I'm curious how the cultures in Africa were effected by the slave trade of this era. Ive learned a lot about The slave trade in American history classes but I never learned about it from the point of view of Africa. Other questions that come up for me are:
How were tribal relations in Africa during this time period? Were there any big conflicts between tribes?
How did they manage to gather up so many people in Africa, what was the process behind getting all those slaves onto the ships?
Were Africans aware of the establishment of slavery in the rest of the world? Did they know what was happening?
Any information relating to these questions would be awesome!
I have answered questions similar to this previously, you may be interested in some of the information here:
I will try and answer your questions in regards to central Africa (the area I know the most about). The state I'll deal with most is the Lunda because they span a huge period and cover most of the themes you're interested in. Africa is a large continent with a lot of vastly different polities.
How were tribal relations in Africa during this time period? Were there any big conflicts between tribes?
Generally speaking the word tribe is very taboo among African scholars in present day literature. The implication of the word seems to imply politically unsophisticated hunter gatherer communities which is simply not true of African states from the 1500's - 1700's. The states in the majority of Africa had complicated political systems and often held sizable populations and territory.
That said there were certainly a very complex political system in place. Prior to slavery, political systems were generally based around commerce and religion. A King or Chief would be the head of the commercial and cultural aspects of his kingdom distributing resources among his people in order to maintain his political network. Notable examples we have are of Upumba depression societies who developed agriculture at some point around 1000 AD and by the 1500's had developed into fully fledged states with trading and tributary networks. The biggest of these are the Luba state and the Lunda commonwealths.
Both had a unique way of legitimizing the rule through ancestor spirits and gods but I find the Lunda system most fascinating. The King himself in the Lunda commonwealth was literally his ancestor. He inherited his fathers position, name, titles, family (wives) and all that came with those things. For all intents and purposes he was his father, who in turn was his father etc. This system (Positional succession and perpetual kinship) applied to all aristocracy in the Lunda state, so when a title was given, that person would literally become the title that would be inherited generations down the line.
Furthermore when the Lunda would go to war for territory, they would conquer neighboring peoples. However, they would only conquer the people (with the King becoming king of the peoples). They did not conquer the land which still belonged the conquered people. This creates a system where the Lunda own people (who can be called upon for labor) but the villages and towns operated at a decentralized level paying tribute to the king but operating mostly of their own accord.
In terms of notable conflicts we know the Lunda invaded the Luba in the 18th century but failed to defeat them due to Luba's knowledge of thier own territory. They constantly raided for slaves during the slave trade period. Later with Arab-Swahili incursion into the continent conflict in the late 18th and 19th centuries there was further conflict for the Lunda that would lead to their decline.
How did they manage to gather up so many people in Africa, what was the process behind getting all those slaves onto the ships?
A massive change for these states occurred with the onset of long distance trade with Europeans. The most valuable commodity was (as you might have guessed) the slave. Many African societies themselves extensively used slaves so the concept was not foreign to them. This changed societies into a much more commercially orientated affair. The value of European and Arabic cloth and guns was very high to many African societies and thus wide scale slave raiding was developed.
The Lunda that I have already mentioned were heavily involved in this slave raiding. As I mentioned previously the Lunda king relied on resource distribution to maintain loyalty of his under chiefs. This meant that the more long distance trade he had access to the more chiefs he could keep happy. So the Lunda would raid for slaves in neighboring weaker territory and sell them to intermediary Africans to transport to the coast. The King had a monopoly on all trade, attempts to break his monopoly (By Africans or Europeans) were usually punished with death or disfigurement.
So a bit of quick geography, the Lunda state was located in modern day Katanga (DRC), which is very much in the interior. Caravanner peoples like the Ovimbundu would transport slaves to the coast and Luanda (Angola) passing through various petty chieftainships on their way. Generally these chiefs would ask for a toll or simply buy the slaves themselves to sell to Europeans. Once again, the chiefs wanted a monopoly on the trade to distribute among their people. The state of Kasanje (located in between the Lunda and the coast) was probably the most successful of these states surviving well into the 19th century.
Once at the coast, Europeans would purchase the slaves and transport them. It's important to note that at this point in time the Europeans had next to no power over the interior chiefs. If the interior chief decided that he did not want to trade slaves, Europeans could not argue. They didn't have the manpower or allies at this point to successfully subdue African states until 19th century.
Were Africans aware of the establishment of slavery in the rest of the world? Did they know what was happening?
I can't go into as much detail on this, sourcing for African opinions of slavery abroad are relatively sparse. Africans slavery systems were generally closer to lineage slavery in that African slaves could become free as they became more integrated into the society generations down the line. There was no concept of race as we have it today in African slavery. It is unlikely that they knew what plantation slavery was like, but compared to the conditions slaves lived under in Africa the differences were almost null.
Conclusion
So over all, African leaders were essential to the slave trade. The cultures themselves adapted to the slave trade and developed their own way of raiding and transporting slaves. Slaves were a vital commodity to Africans and Europeans alike and the lifeblood of the economy in this period. From the Africans leaders perspective, they were not selling their people but rivals. I have neglected to mention the numerous societies that were actually importing slaves in this region and those that shunned the long distance European and Arab traders. Socities such as the Lozi and Kuba were not involved and maintained themselves well into the 19th century through importing African slaves. Nguni warrior societies (such as the famous Zulu) shunned the long distance trade preferring their insular way of life. Those two examples are testament to the immensity differences that exist in precolonial Africa. Hopefully this has given you some idea of what was behind the slave trade though.
By the time Europeans arrived on the west coast of Africa the slave trade had been well established. In fact, slavery as an institution was quite old even in the Mediterranean region. African kingdoms took slaves during war. They used these slaves as currency and symbols of social status. When the Europeans showed up they found Africans more than willing to trade slaves for goods. Before the late 1990's, it was thought Europeans dominated this trade. Marxist and dependency theory dominated the historiography. A major shift occurred with John Thornton's, Africa and Africans in the making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Thornton challenges the dependency and Marxist theories and states Africans needed little the Europeans were offering. Africans were also very adept at defending their territory from European encroachment. Europeans kept to the coasts and traded with Africans when the Africans wanted. In fields such as the economy, politics, and culture, Thornton finds Africans did not need Europeans and European goods did not dominate the African economy.
Europeans bought slaves from the Africans and kept them in enclosed areas until a ship arrived. They then began packing the ship full of slaves. The conditions were horrible and the amount of information available is voluminous so I won't go over it here. But, it cannot be said enough how terrible the conditions were for slaves on these ships.
As for your last question, I have no idea if Africans knew what was happening. I am not certain they would have cared, but it is an interesting question.