JC yuh in rippin form on this thread. 
yeah, rippin he pants from de mess he passin.
jc, yuh real contradicting yurself. yuh talking about how war eh no bad thing. how life is hard. just a few posts earlier yuh getting all upset about how hard slavery was. how yuh think de slaves reach america? yuh think they post sign in de jungle - "who want to be a slave, we have a boat leaving" 
is through war!! slavery cyah happen without war. an de arms trade in africa continuing to this very day.
Rabbit, i hate tuh reason wid ppl who does take things @ face value, normally i does reason and hang out wid fellas who understand heights and yuh doh have tuh over explain yuh self to the point where yuh have tuh come elementary wid yuh argument.
now i will oblige yuh one time, and after that if yuh lagging then so be it! yuh on yuh own. breds it's quite true that the transatlantic slave trade FOR THE MOST PART HAD IMPLICATIONS OF TRIBAL WARFARE! but after a while when the trade became lucrative, it then turned into and all out kidnapping and personal raid on weaker villages.
in the beginning the stronger tribes who waged war against their weaker neighbors sold the menacing enemy captives to sometimes arab or european slave traders, but captives of war alone could not sustain a thriving 300 yrs old slave trade.
after a while the demand out striped the supply, and captives of warfare was just not enough, it then came a time when tribesmen started preying on their own ppl. hence the reason there are remnants of akan, Yoruba, igbo, fulani, haussa, bambarra/mandinka/ mandingo, culture here in the west.
all these tribes were and still are some of the biggest and strongest tribes in western africa, that alone is proof enough that war alone did not sustain the transatlantic slave trade. uncles were selling their nephews to turn ah profit, kidnappings was rampant, the traders went on raids through smaller villages scooping up and capturing the young and the strong.
that was the conventional way of aquiring slaves in west and central africa, now i don't know bout you, but if ah man try tuh war me and i vanquish him and sell he arse tuh ah slaver for ah profit, then be sure i not losing no sleep over he! but if me and ah fella eh have nutten and i role on him and clubber him down and tie him up and sell him off, then that's ah huge wrong!
to me mr rabbit, every thing on this earth have a purpose and it's place, or else it would not be here to begin with, the bad part iz when ppl use things the wrong way, then it becomes abominable.
evil and good has it's place, same goes for WAR!! like i said before, war is ah necessary evil, without it the earth would be over runned by unscrupulous dangerous men, HITLER forinstance, had he been succesful, you and i would be slaving somewhere right now in some german camp instead of having this discourse.
the fact that countless lives were lost , and some real heinous things happened to innocent ppl, the war on hitler was absolutely necessary! and had the pacifist view taken effect, the world would've been ruled by an evil hatemonger.
as for the european view of slavery, them fellas wasn't at war wid nobody, they just wanted tuh get rich and they found ah way tuh do it, so no i not contradicting meh self, but rather putting things in prospective, and yes european slavery was extra abusive and totally wrong!
they were breeding ppl for the sole purpose, and then justifying it by saying their slaves were animals and sub human(i think in the U.S. constitution black ppl were deemed 3/5 of a man) that law has since been ammended, but it goes to show the mind set of those ppl and their view on slavery.
as for you mr rabbit, yuh need tuh read with ah purpose and stop being so confrontational. positive.
jc, yuh missing de obvious. maybe is a good thing yuh come down from yuh heights for some plain talk.
de increase in de slave trade (due to the new world)
required explicit support (intelligence, logistics, military) from de coastal african empires. fact is de coastal empires grew at the expense of the inland tribes. this is de war ah talking bout. de coastal tribes made war on the inland tribes. slaves for
weapons, etc.. yeah, no doubt they had some from de coastal tribes that were also enslaved, but like castro send over those "refugees" (dissidents) during the mariel boat lift too.
de geography and economics made de case for slavery in a climate like europe. de hunter-gatherers in africa and new world indians with the bison doh have slavery in their society through
providence. once de population get big enough in europe, they start to innovate. adversity is de mother of invention. and is a steady progression of technology. along with de military tech dem europeans use to conquer africa and de new world, dey handle de problem of slavery one time when they start to replace labour with capital. we living in an age where de sugar in we coffee doh need to involve slavery. but yuh go miss reality if yuh too righteous and on a heights.
