Although I was late to reading this article, I want to thank you for posting this article. What I have noticed on the internet time and time again is that there is often an agenda to try and portray every west-central African society that participated in some form or another in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, as being dependent on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade economically to the point of their own destruction. Which is just not true, I mean, just look at all of the articles concerning Benin. The kingdom of Benin barely participated in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade yet most articles on Benin portray a kingdom that was dependent on the slave trade to it's own destruction. Hell, the claim that African kingdoms were completely depopulated because of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade is still pretty popular on the internet even though there is no proof to back that up. But not only do west-central African kingdoms like Kongo, Benin, Dahomey etc. get this treatment. But even the Sahelian kingdoms as well.
I have seen multiple articles try and convince me that the Trans-Saharan slave trade was the most crucial aspect of the empires of the Western Sudan (even though the main exports of Mali, Ghana and Songhai wasn't slaves). And the history of the Trans-Saharan and Indian ocean slave trades are both heavily exaggerated in order to make it parallel with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade(sometimes they are even claimed to be larger than the Atlantic slave trade, that is obviously a gateway to try and downplay the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade). It blatantly seems to me that people want to reduce Africa's history to slavery as much as they can, which I think is apart of how much colonial ideas still impact African historiography.
Although I was late to reading this article, I want to thank you for posting this article. What I have noticed on the internet time and time again is that there is often an agenda to try and portray every west-central African society that participated in some form or another in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, as being dependent on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade economically to the point of their own destruction. Which is just not true, I mean, just look at all of the articles concerning Benin. The kingdom of Benin barely participated in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade yet most articles on Benin portray a kingdom that was dependent on the slave trade to it's own destruction. Hell, the claim that African kingdoms were completely depopulated because of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade is still pretty popular on the internet even though there is no proof to back that up. But not only do west-central African kingdoms like Kongo, Benin, Dahomey etc. get this treatment. But even the Sahelian kingdoms as well.
I have seen multiple articles try and convince me that the Trans-Saharan slave trade was the most crucial aspect of the empires of the Western Sudan (even though the main exports of Mali, Ghana and Songhai wasn't slaves). And the history of the Trans-Saharan and Indian ocean slave trades are both heavily exaggerated in order to make it parallel with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade(sometimes they are even claimed to be larger than the Atlantic slave trade, that is obviously a gateway to try and downplay the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade). It blatantly seems to me that people want to reduce Africa's history to slavery as much as they can, which I think is apart of how much colonial ideas still impact African historiography.
Anyways, very informative article.