Dona Ana de Sousa Nzinga Mbande (1583?-1663), better known as Queen Nzinga (sometimes spelled Nzingha or Njinga in English), fought the Portuguese from 1619 to 1657, keeping them from taking over what is now Angola – even though she lacked a steady supply of guns! She was the queen of Ndongo and Matamba, often leading her own men into battle.
Her brother had been the king of Ndongo before her. It was the most powerful Mbundu kingdom – but it had no guns. In 1618, the Portuguese and their Imbangala allies overthrew the capital. They marched its people and many other Mbundu to Luanda on the coast and put them on slave ships (some 20 of them arrived in Virginia in 1619, the beginning of US Black history).
Upon these ashes Queen Nzinga arose.
The Portuguese lacked numbers, but they had four advantages:
- Control of the arms trade – the Portuguese for the most part controlled the trade of guns and ammunition, the most advanced weapons of the time.
- Control of the slave trade – which drained African kingdoms and chiefdoms of manpower while the Portuguese grew rich and fought with slave armies, using Brazil as a base.
- Christianity – which brainwashed enough African leaders to side with the Portuguese, or at least trust them when making peace. It also allowed the Catholic Church to act like the CIA since its priests could travel freely without raising suspicions.
- Divide and conquer – this more than anything accounted for Portuguese success. They played African kings and chiefs off against each other and let them do most of the fighting – aka “tribal” warfare.
The Portuguese were not so much interested in land as in getting a steady supply of slaves from chiefs and kings.
Queen Nzinga counteracted much of this:
- She brought Africans together to fight against the Portuguese and their allies.
- She had her men secretly join the other side – so that whole companies of enemy armies deserted to her side, taking guns and ammunition with them.
- She took guns and ammunition through surprise attacks.
- She made her kingdom a safe haven for runaway slaves, bringing many to her side.
- She was not dependent on the slave trade.
- She did not allow missionaries into her land.
Add to all that the Dutch, who were fighting the Portuguese off and on during this time, further weakening the Portuguese.
She was herself a Christian, at least for a while – Dona Ana de Sousa was her Christian name. But she was not so brainwashed that she did not clearly see what was going on. In fact, she did not easily trust White people – one of her strengths, as it turned out.
Leadership: She was the sort of leader to whom people were deeply loyal, who would fight on even when there seemed no hope other than her bare words. Their deep faith in her was not in vain: even when she lost her kingdom or was thought dead, she came back to win the day.
– Abagond, 2016.
Source: Mainly “The Destruction of Black Civilization” (1987) by Chancellor Williams.
See also:
- Welcome to Black Women’s History Month 2016!
- Mbundu
- Portuguese Empire
- Songhay Empire
- Swahili civilization
537
One of our great African sheroes. Every black child should know who she was. A film on her life would be great.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Abagond
[blockquote]Divide and conquer – this more than anything accounted for Portuguese success. They played African kings and chiefs off against each other and let them do most of the fighting – aka “tribal” warfare.[/blockquote]
I have a problem with that framing. It implies that the indigenous leaders had no idea of their self-interest.
LikeLike
Ab,
Do you see a strong similarity of this divide and conquer African meme with the house-negro versus the field-negro (and Black males versus Black females) theme throughout and/or after Black Amerikan slavery?
LikeLike
“She was herself a Christian, at least for a while – Dona Ana de Sousa was her Christian name. But she was not so brainwashed that she did not clearly see what was going on. In fact, she did not easily trust White people – one of her strengths, as it turned out.”
So, she was a “nasty” “Black Supremacist” who wasn’t trying to “…cozy up to White people, all other races be damned.” I suspect that she won’t meet with the approval of “little Mr. Irony”.
LikeLike
It baffles me that even knowing all this history a Black person would choose to be Catholic in this day and age.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“A film on her life would be great.”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGDJMm31vF8)
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Kushite Prince
Every Black child, and every other child too!
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Gro Jo
Thank you for that! I love it!
LikeLike
@Paige
I agree with you on that!
LikeLike
Kushite Prince, You’re welcome.
LikeLike
I would love to see the tactic of “divide and conquer” end as a European advantage over others in my lifetime…but I’m not holding my breath.
LikeLike
That film was shot in Angola and the production company is based in Luanda, but the director and writer were both White Portuguese.
LikeLike
” on Fri 19 Feb 2016 at 02:15:04
abagond
That film was shot in Angola and the production company is based in Luanda, but the director and writer were both White Portuguese.”
Intersectionality at work?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Afrofem
[blockquote]I would love to see the tactic of “divide and conquer” end as a European advantage over others in my lifetime…but I’m not holding my breath.[/blockquote]
In a general view of the history of the “rise of Europe” I would say that it is the opposite. It was a long-term advantage of the the Europeans that they were more divided than other civilizations.
LikeLike
http://doubleportioninheritance.blogspot.com/2011/06/copyright-double-portion-inheritance_26.html
sorry i’m kind of harping on the ‘illuminati’ and hegelian dialectic/diamat philosophy lately
“This strategy called “The Hegelian Dialectic” comes from an ancient occult idea termed as “Solve et Coagula” in Latin. This term means “Solution & Coagulation.” “
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer_algorithms
LikeLike
http://classroom.synonym.com/civilization-invented-divide-conquer-strategy-12746.html
“Divide and rule — “Divida et Impera” — said Julius Caesar”
“ET GALLIA DIVISA EST IN TRES PARTES”
LikeLike
SORRY, VERBOS LATINORUM
LikeLike
and that is the rabbithole ‘curiouser and curiouser’
LikeLike
Thugtician did a YouTube video on her and upon his research, he revealed that she had a writing diary, saying she was comfortable with slavery… as long as it was maintained on her terms.
LikeLike
http://www.amazingwomeninhistory.com/anna-nzinga-mbande-fearless-africa-queen/
Read the comments on this blog topic about her. Black YouTuber Thugtician was right about her. She ended up selling other blacks to slavery. Afrocentrism is such a joke!
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
Please explain your belief that division was a long term advantage in the rise of European global power.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
I’ve heard something similar to what Kartoffel said. Basically, because the Europeans were divided, they were all competing against one another. This supposedly lead to the the improvement of things like military technology, and military strategy. In their constant efforts to “one up” each other, the rulers of Europe pushed for military innovation. Or, something to that effect.
LikeLike
Benjamin summed it up pretty well.
Imgagine the development of the modern state between 1300 and 1800 as a form of evolution. The various european polities were in an eternal contest that only the most aggressive and effective states survived. They were constantly incentiviced to improve military technology and tactics, and – in my opinion – more importantly their institutions to gather resources. They also had the time to do that as they existed in a power equilibrium where it was very unusual to be lost after only one round of conflict.
That division of course also impeded their success. But when the Europeans entered a phase of relative peace in 1815 they were far ahead of every other society and everybody was hard pressed to quickly catch up. And only Japan did so successfully.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
In the comparison between China and Europe I think it also plays a role that China occupied a very favourable position is the international trade sstem for pretty much all of its history. When everybody is coming to you and wants the stuff you produce you’re not incentiviced to establish long trade routes, control producers and markets. Europe occupied the opposite position. They had nothing to sell and could not profit as intermediates. They run a trade deficit for all of history up to 1780 (I forgot the excact year).
LikeLike
imagine if you will today wherein the rentier state concept is writ global due to there being no more land to which to ‘discover’ they have to build islands now like china
LikeLike
i think dubai too something like that
LikeLike
@Kartoffel and @ Benjamin
You both made strong and convincing arguments about European division as a long term advantage. Thank you both for explaining your viewpoints.
My view of Western and Central Europe, however, is one of unity. I’m aware of the endless wars between the aristocratic classes and the arms race/technological race the wars ignited. Yet, Western and Central European principalities differed from other regions of the world in three distinct ways:
1. They were united in a common religion (Roman Catholicism) for centuries.
2. The aristocratic class was tightly knit through constant intermarriage.
3. The aristocrats and commoners fought together against Muslim societies during the Crusades.
Pre-Invasion societies in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia/Polynesia did not have those commonalities. Each ethnic group held themselves as a people apart. They fought each other, traded goods, had local religions and sometimes enjoyed long periods of relative peace with each other. There were some mass movements such as the Bantu Expansion, the Polynesian Pacific settlements or the Dineh (Navajo) Migration from Canada to the American Southwest. Sometimes these migrations caused conflict, sometimes not.
Even when Islam spread through Africa and Asia, it was not the unifying force that Catholicism was to the Europeans. The aristocracy of Korea did not routinely intermarry with the aristocracy of Japan or Cambodia.
The Mapuche of South America, the Mayans of Central America and the Cherokee of North America never fought a common enemy together at the same time.
Since all of these societies were deeply divided without the bonds that knit European societies together, they were particularly vulnerable to invasion, divide and conquer tactics and exploitation by Europeans. It’s not very difficult to set one group against another when they see only their differences or are traditional enemies.
Finally, my views of European unity are reinforced by the Pan-European people of America known as Whites. From my perspective, they often form a solid front against anyone not in their tribe. Even when it hurts them in material ways, White unity is a constant I’ve observed all my life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Afrofem
Your welcome, you make some very good points yourself. I had forgotten about how closely related so many of Europe’s monarchs were to one another. I believe that King George V of Britain, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Tsar Nicholas II, were all first cousins. You’re also correct about how Catholicism united Europe together, particularly against a common enemy (Islam). However, I would like to make one last point:
Europeans in Queen Nzinga’s time clearly weren’t as unified as they could have been. After all, in this very post, it mentions how the Dutch were fighting the Portuguese at the same time she was. I looked into it further, it appears that the Dutch actively supported her. At least one time, they sent her reinforcements to fight off the Portuguese, allowing her to defeat them in a battle in 1647. So the pan-European front that leads to “Whiteness” appears to have not yet developed at that time.
Note: While I did mention Queen Nzinga in my post, I’d like to apologize if I am dragging this off topic. Perhaps it should go somewhere else.
LikeLike
@ Afrofem
But that was in the Middle Ages when European societies were much less expansive than in Early Modern times. Between 1500 and 1650 they were engulfed in constant and very costly religious strife.
True. They did show estate solidarity when they had to put down peasant revolts and also treated each other well when taken prisoner.But that doesn’t mean they worked together that well. I’d say the European elites worked better with each other in the 19th century even though the shared identity weakened and was superceided by the emerging nationalisms.
I don’t think the crusades can be linked to the european expansion in the Early Modern Age. A better example is the defense against the Ottoman Empire at the same time where they were moderatly successfull in uniting.
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
I don’t think this discussion is off-topic. All questions regarding the european expansion come down to find an overarching reason.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
You are right, that was the plan. However, it was a paper unity through a weakened monarch. China was a client state of multiple European powers.
Those powerful interlopers destabilized China through three means:
1. Lack of a strong central government lead to rampant warlordism in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Those brigands terrorized the people of China with kidnapping, rape and theft.
2. The British introduced opium as a control mechanism. Widespread addiction lead to further chaos and misery. Addiction was also a major drain of many individual household finances.
3. Foreign missionaries spread their tentacles throughout China These missionaries acted as the eyes and ears of their respective Western governments. They also attempted to propagandize the Chinese into believing “White is Right”. I say attempted because they underestimated the ethnic chauvinism of the Chinese.
I hate to be coarse here, but “unified” China at the turn of the 20th century was like a trafficked woman forced to open up to any and all sailors who hit her shores.
LikeLike
@Benjamin
I’m glad you pointed out the role of the Dutch in Queen Nzinga’s fight with the Portugeuse. Europeans certainly did not present a united front in that situation.
I agree with Kartoffel that this discussion is not off-topic. Unity and division are at the heart of the history of Queen Nzinga and her people.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
Hmmm. I’ve run out of time…I will have to respond later in the day to some of your points.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
While I agree that the Catholic/Protestant divide was a very bloody affair in the 1500s and 1600s, the majority of European societies were Christian—and regarded the rest of the world’s people as “heathen” and exploitable.
There were a series of papal bulls issued that basically legitimized the invasion and appropriation of the lands, resources and bodies of non-Christians. For example, in 1455, Pope Nicholas V authorized Christian nations to:
Pope Nicholas further instructed Christian Kings and Princes that they were free to,
It would be one thing if those edicts were firmly lodged in the past. However, this papal bull and others form what is known as the Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine of Discovery forms the basis of American law regulating indigenous land claims. As recently as 2005, a land claim by the Oneida Nation brought before the US Supreme Court was denied based on prior cases which cited the Doctrine of Discovery.
During Pope Francis’ recent visit to the US, Indigenous leaders from throughout the Americas urged the Pope to rescind the Doctrine of Discovery. Yet, the Catholic Church refuses to even publicly discuss the Doctrine, much less nullify it in the present day.
❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖
I see the Crusades as absolutely critical to forming a Pan-European consciousness and unity. The Crusades attracted fighters from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean and from the British Isles to the Caucasus Mountains. The appeal of the Crusades was a lot more universal in Europe than defensive wars with the Ottoman Empire. When the Ottomans laid siege to Vienna in 1683, the Western and Northern Europeans did not join in the relief of the city. The siege was broken by a joint force of Polish and German troops led by King John III Sobieski of Poland.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Crusades matter hugely. For England and France and Germany, the Crusades ended in the 1200s, but for Portugal and Spain they never truly came to an end, because of the Reconquista, and were extended to Africa and the Americas. The same mindset was still there – thus the Doctrine of Discovery, what would be called jihad or terrorism if Muslims did it. And, as Afrofem points out, the Doctrine of Discovery became embedded in US law:
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
So could it be argued that the Spanish, as oppose to the British, who came up with the pan-European identity?
LikeLike
@ Abagond
You’re right. I forgot about the Spanish.
@ Afrofem
I don’t disagree with anything you said. Religion definitly served as the justification for the European Expansion. In the beginning more so than racism. But I don’t see in any of this the reason for its success.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
All successful ventures begin with a vision, which leads to a mindset or worldview. That worldview then guides all subsequent action.
From where I stand, the European Invasion of other lands had all three elements: vision, worldview and action.
All of the world’s people are living with the consequences of those elements to this very day. That is the power of history to me.
LikeLike
I got a bit off track with my argument. I only disagree with the notion that religious unity was an asset of the Europeans during the European Expansion, especially between 1500 and 1650.
Besides that I agree that religion played an important role in ideologically enabling the expansion.
LikeLike
Good read I’ve heard about her and was very proud to learn this.
LikeLike