The Tragedy Of Sub-Saharan Africa Analysis

J.R. Early’s “The Tragedy of sub-Saharan Africa” lays context for a discussion about how outside contact, primarily European, adversely affected Africa after 1500. Early argues that this perceived lack of agency and African subordination to European forces is the “tragedy of sub-Saharan Africa’s history”. However, the real tragedy here is the ignorant omission of centuries of rich culture and history while patting ourselves on the back for recognizing the “tragedy” that befell the “ever-so-helpless” Africans. To really understand what happened in sub-Saharan Africa from 1500 on, we have to probe much deeper than Early, and look at internal factors, such as slave trade within Africa, the true level of African autonomy over transactions with Europe, and the diversity of African reactions to European contact. Early opens by laying context about sub-Saharan Africa before 1500. However, even in this background discussion, Early nearly ignores the effect of internal considerations. Early does recognize that internal circumstances existed, producing what he calls “organic” change within Africa before 1500. However, he limits the significance of these internal circumstances within his interpretation by asserting that they produced “organic change” when “combined with already-existing situations”. Furthermore, Early incorrectly argues that these factors ceased to be significant once Europeans arrived. At first, Early’s narrative may seem sound, mainly because the externalist metanarrative has dominated much of the academic understanding of African history for a great while. However, having the background of a thorough, objective analysis of the inner workings of Africa, this excerpt reads almost as a sarcastic caricature of events. Early’s interpretation is summed up by this quip: “Ever since European contact began, sub-Saharan Africans have been unable to influence change…circumstances located elsewhere have really determined change.” (Early). Early’s interpretation would have us believe that Africans were subordinated to Europeans as soon as contact began and that this subordination is what determined the outcome of the continent. Operating under this false belief is problematic in that it objectifies Africa by removing our perception of African agency. By analyzing and appreciating the internal factors that affected and continue to affect Africa, we contribute to the academic subjectification of Africa past and present. This leads to a greater respect for African culture, as well as African ideas, peoples, and nations as legitimate and important human entities. In reality, Afro-European relations were far more complex and nuanced than Early makes them out to be. The history of Afro-European contact after 1500 presents elements of subordination invoked on and by both Europeans and Africans as well as cooperation between them. Additionally, it presents complex commercial systems, such as the African slave trade, which are necessary to understand additional extensions thereof. The Atlantic slave trade was an extension of the established slave trade within Africa. …show more content…
However, Early treats the Atlantic slave trade as if it were a unique and independent institution unto itself. “this [lack of African agency] is clearly illustrated by events like the Atlantic slave trade: here, expansive European states, driven by demands of consumers in Europe, established plantations in the Americas and so came to Africa and stole labour in order to meet those demands” (Early). In the case of this direct quote, the problem isn’t so much what Early does say as what he fails to emphasize. Completely absent from this quote, which represents the entirety of Early’s discussion of the institution of African slavery, is any recognition of the nuance of internal African slave trade. Early’s interpretation of the slave trade characterizes it as a European impact on Africa. This exclusive focus on the Atlantic slave trade, with no discussion whatsoever of the slave trade within Africa is flawed not only in that it does not reflect reality but also in that it objectifies Africa. Early treats the Atlantic slave as though it was a new historical event that created change in the continent, …show more content…
If we were to only focus on the Atlantic slave trade, we would resign ourselves to understanding a small segment of the broad issue of African slavery. In every economic transaction, there exists supply and demand of some good. In the case of the Atlantic slave trade, Early only notes the demand by mentioning the plantations on which these slaves worked. In an academic economic study, it would be unacceptable to only understand factors of demand and not supply. Concurrently, it is not acceptable in an academic understanding of history to only understand one side of an observable