In Part 1, I discussed Thomas Lockley’s claim that “Black slaves in Japan owned slaves.”
In Part 2, I pointed out that after reading Amy Stanley’s “Selling Women: Prostitution, Markets, and the Household in Early Modern Japan,” which Lockley cited, I couldn’t find any statements to support his claim.
In this part 3, I’ll explore why Lockley might have written this. This is the English version of my X article.
To sum up, there does seem to be a source for his claim, but it wasn’t Stanley’s book—it was another paper. Moreover, there was a case of Black individuals owning Japanese slaves, but it happened outside Japan.
In other words, Lockley might have used information from another source about Black people owning Japanese slaves, and incorrectly presented it as something that occurred in Japan without properly citing the original source.
Here’s what I believe to be the source of Lockley’s claim.
Reexamining Lockley’s Claims
*Parentheses and bolding are added by me
(1) However, Black, Chinese, Japanese and Korean slaves in Japan owned possessions, even slaves of their own, and were sometimes adopted into the owners’ family or married to a family member. Ixviii (2) Black people in Japan during Yasuke’s time are explicitly mentioned as owning Japanese slaves and having mistresses, and it is highly likely that, as a favored retainer of a major warlord, Yasuke was himself given attendants and slaves. Ixix
Thomas Lockley, The Story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African Retainer, Omon Ronso, vol.91, 2016, p.104.
- Ixviii: Nelson, “Slavery in Medieval Japan.”
- lxix: Amy Stanley, Selling Women: Prostitution, markets, and the household in early modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012).
The part cited in Nelson’s paper seems to be the source. It appears to be from the minutes of a Jesuit conference held in Nagasaki in 1598, chaired by a missionary named Cerqueira:
Because the Portuguese make great profits from this trade, they buy up as many slaves as they can without making the required investigation. They treat these slaves like an item of merchandise. Even the lascars and servants of the Portuguese are buying up slaves and selling them in Macao. As a result, many of the slaves die at sea. This is because they are piled up one body on top of another, there being so many. As soon as their foremen, often the kafirs and blacks of the Portuguese, fall ill, the slaves receive succor from no one. [Sometimes the masters] are unable to give them sufficient provisions. Whereas many have only been taken on as slaves for a limited and agreed period, they end up being sold as slaves for the rest of their lives. The contracts they have concluded limiting the terms of their service are simply broken. Sometimes, they are abandoned upon their masters’ deaths or once their contracts have come to an end. The men become thieves in Macao, robbing the Chinese who come to the city from the villages with provisions. The women are forced through poverty to live badly and scandalously.
Thomas Nelson, Slavery in Medieval Japan” published in Monumenta Nipponica. 59, no. 4 (2004): 474-479, p.469
When I first looked up “lascar” in the dictionary, I saw that it referred to Indian sailors. I originally dismissed this as unrelated to Black people when I wrote Part 1, since the text mentioned them buying Japanese slaves as merchandise.
However, after further investigation, I found that Black people could also be included in the term “lascar.”
A lascar was a sailor or militiaman from the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, the Arab world, British Somaliland or other lands east of the Cape of Good Hope who was employed on European ships from the 16th century until the mid-20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascar
Alternatively, the “servants” in “lascars and servants” might refer to Black people. Regardless, even after reviewing this section from Nelson’s paper, it only states that they bought Japanese slaves to sell in Macao.
After more research, I found another paper that quotes the same Jesuit minutes and gives the opinion that there were no restrictions on Black people owning Japanese women as slaves or concubines.
This may be the true source of Lockley’s claims.
Leupp’s Paper: The Case of Black People Owning Japanese Slaves Happened Outside Japan
This paper was written by Japanese history scholar Gary P. Leupp in 1995. It’s titled Images of Black People in Late Medieval and Early Modern Japan, 1543–1900, and is also included in the book Race, Ethnicity and Migration in Modern Japan: Imagined and Imaginary Minorities. Parts of it can be read here.
https://t.co/vjzY06l9Cp
Leupp quotes the 1598 minutes and states (The quotes within “ ”, which I added, are from the minutes):
“Even the very lascars and scullions of the Portuguese purchase and carry [Japanese] slaves away. Hence it happens that many of them die on the voyage, because they are heaped up upon each other, and if their masters fall sick (these masters are sometimes Kaffirs and negroes of the Portuguese), the slaves are not cared for. These scullions give a scandalous example by living in debauchery with the girls they have bought, and whom some of them introduce into their cabins on the passage to Macao.”
While Cerquiera’s language denigrates the men involved, he implies that local authorities made no special effort to prohibit ‘Kaffirs and negroes’ from acquiring Japanese women as slaves or concubines.
Gary P. Leupp, Images of black people in late mediaeval and early modern Japan 1543–1900, “Race, Ethnicity and Migration in Modern Japan: Imagined and imaginary minorites”, vol 3, 2004, p.408
After quoting the minutes, Leupp offers his own interpretation, suggesting that there were no restrictions on “Kaffirs and negroes” taking Japanese women as slaves or concubines.
The content of the minutes differs slightly from Nelson’s paper, but this is likely due to variations in translation. I’ll later provide a French version, which is a full translation from the original Portuguese text.
It seems that Leupp’s interpretation influenced Lockley’s claims. However, for some reason, Lockley listed Stanley’s book as the source for this statement.
Clarifying the Sources
Let’s break things down for clarity:
Nelson’s Paper
- Mentions that slaves in Japan could own property and sometimes be adopted or married into their owner’s family.
- I couldn’t find any records describing black people as “slaves in Japan”.
- Cites the 1598 Jesuit conference minutes but does not claim that Black people owned Japanese slaves.
Leupp’s Paper
- Cites the same minutes and gives the author’s opinion that there were no restrictions on Black people owning Japanese women as slaves or concubines.
Lockley’s Paper
- Likely combines statements from these two papers to claim that, “Black, Chinese, Japanese and Korean slaves in Japan owned possessions, even slaves of their own, and were sometimes adopted into the owners’ family or married to a family member. Black people in Japan during Yasuke’s time are explicitly mentioned as owning Japanese slaves and having mistresses, and it is highly likely that, as a favored retainer of a major warlord, Yasuke was himself given attendants and slaves.”
- However, it strangely lists Nelson’s paper and Stanley’s book as the source.
Stanley’s Book
- Focuses on prostitution in Edo-period Japan and is largely unrelated to Yasuke.
- I don’t understand why Lockley chose to list this as the source.
The 1598 Jesuit Conference Minutes
Both Nelson’s and Leupp’s papers cite the minutes from a Jesuit conference held in Nagasaki in 1598, chaired by Cerqueira, about the slave trade.
The original document is in Portuguese and is stored in the Real Academia de la Historia in Madrid.
A full French translation by Léon Pagès can be found online here.
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65804749/f87.item.r
I’ll provide a French translation of the relevant passage since there are some discrepancies between the quotes from Nelson’s and Leupp’s papers:
Le troisième motif est déduit de la considération des Portugais eux-mêmes, qui sont les acheteurs. Et d’abord, comme ils font en ce trafie d’énormes bénéfices, ils achètent un aussi grand nombre d’esclaves qu’ils le peuvent, sans examen et sans scrupule; et ils traitent ces esclaves comme des marchandises. Il n’est pas jusqu’aux lascars et aux valets des Portugais qui n’achètent et n’emmènent des esclaves. Il en résulte qu’un grand nombre de ceux-ci meurent dans le voyage, parce qu’ils sont entassés les uns sur les autres, et que si les maîtres viennent à tomber malades (ces maîtres sont parfois les Cafres et les nègres des Portugais), les esclaves ne sont pas soignés; souvent même il arrive que les Cafres ne leur peuvent procurer le nécessaire. –– En second lieu, ces valets donnent un scandaleux exemple en vivant dans la débauche avec les filles qu’ils ont achetées et que quelques-uns introduisent dans leurs cabines en la traversée de Macao.
Translation (Using ChatGPT):
Léon Pagès, Histoire de la religion chrétienne au Japon, depuis 1598 jusqu’à 1651, comprenant les faits relatifs aux deux cent cinq martyrs béatifiés le 7 juillet 1867. Partie 2, 1869, p.75-76
The third reason is derived from the actions of the Portuguese themselves, who are the buyers. First of all, as they make enormous profits from this trade, they buy as many slaves as they can without any scrutiny or qualms, and they treat these slaves like merchandise. Even the lascars and servants of the Portuguese buy and transport slaves. As a result, many die during the voyage, as they are piled on top of one another, and if their masters fall ill (these masters are sometimes Kaffirs or blacks of the Portuguese), the slaves are left uncared for.
Questioning Lockley’s Logic
From the minutes and the papers by Nelson and Leupp, it seems that the ownership of Japanese slaves by Black individuals happened on ships heading to Macao, not in Japan. Lockley’s claim that it occurred “in Japan” doesn’t hold up.
However, Lockley’s paper gives the impression that black slaves in Japan owned and regularly made use of Japanese slaves.
Furthermore, the reference to “lascars and servants” pertains to those working for the Portuguese. Applying this to Yasuke, a retainer of Oda Nobunaga, and suggesting he was likely given slaves or attendants is logically flawed.
Conclusion: Lockley Likely Misrepresented His Sources
Before the Yasuke controversy, a person who read Lockley’s African Samurai remarked on these issues, and after reading his papers, I completely agree.
So for any source the authors use, a grain of salt must be taken. They obviously cannot be trusted to refrain from doing like many students do, namely write an assignment and list a book they may never have even read in the hope the teacher doesn’t bother to check. Any talk of the book being ‘well researched’ has to be discounted if it comes from anyone that hasn’t read every book listed and cross checked with what they write.
https://www.coloradospringsninjutsu.com/Ranting_and_Ravings_2016/Entries/2019/9/12_African_Samurai-_Fiction.html
In fact, Lockley’s paper references Leupp’s work in three other places. I haven’t fully analyzed those citations yet, but they seem similarly unrelated.
The claim that “Black slaves owned Japanese slaves” clearly reflects Leupp’s interpretation. Why didn’t Lockley cite Leupp here?
My guess is that Lockley wanted to construct a narrative in which Yasuke owned servants or slaves. To achieve this, he may have wanted to make it seem like Black slaves owned Japanese slaves in Japan.
By citing sources like;
- Nelson’s “Slavery in Medieval Japan“
- Stanley’s “Selling Women: Prostitution, markets, and the household in early modern Japan,”
Lockley may have aimed to create the impression that Black people owning slaves in Japan was a historical reality.
Most readers—and even peer reviewers in Nihon University—likely didn’t check the details of the sources he cited, since he didn’t provide page numbers.
In the end, only Lockley can explain why he chose to cite these sources in this way. I hope he offers an explanation himself.
Thank you for reading. Unraveling Lockley’s reasoning was quite a task, and along the way, I found other questionable papers.
Lockley may have been influenced by more than just Leupp’s work.
Next time, I’ll introduce other papers I discovered that might be the source of the Lockley’s statement that it became popular to enslave Black people within Japan.
