Uncategorized – Page 20 – U.S. to 1877

September 11, 2013

Inhuman Bondage Reading

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

An important part of this week’s reading in Inhuman Bondage for me was how Davis describes the slave trade and in a way lists on the reason behind the Europeans purchasing other human beings as free labor. Davis persuades the reader that the slave trade was an essential part of the American economy, which makes it almost seem as if the enslavement of other people is fine because they were the cheapest alternative and they brought so much revenue back to the country. Along with the thoughts of the efficiency in terms of finances, Davis also brings up how the difference in religion rationalizes enslaving Africans to the Europeans. The Europeans looked down on the African race because they were not white Christians as they were and this difference made them inferior. He goes further to justify the horrors of slavery by making it seem like enslaving these people was going to make them better. He makes it seem as if enslaving Africans will make them want to become more like their owners, meaning they will choose to convert to Christianity, and this will make them more educated or civilized as a race. I think this is absurd because being enslaved, in my opinion, would not make you want to join those who took brought your life for work, but rather make you turn against and rebel against everything that you see them do. I find it ironic that the United States of America that we live in today is all about freedom and providing people with a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but our countries began with slavery being an integral part, and slavery lasted for a long time afterwards.

September 11, 2013

Puritans and Indians reading

What I found most interesting in reading this chapter was that the Puritans had trouble getting their vision of a “city on a hill” to come to fruition, and Taylor references how the American Indians had a much healthier communal society that took care of everyone in the community. It is extremely ironic that many European immigrants saw these people as Barbarians when the native people had what the Puritans were searching for (aside from the absence of Christianity in the native people’s communities). Taylor Simmons does point out that not everyone saw these ‘Barbarians’ as savage, sub-human people groups, but the large majority of the settlers did not care enough to consider the American Indians’ life style, so most people did not have the same revelation as Roger Williams. I think that overall (Alan) Taylor does a good job of portraying the colonial Indian wars, and I understand that covering an entire war in two to three pages is extremely difficult, but I wish he would have spent more time covering the Pequot War because I feel like the colonists’ attitudes to the Indians is portrayed very clearly. He could have built on Governor William Bradford’s view that “God had found them worthy” (196) to take over the land. Also, many religious leaders’ responses to the war contradicted what Williams thought, including Reverend John Robinson of the Plymouth Colony who said, “how happy a thing it had been, if you had converted some before you had killed any…” (197). Religion continued to play a key roll in the settlers’ attitude to the Indians, and Taylor could have devoted more time to this topic. I like Taylor’s use of primary sources in the chapter, and the quotes he uses prove how much religion dictated confrontation with the Indians. I just wish he would have built on these sources more. Taylor supports his argument of colonists changing the environment (and, therefore, the lives) of the American Indians and how they dwindled into a small minority because of the effect of European settlement.

September 11, 2013

Inhuman Bondage 4 & 5

Although I enjoyed the content that Davis presented in Inhuman Bondage, I disagree with many of my classmates, in that I did not particularly enjoy his writing. While he frequently reaches thoughtful, provocative conclusions, following his thought process is often strenuous. Davis tends to jump between time periods and places frequently, and often introduces new subject matter with little to no explanation. Although perhaps his content is more protracted than Taylor, by and large I find Taylor easier to read.

Despite his writing style, much of what Davis relayed in chapters four and five was incredibly shocking. The suggestion that the atrocities committed during the slave trade were too horrible to describe with words was incredibly powerful. Additionally, although Davis never explicitly makes such a claim, the implied comparison between slaves and cattle was also enlightening. Upon further study, I found the linked artist’s rendition to be incredibly revealing and eye-opening. We often have a tendency to whitewash our own history, perhaps to protect our own consciousnesses from guilt, or perhaps to absolve past figures of their indecencies; however, Davis does an excellent job of presenting the unfiltered truths of the slave trade. In approaching this task, Davis writes like a journalist – he, to a certain degree, is free of bias and presents facts at face value. As such, he allows the reader to pass judgement.

I was also interested to learn about slavery in different parts of the “New World.” Traditionally, mostly in high school environments, we focus on plantation farming in the English colonies. However, I was intrigued to learn about the larger use of enslaved peoples in the Caribbean and Brazil. Up until that point, my understanding of the brutality of slave labor was somewhat limited, as I was really only familiar with slavery as it’s portrayed in media. As such, Davis’ accounts have made me interested to learn more about the brutality of that “peculiar institution” in those regions.

September 11, 2013

Slavery in New World

Sperry Edwards

Blog Post 2

In Inhuman Bondage, David Davis uses the term, “economic determinism” to describe the emergence of enslaving humans. This term suggests that humans prioritized the economy before other factors, such as the rights and beliefs of other people. But Davis does not only give this reason for slavery’s origins. He goes on to describe religious as well as symbolic reasons, in order to present a well-rounded argument for why a cruel exercise like slavery occurred. The most interesting of these reasons being how the unfavorable connotation of the color black caused Europeans to segregate themselves from the newfound people. As Andrew Burton stated in his post, it is strange that a simple color can cause humans to label their own people as “others.” To add to his point, I believe that once this label was established, Europeans believed that their actions were outside of societal guidelines. People lost complete sense of morality and took advantage of these outsiders for their own gain.

In Chapter 4, Davis goes on to describe the beginnings of the slave trade in Africa. He mentions a crucial point, in that European countries were able to take advantage of a great number of Africans because of a “lack of any pan-African consciousness.” 16^th century Africa was extremely divided with many kingdoms with different cultures and beliefs. With no common African thought, African people could not collectively fight against slavery procedures. This reminds me a lot of how the colonies in America were controlled by Great Britain. Once the colonists began to recognize themselves as a whole, they were then able to identify and fight against Britain’s control. This phenomenon of consciousness leads to the question of whether or not slavery would have occurred at all if Europeans had traded with a united Africa during the 16^th Century.

Davis also describes how many Europeans believed that slavery was beneficial to Africans because they were in a sense, saved from a dangerous and divided continent of Africa. Davis goes on to refute this claim very effectively by describing the cruel treatment on the slave ships and farms. But he does comment that a collective slave culture developed on islands, such as Jamaica. White owners were often outnumbered and isolated from the slave lifestyle on these islands. Instead, black slaves dominated these islands with their customs and traditions. Although slavery was extremely barbaric, it did supply many Africans with a sense of unity on the Caribbean islands, which they could not grasp in Africa.

September 11, 2013

Inhuman Bondage, Chapter 4 Reading

Throughout Chapter 4 of Inhumane Bondage, David Brion Davis outlines the origins of slave trade and its spread across the Atlantic into the New World. He maintains that slavery played an integral part in the foundation of America itself. It is a moral dilemma we must all face and accept, as the institution of slavery goes against every principle this country was founded upon; freedom, liberty, and equality.
I found that Davis uses a lot of religious ideologies when describing the precedents to slavery in the New World. For example, he explains how racist European interpretations of the biblical “Curse of Ham” translated into the belief that African slaves and their black skin color resembled the devil. Many Europeans also believed white Christians could not be enslaved because they shared the same freedoms as other Europeans. These religious and physical differences acted as justifications for Europeans to turn towards enslaving Africans, whom they viewed as culturally inferior. A very interesting comparison Davis makes is how the New World “…came to resemble the Death Furnace of the ancient god Moloch—consuming African slaves so increasing numbers of Europeans could consume sugar, coffee, rice, and tobacco” (Davis, p. 99).
In a way, I feel that Davis tries to defend, or at least help us understand, where European slave traders were coming from in respect to the world they lived in at the time. Thomas Hobbes and Davis both describe life in 16th century Europe as poor, brutal, nasty, and short. Violence and death were a part of everyday life, so it is no wonder why many Europeans were indifferent to the cruel enslavement of Africans. “Until the late 18th century, the Europeans public was not only insensitive, but rushed to witness the most terrible spectacles of torture, dismemberment, and death” (Davis, p. 96).
Were Africans that much different from Europeans in the way they turned slaves into commodities? Basing their wealth on the large number of slaves they owned, the African elites sought to sell their slaves to Europeans. This led to sustained slave trade and further decimation of African populations. The high prices Europeans offered for slaves encouraged violence and betrayal, as African traders turned against their own people to make money. Both the African and European traders changed the African market with their demand for slaves, although the slave trade only benefitted a small handful of high-ranking officials and not the overall African economy itself. Even the African King of Kongo, Alfonso I, actively engaged in slave trade. “It was as if each [such African] person walked around with a price on his or her head” (Robert Harms, p.100).

September 11, 2013

Week Three Readings

Taylor’s main focus in chapters nine and twelve is the development of the New England and Middle colonies, especially how their development determined the treatment of the Indians. The Puritans came to America for religious reasons, to create a “city on a hill,” so the marked differences between their culture and the culture of the Indians led the Puritans to cultivate a deep dislike and distrust for them. On the other hand the Dutch founded New Netherland purely as a trade outpost which depended on the Indians for furs. Because of this the Dutch couldn’t afford to mistreat the Indians. This type of relationship is also seen later, in Pennsylvania as the weakened peoples of the area didn’t present much of a threat or competition for land. I agree with Sylvia’s point as well, that in describing the different interactions between Indians and colonists in different areas, Taylor tends to show bias and favoritism. However, I also think that the focus on motive and primary support which acknowledges, at least to some extent, the perceived positive and negative aspect of Indian relations in both regions, acts to negate some of the bias presented in his writing. For example, Taylor demonstrates that not everyone in New England completely overlooked the merits of Indian culture by including a quotation by colonist, Roger Williams, saying “It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, than amongst thousands that call themselves Christians” (Taylor 191). While this quotation does not, by any stretch of the mind, demonstrate a wholehearted love or even acceptance of the Indians, it does show that the colonists of New England weren’t driven by a mindless animosity toward them. Taylor also makes it very clear that William Penn’s Indian policy was not simply formed out of good will. It was also a strategic move which created a “security screen” of displaced Indians to act as a buffer between the Pennsylvanian colonists and the French and it’s allies (Taylor 269). While some bias clearly does exist, inclusion of these details prevents Taylor prom painting either region as completely good or completely bad and provides readers with the information they need to form their own conclusions.

September 10, 2013

Inhuman Bondage, Chapters 4 and 5:

While reading chapters 4 and 5 of David Brion Davis’s Inhuman Bondage, I found that I was able to appreciate Davis’s style and delivery of information more than the passages from Alan Taylor’s American Colonies. Although several of my classmates may disagree, I believe that Davis’s writing is easier to read and absorb than Taylor’s.

One of the topics included in the reading that stood out to me was that not all forms of slavery were equal. While learning about the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in the “new world” in high school, there was little emphasis placed on the sharp differences between picking cotton, making sugar, or growing tobacco. Through this generalization of labor, it was difficult to understand which tasks were particularly arduous. In chapter 5, however, Taylor depicts the painstaking process of sugar cultivation in vivid detail. Taylor describes sugar production as having “far exceeded anything slaves encountered when cultivating tobacco, cotton, rice, or indigo” (108-109). Taylor essentially said that if slaves could pick their job, working in the sugar industry would be their last choice.

Another portion of the reading that stood out to me was how the Europeans justified the enslavement of other people. One particular way is the fact that Africans did not practice traditional European religions led Europeans to view them as inferior and worthy of being enslaved. Some people believed that by enslaving Africans and converting them to Christianity, the African people became civilized. Perhaps the most obvious difference between Africans and Europeans was race. Africans dark complexion was seen negatively in the eyes of Europeans, who associated black with “demons, devils, and tortures.” This simple but blatant difference enabled Europeans to frame Africans as the “ultimate outsiders” (79). Perceptions of Africans as inferior and foreign led to the acceptance of their roles as slaves by Europeans and resulted in African slaves becoming a social normality.

September 10, 2013

Davis, Chapter 4: The Origins of Race-Based Slavery

Sherwood Callaway
HIS 141, Blog Post 3

The institution of slavery as it existed in the American south would have been wholly unfamiliar to someone living in the 15th century. In the early modern world, Europeans abstained from slavery entirely, celebrating the ““non-enslavability” of Christian whites.” Africans only enslaved prisoners of war and debtors. Islamic states throughout the Mediterranean traded captives from the Black Sea area. The ancient Romans had operated similarly, refusing to make distinctions based on race, religion, etc.

In chapter 4 of Inhuman Bondage, author Davis investigates the origins of race-based slavery, a comparatively peculiar phenomenon. Jacob Newton suggested in his blog post that “a revival in classical learning” was responsible for rationalizing this kind of servitude. I would argue that there exists no classical precept that supports such a claim. Even the Gallic tribes, who were considered barbarians and defeated by Caesar, we’re only enslaved as prisoners of war. Rather, it is the Christian tradition, which dominated early modern Europe, that established the ideological foundation for race-based slavery. For example, the biblical “Curse of Ham” set a precedent for racial distinctions. The ancient Hebrewes enslaved their Canaanite enemies, and Europeans felt a similar “need to enslave “outsiders”.” Because of the darkness of their skin, Africans appeared dirty, uncivilized, and foreign. For the Portuguese in Brazil especially, the process of Christianizing these people became a particularly popular justification.

In the same chapter, Davis also supports the ideas of historian David Eltis, who argued that plantation slavery was an economic inevitability: a natural “next step” for the European economy, and a predecessor of “the efficiency, organization, and global interconnectedness of industrial capitalism.” The political and commercial environment of the early modern period made African slave labor a particularly appealing concept. Ironically, if not for religion and morality, the institution of slavery could have expanded infinitely for the want of profit.

September 10, 2013

Chapters 9 & 12 Response

In the two chapters in American Colonies, Taylor phrases his sentences to make readers think the Puritans were unjust to the Indians, while the colonists who lived in the Middle Colonies, because of the way they treated others, lived the best colonial life. I agree with Matt’s last post when he describes how Taylor tends to share his own opinion on certain groups of people in colonial America. It was definitely apparent in this section that Taylor thought the Puritans should have been more accepting of the Indians around them. He also seems so impressed with colonial life in the Middle Colonies, misleading his readers, because life was not always perfect there either.

When Taylor writes about the Puritan and Indian societies, I noticed that he tries to compare the different ways of life, more than he does contrast. For example, when he explains how the New Englanders, “cut off [Metacom’s] head for display on a post atop a brick watchtower,” an act most would think Indians would do, readers see how hypocritical the Puritans were in their quest to extinguish the “savages” (Taylor 201). Taylor also describes the gender roles in the two different societies similarly: the men do the tougher labor of harvesting or hunting, while the women usually take care of the children and tend to household duties. He shows these comparisons so readers can see that the Puritans may not have been so different from the Indians, yet they thought they were so above them. I had never thought about the English colonists being similar to the native tribes, but both the Puritans and the Indians in the area lived in communities and worked together. Because of this comparison, when Taylor writes about the Puritan destruction of Indian villages, readers view New Englanders as unjust invaders.

On the other hand, Taylor emphasizes the civility of life in the Middle Colonies because of the acceptance of all ethnicities and religions. Taylor describes William Penn in a new way, as the connection between the elite and the outcasts. Although I knew that he was raised wealthy, but was different because of his Quaker conversion, Taylor shows how necessary it was for Penn to have ties to both types of people. Without him, the colony, and possibly even the future country, would never have been able to survive. Taylor also emphasizes the peace between the middle colonists and the Indians, differing them from the Chesapeake and New England colonists. Without the fear of Indian attacks, the middle colonists were able to thrive and Taylor describes a seemingly ideal colony, filled with accepting people.

Just as he did while comparing the Spanish and French colonizers, Taylor writes with some bias, making readers see certain English colonists as better people than others.

September 10, 2013

Blog Post #3- Chapter 4 in Inhuman Bondage

In chapter 4 of Inhuman Bondage author David Davis explains how the African slave trade became prevalent and the tremendous affect it had on the European nations involved and in the development of the “new world”. In the chapter he focuses heavily on the motives behind these countries in becoming part of the slave trade and how these nations justified enslaving others, black Africans specifically. He suggests that while selfish motives drove the slave trade, there were also legitimate reasons as to why this atrocity became so popular in the 16^th, 17^th and 18^th centuries- “I do not mean to minimize the importance of greed, economic self interest, and an increasing desire for greater productivity and profit. All of which lay at the heart of early modern and modern slavery. But these economic desires were also fused with issues of identity, ideology, and power.” (Davis, 78). He makes the argument that while selfishness was part of the reason various European countries began using Africans as slaves, they were also driven by a need to compete and make their colonies in the Americas as successful as possible. What stuck out to me the most in reading this chapter was the multitude of ways in which Europeans went about justifying these actions.

David argues that a revival in classical learning drove a wave of support for slavery. Except that people in modern Europe were against enslaving other white Europeans; even those who were at the bottom of the social ladder. Africans however, we’re different. Being from outside Europe, they were different enough in the eyes of Europeans to justify their enslavement. For beginners, their different skin color somehow made them inferior. At the time, Europeans held severely negative connotations of the color black, often associating it with demons, devils and torturers (Davis, 79). Africans also practiced different religions from that of mostly Christian Europe. This only further widened the divide between Africans and Europeans, making them seem more different. It’s arguable that in the eyes of the Europeans this made slavery even more justifiable. I think the Europeans felt so disconnected and separate from the Africans, partly because of the difference in culture and religion that in their minds, enslaving Africans was much more acceptable than enslaving others who were more closely tied to them when it came to the intricacies of society.

One final thing that stood out to me, was how even hundreds of years later, scholars still are far apart in the debate regarding what role the Africans played in allowing the slave trade to escalate to the levels it did. On page 91, Davis gives a quote from a 16^th century Kongonian King. In the quote, King Alfonzo claims that “merchants are taking every day our natives….” and that “…our country is being completely depopulated”. Davis goes on to explain however, that different scholars have varying interpretations of what Alfonzo’s words mean. Before reading, I truly had no idea that the Africans participated in the slave trade at all. I was under the assumption that Europeans simply captured African men and woman against their will and lugged them onto boats. It was interesting to learn that not only did they play a role, but also that scholars still have not reached a consensus on how big that role was.