Rodney's Argument Essay: The Atlantic Slave Trade

583 Words2 Pages

It is unanimously agreed upon that slavery was morally evil: the torture millions had to endure is simply unforgivable. However, some historians speculate that the Atlantic Slave Trade, despite the horrors it entailed, was beneficial to the African economy. Historian Hugh Thomas agrees with this, arguing that it strengthened the African economy and the population loss was not great enough to have a negative effect on life in Africa. However, historian Walter Rodney disagrees with this statement. Rodney claims that African slavery was both morally and economically evil as Europeans took advantage of an underdeveloped Africa, scarring millions of people and causing a technological stagnation. He also states that the Atlantic slave trade is the …show more content…

Firstly, as pointed out by Thornton, “[Rodney makes] the assumption of African backwardness in manufacturing, based largely on the analogy with Africa’s present lack of manufacturing capacity and its impact on modern African economies”1 in declaring their “underdevelopment.” This firstly displays a major fault in his argument: he does not provide evidence of African underdevelopment, which is the very basis of his case. One cannot take this as given. Secondly, when Rodney disagrees with the statement that slavery prevented African famine, he states “to attempt to reply to that would be painful and time wasting!”2 This is poor writing, as Rodney does not effectively refute the counterargument, and he additionally write with arrogance and bias. This bias is further exemplified when Rodney then proceeds to state that “one of the aspects of current African underdevelopment is that the capitalist publishers and bourgeois scholars dominate the scene and help mold opinions the world over.”3 Rodney possesses a deep partiality towards Marxist outlooks, which presents itself in his anti-capitalist tangent. Moreover, he once again assumes African underdevelopment and refuses to acknowledge other points of view! This pattern of bias, arrogance, and assumptions weakens his argument tremendously, making it easier for Thornton to poke holes in

Open Document