Paul Lovejoy says in his second edition preface that transformations in African slavery were inevitable but whether they were internal or external is not the main issue. The main issue is how they influenced the course of African history. However, Lovejoy’s main argument throughout Transformations of Slavery is how the transformations in African slavery occurred from outside influences. In studying the changes, Transformations of Slavery show the “pervasiveness of slavery in African history and the significance of the transition that occurred under colonialism.”

Lovejoy claims to differ from other scholars with his belief that outside influences had such a significant impact on African society and the economy. I wish Lovejoy had named some of the main scholars whose belief he opposed. Not being familiar with the historiography of African slavery, I would have appreciated being able to look up see other scholars in the area of the subject. I do wonder why the opposite theory has so much more traction than Lovejoy’s theory. I think Lovejoy does a great job of showing how the European influence caused the expansion and transformations of African slavery.

The claim for the transformations of slavery in Africa evolving “as a form of colonialism” is something that struck me deeply. Lovejoy says carrying enslaved Africans to “become the population of European colonies of the Americas” has never occurred to me as a form of colonialism. Colonialism can take many forms and being mainly economic in nature it should have been obvious to me before, but it wasn’t. The tragedy of it may be lack of emphasis on how the slave trade itself was so economically fueled and the influence of capitalism on it.

Repetition causes Lovejoy to repeat the same points again and again through Transformations of Slavery. For example, I could recite word for word that external demand for slaves and rivalry between African states directly affected the spread of slavery. The argument is a part of the main thesis in this book but by chapter six I wrote in my notes, he say this exact thing numerous times. Of course, Transformations in Slavery looks at the bigger picture in the beginning chapters and then breaks it down throughout the book in the later chapters but as a reader, I was being pounded over the head.
Lovejoy claims the domestic demand for slaves was probably larger than the external demand as he says “The vicissitudes of the export trade has been the growth of an internal market for slaves…the number of people who were bought and sold was considerable, which indicates that the supply of slaves was maintained and indeed augmented.” The idea of the African demand for slaves being larger than the European one does not help to prove Lovejoy’s main theory, in my opinion. Unless it is the external demand helped increased the internal demand of slaves? Lovejoy doesn’t make clear why the domestic demand would have been larger except to claim that the plantation sector on the East African coast would have played a part in the domestic demand.

Slavery redefining frontiers within Africa show that borders are ever-shifting throughout the world. People are constantly redefined as friends or enemies within regions, political insecurity and illegal activities help move borders around. Slavery has had a lasting impact on the formation of Africa and the world. Paul Lovejoy shows how the transformations in slavery affected the African people, and the world. Transformations in Slavery is a well-written, well-researched book.