ENL 142: Short Essay Submission 4

Equiano argues for the abolition of slavery by presenting the argument that if the English were to “civilize” the Africans then the English will have a new market to trade with. The benefits of abolition are described solely in terms of improved commerce: if Africans were left on their own continent, to multiply and thrive, and those people were taught the ways of the Europeans, then soon enough the whole continent would demand those European goods which would greatly increase the overall trade of Europe (especially that of England). Also, the African land supplies crops that could be traded to the Europeans, such as cotton and indigo, and these the Africans could trade, adding to the supply of the Europeans.

According to Equiano, this approach to the abolition of slavery is mutually advantageous to both the Europeans and the Africans. The Africans would no longer be subject to the “tortures, murder, and every other imaginable Barbary and iniquity” (234), and the Europeans would have an ample market, that would only grow as the populations of Africans increase. Equiano states that “A commercial intercourse with Africa opens an inexhaustible source of wealth to the manufacturing interests of Great Britain” (234), and he asserts that the British are not taking advantage of the market in the way it should be. Slavery is, then, contrary to the manufacturing ideals of England, and through abolition, the wealth of Africa would be shared with England and indeed, all of Europe.

His approach in justifying the abolition of slavery in this way seems very cold and heartless, especially from a man who spends the greater part of his narrative describing in great detail the atrocities of slavery, most of which he witnessed himself. This argument from a commercial perspective is lacking in the humanity that we would expect someone in his position to use. However, his narrative was written to prove that an African, educated in the ways of the English, could integrate into British society, and embrace their ways. By taking this pragmatic stance against slavery, he is showing that his loyalties are with the English, not with the Africans, and aligning himself with the interests of the English. In doing this, his skeptics might be more likely to give his narrative –and with it, his ideas regarding abolition—the consideration that they might otherwise dismiss as the rantings of an African who is bitter about his own captivity.