There was a time, not so very long ago, when Black people rarely featured in period drama or documentary – and even then, only as slaves. Other historical stories from Africa and her diaspora – of scientists, soldiers, philosophers, artists and adventurers – were routinely omitted from our screens. This new docudrama, launched to coincide with US Black History Month, joins the ongoing effort to redress that wrong, with a series on Njinga, the 17th-century ruler of Ndongo and Matamba (in present-day Angola). Stories of other powerful women in the continent are planned to follow.
Hmm:
What Netflix’s Njinga has got that these other African screen queens haven’t is the input of credentialed historians and other experts. They can speak direct to the practice of slavery in pre-colonial Africa and how it differed, in scale and kind, from the plantation slavery of the Americas – which should shut up the Twitter contrarians, at least momentarily.
These slaves is for sellin’, completely different from buying or using.
“slavery in pre-colonial Africa and how it differed, in scale and kind, from the plantation slavery of the Americas”.
3 – 4 million across the Atlantic versus 120 Million into arab / moslem lands.
How is this going to be spun I wonder?
So ordinary history is more boring than thrillers. Surprise, surprise.
Interesting though, that they complain that the wicked whites didn’t appropriate the culture of the beautiful blacks and treat the slaves they bought from them just as the blacks did.
“the practice of slavery in pre-colonial Africa and how it differed, in scale and kind, from the plantation slavery of the Americas”
Probably wasn’t much human sacrifice to please the Gods on the plantations.
There was a time, not so very long ago, when Black people rarely featured in period drama or documentary – and even then, only as slaves.
Idk, blacks rarely feature in documentaries? Does Ken Burns know?
Otoh, nobody wants to see ridiculous Diversity™ casting in their cosy period drama, except the evil weirdo perverts who control British telly.
My wife had to turn off a recent film about Mary, Queen of Scots, because it was choc*-full of African and Asian actors, which made it impossible for her to suspend disbelief. And she liked Baz Luhrmann’s extremely gay 90’s take on Romeo + Juliet.
Obviously the telly has decided to cram unwanted Diversity™ into your face holes, especially because you don’t want this. And period drama is a particularly unsuitable medium for Diversity™, unless you’re writing about illiterate tribesmen in the jungles of Africa doing horrible things to each other, or people doing horrible things to African slaves. That’s a niche audience tho – girls would rather see Elizabeth Jane Bennett – bosom a-heaving with emotion – in a big floaty dress with a rich, handsome, English husband.
Not that what viewers want matters, or anything. Like our farcical politics, or the NHS, you’ll get what you’re given. We decided to stop paying the license fee and haven’t watched broadcast TV in years. This causes its own difficulties, as I’m no longer entirely sure what it is I’m supposed to be terrified or furious about anymore.
*If you’ll pardon the pun.
They can speak direct to the practice of slavery in pre-colonial Africa and how it differed, in scale and kind, from the plantation slavery of the Americas
Yes, societies on the cusp of the industrial revolution were a lot more effective at using natural and human resources than primitive tribal societies with bronze age technology.
Notably, there was that time when a Portuguese envoy attempted to humiliate Njinga by providing no chair for her to sit on during an important negotiation. Unfazed, Njinga simply commanded an attendant to kneel and sat on their back instead.
YASSS SLAY KWEEN!
It also seems a shame to secure the participation of academic luminaries such as Prof Olivette Otele – vice-president of the Royal Historical Society and chair of Bristol’s Race Equality Commission – then have her recite a list of facts in chronological order.
I’m impressed she could read off an autocue tho.
“Other historical stories from Africa and her diaspora – of scientists, soldiers, philosophers, artists and adventurers…”
Indeed there are many 16th, 17th Century accounts of European settlers arriving in Africa being astonished at the scientific work being carried out, the universities, hospitals, art galleries, music concerts, plays, paved roads, civic structures, machines.
It is well known that the East India Company encountered many African adventurers in India, and the Pilgrims on the Mayflower were surprised to see big ships from Africa tied up near Plymouth Rock with Black explorers, soldiers and adventurers already colonising the eastern sea-board.
“primitive tribal societies with bronze age technology” The Bantu were iron age. That may be part of the explanation for their success in slaughtering their way across Africa. Poor old Hottentots and Bushmen, eh?
It also seems a shame to secure the participation of academic luminaries such as Prof Olivette Otele – vice-president of the Royal Historical Society and chair of Bristol’s Race Equality Commission – then have her recite a list of facts in chronological order.
I’m impressed she could read off an autocue tho.
Once again Steve – I genuinely did fall off my chair at that one coming at the end of another Rembrandtesque comment stream.
But I do love the paragraph which so many have picked up on:
What Netflix’s Njinga has got that these other African screen queens haven’t is the input of credentialed historians and other experts. They can speak direct to the practice of slavery in pre-colonial Africa and how it differed, in scale and kind, from the plantation slavery of the Americas – which should shut up the Twitter contrarians, at least momentarily.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the more ‘credentialled’ a person is, especially if they are from a ‘diverse’ background the more likely it is that every word coming out of their mouth will be utter bollocks.
God forbid additionally that people on Twitter should be ‘contrarians’ – of course there was no collusion with voter fraud in the 2020 US presidential election and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to be barred from the platform. Can’t have anyone questioning the narrative. It’s as though the ghost of Saparmurad Niyazov or Kim il Sung has emerged to cast a spell over Western civilization.
As for the slavery point, the number of mentions of African slavery being ‘benevolent’ on Twitter is always a source of intense amusement – I’m sure the slaves themselves thought so. The great ‘Addolff’ as ever making the valid point about the still extant Arab Slave Trade which is never mentioned – odd given the attitude of countries like the UAE, Saudi and Qatar toward the multiletter ‘minorities’ which excites such condemnation. Slavery Good – discrimination against LGBTQIA etc bad?
Mauretania (under a different name I can’t be bothered to look up, held the record for the highest proportion of enslaved population, at over 30%.
Different in scale and kind to plantation slavery, indeed.
VP – thank you
As for the slavery point, the number of mentions of African slavery being ‘benevolent’ on Twitter is always a source of intense amusement
I used to think they were dishonest, but it’s worse than that: it’s total epistemological failure. Words no longer have any real, fixed meanings.
Philip – Mauretania (under a different name I can’t be bothered to look up, held the record for the highest proportion of enslaved population, at over 30%.
*Laughs in Spartiate*
Nobody want to make the connection between slavery and polygamy? Most of the West African societoes were polygamous which meant that there were always many men who would never be able to have wives and could be used in armies to fight other tribes or be sold to anyone willing to buy them.
“slavery in pre-colonial Africa and how it differed, in scale and kind, from the plantation slavery of the Americas”.
This is literally impossible.
Slaves in the Americas came from Africa. Therefore the number of slaves taken in Africa cannot be lower than the number sold to the Americas.
Given that Africa had its own slaves, and also sold them eastwards, slavery in Africa must have been larger in total scale.
The only possible way it makes sense is if the American slaves were treated well enough that they bred among themselves, whereas the African ones did not. But this would just prove that American slavery was less brutal and demeaning than African slavery, which is hardly something they want to shout about.
One of the weirdnesses and oddities is that American slaves were treated better than most Caribbean or Latin American. The Confederates used the “Great Natural Increase” argument to defend their version of slavery. Repeatedly, which is why there’s a certain tang to the argument today.
Sugar slavery was vile. All slavery is, but sugar worse. The base calculation was to hire mostly men and work them to death over 7 years.
Cotton (and indigo, rice) valued female labour in a way sugar didn’t. Also, children were productive in a way they weren’t in sugar. So, more even gender purchases, the not just acceptance but encouragement of marriage and children.
As it happened the US had little sugar production, just some areas in Louisiana, the “sugar parishes”. So, most American slaves were in those less killing slaveries of cotton, indigo and rice. Thus a much greater natural increase. Actual importation to the US was about 400k. Most US slaves were born there into slavery.
All of that is fact. I think I’m also right – think – in that of all of the Western Hemisphere slave nations, only the US actually had a natural increase at all. All of the others consumed more as imports than existed later. That is, without continual imports the slave populations would shrink in all of the other places.
Don’t forget, the US banned slave imports in 1807 or close to that date. Sure, some smuggling but not much compared to population size. That population in 1860 (some 4 million?) was – near – all US born. The GNI argument might well have been put to vile purposes but it was in fact true.
“slavery in pre-colonial Africa and how it differed, in scale and kind, from the plantation slavery of the Americas”.
Forgot to mention:
The arabs/moslems had the habit of castrating the male slaves. I wonder what the black population of the US would look like if the trans-Atlantic slavers had done the same. Definitely nothing like the US black population of 13% = 43 million.
Have linked to this before, but ICYMI – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxc5ENT8ajg