Qualitative and/or Quantitative Change? A Review of Linda Haywood’s Article on the Transformation of Slavery[1]
“The
custom of making all kinds of payments in slaves meant that demand for slaves
to use as money was high.”– Linda Haywood
Chambi Chachage
Haywood’s article argues that there was a significant shift between the 15th
and 18th centuries in the scope of who could be enslaved in the Kingdom of
Kongo. Using archived correspondence,
reports and diaries, she shows that prior to the civil wars and the Atlantic
trade, slaves in the Kongo courts and those sold to Europeans were
predominantly foreigners. The state, in the Kongo, had rules that protected its
freeborn and, when strong, it limited their enslavement.
However, when the
state became weak due to internal strife and increasing dependency on the
friendship of Europeans it failed to protect its subjects. As a result more
freeborn subjects of the Kongo – in some cases including the nobility – were
enslaved. In many instances, however, there were successful attempts to redeem
them from their enslavement.
I find Haywood’s argument strong since it provides sufficient statistics
to show the radical shift. It also provides rich evidence to show that the
state in the Kongo had institutions that protected its citizenry from slavery.
Inverting Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson and Simon Johnson’s argument on The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change, and Economic Growth, Haywood’s
article indicates that the Atlantic trade played a major role in undermining
these institutions that could have helped it develop at par with Europe. In
fact, the way the Atlantic trade dominated the exchange rate by making slaves
the main international currency undermined the main local currency – nzimbu shells – that was used in the
Kongo. Its monetary system was thus subjected to the vagaries of international
trade that made the state’s elites depend on slavery to cover the costs of
running and maintaining rule, diplomacy and their own progress.
The article, however, is not very clear on when exactly did slavery start
in the Kongo and whether it was entirely present prior to its international
monetization during the context of the Atlantic trade. It gives scanty details
on its presence in the 1400s but by that time it had already began to be an
international trade as the case of slaves being sold to Sao Tome that she
provides indicate. One would expect a more clear-cut analysis on the difference
between slavery before and during the Atlantic slave trade beyond the one on a shift
from one being dominated by foreign slaves to one being dominated by freeborn
subjects.
Nevertheless, this is an important contribution that, on the one
hand, absolves the Kongo state for being protective of its people against the
odds of an imposing international trading system and, on the other hand,
chastises the elites – and in some cases ordinary citizens – for selling their
own people. In this regard it resonates well with the work of Nathan Nunn on the long-term effects of slavery in undermining trust. How can one trust anyone
if their own kith and kin could sell him or her into slavery? But, again, one
needs to investigate further the conditions that might have constrained people
to sell their very own. Could it be that for some that was the only way out of
the misery they experienced in a shaky Kongo? Or could it be that Kongo without
slavery only depended on the mercy of Europeans?
[1] Heywood,
Linda. 2009. “Slavery and its Transformation in the Kingdom of Kongo: 1491-1800,”Journal of African History, 50: 1-22.
