave traders, so it's not our fault". Reading the journals of slave ship captains quickly pokes a hole in that pile of crap. I've read dozens of first hand accounts of slave ship captains from the sixteeth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; a typical journal reads like the following one by Sir John Hawkins, Queen Elizabeth I's personal "privateer" (pirate).

In 1567 Hawkins set out from England in six ships paid for by the queen and her cronies (investors), including his flagship, the "Jesus of Lubec". They stopped in Africa to pick up slaves to sell to the Spanish colonies in the Caribbean during their pirate cruise:
"(We reached) the coast of Guinea, and arrived at Cape Verde, the eighteenth of November: where we landed 150 men, hoping to obtain some Negros (sic), where we got but fewe (sic), and those with great hurt and damage to our men, which chiefly proceeded of their envenomed arrowes (Africans shot Hawkin's men up badly with poisoned arrows)." Hawkins describes the poison as being unusual: the arrows left small wounds, but his men died ten days later with their mouths paralyzed shut.

Hawkins continues: "From thence we passed the time upon the coast of Guinea, searching with all diligence the rivers from Rio Grande, unto Sierra Leona (sic), till the twelfth of Januarie, in which time we had not gotten together a hundreth and fiftie Negros . . .
"(On) the 15 of Januarie (we) assaulted a towne of the Negros which had in it 8000 Inhabitants, being very strongly impaled and fenced after their manner, but it was so well defended that our men prevailed not, but lost six men and fortie hurt (the slavers had six of their men killed and forty injured): so that our men sent forthwith to me for more helpe."
Sir John came with reinforcements and they "assaulted the towne, both by land and by sea, and very hardly (strongly) with fire (their houses being covered with dry Palme leaves). We obtained (took) the towne, and put the inhabitants to flight, where we took 250 persons, men, women and children. Now had we obtained between foure and five hundred Negros, wherewith we thought it somewhat reasonable to seeke the coast of the West Indies . . . whereunto we proceeded with all diligence, furnished our watering, tooke fuell, and departed the coast of Guinea the third of Februarie . . ."

Hawkins reports that the hold of the Jesus was filled to overflowing with human cargo.
By the eighteenth century Europeans had snatched most of the Africans living near the coasts and rivers, and slaves were harder to obtain. Whites then equipped huge armies of blacks to hunt slaves for them. Whole communities were rounded up and captured and sold to white traders, who built large slave trading forts on the coast.
Kidnapped from Guinea in 1735, six year old Venture Smith was the son of a wealthy African trader. He later wrote that Guinea had been "invaded by a numerous army from a nation not far distant, furnished with . . . all kinds of arms . . . they were instigated by some white nation who equipped and sent them to subdue and possess the country" (capture black people as slaves). "The army of the enemy was large, I should suppose consisting of about six thousand men."

Venture's family fled the invading slave catchers with the family of their King; he later describes their capture: "They then came to us in the reeds, and the very first salute I had from them was a violent blow on the back part of the head with the fore part of a gun, and at the same time a grasp round the neck. I then had a rope put about my neck, as had all the women in the thicket with me, and were immediately led to my father, who was likewise pinioned and haltered for leading." Venture's father was tortured and murdered by his captors when he didn't reveal where his money was stored.

"All of us were then put into the castle [a European slave trading post], and kept for market." He was later sold to the steward on a slave ship and brought to Connecticut: "I was bought on board by one Robert Mumford . . . for four gallons of rum, and a piece of calico (cloth), and called Venture, on account of his having purchased me with his own private venture. Thus I came by my name."

Tight Pack
John Barbot, an agent for the French Royal African Company, made at least two voyages to the West Coast of Africa, in 1678 and 1682. He reported how slaves were sorted before shipment:

"Such as are allowed good and sound, are set on one side, and the others by themselves; which slaves so rejected are there called Mackrons, being above thirty five years of age, or defective in their limbs, eyes or teeth; or grown grey, or that have the venereal disease, or any other imperfection. These being set aside which have passed as good, is marked on the breast, with a red- hot iron, imprinting the mark of the French, English, or Dutch companies, that so each nation may distinguish their own. In this particular, care is taken that the women, as tenderest, be not burnt too hard."

"Many of those slaves we transport from Guinea to America are prepossessed with the opinion, that they are carried like sheep to the slaughter, and that the Europeans are fond of (eating) their flesh; which notion so far prevails with some, as to make them fall into a deep melancholy and despair, and to refuse all sustenance (when) much compelled and even beaten to oblige them to take some nourishment: notwithstanding all which, they will starve to death; whereof I have had several instances in my own slaves both aboard and at Guadalupe. And tho' I must say I am naturally compassionate, yet have I been necessitated sometimes to cause the teeth of those wretches to be broken, because they would not open their mouths, or be prevailed upon by any entreaties to feed themselves; and thus have forced some sustenance into their throats...."

Barbot continued: "One thing is to be taken notice of by sea-faring men, Fida and Ardra slaves are the most apt to revolt aboard ships, by a conspiracy carried on amongst themselves . . . and will therefore watch all opportunities to deliver themselves, by assaulting a ship's crew, and murdering them all, if possible: whereof, we have almost every year some instances (where this happens) in one European ship or other, that is filled with slaves."

Captured Africans were herded into pens, branded like cattle, and then chained lying down in the hold of a wooden sailing ship for the six to eight week voyage to America.
Lucky slaves were chained in a loose pack, giving them 24 inches of space to lie in. Greedier slavers opted for a "tight pack" spacing of 18 inches between slaves, which meant more than a month of lying chained in your own and other people's excrement. Tight pack usually meant more deaths among the captives; it was not unusual for 20% to 30% death rate among the slaves during the crossing.

This so called "Middle Passage" resulted in the deaths of millions of black people, which intensified in the early nineteenth century when one of the greatest slaving nations on earth, England, outlawed slavery and sent its navy to attack slave ships on the open sea and arrest their crews.

Millions of blacks were thrown overboard still chained together when British warships were sighted. Historians estimate that somewhere between 30 and 60 million black people were murdered by slavers during the Atlantic crossing during three hundred years of the slave trade.
This constitutes the greatest act of mass murder in the history of the earth.

African tribes did indeed sell slaves to white slave traders, cause by that time Europeans did not know the routes to travel into inner africa (They were "discovered" several centuries later) and when one tribe defeeated another they sold the prisoners to the slave traders. They still show no mercy with rivaling tribes in africa these days.
But thats not the point and doesnt take away from the fact, that European money and need for cheap labor was the main factor behind the slave trade and it doesnt change the history and effects of slavery at all.

[EmperorPenguin]

First of all these people were too ungrateful to appreciate being "discovered" and kept trying to hold on to their own land; (I find it ironic that Colombo's descendants get pissed off if someone crawls through their living room window and "discovers" their DVD Player).

LOL

Next these natives refused to admit they were Chinese, then they were too stingy to bring Columbo piles of gold even when the Spanish cut off their ears and other body parts as an incentive.

To top it off, the native people suffered from great plagues of common European diseases like flu, smallpox and cholera that they had never been exposed to before (imagine having the nerve to die before they could be worked to death in the silver mines)!
Millions of native "Americans" died of diseases brought by the Europeans. Within twenty years whole cultures had been wiped off the face of the earth, killed by disease and the spears of hunting parties organized by Columbo. Caribbean islands and Central America had been teeming with people; they were reduced to empty villages filled with rotting corpses.

"Funny" thing is that the Spaniards caught several diseases in the jungles too, one of them was amebea-diarrhea to which lots of Spaniards succumbed later on.
The disease was called "Moctezumas revenge" from that point on.
But yea, mostly the natives suffered from the diseases.

Same with in America. A lot of the British died from disease as well, the difference being that they had an endless supply of people coming over on the boats to replenish.