The comparison of the impacts of global trade on the Swahili Coast of East Africa and the Kingdom of Kongo during the seventeenth century can be analyzed through the given options:
A. Both the Kingdom of Kongo and the Swahili Coast rose to greater prominence due to Portuguese involvement - This statement reflects some historical truth. The Portuguese established trade relationships with both regions, leading to increased prominence. However, the impact was different for each region as time progressed.
B. The Kingdom of Kongo lost control of the slave trade, while the Swahili Coast lost its power to extract resources - This option accurately presents the different trajectories of both regions. The Kingdom of Kongo initially benefited from trade, including the slave trade, but eventually lost control over it due to increasing European dominance and internal strife. The Swahili Coast, meanwhile, faced a decline in its ability to extract resources as it became more dominated by external forces, particularly due to the rise of other powers in the Indian Ocean trade.
C. The Kingdom of Kongo moved north, while Swahili Coast disbanded - This statement is misleading. The Kingdom of Kongo did not significantly move north, and while the Swahili Coast faced challenges, it did not completely disband.
D. The Kingdom of Kongo and the Swahili Coast were both destroyed - This is an exaggeration. While both regions faced significant challenges and decline, they were not completely destroyed. They went through transformations rather than outright destruction.
Considering the historical context and the nuances of the impacts of global trade, B is the most accurate and nuanced choice, reflecting the complex realities of how both regions were affected during the seventeenth century.