“He told me that I was his slave, and I had to do all the work he told me to. I had to look after cattle and goats, fetching water and firewood, and working the fields growing sesame and sorghum. We were often beaten when they said we had not worked properly. I also had to look after the children. He told me that my name was now Alima, a Muslim name. At first I refused, but then he beat me. When I was about twelve, he said he wanted to sleep with me. I could not refuse because I was a slave. I had to do everything he wanted, or he could have killed me.”

Slavery has scourged the souls of millions for centuries, and continues to do so today. The torment and wretchedness caused by all types of slavery, from forced domestic labour to sexual exploitation, is still experienced by over twelve million people. The account above reads as if it were a historical document written during the height of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, but it actually recounts the haunting experiences of an ex-slave who has only been freed in the last decade. Arek Anyiel Deng was a slave for eighteen years since the tender age of ten in Sudan. Slavery in Africa did not die. The “slow death for slavery” continues in Africa to this day. Slavery still lives and continues to curse many individuals like Arek in all corners of the world. During the period under colonial rule, there were a flurry of endeavours from non-governmental abolitionists to government officials to end slavery, but they failed. There were a whole host of factors which contributed to this massive shortcoming.

Three important factors will be analysed in this essay. First, there were other more important imperial priorities for colonial officials than ending slavery, which meant that slavery was allowed to continue to keep local order and to ensure that domestic structures were not destabilised. Second, the ‘new’ colonial capitalist economy merely reformed the slave mode of production of the previous system. Ex-slaves still worked in a slave-like fashion and were, as a group, still the antithesis of the landed-class. Finally, slavery had created, over generations, deeply ingrained social relationships between master and slave which were difficult to fracture. This essay will explore these factors in the context of the Belgian Congo, Northern Nigeria, coastal Kenya and Zanzibar.

During the 1890 Brussels Conference, Britain convinced the European powers to act against the African slave trade: a noble and honorable pledge shared by all, or so it seemed. In the recent past, the administration of the world superpower, the United States of America, has used the idea of bringing democracy to backward lands in the Middle East to warrant the invasion of

In the recent past, the administration of the world superpower, America, has used the idea of bringing democracy to backward lands in the Middle East. In the same way, the world superpowers of a hundred years ago used antislavery rhetoric to justify colonial conquest.

Iraq. In the same way, the world superpowers of a hundred years ago used antislavery rhetoric to justify colonial conquest. The imperial strength of powers past and present has given them the belief that they stand on grounds of the highest morality and judgement.

This sense of bringing civilisation to barbaric boors and brutes has provided moral justifications for overseas wars. One example of this is the war against slave-raiding in Northern Nigeria. At the turn of the nineteenth century, Frederick Lugard was appointed High Commissioner of the new protectorate, and in his first address of note he hounded the Caliph at Sokoto and proclaimed, in a grand display of pomposity, that ending slavery was high on his priority list. What is more important to note than the poor display of diplomacy on Lugard’s part is the motivation behind the attacks which came after his proclamation: putting an end to slavery. This was the justification he gave for the military moves against the indigenous leaders of Northern Nigeria. Yet, once he had defeated them with British military might, he restored the same slave-raiders he had previously berated. As noted by Paul Lovejoy, “Lugard proceeded to rely on the very “slave raiders” that he had just been condemning.” Lugard’s use of slave-raiders was necessary to maintain control in British style. Throughout its colonial conquests worldwide, Britain has instilled a system of indirect rule which effectively controlled millions. Suzanne Miers suggests that it was “military weakness of the colonial states” such as Britain which gave it no other choice but to use the indigenous elites as a collaborative class, which in turn contributed to the slow death for slavery (what she terms “gradualism”), because these reinstated elites were often the biggest slave-owners. But the military might of Britain was clearly too powerful for the Northern Nigerian resistance as shown by the ease of victory for the colonial army.

Rather than military weakness, it was, the British model of Empire politics which was responsible for the reinstatement of the slave-raiders. Two historians provide different examples of British style indirect rule which both downplay Miers’ argument. Paul Lovejoy points to the fact that the antislavery legislation was passed in the colonial courts, but the pervading Islamic courts were left to their own devices. Basil Davidson indicates the common occurrence of African local leaders’ sons being entertained by Europeans in the cold and cloudy continent. The first example demonstrates the British practise of preserving long-established institutions in new colonial possessions, which was a typical measure to avoid massive disruption on the ground. The second example reinforces this argument as it reveals the desire of European officials to create a loyal collaborative African class, in order to secure the control of their subordinates. The restoration of the slave-raiding, large-slave-owning local leaders, therefore, was to install indirect rule in typical British style, as opposed to colonial military weakness, as suggested by Miers. Taking into consideration that these local leaders were often the biggest owners of slaves reveals that ending slavery was not the most important thing for the likes of Lugard. Although slave-raiding dwindled as a result of the British occupation of Northern Nigeria, domestic slave-trading continued. Antislavery proclamations were highly effective in vindicating bloody battles against foreign foes, but they were uncovered to be nothing more than hollow rhetoric. There was a slow death for slavery in colonial Africa because, despite the antislavery talk, moral ambitions were undermined by contradictory conduct.

Colonial Africa demanded indigenous labour. For years, slaves were captured to work on land and in the house. The various ordinances passed across Africa, from the abolition ordinance in Zanzibar passed in 1907, to Ordinance 16 in Nigeria passed in 1936, did little to help kill slavery because there was still an enormous demand for labour. In his study of the decline of slavery in the Eastern Belgian Congo, David Northrup notes:

“The legal abolition of slavery in the eastern Congo did little to change the social and economic circumstances of those it supposedly freed. Many of those freed, especially female slaves, had no choice but to remain with the same masters and to perform the duties. Others were able to change masters but remained tied to a system of labor exploitation that resembled in its severity.”

Frederick Cooper, in his research on neighbouring Kenya, almost mimics Northrup, again signalling the shortcomings of the various forms of legislation passed in colonial Africa:

“The elimination of slave labor would require more than changing slaves’ legal status and paying them wages: it required the reshaping of attitudes to work and mechanisms of social control.”

Both the limitations of the law reforms and the need for labour left slavery to continue. While ex-slaves were now ‘free,’ (no man could no longer own another) they worked in ports and on railroads or in petty trade, all still “tied to a system of labor exploitation that resembled in its severity.” Ex-slaves did not own land as it remained in the hands of the wealthy landowners. They turned, to borrow a phrase from Cooper, “from slaves to squatters,” as they moved from one plot of land to another growing their grain and making as much profit as they could. And even though the colonial government provided cheap reserves for ex-slaves, they were of poor quality: “[t]he bush was thick, the water supply bad.” In the end, these reserves only provided land for the weakest and non-able-bodied ex-slaves, and so insubstantial were these reserves that they catered for only fifty people in coastal Kenya. There was a lack of alternatives provided by the colonial government for ex-slaves, and this is why, as noted in the quote from Northrup above, there was little change in the socio-economic conditions for the newly ‘freed’ (As Northrup was referring to Eastern Congo and Cooper to coastal Kenya, it can be seen to show how these conclusions can, to some extent, be applied to an extensive part of Africa.).

In a similar situation in the urban centres, ex-slaves could not get access to means of production. These two forms of lack of ownership left ex-slaves exploited by the newly developing, colonial-capitalist economic systems. In the Belgian Congo, King Leopold II managed to maintain a savage coerced-labour system which used ex-slaves through conscription to do work on large governmental projects like the lower Congo rail-road as soldiers. According to Northrup, “substantial numbers” of these Congolese militiamen were ex-slaves. In King Leopold’s case, a European leader unearthed a novel way of using ex-slaves as slaves, without being called slaves, instead branded as soldiers. Again, despite the flamboyant antislavery rhetoric exhibited in Brussels, European leaders accepted the ongoing slavery. Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to see how Miers could conclude that “Colonial conquest and the establishment of colonial states created the conditions which led to the dramatic decline, if not always the end, of slavery.” Another example of this ubiquitous name-game is the new name given to ex-slaves in Portuguese Africa, where they became known as libertos, “a change in name but not in status and conditions.” “Slavery remained in all but name” as expressed by Lovejoy and Hogendorn, and echoed by socialist leaders of the past, from Louis Bertrand to Marx and Engels.

Slavery had created, over generations, deeply ingrained social relationships between master and slave. There were slave-families and master-families. Babies were born either free or in chains. Between these two groups were, what Susan Miers calls, “webs of personal dependency” – slaves depended on masters for food and work, and the masters depended on the work of slaves for food. In the domestic slave trade, women were exchanged and used most often. They were kept as concubines and female slaves’ children were to be used as slaves too. Kinship in colonial Africa was very important. These nt incidents in the city.

It is better to lead a comfortable or prosperous life as a slave than to be a wretched freeborn. Yoruba proverb

were built over generations, and could perhaps justify the claim that the slow death for slavery was due to this supposed ineradicable relationship between master and slave. What is most appalling is that this sort of relationship still continues today, as highlighted by an article in The Guardian, on the face of it anachronistically entitled, “Hope for west African slaves after landmark ruling.” It reports a case of Hadijatou Mani, a twelve-year-old sex slave in Niger, and notes that even today, in the twenty-first century, “slave status is passed down through generations.” This argument is strengthened further by the teachings of a Yoruba proverb which states:

“It is better to lead a comfortable or prosperous life as a slave than to be a wretched freeborn.”

It is difficult to say how many people agreed with and lived by this proverb in colonial Africa. If the majority of ex-slaves did follow this mantra, then it would be possible to suggest that the slave mentality had breached so far deep that freedom was not something to be desired, let alone fight for. Yet despite the webs of personal dependence, that Miers mentions, that had trapped slaves for generations, and the attitude behind the Yoruba proverb, slaves did break free. Although there were no massive revolts, there was a great exodus towards the cities where ex-slaves left their former masters who, in turn, collected compensation. Even before the act of 1907 which abolished slavery in Zanzibar, slaves were running away from their fettered existence.

According to Cooper, only two thousand slaves remained with their masters in Kenya, and many of these were either too old or weak to move away or to change the life he or she had been living for decades. On top of this, Davidson proclaims that memory and habit were not strong enough to rid ex-slaves of a desire for freedom. Cooper goes along the same line as Davidson, saying, “Never, as far as is known, has a slave community regretted its freedom; never, even in the face of the most dire poverty, has it wished to return to the security and oppression of slavery.” The mass exodus of ex-slaves away from their masters suggest these arguments from Davidson and Cooper are more accurate than what the Yoruba proverb suggests, and that slaves were able to break away from the slave mentality and the deep-rooted webs of personal dependency. Slaves and ex-slaves cannot be held responsible for the slow death for slavery.

While the continued existence of slavery is truly disheartening and utterly deplorable, there is still continued hope for the eventual death of it. This essay has shown how the leaders of the colonial conquests of Africa had turned on their antislavery rhetoric once the territories had been conquered and how it would be unfair to blame the small number of slaves who remained with their masters for continuing the slave-master relationship. In one sense, slavery will always remain, whether or not it is actually referred to as slavery, with the blatant exploitation of slave-nations which have an abundance of natural resources extracted from them, and who produce goods for the developed world. Slavery seems to be unstoppable today, and this should enlighten our understanding of the slow death for slavery. An in-depth study of the affects of the economic system put in place after the antislavery legislation and the during the colonial occupation of Africa should explore the link between that system and slavery. That would provide a better appreciation of the issues covered in this essay. Whilst the promise between the major powers of the world in Brussels in 1890 to end slavery was not fulfilled, today we must call for our leaders to at least acknowledge the slavery which devastates thousands of lives like Hadijatou and Arek. In doing so we can hope for joint action against those who capitalise on the lives of millions, and the possible death of slavery.