Thoughts on Dahomey - Part 2

[AndyC]

Discuss @Youngmarshall 's latest article here

 

[Gary Oswald]

Excellent pictures as ever, @AndyC.

Also fair warning everyone this is primarily a cis man talking about feminism and gender roles. Treat with caution.

 

[Alex Richards]

There's perhaps a fascinating possibility where an early 20th Century monarch decides to actually double down on their apparent support base by actually making a big push for women's rights to get the loyalty of a substantial part of the population. I'm not sure on how plausible or workable that is however.

 

[Gary Oswald]

There's perhaps a fascinating possibility where an early 20th Century monarch decides to actually double down on their apparent support base by actually making a big push for women's rights to get the loyalty of a substantial part of the population. I'm not sure on how plausible or workable that is however.

That is a interesting possibility I hadn't actually thought about. The shift I talk about from palace women to traders was primarily seen in successions. Prior to Gezo, most monarchs won the succession battle by winning over a coalition of women within the place who'd lend them the support needed to become King.

Gezo broke this trend because his competitor had the loyalty of the palace women, Gezo became King with a coalition made up of Gezo and his brothers within the palace and Francisco Feliz de Silva, one of the most powerful traders, and his friends outside it. This told new Kings that relying on the palace women wasn't enough anymore. The traders were powerful enough that they could fight the palace and win.

Gezo, Glele and Behanzin all gained power against the wishes of the palace women, they were chosen by the traders, which is why in power they sidelined the palace women. Of course like you say those Kings still relied on women, as guards soldiers and servants, they just centralised decision making within the palace to the King and his brothers.

Trying to repower the palace women at this point, to create a strong counter balance to the power of the traders, could only happen by the King giving up his own power within the palace and it's difficult to see them doing so when the problem is that the palace itself is weaker compared to the traders.

But pushing for women's rights in general, as in rights for the non-elite outside the palace which nobody had seriously talked about, in order to undercut the traders by securing a monarchist fifth column among the female palm oil workers might actually be a smart move. I want to write this now.

 

[Alex Richards]

But pushing for women's rights in general, as in rights for the non-elite outside the palace which nobody had seriously talked about, in order to undercut the traders by securing a monarchist fifth column among the female palm oil workers might actually be a smart move. I want to write this now.

And potentially once you've got some of those in play, you can start bringing some of those women into the Palace to allow you to strengthen your hand there against the traders by putting loyalists who owe you into the administrative roles the Palace women used to do.

Sudden thought- European powers are going to be exerting more and more pressure on Dahomey to get rid of Slavery from the 1870s onwards. Manumission in the 1910s as a dual 'placate the west+weaken the traders' move could well be taken as a necessity and kick start this idea.

 

[Gary Oswald]

Sudden thought- European powers are going to be exerting more and more pressure on Dahomey to get rid of Slavery from the 1870s onwards. Manumission in the 1910s as a dual 'placate the west+weaken the traders' move could well be taken as a necessity and kick start this idea.

Well maybe.

Portugal, Germany and the Congo Free State were 100% buying slaves from Dahomey right the way up to 1894. They didn't call it that, they were selling goods in return for free labour from government servants, but they were.

Likewise the palm oil slave plantations were largely suggested by European anti-slavery campaigners who wanted Dahomey on an economic plan that didn't involve selling slaves and were willing to overlook the way it meant they used slaves internally as an improvement.

We know from Ethiopia that pressure will eventually build but well Ethiopia didn't actually ban slavery until WW2 and some forms of slavery, in particular debt bondage, and uses of prisoners as workers lingered on in Africa well after that (in Mauritania most famously but hardly just there).

The Dahomian Kings were smart enough to realise they could justify human sacrifices by claiming it as executing criminals to make it look better. I imagine they'd also be smart enough to claim unpaid labour as chain gang work for criminals. Given the use of forced labour in European colonies they could hardly complain too loudly.

I don't disagree with you that some legal form of manumission will need to happen, I just don't want anyone to overestimate the actual effects of what that means and I think the 1910s might be an the earlier scale of when it happens, judging by the Ethiopian precedent.

 

[Charles EP M.]

There's perhaps a fascinating possibility where an early 20th Century monarch decides to actually double down on their apparent support base by actually making a big push for women's rights to get the loyalty of a substantial part of the population. I'm not sure on how plausible or workable that is however.

Thought occurs, maybe that need for loyalty combines with:

This would especially hit the Amazons hard as, like many slave armies, there were restrictions placed upon what the Amazons were allowed to do. They could not marry, have (heterosexual) sex or give birth. ... Under Gezo’s son, Glele, every peasant family was obliged to give a daughter to the King to become an Amazon, in order to replace the reduced amount of captives.

If Dahomey lasted into the 20th century, the Amazons might well be reformed even further than that so that either the restrictions on childbirth to be loosened (allowing the Amazons, like the Janissaries, to become an hereditary elite with the same rights as other citizens with daughters succeeding mothers) or so the army would drift away from its origins and just become a volunteer army

and being an Amazon works ala Starship Troopers, after a set period of service you're given greater rights (and those restrictions are loosened). That keeps the Amazons and a growing new elite of veterans and their families on the monarchy's side. It wouldn't be a stable plan for very long though.

 

[Gary Oswald]

Thought occurs, maybe that need for loyalty combines with:



and being an Amazon works ala Starship Troopers, after a set period of service you're given greater rights (and those restrictions are loosened). That keeps the Amazons and a growing new elite of veterans and their families on the monarchy's side. It wouldn't be a stable plan for very long though.

I feel blessed by all this intelligent commentary. That's a really interesting and plausible suggestion.