Written by Lipton Matthews.
African leaders have embraced China as one of their most important development partners. Across the continent, from Nairobi to Dar es Salaam, they describe China as a nation that delivers infrastructure, offers rapid financing and refrains from interfering in domestic affairs. Highways, bridges, ports, railways and digital networks stand as visible symbols of Beijing’s expanding reach.
The continent’s leaders praise China for treating their countries as “equals”, rather than attaching the sort of “conditions” that invariably accompany Western aid. And this Afro-Sino partnership endures despite the fact that China, like other premodern civilizations, participated in slavery.
It is striking that while African governments deepen their ties with Beijing, many of those same governments vocally insist that Britain must pay reparations for slavery and colonialism — entirely ignoring China’s own historical involvement in the enslavement of black people. The contrast reveals a pattern of selective outrage driven by contemporary politics, not logical consistency.
The historical presence of black slaves in China is well-established — particularly in the port of Guangzhou, which functioned as a major hub for maritime commerce. In his book The Blacks of Pre-Modern China, Don Wyatt documents that African slaves, known in Chinese texts as kunlun, labored there in significant numbers. He cites the Song dynasty chronicler Zhu Yu, who observed that wealthy households “maintain numerous foreign slaves,” who are “as black as ink” with curly hair, red lips and white teeth. Zhu emphasized their great physical strength, which made them valuable for demanding tasks like diving beneath ships to carry out repairs.
Wyatt notes that these individuals were unmistakably African in origin, brought through the Indian Ocean by Arab slavers or procured directly by Chinese merchants. Building on the work of Zhang Xinglang, he explains that the Chinese names “Sengzhi” and “Cengqi” correspond to the Arabic “Zinj”, referring to East Africans captured along the Swahili coast. Zhang pointed to Zanzibar and surrounding regions as the most likely sources of these captives. The historian Li Anshan has confirmed this theory, noting that the Pingzhou Ketan contains several references to kunlun serving as domestic slaves in Chinese households.
Similarly, research by Julie Wilensky reveals that Arab merchants brought East African slaves to China during the Tang dynasty, linking the country’s empire to the expansive commercial networks of the Indian Ocean. From the eighth to the fourteenth centuries, this trade, which extended from the Swahili Coast through the Muslim world to the far East, was dominated by Arabs. By the ninth century, Guangzhou hosted a substantial Arab community, in which locals would have seen African slaves aboard trading vessels. Wilensky further notes that some wealthy Chinese purchased African slaves themselves, often employing them as household guards or doorkeepers.
Beyond her study, historical records show that in 1381 the Javanese sent 300 black slaves as tribute to the Ming emperor. These accounts together illustrate a clear African presence in China long before Europeans entered the slave trade. At the same time, not every African in China was enslaved; the world of premodern Asia was socially complex.
The Berber explorer Ibn Battuta records that, during his travels in China, he met a man from his homeland who had become wealthy enough to own fifty white slaves. This individual even presented Battuta with slaves as gifts, a detail that underscores how normal and uncontroversial slavery was regarded as being at the time. As the episode demonstrates, people from North Africa were by no means relegated to marginality in China, but could also occupy positions of privilege and authority within cosmopolitan centers. Hence the experiences of Africans as a group ranged from enslavement to commercial success.
Despite the historical record of African slavery in China, modern African leaders do not demand accountability from Beijing. Chinese involvement in systems of bondage is neither rehearsed in diplomatic forums nor invoked as a moral grievance. No African state has called for reparations from China, initiated commissions to evaluate Chinese slavery, or even raised the subject in public debate.
Instead, African leaders direct their outrage almost exclusively toward Britain and other Western countries. They attribute the entire blame for slavery to the West, ignoring the similar or more extensive roles played by Arabs, Persians, Chinese and African elites themselves. This reflects a tendentious reading of history, where condemnation is applied unevenly based on morally irrelevant considerations.
The selectivity becomes more apparent when examining Africans’ perceptions of their own ancestors who partook in the trade. Many descendants of African slave merchants do not feel the least bit ashamed about their heritage. The Nigerian politician Donald Duke, former governor of Cross River State, famously stated that he felt no shame over his ancestor’s involvement in slavery because he himself had played no part in it.
More striking is the pride expressed by the descendants of King Eyo Honesty II. Elder Okon Eyo Nsa praised his ancestor not merely as a successful merchant but as a transformative figure who brought educational and religious institutions to Creek Town. In his own words, “This enabled the people of Creek Town to be the first set of Nigerians to have access to western education through the establishment of missionary schools, whose legacies can still be found in the community like the school buildings and the Presbyterian churches”. The memory of a slave merchant has been preserved with respect and even admiration, evincing confidence in local achievements rather than historical guilt.
When African leaders’ attitudes toward China, Britain and their continent’s own history are considered together, the inconsistency is unmistakable. They relentlessly condemn Britain for slavery, despite the fact that Britain spent considerable blood and treasure suppressing the practice. Meanwhile, they remain largely silent about the extensive role played by African, Arab and Asian slave traders. When it comes to their own ancestors, they’re willing to acknowledge that history is complex. When it comes to Britain, they reduce history to a one-dimensional narrative of wrongdoing.
The reparations movement is essentially a political performance, shaped by geopolitical alliances and rank opportunism. Its leaders apply their shakedown efforts to the West because they know they can rely on sympathetic domestic constituencies, such as ethnic lobbies and left-wing academics. Demand reparations from China or any Arab nation, and they would quickly be shown the door. Until the movement confronts the full gamut of actors involved in slavery, its claims will lack any moral force.
Lipton Matthews is a researcher and YouTuber. His work has been featured by the Mises Institute and Chronicles. He is the author of The Corporate Myth. You can reach him at: lo_matthews@yahoo.com
Become a free or paid subscriber:
You can also follow us on Twitter.
Quote: "When African leaders’ attitudes toward China, Britain and their continent’s own history are considered together, the inconsistency is unmistakable. They relentlessly condemn Britain for slavery, despite the fact that Britain spent considerable blood and treasure suppressing the practice."
Why would that be? Maybe because of Christianity, whose unique sense of humanity made it uniquely sensitive to the inhumanity of what it had done, which could then be exploited by those who saw an opportunity? Guilt tripping in other words. Or something like that.
The Global Slavery Index estimates 5.8 million modern day slaves in China, many of which are Muslims. The British abolished slavery 200 years ago, an act that China continues today.