Race – U.S. to 1877

November 18, 2013

Irish Identity, White Laborers, and the Rhetoric of Enslavement

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

The readings for this Tuesday offered two enlightening perspectives about the relationship between free laborers and the system of slavery. It was interesting to compare the experience of white freemen in the North working for labor rights (as discussed in Roediger’s essay) and that of Irish Americans in their attempts at establishing a favorable identity within a slave society (discussed in Dee Dee Joyce’s article). I enjoyed Roediger’s eloquent style and Joyce’s clear and concise outlining of her argument.

Northern white laborers compared themselves to slaves in a rhetorical strategy in order to critique the “evolving capitalist social relations as a kind of slavery” (Roediger 342). This strategy was risky and complex; while they compared their plight to that of slaves, they also had to be careful to “distance themselves from blacks even as the comparisons were being made.” (Roediger 341). While it is easy to look back now and characterize their comparisons to slavery as hyperbolic and extreme, the risk that was assumed by likening oneself to a slave should not be understated. Roediger emphasized this point by saying that “comparing oneself to a slave or to any Black American could not be lightly undertaken in the antebellum United States” (344). I assumed that comparing themselves to slaves implied a certain degree of anti-slavery sentiment, but the reading revealed that this was not the case. Rather it was “a call to arms to end the inappropriate oppression of whites” (344). Because, you know, slavery is totally okay… just not for whites.

The Irish Americans in the South also played on the societal inferiority of blacks and slaves as they attempted to create their identity in their new home of the antebellum south. Like the white northern freemen, the Irish were extremely concerned about avoiding “the taint of blackness” as they attempted to succeed in the realm of free labor (Ignatiev quoted by Joyce, 188). While Joyce described quite a few racist acts by the Irish (minstrel shows, eradicating slave and free black from the realm of free labor, etc…) it is understandable (but not necessarily justified) that Irish Americans resorted to racism in light of their past. Will pointed this out extremely well when he said: “Shaped by a history of marginalization, Irish-Americans desperately longed for inclusion and a sense of superiority, and maintaining slavery offered the best way to attain these goals” (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/white-laborers-fear/). This history of marginalization led them to be very pragmatic and calculating about their discrimination of blacks. I ultimately took away from this reading that it wasn’t necessarily racist impulse that fueled their anti-black actions, just an undeniable truth that either the Irish immigrants or the African Americans were going to be oppressed in the US, and the Irish did what was possible to make sure it wouldn’t be them.

November 11, 2013

We Can’t Stop, We Won’t Stop

While reading chapters 14-16 of Wilentz, the belief that history is to repeat itself kept popping into my head. These chapters seemed to echo all of the American history I have read about and am living. The idea of manipulative political parties fighting each other, whether it is Whigs and Jacksonian-democrats or democrats and republicans, is not foreign to us. Nor is the fight for race relations. At the time of Jackson, Van Buren, Calhoun, etc. the fight was over slavery, but race issues stood flood our computers and television sets daily. William Lloyd Garrison even brings women into the equation, which is a conflict that pervades every aspect of politics today.

In addition, the Whig party struggles with Van Buren dominating the polls with his popularity. ALKAROUT mentions this through democratization by saying, “The party’s attempts at democratization demonstrate that the party was more or less obligated to reshape itself if they desired to maintain political relevance.” I would say this is true for today’s politics as well. I believe we are left with two parties, one who is popular and the other realizing that it will not win an election without changing some views.

Then, of course, there is this economic debate over banks and money. At the time, Jackson was still shutting down most of the popularly approved ideas regarding the banks and any money relations. We see at this time a large debate over the use of gold vs. paper money and the gold standard. As gold and silver ran low, there was an issue over money and many politicians of the time referenced paper money as a solution. Many other politicians saw the threat of inflation through paper money, something that has been considered since we picked up the dollar. A shipment of gold from Britain would quell their uneasiness for a short time, but as we now, the shift to paper money would occur eventually.

From the economic crisis of months and years past to the on going disagreement and refusing to settle between the democratic and republican parties, I would not go as far as to say that we are mirroring the past, or repeating it, but it important to note that we are still fighting the same things. Process of great strides has been made but the issues still remain. My question is whether or not we will ever move past these issues. My answer- in a democracy, I am not sure we ever will.

October 28, 2013

Not-So-Benevolent Paternalism

This week’s Davis reading was incredibly gripping. He expanded upon the nuances and contradictions of slave societies that can often be perplexing. He clarified the point that, while slavery and racism in early US history were deeply intertwined, the absence of slavery did not equate to absence of racism. The racial slavery that was characteristic of the US’s slave system had an impact that also affected free blacks. This was illustrated by the existence of a color complex among freedmen—a manifestation of internalized racism created by slavery. Freedmen were ‘eager for honor,’ and did not want to be referred to as any darker than they found themselves, thus showing that, as a result of white supremacy in the US, ‘honor’ was directly correlated with whiteness (180). The case of William Ellison, who was born a slave but became a slave owner, also showed the extent of slavery’s negative impact. The lucrative nature of slavery, especially in the south, could intoxicate anyone—even those who had been its victim— into defying the basic principles of humanity by becoming slave owners.

Tasimmons mentioned in their post that “the American preoccupation with being liked by their slaves and being ‘paternalistic’ was a result of the disparity between the institution of slavery and the principles of liberty and freedom.” While I certainly agree that the tension between the nation’s founding principles and the oppression of slavery contributed to masters’ desire to see their actions as a form of paternalism rather than overt oppression, I don’t believe slave owners had any interest in acquiring the affection of their slaves.

Masters were only willing to consider accommodating their slaves in order to instill the absolute minimum amount of docility as to not create an uprising. The slave codes of southern states showed that “bondsmen were human beings who were capable of plotting, stealing, fleeing, or rebelling, and who were likely to be less ‘troublesome property’ if well cared for under a program of strict discipline” (Davis, 193-194). The welfare of slaves was only desirable to the extent that the master’s economic interests were protected. Even then, the submission of slave rebellions was more often achieved through psychological torment (for example, the threat of separating enslaved families by selling off relatives) than by appeasement (Davis, 183). The portrayal of slave ownership as benevolent paternalism was nothing more than a condescending infantilization of blacks and an overall poor excuse used to perpetuate the lucrative institution of slavery.

Personally, I am not convinced that nineteenth century figures are above criticism for their faulty morality. It’s unsettling that some people can look back upon great acts of systematic oppression with an apologetic tone. Perhaps it’s easier to attribute the lack of humanity of the ruling class to their misguided systems of belief, but after reading Davis I can’t help but think that southern American slavery came from a conscious decision to place profit above humanity.

September 18, 2013

Gradual Racialization of Slavery

Tuesday’s reading revealed the nature of slavery in the Chesapeake and the Carolinas. For some reason, I was under the impression that slavery, especially in the South, had been racialized from the beginning. However, as the reading revealed, the development of white supremacy and racialized slavery actually happened in steps.

Long before the division between black and white, there existed a stark class divide. A sense of “otherness” was thrust upon the common white planters. Wealth inequality was the first existing divide between the inhabitants of the Chesapeake and Carolina colonies. It was very surprising to find that before the commodification of black slaves around 1670, there were black people who actually enjoyed freedom and legal privileges such as property, land, and even slaves or servants of their own after they had finished their terms as indentured servants (154).

When white indentured servants declined, African slaves were the solution to the lack of labor. I thought solidarity had always existed between all white people in the colonies due to their common ancestry, but it wasn’t until the planter elite began to worry for their safety at the growing portion of the population that consisted of slaves that this sense was forged. They relied on the common white men to muster up a sense of racial pride in order to protect the colonists from uprisings (156). In the process, the issues of wealth inequality and social stratification within the white community were put on the back burner while a preoccupation on racial superiority flourished.

Ultimately, after reading these Taylor chapters it became evident that the discrimination created by the planter elite wasn’t motivated by principle. They were neither particularly against common folk nor black people. Rather, they did whatever was economically beneficial to retaining their wealth and status.

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 9, 2013

Week Three Reading

One of the points I found most interesting in this week’s reading came in the first few pages of the chapter. David Brion Davis discusses, for a few lines, the term “black” itself. He cuts the moral complexity of European colonization and African slavery down to a single word. While this is certainly not all encompassing, a closer look at the racial label is representative of larger issues and discussions of the topic. Davis brings up “depictions of black demons, devils, and torturers” that were common in Europe when the term was introduced. Thus, through the labeling of the victims of their racial subjugation as black, Europeans were “creating a perception of the ultimate Outsiders.” Modern conversations about race still discuss the use of “black” as a racial identification. While some argue for the use of the term African American as more politically correct alternative, others feel that this separates black Americans from their national identity by also linking them to Africa. Regardless, this still leaves a gap in labeling people of non-African origin and non-Americans. This is also relevant to our discussion in class of the labeling of Native Americans as Indians or American Indians. The fundamental issue in these labels, both black and Native American, is that white Europeans imposed them upon a group of people in order to differentiate them from themselves, the white elite. Although Davis only touches on this issue briefly, it is a fascinating one that is as relevant today as it was in Medieval Europe.

In addition, Davis’ discussion of the changes that European workers underwent as a result of the Atlantic slave trade reminded me of Sylvia’s post from last week. She talked about history as multiple story lines, not simply as one person or group’s experience. The fact that European workers changed their wage expectations and workplace standards because they desired New World products made available by the slave trade is a unique perspective on the issue. Slavery did not only affect the Africans kidnapped from their homes and the white masters in the Americas. It also changed the way people lived in Europe.

September 2, 2013

American Colonies, Chapter 3: “Conquest and Race in New Spain”

In Chapter 3, Taylor demystifies the “Black Legend” of Spanish cruelty by highlighting both the atrocities and developments of Spanish conquest—a lucrative venture for bullish entrepreneurs and an onerous governance for the Spanish crown. Continuing his comparative perspective, Taylor examines the Spanish conquest through lens of the Native peoples as well as the Spanish. I, however, found his description of the Spanish motives especially interesting. He notes that while Spanish colonization was “a private enterprise . . . in the pursuit of profit,” it also served to extend the control of the Spanish crown and Catholic church by means of the requerimento (57). Though driven by seemingly disparate interests, the Spanish conquerers—in the Taylor’s presentation, at least—used their separate interests as motives and justifications for the atrocities of their conquests, particularly at Tenochtitlán. Describing Cortes’ visit to the enchanting city—I say “enchanting” because of Bernal Diaz’s description of it—Taylor writes that the Spanish explorers were “inflamed [with] desire to conquer, plunder” (53). Yet, they abhorred the gruesome rituals and idolatry of the Aztecs. So they employed their religious duty ‘to give light to those . . . in darkness’ as justification to eclipse the Aztec culture and society with their own customs (58). Perhaps no event described in Chapter 3 better reflects the Spanish cultural conquest than the construction of the cathedral in Mexico City. Tenochtitlán’s ruins became the cornerstones of a Christian temple, born on the backs of its own people.

I find it interesting that among the list of Spanish motives for conquest Taylor excludes racial prejudice. Granted, Taylor states in Chapter 5 that Europeans perceived the Native peoples as “socially and culturally inferior” rather than racially unequal (107). But I find it hard to believe that the confrontation of two foreign, ethnically homogenous groups would not provoke racial prejudice, although admittedly my this assertion is influenced by modern instances of racism.

Regardless, I think there is a better explanation for Taylor’s exclusion of racism in his list of Spanish motives. In her post last week, Caitlin noted Taylor’s argument for colonial social-hierarchy as the origin of racism in America. Racial oppression, she stated, was “created through the colonial process,” not pre-meditated. With this view in mind, Taylor’s description makes sense. As the Native peoples were assimilated—or coerced, depending on your view—into the Spanish colonies, they were exploited and worked on haciendas as sharecroppers. And as Taylor’s argument would suggest, a racial hierarchy (castas) evolved from the social hierarchy, with Natives and African slaves at the bottom and whiter peoples towards the top. So, whether an omission for the sake of his argument or a fine example of racism evolving out of classism, the absence of racial qualifications for the Spanish conquest seems best explained by Taylor’s previous argument. I think Caitlin would agree, but I look forward to hearing her response.

On a different note, we spent much of class last Thursday discussing common words and phrases used when describing the history of the American Native peoples. Many words—like “village,” as opposed to “city”—we concluded, fail to accurately convey the complexity and sophistication of Native civilization and culture. In fact, some words reflect cultural ignorance more than just historical inaccuracy. I think this recent blog is especially relevant to that conversation:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/02/217295339/the-history-behind-the-phrase-dont-be-an-indian-giver