In my previous article, I introduced Lucio de Sousa’s book, Escravatura e diáspora Japonesa nos séculos XVI e XVII (2014, hereafter “Sousa Portuguese Version”), which may have influenced Thomas Lockley’s “Black Slave Trend Theory.”
One key question remains: does the Jesuit correspondence cited by Sousa, “BNM, Jesuitas, Legajo 21, fl. 48,” actually substantiate the claim that Japanese were purchasing African slaves?
Recently, during a visit to Tokyo University of Foreign Studies for its festival, I revisited Sousa Portuguese Version to examine this claim more closely.
外語祭に行ってきました。ポルトガル料理店どこー？と思ったら外観が完全にブラジル料理店でした（ルシオ・デ・ソウザ氏の禁書を添えて…💕）
Translation:
https://x.com/japanese_naoto/status/1859140610105766367
I went to the school festival at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. I couldn’t find the Portuguese food stall at first. To my surprise, its appearance was entirely Brazilian food stall (with the prohibited book by Lucio de Sousa…💕).
I said like this because Mihoko Oka, Sousa’s wife, got upset when I mentioned Sousa Portuguese Version.
Previously, I wasn’t able to verify the contents of the Jesuit correspondence due to time constraints. This time, I discovered the quoted text of that correspondence in a different section of Sousa Portuguese Version.
As I suspected from my earlier article, the correspondence appears unrelated to Japanese ownership of African slaves.
Sousa’s intention in reference this text is mysterious.
This blog post is the English version of my X article.
Summarizing Sousa’s Claims
Let’s recap the main arguments Sousa presents in both his Portuguese and English books:
*Bold emphasis is added by me
Existiam também escravos adquiridos por japoneses, os quais não eram para ser exportados, mas para servirem no Japão. Os japoneses, além de fornecerem aos portugueses escravos de origem chinesa, japonesa e coreana, tinham particular interesse em adquirir escravos africanos da região de Moçambique e da região do Malabar. Esta situação é perfeitamente identificável nos biombos nanbam, nos quais vemos inúmeros escravos e criados dos portugueses com fisionomias de diferentes regiões de África, Índia e Sudeste-asiático. Relativamente aos japoneses cristãos que compravam escravos, os jesuítas tinham instruções precisas para não questionarem a legitimidade do cativeiro destes escravos, para poderem continuar a ser favorecidos pelos japoneses 19.
19: BNM, Jesuitas, Legajo 21, fl. 48.
Translation (Using ChatGPT):
Lúcio de Sousa, Escravatura e diáspora Japonesa nos séculos XVI e XVII, NICPRI, 2014, p.220
There were also slaves acquired by Japanese people, not for export but to serve within Japan. In addition to supplying the Portuguese with slaves of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean origin, the Japanese were particularly interested in acquiring African slaves from the Mozambique region and the Malabar coast. This dynamic is clearly depicted in nanban screens, which portray numerous slaves and servants of the Portuguese with features characteristic of different regions of Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. Regarding Japanese Christians who purchased slaves, the Jesuits had specific instructions not to question the legitimacy of these slaves’ captivity, so as to maintain favor with the Japanese.
The Japanese also acquired many slaves whom they did not intend to export. In addition to providing the Portuguese with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean slaves, the Japanese had a particular interest in acquiring African slaves from Mozambique and Indians from the Malabar region. This is perfectly clear from the nanbam screens, on which numerous slaves and servants of the Portuguese with different African, Indian, and Southeast Asian physiognomies can be seen. In regard to Japanese Christians who bought slaves, the Jesuits had specific instructions to abstain from questioning the legitimacy of such slaves’ captivity, in order to continue being favored by the Japanese.
Lúcio de Sousa, The Portuguese Slave Trade in Early Modern Japan: Merchants, Jesuits, and Japanese, Chinese, and Korean Slaves, Studies in Global Slavery, Vol.7, Brill, 2018, p.272
In summary:
- ① Japanese people were particularly interested in acquiring African slaves.
- ② Nanban screens provide this clearly.
- ③ Jesuits were instructed not to question the legitimacy of slaves purchased by Japanese Christians.
While point ② deserves a thorough critique, this article focuses on point ③.
In this context, point ③ would suggest to readers that:
“Japanese Christians purchased African slaves, and Jesuits were told to refrain from questioning the legitimacy of those slaves.”
Sousa references “BNM, Jesuitas, Legajo 21, fl. 48” as the source in Sousa Portuguese Version, but curiously omits this source in Sousa English Book.
Does this correspondence truly record Japanese purchasing African slaves, with Jesuits reluctantly turning a blind eye?
Previously, I speculated on its content by piecing together clues from elsewhere in Sousa English Book.
Upon revisiting the Portuguese version, I found the correspondence clearly quoted.
The Content of the Jesuit Correspondence
Sousa quotes it as follows:
O surpreendente acontece com a instrução, na qual os padres eram advertidos a não questionarem a legitimidade do cativeiro dos escravos pertencentes a cristãos japoneses:
Se alguns moços se acolherem a nossas casas fugidos de seus senhores pretendendo não serem cativos, posto que tendo eles rezão devem ser ajudados com charidade, guardemse todavia de agravar aos amos, botense de fora quando se poderem, encomendando a alguns christãos que ponhão tudo em paz, e não queirão perder a amizade dos amos favorecendo os criados. E por esta mesma rezão se não metão a tratar com os christãos do cativeiro dos seus moços e moças pellos ditos, e rogos delles, mas botense de fora como cousa que nos não pertense, pois de ordinario os Senhores o sentem muito e não se fazem capazes dos conselhos do padre da mesma maneira se alguns que tem culpas, crimes se acolherem a nossas casas, ajamse de modo que os senhores não fiquem agravados e se os senhores forem gentios dem logo evasão aos culpados com todo o segredo e presteza 38.
38: BNM, Jesuitas, Legajo 21, fl. 48.
Translation from Portuguese (Using ChatGPT):
The surprising aspect lies in the instruction in which the priests were warned not to question the legitimacy of the enslavement of slaves owned by Japanese Christians:“If some servants seek refuge in our houses, fleeing from their masters and claiming not to be captives, though they may have valid reasons and should be aided with charity, care must still be taken not to aggravate their masters. They should be sent away whenever possible, entrusting the matter to certain Christians to resolve peacefully, without losing the friendship of the masters by favoring the servants. For this same reason, do not engage in discussions with Christians about the captivity of their servants based on their claims and pleas. Instead, keep away from such matters, as they do not pertain to us. Generally, masters take great offense and are not receptive to the priests’ advice. Similarly, if some guilty individuals or criminals seek refuge in our houses, act in a way that does not aggravate their masters. If the masters are gentiles, promptly return the guilty individuals in secret and with haste.”
Lúcio de Sousa, Escravatura e diáspora Japonesa nos séculos XVI e XVII, NICPRI, 2014, p.258.
The section in parentheses in the English translation appears to be the contents of the correspondence and guidelines for handling fugitive slaves.
It does not directly address the topic of Japanese ownership of African slaves.
This aligns with the context in Sousa’s English book, which I introduced before.
The fugitive slaves referenced here likely refer to Japanese slaves, not Africans.
If so, why did Sousa cite this correspondence on page 220 of Sousa Portuguese Version in a section discussing Japanese acquisition of African slaves? It seems entirely unrelated.
Do Historians Intentionally Mislead?
Sousa’s wife, Mihoko Oka, recently posted the following:
だからといって、人を騙すつもりで本を書いたりする歴史学者は、たぶんいないと思います。
Translation:
https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1858843279691051482
That said, I don’t think there are historians who intentionally write books to mislead people.
I would like to believe that too.
Accusations of Malice
After publishing my previous article, Oka accused me of maliciously introducing Sousa’s book:
それをあえて拾ってきて翻訳までして公開するというのは、あなたも悪意があるということですね。ブロックします。さようなら。
Translation:
https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1856984048457126030
The fact that you deliberately picked this up, translated it, and made it public means that you too have malicious intent. I will block you. Goodbye.
This accusation is unwarranted. In fact, I’ve given Sousa the benefit of the doubt. For instance, I suggested that he might have mistakenly confused “apparently” (seemingly) with “apparent” (obvious) in translation.
It’s also possible that Sousa intentionally omitted “apparently” to present his claim as historical fact, implying that Japanese actively sought African slaves.
However, I refrained from making such an accusation. Instead, I offered an interpretation that gave Sousa room to defend himself.
Yet, Oka accused me of malice without verifying the sources herself. Isn’t this a strange reaction?
*The book review of Sousa’s book was not something I picked up or translated myself; I simply quoted it directly from the Japanese version of Wikipedia.
Sousa’s Claims Lack Credibility
Even the most patient and charitable person like me would struggle to defend Sousa’s claims:
- ① Japanese people were particularly interested in acquiring African slaves.
- ② Nanban screens provide this clearly.
- ③ Jesuits were instructed not to question the legitimacy of slaves purchased by Japanese Christians.
The logic behind points ① and ② is tenuous, and adding the supposedly unrelated Jesuit correspondence in point ③ only complicates matters.
Interestingly, Oka herself has omitted these claims in her book co-authored with Sousa, Japanese Slaves in the Age of Exploration. Perhaps she found them equally indefensible.
I can’t help but wonder what Oka thought when she read this passage from Sousa.
Could It Be That Sousa Is the One Acting With Malice?
Sousa’s claims raise unsettling questions. Why is he so intent on portraying Japanese as desiring African slaves?
For those unfamiliar with Japanese history:
- Point ② might lead them to think Nanban screens depict Japanese using African slaves (when they actually show Africans owned by Portuguese).
- Point ③ could mislead them into believing Jesuits documented Japanese purchasing African slaves (when the correspondence actually addresses fugitive slaves).
If even Oka, an associate professor, doesn’t verify the sources, it’s doubtful the general public will.
If Sousa’s claims continue to be cited and re-quoted without critical examination, a false narrative could take root internationally, depicting Japanese people as widely employing African slaves.
We’ve already seen how the “Black Slave Trend Theory,” originating with Leupp’s 1995 paper, has developed through the epic telephone games over the years.
We’ve already seen absurd claims like “Sakanoue no Tamuramaro was Black” circulate among some foreigners. For Japanese people, it’s just an absurd notion, but there are actually foreigners who believe that theory.
Similarly, it’s only a matter of time before the narrative that Japanese widely used African slaves becomes “common knowledge” abroad. By the time Japanese address it, it might already be too late—much like the legendary Black samurai, Yasuke.
Slavery is an extremely sensitive topic, with the potential to escalate into serious international disputes. This kind of telephone game must be stopped immediately.
What Is Sousa’s Intent?
In October, a French book, Yasuke, le samouraï africain by Romain Mielcarek, echoed Sousa’s claims.
With French widely spoken in Africa, the risk of this narrative spreading further is significant.
フランスの弥助本（10月発行）にはどこからの引用なのかは明記されていませんが、
「（日本人奴隷や中国人朝鮮人を売った）日本人はアフリカ人の獲得に興味を持っていた」と
ソウザ氏英語本と同じ内容が書かれていましたTranslation:
https://x.com/1966k2007/status/1863330205772775657
The French book about Yasuke (published in October) does not specify the source of its quote, but it contains the same claim as Sousa’s English book: “The Japanese (who sold Japanese, Chinese, and Korean slaves) were interested in acquiring Africans.”
What drives Sousa to make these claims? While Oka accused me of malice without verifying sources, can she definitively say Sousa acted without malice?
