| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

response

This version was saved 16 years, 1 month ago View current version     Page history
Saved by PBworks
on February 11, 2008 at 10:56:23 am
 

 

 

Remember the Zong!

 

Enter weekly resposes below. Feel free to comment on others. Use about 100 words.

 

Gilroy:

 

The Black Atlantic is a dense account of how our contemporary society attempts to segregate different cultures and influences to ensure that each community has an untainted sense of identity. I was impressed by how Paul Gilroy tried to mention each perspective in his book and also that he didn’t seem to denounce anything violently but simply propose alternatives. It seems as if his goal in the book is to mesh all ideas about ethnicity together to convey one cohesive picture of our current society. I also liked that language is not the only cultural medium that he dealt with; he also included some artistic facets, such as music. Although I respected his approach to his topics of choice, I would not praise his writing style. If global perspectives are what he is trying to alter, how can he possible reach his audience when he is so wordy? I do respect that he seems learned and articulate, but I had a hard time paying attention to his long winded prose and found he took his merry time making a point. It was a valuable read but not particularly an enjoyable one.

Alyssa Dytko

 

I would also like to start by agreeing that the text is very dense and although it holds a great deal of information, at times it is hard to stay focused, simply because there is so much information. I thought that one of the most powerful, or compelling, parts of the book is Gilroy's description of the choice of "death over slavery". In Chapter 2, Gilroy tells of Margaret Garner, who escaped slavery in Kentucky with her family and nine others. As slave catchers cornered them in a relative's house in Ohio, Margaret killed her three-year-old daughter and attempted to kill her other three children, hoping to prevent them from returning to a life of slavery. In the eyes of history, popular history, slavery has always been pained with faded colors, not the whole truth, but just enough. But what is just enough? Who says what is just enough?

Evan Gallagher

 

I believe that the quotes Gilroy placed in the beginning of the chapters and passages often conveyed his point more powerfully than the sections he had following. Kool G Rap’s line of “my nationality is reality” made me want to pursue the song further. Nationality dictates not necessarily who a person is, but how the world perceives them. It is easy to box people into a specific category of racial groups and associate certain characteristics with them. However, it is much harder to separate people from their physical and genealogical histories and to accept them as individuals who are free thinking.

Jackie Mitchell

 

The idea of the slave ship explored in Gilroy is fascinating, both as a location and a means or mode of transportation. To think of the ship as having its own geography -- and within the boundaries of that tangible space, a set of rules, regulations, and ideas (in fact, a distinctive "microculture" and a system of "micropolitics") -- is to give it an entirely separate identity apart from the land masses where the commodity exchanges occurred. The transatlantic shipping of slaves isn't just a matter of forcibly removing a group of human beings and placing them in a separate location, but rather an additional subjection of a new ideological and cultural "othering" before the stateside role of "slave" and everything associated with it even began! As a separate moment in "time-space," it's worthwhile to explore the genealogical ideas and connotations of the slave ship not as part of the slave journey, but as a solitary process.

Bryan D. Peach

 

 

J. M. W. Turner: "The Slave Ship," or "Slavers Throwing overboard the Dead and Dying — Typhoon coming on." 1840, oil on canvas.

 

I thought Gilroy's section on "The Slave Ship" painting by Turner was very interesting in relation to what Bryan talked about (thanks for posting the picture) and because of what happened to the painting itself. The story of the Zong Massacre portrayed in painting is that the Captain of the ship threw all the slaves overboard who were dead or dying because he could get insurance money for lost "cargo" but could not sell a sick slave. I thought it was very interesting that Ruskin owned the painting but ignored the subject for 28 years. Why would he, being pro slavery, kept a painting with such a strong political message for as long as he did? I really like Gilroy's idea of the painting itself being part of the cultural exchange across the Atlantic when it was sold to an American. Not only did people bring customs and ideas, but art depicts these issues across the ocean.

Erica Osterloo

 

John Ruskin was primarily interested not in the political content (which he nearly completely ignored), but rather the form and texture of the water. In "Of Water, as Painted by Turner" (from Modern Painters), he says "It will be remembered that it was said above, that Turner was the only painted who had ever represented the surface of calm or the force of agitated water," and far later in the piece, "I think, the noblest sea that Turner has ever painted, and, if so, the noblest certainly ever painted by man, is that of the Slave Ship." Ruskin ignores the explicit political message, the social work that Turner was attempting to involve himself with, by applying the argument that art doesn't have a message -- it's simply art. I would suggest, however, that Ruskin had more of a grasp on Turner's intent than he would have let himself believe. In the penultimate paragraph of "Of Water," he describes the waves which "...lift themselves in dark, indefinite, fantastic forms, each casting a faint and ghastly shadow behind it along the illumined foam. They do not rise everywhere but three of four together in wild groups, fitfully and furiously, as the under strength of the swell compels or permits them, leaving between them treacherous spaces of level and whirling water." We could easily forget that these particular sentences are about waves, because the language used to describe them can easily be transposed to the dying slaves in the piece! Furthermore, a single word in the same paragraph ("...advancing like the shadow of death upon the guilty ship") is footnoted to reveal the nature of the boat, whose iconography is overlooked in Ruskin's entire discussion of the piece, thusly: "She is a slaver, throwing her slaves overboard. The near sea is encumbered with corpses."

Bryan D. Peach

The most interesting thing about Gilroy is his tendency to relieve the "race" itself from the ethnocentric notions so prevalent in a lot of contemporary literature. (His essays detailing his relationship with his colorblind father provide insight into his approach.) So, to add to Bryan's comments regarding time-space in his first post, I would point out the following: First, the very postmodern idea of displacing space and time in relation to one another is eerily echoed in the African diaspora, which in effect confounded for thousands of people the ideas of place, time and perceived modernity. It's an interesting relationship that I'd like to explore, but I'm not smart enough to do it right here. Secondly, I think that Gilroy’s idea regarding the “Black Atlantic”—and NOT a particular period of time or geographical location—most accurately describes a race (for lack of a better term) that utterly supercedes the idea of a time-space-confined “ETHNICITY” that we’re all supposed to buy into at the student bookstore.

 

Therefore, from the outset we're conditioned to expect much less "Black Romanticisim" from this course and instead forced to buy the gimmick of geneaologies as a function outside of time-space which can, in effect, facilitate a discussion of the black diaspora (and presumably the literature that comes about as a result) that doesn't pay tribute to a view of history that would even allow for the idea of "Romanticism." But wait! Because Gilroy's view of the slave trade and the cultures it helped to create falls well outside of the ethocentric idea of "race" as being in any way binding or restricting (or even mandatory?--I'm not sure about this one), we don't even know if what we're reading is "black."

 

I guess I'm game.

Brandon W. Peach

 

This idea of a culture recorded solely and completely in music and theatre (never in written form such as a novel) is what I find most interesting about the subjects that Gilroy hit in his work. Especially being an English major, all I do is study written work to learn about genres and histories alike. Rarely, am I asked to study cultures or phenomenons in lyrics to a song or in a painting, but what I have come to realize is that these modes of recording history or identity can be just as powerful as a short story or a novel. Take for example, Turners painting that Bryan posted for us, when looking upon this painting, I can still get a strong sense of the hardship and agony that Turner was trying to capture, perhaps just as equally as if it had been written out for me in elegant words. I am fascinated by this idea of capturing black identity in other forms of art, especially music. I took an African literature class in France and we listened to some of the sermons of Langston Hughes and some other jazz music as well. Although it was in French (so I did not catch every single word), there was still a somber melancholy in his voice that projected the struggle of black identity. It wasn't even necessairly the words he was using or saying, it was more the combination of the words with the music that made it so powerful.

 

 

It seems like historians and scholars are too quick to overlook these types of art forms, which I find very disappointing because I believe they could be extremely enlightening to understanding other cultures and historical identities, just as Gilroy has laid out for us.

 

Jillian Winn

 

Baucom:

 

Compensation is a part of life that we all depend on, be repayment of favors or something tangible, most often money. The idea of a government placing a value on a body part you lost or lost use of fighting for them is a twisted idea, but the cold reality is that no amount of money can replace what was lost, and a number must be settled upon. However, placing value on humans that were bought sight unseen as if they were cargo is completely incomprehensible from a modern standpoint. We can fashion in our minds the horrors that occurred on the Zong, but due to the fact those thrown overboard were viewed as property and purely entities, just a man bought, a man lost, we will never know the full extend of the devastating experience. It is a frightening notion to think that even in today's progressive societies, we place values and generalized labels on one another based upon race, creed, socioeconomic status and nationality.

 

Jackie Mitchell

 

I completely agree with Jackie. From the standpoint of the people who wanted to compensate the slaves with money is not frightening however. The government was looking for a way out of accepting the fact they persecuted a group of people. I find that in the present day we are doing the same thing by not facing the different ethnicities. On a daily basis comments, viewpoints, or opinions are withheld only because they do not want to offend. By doing this we are allowing ourselves to further “compensate” into the idea of racism. As a person of mixed backgrounds I believe racism, sexism or any other judgmental views end when we stop whispering.

 

Elizabeth Leidel

 

 

I agree with Elizabeth when she was illustrating how although compensating the slave’s lives with money does seem like the least they could do to correct such a horrific situation, but their actual motives behind these “philanthropic” actions seem to be emerging from a deeper desire to mislead the general public on who is really to blame. By offering money, it makes them come out as less vulgar and pathetic, and deters them from taking on the eagles’ persona and allowing them to remain as innocent lambs. This whole idea of bodies as commodities must have definitely made it morally easier for the slave market to cast away slaves as if they were nothing but useless cargo, but in all reality they were actual human lives being tormented and picked apart by these so-called “innocent lambs”, who in turn appear to take on more eagle-like qualities each time they cast away another life.

 

How does one even begin to place a value on human life? How does one one decide the price of a human life, or how does human life be transferred into terms of dollars and cents? But I guess you can look at it as a start, because if the slaves can be valued as more than mere items for commerce, perhaps they can be better remembered. It is easy to forget the coffee or the couch you may have bought and consumed in the past, but it is not as easy to forget your favorite pet or your little sister, of whom holds a much greater value to you. Even so, in retrospect, just because the lost lives of the slaves are being compensated for money, in simple terms, it is still a form of trade; it is commerce with the form of exchange being blood for money. I thought it was really interesting how he compared soldiers being compensated for their injuries or even lives with the compensation of the slaves. If you think about it, soldiers are gathered and recruited, although in a more civil manner (or perhaps not), similar to slaves who were forced to sell their bodies, their blood, or even their lives.

 

Jillian Winn

 

 

In school I have learned about slavery and the trade of humans in a glossed over and fairly indifferent way. Through the years I think I have been become desensitized to the horrors of this practice and Baucom’s writing forced me to take a second look at this scar on the face of history. I thought it was interesting that he chose to attack this topic though an economic standpoint, which allows that reader to see how something so blatantly wrong could occur so openly. Slaves had become essential to a thriving economy and to subtract them from proceedings would pinch some pockets and nothing turns humans into monsters more quickly than finances. His explanation for how history accumulates was very interesting but I don’t agree that time is nothing but infinite repetition (it’s a bit too defeatist for me). I thought it was an interesting read and am looking forward to discussing it in class.

 

 

Alyssa Dytko

 

 

 

I found an interesting connection in the writings of Baucom and Walvin where slaves were seen as property, expenses, goods. But they were also seen as a type of crop, a crop that was picked up off the coast of Africa and transplanted across the ocean to a place where it would grow and thrive and multiply, just like a healthy crop would. But slaves, this crop, could be used for other means besides self proliferation, they could be used to produce other crops, mainly sugar, tobacco, and coffee. This brings us to the case of the Zong where 131 slaves were tossed over the side of the vessel enroute to Jamaica much in the same way that one tosses used coffee grinds into the garbage. They were purposefully tossed over the side of the ship to drown to ensure that the stockholders back in London would not loose the 30 pounds per head that slaves were valued at. Purposeful genocide, ensuring economic investment. Even in the logs, men and women were bought and sold much in the same way one buys a tomato, checking its ripeness, color, size; making sure that it will be worth the price. I guess it is just hard for me to imagine the whole situation. There was a quote in Baucom's work that I found rather appropriate for the past 400 years of anger and hostility pitted against decendents of white Europeans, "Time does not pass, it accumulates." Time rolls forward, never releasing the evils of its past because the evils of the past are the evils of the future and the present. The past will always remain relevant, just as it can never be forgotten. It is forever present and fights to be seen by blind eyes.

 

 

Evan Gallagher

 

 

Although I understand how Baucom connects the compensation paid to injured workmen to the desensitizing of human life and the tragedy of what happened on the Zong, I couldn't help but think that we do the exact same thing today. If I go to work tomorrow and slip on spilled water and break my leg, Chili's will calculate how much my leg is worth and pay me accordingly. It will be recorded in their account books as a business transaction, just like with the Lords Commissioners. In todays society, we view lives as commodies in many different areas. I think the mindset of people today is that slavery is a thing of the past and there is a certain disbelief at how humans could have been treated so horrifically, but our culture's mindset is not that far away from the past.

 

Overall, I thougth this reading was very interesting. I had never looked at slavery from a purely ecconomic point of view and it was very sad to see how humans can treat other humans.

Erica Osterloo

 

 

 

This reading got me thinking about what it would be like to OWN a human life, other than one’s own. To have complete reign over another being, doing as you please with them. Teaching them the importance of your own life and preventing them from really having their own. Forcing them to comply with your every demand or else face punishment. Just the idea of paying money for ownership over someone is mind blowing. I always imagined what it would be like to sell my soul to a friend, like sign it over to them on a napkin or piece of notebook paper. To have them own my spirit and decide what to do with it. to be the owner of my essence. what did those slaves endure on that ship? to be taken from their homes, forced to go off to be slaves to the man, taken from the world without any say, and then treated as property after death. to not even be felt sorry for by the justice of this long 19th century. their lives, souls, gone, only money to the owners, nothing more. Not a being in existence just a piece of property with a monetary value placed on it. This is very much common in today’s society just not really seen as slavery. there is a business structure to the world and each and every business must look at each employee as a piece of the assembly line of the corporate world. people provide labor to a company whether an employee at McDonald's or a teacher at a university. What can they provide the business, how much money will they bring in, what is the amount of work they can complete worth, and how much should we therefore pay them? pay raises, minimum wage laws, health insurance etc etc. Matt

 

 

We wonder how the 18th century could have, as a culture, ignored or accepted slavery, and yet we, as a culture, ignore modern slavery. If we have a knee-jerk reaction that slavery is wrong, shouldn't we be outraged at things like this? It's really no different.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html

 

Also, I thought this clip from the musical 1776 was interesting and demonstrated a little bit of what we talked about in class. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPH-GX8TcRI

Erica

 

Linebaugh and Rediker:

 

This week’s reading was as interesting as it was horrifying. The places and perspectives Linebaugh and Rediker address paint a stark picture of how unforgiving this time period was on so many people. I liked how they structured the section on the “hewers of wood and the carriers of water.” It framed their argument effectively, weaving politics, religion, and capitalism into a neat little phrase. What is so startling about this reading is how history truly makes its dirty little secrets fade conveniently into the background and allows us to pat ourselves on the back for all the progress we have made. Progress that has been attained at the expense of those the influential deemed expendable.

Alyssa

 

Compared to our other readings I like this one the best. And as Alyssa stated above the chapters we had to read were a little scary but it explained capitalism a more forward than previous authors. With history making its dirty little secrets fade, I believe history doesn't make them go ahead, but instead over exaggerate our accomplisments.

 

Elizabeth Leidel

 

I thought that one of the passages in the reading gave a clear definition of what stood out to me the most from the reading, "A 'free negro' cook divided provisions equally so that the crew aboard Francis Sprigg's ship might live 'very merrily' in 1724". Equally is the key word though not the only important one. To "live merrily" is also a phrase that is important to this book. These are two words that caused the hydra to unleash its fury on those who tried to oppress it. Consumerism takes advantage of those who make it possible. It turnes its head from the process and only demands the end result, but what happens when it does this is that it forgets the process, it forgets who makes it possible. This is one of the causes of the reoccurance of the Hydra, the uprising of the oppressed. The unfair treatment of the most crucial element of consumer goods, the workers, will ultimately cause the process to grind to a halt. This is what people started to realize. This is still the case in today's economy. Industry is at the mercy of the workers, the laborers, the slaves. Without bodies, there can be no production. Without spokes, there is no wheel. When people finally realize this, they realize how much power they actually have. And at this point, there is no longer separation of people, there is unity of the oppressed.

 

Evan Gallagher

 

I appreciated the chapter in Linebaugh and Rediker devoted to the study of hydrarchy. It's always fascinating (and excruciating) to see how violence breeds violence: While the slave trade it itself was a gruesome and violent crime against humanity, piracy was pretty ugly as well. Tracing the roots of piracy from the top of the social ladder down, it's strange to examine the subjection of the "common men of the deep" to the cruelty of being part of the circumatlantic trade. The diseases, riots and bloodshed onboard, on the one hand, paved the way to the gallows on the other. In the middle of the chapter, Linebaugh and Rediker describe the "early shapers of the tradition," including prisoners, religious zealots, prostitutes, servants, and on and on. Wages were low and disease was rampant thanks to the ever-expanding Royal Navy. Even more curious, perhaps, is the organizational structure that arose from the tumult of the high seas. It seems like the pirate ship, with its unquestioning sailors, authoritative captains, and majority rule served as a relatively well-functioning government, especially in comparison to the royal rule on European landmasses. The book mentions the motley, multiracial and multicultural build of the pirate ship, such as Black Sam Bellamy's crew, which actually included several Africans "liberated from a slave ship." While piracy was a dangerous, fearsome business, probably not as hip as Hollywood makes it out to be, it's kind of cool to see some evidence of a kind of sensibility and order (and even, dare I say it, a bit of equality?) on the seas that didn't exist on land.

 

Bryan D. Peach

 

"The Outcasts of the Nations of the Earth" proves the point of one of the general theses of this class, something we discussed in detail during the first week and have hinted at since: the history of slavery is anything but linear. It is not wholly related (in fact, not nearly) to a certain color or region. But it is nevertheless a history with its roots in routes through the Atlantic. This chapter was dense, but a couple of the take-home points are, I believe, linked to the idea of trade and travel along the Atlantic. The Insurrection of 1741 followed a trade drought that plagued New York City and according to Linebaugh and Rediker deepened the division between the poor and ruling classes. Interestingly enough, the cycle of actions began in the Caribbean and caught on in America. I don't think it's a stretch to make the connection between the trade of bodies which invariably would influence the expanding market of New York to the effect that the bodies of those who were enslaved by economic chains revolted as had their Caribbean brothers and sisters. The participants in the revolts also participated, perhaps unwittingly, in the exchange of wealth and labor which would influence their pocketbooks directly. The necessity of such participation notwithstanding, slavery in this case begets slavery in the same way that Atlantic violence begets the same. And as L&R point out, this insurrection involved not only slaves, but the sailors who would invariably help facilitate the trade, the Irish whose economic situation in America and across the sea was exacerbated by the trade.

 

 

The key idea here is "trade," and the word manifests itself in so many different ways that it would be hard to keep them all straight, even here.

 

So the insurrection was inspired by similar revolts across the Atlantic and facilitated by those to whom 1) the plots and actors were familiar, 2) economies of scale were manifested in economic turmoil, and 3) revolt seemed necessary as a means to (if temporarily) incapacitate the system, if not means to an end itself. (Thus the trade of slaves across the Atlantic lent itself to the trade of ideas and attitudes which would transcend culture, color and creed in order to accomplish a goal.) This is extraordinary. I think in short what is most striking about this chapter was the way the (capitalist-driven) system of slavery all across the Atlantic created slavery in the United States even when the actors weren't all chosen by hand and chained into boats. (The actors were still forced to facilitate slavery in no uncertain terms, and it's interseting how what is described as a microcosmic type of "communism" was born out of this economic interchange, but that may be an entirely different topic.)

 

 

Hope I made sense...

 

 

Brandon W. Peach

 

I liked this reading better than the others we have read so far. I thought it was interesting to see the ship and how it was run and the difference between a merchant ship and a pirate ship. We usually see the pirate captain as harsh and completely in control. The captain was allowed much less power and advantage than on a merchant ship. The most equal place was on a pirate ship. While Africans were being enslaved in the empire, they were treated well by what were concidered the rebels of society.

Erica Osterloo

 

I found the discussion between slavery and capitalism in this chapter to be fascinating. I liked how the discussion began with the clear fact that workers/slaves are necessary to its growth, and how each of them are rendered invisible, yet they are completely responsible for its maintenance and production. I find it so twisted that not only are these people being subjected to a miserable life of terror and slavery, but worse yet the fact that this very act of slavery is what is driving it so stay alive. Isn't it strange then to think that if these people were to somehow collectively stop building the ships, planting the crops, and maintaining the civilization, that the slave empires would crumble? But perhaps that is all easier said than done, since a relentless terror was invoked throughout that managed to keep everyone in line. Fear as the control mechanism is just further feeding into building up of this capitalistic world that the colonies are creating. What I find most interesting about the reign of terror over the slaves is how the English white men have somehow deemed all of the Africans, Native Americans, Irish, and all other slaves as "savages" just because they live close to nature or because they may be illiterate, when in my opinion the savage behavior can be found in the blood left on their hands after they have forced innocent lives into a life of slavery and either killed them through terrible living conditions or with their own bare hands.

 

Jillian Winn

 

 

 

While doing this reading I was struck by the ways the ruling class used myths to target “punishable categories of people” within different areas of society (61-65). By marking West Indians as cannibals (a hypocritical claim, as the text points out), pirates as the “common enemy of human society”, armed women as “amazons”, and other enemies the ruling elite subscribed to a mythic terror as justification for targeting these outcasts of society. I think this is interesting because of how often it is done today in our post-9/11 world. Our enemies are not classified by the individual threats they pose – rather they are lumped together in a larger religious or social group. And myths of terror are still used as justification for violence or repression of certain groups.

 

 

 

On a small side note, I found it very interesting that Linebaugh and Rediker were not only able to trace back to the early roots of capitalism, but also communism (65) with the Anabaptists group. Its interesting how in the linear history we have been taught to believe communism begins with Marx. Yet as we’ve discovered many times over already in this class, it is not quite so.

 

 

 

Samantha Luceri

 

This reading was indeed very dense with its historical data, but much easier to read than that of Baucom. The hydra has brought back the idea of when people are pushed they push back. The fact that people were just picked up from their lives and forced to go to the new world to slave away in a field for some overlord, English citizens just stolen from the world and put to work, this just really upsets me. It makes me wonder if those in charge were actually thinking about what they were doing. they were using the labor of others to further their ideals of modernity, expecting the hewers and drawers to comply and stay subjected to a life of hard work and no benefits. I also would like to look at how those in charge continue to supply a sort of "freedom" to those that choose it. they let people into the world that has been crafted for profit and become upset when the culture that is brought with them becomes a norm in the world. the minority becomes a majority, this is frowned upon by those in charge. they dont like this because it promotes change and new ideas. Pirates and people in need of free music are shunned from society because they want something different from life and refuse to listen to the leaders when it comes to value. price is such a fantastic idea to incorporate into the world. for something to have value is just...should information have value? should we charge for information? if so, lets just all be pirates and hack our ways towards k-nowledge. Yargh! Matt

 

Pirates!

 

THE BLACK JACOBINS

 

The reading was really easy to get through. I also like the fact we are talking about a different section of the world other than England. It is interesting to read about the French side, Haiti etc. Before we have read about ways the slaves were taken across the ocean and the treatment during their enslavement, but I felt James wrote about the horrific details in a way it put you in your place a little more. I would like to read more about Las Casas, the Dominican priest who pleaded for the abolition of native slavery. For my Span 131 class I read his persuasive arguments at court contributed to Pope Paul's III bull declaring the slaves souls should not be deprived of their liberty and property. It's interesting/crazy that slaves are apart of Latin America, and sometimes I feel are overlooked. I know the heritage of Cuba, Dominican Republic, Brazil and many other Latin American countries have started with slavery.

 

-Elizabeth

 

 

I think it is interesting how history is always judged based on the perception of those looking at it. In the book, there are two different instances that elaborate this idea. First, there are the decendents of the Europeans whose families were prime shareholders in the slave trade, who, when looking back upon the pain, suffering, mutilation, terror that was inflicted upon other humans beings choose not to recognize that these things happen. They choose to look away and forget the horrors that were used to control others. It is the idea that, "if I can't remember it, it never happened". So is the way that we are usually taught about slavery. But there is also another side, a side that can bring hope to those who have been brutalized and oppressed. As the French Revolution was pushing on, slaves heard of the battles being faught. They looked at the uprising of the French as a version of their own struggles. The French slaves were fighting back, taking back their freedom from their masters. It didn't matter that this was wrong or incorrect because it gave slaves hope that they could do the same. It was motivation that they too could be free if they faught against their oppressors. Guadeloupe and Martinique soon after saw the first stages of the uprising. Perception has the power to hide the wrongs of the past, to cover over a guilty conscious, but it also has the power to strike new ways of thinking. Misinterpretations can be positive, they can sometimes spark revolutionary thought.

 

Evan Gallagher

 

 

One of the most devastating and pervasive attitudes throughout the period we're looking at is examined in this book: the idea that blacks were somehow less human than whites. The mindset of the 1789 memoir in the book's first chapter highlights the problem in glowing, technicolor detail, describing "the Negroes" as unintellectual and barbaric, as well as assigning various social ills to blacks as though such behavioral patterns were inherent and homogeneous throughout the entire race. It might seem a bit odd that anyone could ever have adopted such a vitriolic and misunderstood thought pattern toward a particular group of people, but I think that it still happens today, albeit covertly, whether "in jest" or under a breath. It's far easier for one to deny a basic freedom to another (human or not) when one is convinced that the two parties aren't equals. Fortunately, the rest of James' book paints a far different picture. The organization of the slaves especially struck me, and it was kind of refreshing to see "early slave leaders ... showing a sense of order, discipline and capacity to govern." (Does that sound like a group of half-human cowards to you? Didn't think so!) However, the narrative became a bit frustrating when it seemed like every step forward for the slaves represented another step back, in a manner of speaking: For example, it was absolutely incendiary that the ruling class tried to cultivate the notion that other white groups were responsible for inciting revolt. At the very least, we can recognize through our genealogical lenses that this particular revolution, for all intents and purposes, belonged to its revolters.

 

Bryan D. Peach

 

 

One bit of information that really caused me to think was that after the uprising in Le Cap, the newly freed slaves were much more humane to their former masters than the whites were to them. There are a few gruesome stories, but they were relatively generous. This suprised me based on the horror done to them as recorded in Chapter 1. After living in suffering for that long, revenge would be instinctive. Also, the mob mentality would have played into their actions. Although they were organized, you would think the mindset would set in and cause more destruction. I think it says a lot for the people that, in that instant, they were better than those who were in charge before them.

 

Erica Osterloo

 

"The rich are only defeated when running for their lives." --Page 78

Finally, we get to the creation of the Black Romantics, a period somewhat related to the French revolution that--according to all the history texts I've read--bred the Romantic Period. But it's an astonishingly different type of "romantic period" than we're used to. While the parallels between Marxism (the rise of the proletariat) and the uprisings of the slaves are striking, I think that Edumund Burke's 2nd Treatise does a lot to explain the conditions of the book "The Black Jacobins." Freedom, Equality, Fraternity: the rally cry of the French Revolution was echoed by the slaves across the Atlantic, but they were not the sons and heirs of any of the three. Although they were, according to James, "closer to a modern proletariat than any group of workers in existence at the time," the revolutions in Europe were not theirs to claim. Burke explains the rights of any group of individuals who "have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property." However, when displaced from your homeland, what right do you have to an "estate" of any kind? And if you have no estate to own, no property or agency to use that property, how valuable is the right to liberty? Or to life? This rhetorical move would allow for the circulation of the prevailing view of blacks as "not actual people;" perhaps three-fifths, perhaps less. (With no collective identity, much less a personal, private one, who are you really?) The problem with the displacement of the blacks is that, removed from any semblance of a home, the creation of a "civil society" in order to protect one's property is entirely unnecessary. It leaves only the option of revolt, and the option of revolt is the only decision to be made with moral clarity.

 

Brandon W. Peach

 

I found this reading not only interesting but also sufficiently horrific at times when explaining life on the slave ship, for example. I was almost cringing when trying to imagine the small space they forced to stay in during the journey across the Atlantic. The shock level of this book I think helped the situation to become more real as he explained the terror invoked by both the white and the rebellious slaves. This is one of the first accounts we have seen where a text will offer detailed descriptions of slave retaliation and celebrate it at that. I found it interesting too to see the different hierarchies form within the slave community. For example, there were the slaves on the bottom who were beat to the extreme no matter what, there were “upper servants” whose masters took a more gentle hand on them and treated them more humanely, there were slaves whose owners allowed them an education or encouraged them to sell their own produce at the market to buy their freedom, and there were even slaves who were allowed to marry their owners, thus granting them and their children freedom. I guess what is most interesting about this model is that even though hierarchies were formed; they are all still somehow related to the white man. It is the white slave owner who decides if his slave can receive an education, or to free his own kids, or whether or not he will torture a slave. Yet, overall it was refreshing to hear about slaves revolting against the cruel hands that imprisoned them. All of the accounts were fascinating, but in particular I think what summed up the amount of torture and absolute suffering that they must have been feeling was when on the slave ship when slaves would jump overboard just in spite of the captain and the crew. I tried to imagine being in a situation that was so horrific that to take my own life just to prove a point could be so relevant. I could not come up with any one solution, and perhaps that was what was most disturbing…that I will never be able to fully understand what all those innocent and tortured slaves were forced to endure.

 

Jillian Winn

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.