Talk:Triangular trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] What about England in the triangle?

The triangle trade is 1. Europe 2. Africa 3 America (North, Caribbean, South). The map is wrong because it use 2 points in America and does not include Europe.

In the Henrietta Marie article, I found a refererence to "triangle trade", but this one referred to a pattern involving England, Africa and the Carribean. I seem to have heard that name used in that context before, but that triangle is not reflected in this article. Perhaps someone else can comment? --Alvestrand 06:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If England is a corner of the trade cycle, then it would be a Quadrilateral Trade, with points in West Africa, Brazil (and later the Caribbean), North America, and England.
Cotton was not part of the Triangular Trade. By the time cotton became a significant cash crop, slavery and the slave-trade had been outlawed by the European powers and was thus controlled by North American shippers. Further, rum was indeed distilled in New England and slaves were brought mainly to Brazil. Before cotton was "king" in North America, slavery was disappearing whereas it was growing in South America. North American destinations and Brazil were separated by some 5000 miles. They were by no means a single corner of the Triangular Trade. Thus to add England to the trade cycle would be a Quadrilateral Trade -- with one side curved around the bulge of Africa. Wyeson 18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the Norwegian Wikipedia has the "triangular trade" as involving manufactured/trade goods from Europe to Africa, slaves from Africa to the Americas, and American raw materials to Europe - and dates it to the 1700s. New England is not mentioned as a "corner" of the trade at all. Which fits with what I remember of my history books. Different historians anchoring the Northern corner of the triangle close to where they themselves stand? --Alvestrand 19:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Just a note (sorry, I am not registered) - according to most books and all history courses I have taken, the above is correct - the Triangle Trade is between America -> Europe -> Africa -> America.

I have also been taught in school that the triangular trade was Europe -> West Africa -> East Indies. Can anyone find a reliable source on this? --Snarfoogle 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In various Dutch sources, the triangle trade refers to Rotterdam->Gold Coast(Ghana)->Port Royal(Jamaica)->Boston. The triangle is I believe the fact that all european ports tapped into exactly the same trangular route (African slaves/West Indian sugar, rum & tea/Colonial tobacco & furs), with slaves being the major accelerator to trade growth along the route. Depending on the nationaliy of the captain and the current war of the period, looting and piracy abounded. The triangle trade enabled all of those Dutch pipe holders to have their share of Virginia tobacco by trading cheap glass beads manufactured in Amsterdam for slaves, that then were turned into sugar, tea and rum in Port Royal, and turned into tobacco in Boston. The major player that legalized this early 'money laundering' in Holland was the WIC (Dutch West India Company).Jane 10:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Between c. 1652 and 1783, this trade would have been illegal under the British Navigation Acts, which reserved most trade with British colonies for British vessels. British Trade to the East Indies was the monopoly of the East India Company, which only traded to India etc, not Africa. Peterkingiron 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Middle Passage refers to the Triangle Trade as Europe - Africa - Caribbean as well --Snarfoogle 13:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent - it first defines the trade as being between Africa, the Caribbean and North America, including the picture, then switches to England further down. Both of these trade routes were used, but are both acceptable as the 'Triangular trade'? I've linked here from Sacred Hunger and I'm unsure if this term accurately describes the route in the book, a triangle between Africa, the Caribbean and Liverpool. Richard001 02:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've looked up and corrected the information in the article. The trade refers to ships originating in both British and American ports. The Encyclopedia of American History has a page describing the trade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard001 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
The standard definition of the triangular trade is Europe > Africa > Caribbean or America > Europe, with cargoes of trade goods > slaves > sugar, tobacco etc. However there were other triangles, such as that on the map, also Europe > New England > West Indies > Europe with manufactured goods > foodstuffs > sugar. In addition there were direct sailings between Europe and its colonies. Atlantic trade was much more complicated than some history books would lead one to believe. Peterkingiron 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Peterkingiron. The image doesn't show the "traditional" meaning of the term, which includes Europe. Both the NE-centered image and concentrating on England as somewhat identical with Europe is far from being a worldwide view on the subject. If no one disagrees I will delete the image in a few days. It would be very helpful if anybody could point out an alternative one. Malc82 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy with the deletion of the map. I am fairly certain that both the French and Dutch were involved, in the same way as the British (a better term here than English. By all measn alter the article, but make sure you cite your sources. Peterkingiron 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Replaced the image with a former (much better) version of itself. Malc82 22:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the role of weapons in the trade?

I agree that the article as it stands under-represents the impact of the Triangular Trade that had an apex in England; but also, there is an undue emphasis on the role of rum. It would be far more significant to bring into the description a discussion of the role of weapons in the triangular trade.

A number of sources (example: the UNESCO General History of Africa) point out that it was very rare for Europeans to themselves raid and kidnap slaves; the local African aristocracies were involved in warfare and raiding against their neighbours and those captured in raids were sold into slavery. Among the trade goods desired by these rulers were guns, gunpowder and lead shot which they themselves could not manufacture, but which gave them a decisive edge in local conflicts. Certainly English slavers on the West African coast traded large numbers of guns. I can return with sources, when I have the time.
This element of the trade had also be credited with far-reaching consequences for Africa. Firstly, the large number of deaths caused by internal wars of conquest; secondly, the entrenching of the power of armed aristocracies in African societies.

ConradTaylor 08:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Profitability

I have removed the following sentence, as I believe it to be misleading:

The trade brought much wealth to the ship owners and the profits ultimately became one of the foundations of capitalism, though a free-market economy continued to thrive long after the abolition of slavery in the U.S.

The trade was certainly profitable, otherwise merchants would not have engaged in it. The view expressed is that of Eric Williams, but is no longer accepted by most modern economic historians. It is true that a significant part of British overseas trade was with its colonies. It is also true that the economy of some of those colonies was based on slavery. However overseas trade was only a modest proportion of the British economy as a whole. Colonial trade was particularly important to certain British ports. Nevertheless, the profits from exploiting slaves, and certainly the slave trade itself did not amount to a substantial part of the British economy. The domestic economy was much larger than earlier historians thought. Peterkingiron 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I found that a claim that slavery was the basis of capitalism still appeared as part of a reference to an external website, when the statement was not supported by the alleged source. I have amended that. Peterkingiron 20:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
An authority for this is digital history. The question is discussed in detail in Atlantic slave tradePeterkingiron 19:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery

I have removed the following section:

It is estimated that around 11 million people North America imported 500,000 were shipped to the Western Hemisphere during the slave trade. That number excludes those captured and put on ships who did not make the voyage to America alive. Some estimate that 15 to 25 of every 100 slavery-bound persons died on the voyage. Fact|date=February 2007. In the early 1800's, the slave trade began to diminish, due partly to rising sentiments opposing human trafficking and partly to decreasing need for labor with the rise of the industrial revolution. In 1807, the slave trade was made illegal in the United States and British colonies. In 1833, Parliament passed a law making the slave trade illegal in all its territories. An example of one such slave trader who practiced this, was the little known Pablo Cortés.

Clearly, the article needs a section on the slave trade. But this paragraph is so unclear and poorly written, not to mention completely unsourced, that I felt I had to remove it until it can be improved. For example, in the first sentence: 1) who estimates? 2)which number is correct? BrainyBabe 10:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know whether the figure is right, but they are not wholly incredible. I would however discourage the appearance of too much on slavery here, when there are separate articles on the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Middle Passage. Having parallel articles is liable to result in Wiki having conflicting articles, soemthign that is in principle to be avoided. Peterkingiron 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fur and lumber

I have removed fur from the text as I do not think these are likely to have gone to Africa or the West Indies. However, I do not have the luxury to havign read Kurlansky's book. Peterkingiron 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've returned it to the library, but to my recollection he doesn't mention fur, or if he does, only in passing. I counted four legs to his analysis of the triangle: manufactured goods from Britain, slaves from West Africa, sugar from the Caribbean, and salt fish from New England or Newfoundland. An extension to the article, mentioning how the triangle can be extended, would be welcome, if you feel it appropriate. BrainyBabe 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts! BrainyBabe 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You describe a quadralateral trade, not triangular. No doubt such trades did occur, but there were also a lot of triangular ones. Peterkingiron 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have seen sources (e.g. Barbara Tuchman's The First Salute) mentioning fur: this fits the Europe>Africa>Americas>Europe triangle, in which the fur would go from North-America to Europe. --Radioflux 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Fur was mostly exported from North America to Europe. More or less independent from that fact, New England traders participated in basically the same triangular trade, taking the manufacturing role of Europe (so it was still a triangular trade, only with N.E. instead of Europe). While of course some of the N.E. traders exporting fur have used their gains to take part in the triangular trade, this would be true of a lot of trades (Nova Scotia fish to New England; manufactured N.E. goods to the West Indies in exchange for cash crops etc.), so fur may better not be mentioned. Malc82 21:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind the triangular trade is a scholary construct that ties three trades together, rather seldomly did a ship cover every part of triangle, so to discuss if something was a triangular or quadralateral trade doesn't seem too relevant to me. Malc82 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern examples

Any modern examples of this sort of trade setup? Article currently gives impression its only occurred in the past.--LukeSurl t c 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In history, the term only refers to the topic of this article. In another context, the words could be used for pretty much any trade with 3 partners, but I don't think such an article would be very relevant. Malc82 01:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone change the references?

There seems to be that someone added an unnecessary line/phrase at the end of the references. It reads "Morgan, Kenneth. Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. ISBN 0521330173. And everyone died. Wooohooo.Pages 64–77." I tried changing it, but I was unable to edit the list. 209.50.138.253 (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction made: you need to look at the section to which the footnote relates. Peterkingiron (talk)

moderness is like the sex trade in america we stil have other very unhuman trades and we are repeating history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.26.159 (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sunk, cleaned, and drained

I have removed the "fact" tag. This addition was by me, and I think I had it from the work now cited (by A. P. Middleton), but I do not have a copy of this to hand, and may not have got it from elsewhere. Cleaning was very necessary, because the slave deck was almost inevitably in a highly unhygenic condition as a result of slaves having to perform their bodily fucntions where they were chained up. This would pollute the cargo laden for the final stage of the voyage. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The picture on the english wikipedia seems to be improved, but on commons the picture exist with the same name, but with the wrong image. Can someone update the picture on commons? 57.67.146.66 (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC) I am not sure whether you are referring to the picture showing how slaves were stowed, whihc I believe to derive from pamplet literature from the period of the abolition campaign at the beginning of the 19th century. However I am must disappointed to find that we have gone back to a map which shows the northern apex of the triangle in New England, rather than western Europe. Earlier discussions decided that the map should show Europe-Africa-West Indies/America-Europe as the triangle and at one point that was the map shown. Can some one restore that? Perhaps the other should should be retained, but it should be further donw the page. This article has been subjkect to repeated vandalism. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded the old version as a separate image, so both are available. If I interprete it correctly, the image wasn't changed on purpose but because the WP-image was deleted and redirects to the commons image by the same name now. Malc82 (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)