elhefler – American History to 1877

April 14, 2014

The Role of Resistance in the Slave Narrative

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

In her blog post, “Lizzie Mae” Emma addresses the level of ignorance in today’s society regarding slavery and some of the prevalent misconceptions. Given how much we have learned about slavery this semester in HIS 141, I wish I were surprised by how uninformed some of the questions were. Its sad and disappointing, yes, but I’m not really surprised. Prior to my junior year of high school, most of what I knew about slavery in the United States and Canada came from books, TV and talking with my parents. I understood what the definition of slavery was and the general conditions of slavery, but I would consider it a “common sense” level of understanding. No, I wouldn’t have asked the question “So why don’t you take the underground railroad,” but this was the basis of my formal education on slavery. The only time I remember learning about slavery in school before junior year was in primary school, when we talked about the Underground Railroad and individuals like Harriet Tubman. I am glad that I learned about resistance strategies, but if you don’t have the background to understand the conditions of slavery, then you cannot understand the extent to which resistance was necessary and in fact integral to the slave experience.

Resistance and combating ignorance were two of the key themes of the first season of “Ask a slave”. The attitude and sarcasm with which Lizzie Mae answers the various questions would likely mirror the attitude with which a slave might have interacted with white society. Clearly a slave would not have had the same opportunities (if any opportunities) to directly address society and slaveholders on the injustices they were subject to, however the manor in which Lizzie Mae takes the opportunities to assert her identity and agency would have translated between the contexts. In this way, Lizzie Mae’s sarcasm can be seen as a passive form of resistance. It also reveals just how brutal the conditions of slavery were. In the first episode we learn that Lizzie Mae is 28 years old or, as she tells us cheerfully, 116 in slave years. The phrasing of this simple statement mirrors the idea of “dog years”, critiquing through sarcasm the dehumanization of slaves and the extent to which their life expectancies were reduced.

Lizzie Mae also addresses more active forms of resistance in episode four, when she gets a question from Emma the Runaway. At the end of the interaction, Emma asks that Lizzie Mae, to “Put a little hemlock in her tea for me will ya? Just enough to make her sick,” and Lizzie adds, “But not enough to kill her.” With this Lizzie Mae reminds us that even if slaves had few other options than to serve the wishes of their masters, they were not content in this position and took every opportunity to assert their independence and their humanity.

Works Cited:
Black, Jordan. “Ask A Slave Ep.1: Meet Lizzie Mae.” YouTube video, 4:05. Posted by “Ask A Slave: The Web Series,” Sept 1, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1IYH_MbJqA#t=106.

Black, Jordan. “Ask A Slave Ep.4: New Leaf, Same Page.” YouTube video, 4:08. Posted by “Ask A Slave: The Web Series,” Sept 15, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik-fXNjxw58.

March 26, 2014

Genocide: does culture equal life?

I really enjoyed reading Patrick Wolfe’s article Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Wolfe’s arguments we not surprising to me because I have always understood Indian removal and assimilation in the context of cultural genocide. In middle and high school we talked a fair amount about forced assimilation, treaties and residential schools, and I think we should have had even more of a focus on those parts of our history.

I appreciated the progression of Wolfe’s argument beginning with exploring settler colonization as a structure rather than an event and moving through when settler colonization constitutes genocide, the social/ political contexts and constructs that lead to genocide and the vital role of culture in identity and genocide. At first I was surprised when Wolfe wrote that he doesn’t favor the term “cultural genocide” because it’s a term I have never questioned (398); I have never thought of “cultural genocide” as less than or completely distant from “biological” genocide. Olivia also address the differentiation of genocide and cultural genocide in her blog post “The Indian Removal: A Cultural Genocide”, arguing that the forced annihilation of Native culture cannot be ignored, but that it is unfair to say that the Indian removal was a genocide comparable to the Holocaust. I think the comparison of such horrific events is challenging in and of itself because in making a comparison it inevitably places a hierarchy on different experiences, diminishing one comparatively to the other. I think the argument that Wolfe is making here is that to qualify genocide as cultural, risks glossing over the murderous nature of genocide, by creating a distinction between culture and life. Wolfe argues that “cultural genocide” has a “direct impact on people’s capacity to stay alive” (399), which I would agree with and take one step further. Not only does “cultural genocide”, just like “biological” genocide, lead directly to many deaths (which leaves the community depleted and struggling) it also changes and undermines the identity of those individuals who survive, which has long term social, political and psychological impacts. I think that Wolfe begins to capture this intergenerational impact when he focuses on settler colonization as a structure and not an event, but I think he could have pushed this further. He is discussing the extent to which these policies and their effects were genocide and how they are the same/ different from our current understandings of genocide; it would have been thought provoking for him to address whether the intergenerational impacts resulting in social challenges and deaths decades after these initial policies can be included in genocide.

Briefly, I also thought that Wolfe’s discussion quantifying who qualified as Indian was really thought provoking. Wolfe writes “under the blood quantum regime, one’s Indianness progressively declines in accordance with a ‘biological’ calculus that is a construct of Euroamerican culture” (400). This can also be seen as a less overt form of cultural assimilation, by imposing empirical measures on someone’s identity and using this analysis to determine rights. This also raises the question for of legal vs. individual definitions of who is Native (particularly related to treaty rights) and how these different definitions can impact the way that statistics are presented, and impacts of policies, such as Indian removal, are tracked and quantified. (This may only apply to Canadian policy, but) are individuals who gave up their Indian status by moving off reserves, but still culturally define themselves as Native, included in impact statistics and if they are not included, does that mean that we overlook them in our historical analysis?

Works Cited:

Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (December 2006): 387-409.

March 23, 2014

The Personal Nature of American Politics and the Presidency

In her post from March 23^rd titled “Social Movements of the Early 1800s” Beth Wright explores how various social movements, including religious revivals and the Masons, political history of this period. I agree with Beth’s assessment of chapters 8-11 of Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy, but I was also struck by how leader-orientated American politics still are in this time period, in terms of individual ideologies and relationships driving politics. These chapters generally the rise and fall of political relationships, with explanations of how various social and political events influenced these relationships. Wilentz’s references to Jacksonians and Adamsites reminded me that political parties and platforms were still developing in this time period (162). This focus on individual political ideology seems to be tied to structural characteristics of American politics even today. Though there are now distinct political parties, the President continues to campaign and be elected independently from senators and congressmen. In the Canadian parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is appointed from the winning political party and holds little legislative power in the house, beyond their role as a member of parliament and a cabinet member. In class we have talked about how early American politics can be seen as progression of trial and error as early leaders try to create a political system that has few precedents. In these chapters Wilentz shows us how the unique individual role of the president continued to be shaped through the early decades of American politics.

Before today’s defined political parties, electing a president with a strong individual political stance gave voters more flexibility to choose a leader that represented their changing and growing political values and needs. But Wilentz also demonstrates how this focus on relationships also became petty. Wilentz discusses one parlor scandal involving Margaret “Peggy” O’Neal Timberlake Eaton, the wife of Jackson’s secretary of war, John Eaton, who had a reputation for being immoral. Vice President Calhoun’s wife, Floride, led a boycott against all events to which Peggy Eaton was invited. Wilentz comments that “The cabinet broke down into anti- and pro- Eaton factions, the latter led by Secretary of State Van Buren […] For a time, the Eaton affair appeared to be the premier issue of the day” (167). I am inclined to argue that the pettiness stemming from the system’s focus on individuals and relationships undermined its value in successfully representing and fulfilling citizens’ desires for government. Wilentz writes, “[the scandal] cloaked a great and widening divergence between Calhoun and Jackson over fundamental principals of American Government,” which indicates not a value judgment, but an acceptance of the fundamental interconnectedness of high society and politics (167). We also see this interconnectedness in the election leading up to Jackson’s election. Wilentz writes, “a great deal of the campaign would be a propaganda battle of personalities and politically charged cultural styles rather instead of political issues” (162). Further demonstrates how the nature of politics and the presidency at the time was focused on the individual and how this permeated all facets of politics from campaigning, to the issues debated to daily political life.

Works Cited:

Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005.

February 19, 2014

American History from a Canadian Perspective

I found it fascinating to read Wilentz from somewhat of an outsider’s perspective, not being American and having never studied American history or read the American constitution. I have been told repeatedly told by American students at Davidson that I should not be considered an international student because “there’s really no difference better Canada and the US”. Reading Wilentz, the cultural differences and the historical roots of those differences become abundantly clear. Even Wilentz writes, “The Revolution’s democratic impact forever changed the context of American politics and culture and brought ordinary Americans into public and political life, which fundamentally altered how they perceived themselves and others.” Though I share many of the American cultural values including freedom, independence, property rights and class mobility, these values are not tied to my identity as a Canadian, but my identity as human being. I think these values are rooted in American identity because they are directly rooted in the events and teaching of American history, in a way that they are not in Canada – we got our independence in 1867, the last province joined in 1949 and we didn’t have a national flag specified by statue law until 1965.

Of all the texts we have read this semester, the first chapter of The Rise of American Democracy by Sean Wilentz comes closest to what I think of as how American (and North American) history is traditionally told. Each page is peppered with the names of white men in prominent economic or political positions. (I also wonder if this is how American history is told because of the US culture often values individual identity, representation of every individual and the possibility of upward mobility for everyone) Even when the chapter discusses class differences, the discussion is limited to a comparison between the lifestyles and beliefs of urban and rural dwellers. At the end of the chapter, Wilentz does briefly discusses slavery in the context of the Philadelphia convention and summarizes the results as “the final draft avoided explicitly mentioning slavery […] But delegates effective barred the government from taking any action against slavery in the states”. But, Wilentz does not discuss the impact of these events, nor does he mention anywhere the efforts by slaves of free Blacks to fight for and promote democratic values. By contrast, David Brion Davis focuses exclusively slaves and free blacks in this time period in chapter seven of Inhuman Bondage. He details attitude towards slavery and changes to slave ideals of freedom, as well as chronicling the roles slaves played in revolutionary effects and the misgiving of many whites to involve slaves. Davis provides a parallel history that fills in many of the gaps in Wilnetz chronicle. Olivia provides a really valuable analysis of in her blog post “The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War?” of Davis and the role of slavery in both the Revolutionary and Civil wars, demonstrating the value of analyzing history from multiple perspectives.

Still, these chapters were the only historical texts you had read on American history, you would never know that there were Native peoples living in North America. Admittedly, we have moved forward on the timeline from European arrival an early interactions and I don’t mean to imply that Wilentz or Davis are responsible for telling those parts of American history, however having read Taylor with his attention to marginalized populations, I am left wondering in what ways Native people were directly or indirectly involved in shaping the new American state.

Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005.
*Olivia Rosen, “The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/the-revolutionary-war-as-a-precursor-to-the-civil-war/

February 17, 2014

A Social Narrative of Military History

One of the major aspects that we have focused while discussing American Colonies has been the type of narrative Taylor tells and how it differs from the ways history has traditionally been told. In general Taylor focuses more on the social narrative than other history textbooks, analyzing events from both perspectives and looking for non-linear causation. Chapter 18 “Imperial Wars and Crisis, 1739-75” is the first chapter we have read of American Colonies that primarily chronicles military efforts and conflicts; other chapters focused on land claims, settlement, the establishment of political systems and religion. Alex argues, in the post “Britain’s Rise to Power” that in chapter 18 Taylor “forsakes his previous style of a social narrative for more of a direct military history”. Alex was not the only one to make such a claim, with many of our peers expressing appreciation for the perceived shift in focus and argument. Though it is apparent that Taylor has chosen to focus this chapter on military events and conflicts, I disagree with the claim that he forsakes the social narrative. I would argue that it is not the events that are discussed, but the approach and perspectives taken in analyzing those events, which makes Taylor’s writing a social narrative.

In his post “The Changing Role of The Indians” Dana does a thorough job of summarizing and analyzing Taylor’s discussion of Native Americans in Chapter 18. Taylor’s focus on Indian rebellions as well as the impacts of imperial wars on Indian societies and life styles demonstrates that Taylor is not writing a traditional military history. Though he acknowledges that Europeans played Indian nations against each other, he makes efforts not to victimize them. Taylor acknowledges that Indians were not passive subjects of European colonialism when he writes, “To maximize their advantages, after 1701 the Iroquois cultivated a neutrality meant to preserve the balance of power between the French and the British […] A rough balance of power kept presents flowing, preserved competition in the fur trade, and held invading settlers at bay” (Taylor 426). This is the type of social commentary and depth that many historical textbooks lack.

Furthermore, in the second half of the chapter Taylor focuses on the imperial crisis and the United States as an “Empire of Liberty”. These sections analyze the sociological and psychological the impacts of the military conflicts and events detailed in the first part of the chapter. Taylor examines notions of liberty and slavery, arguing that “free colonists intently defended their property rights because property alone made men truly independent and free” and “Broadly defined, ‘slavery’ meant to labor for a master without reaping the rewards” (Tayor 442). By exploring these social themes, Taylor takes chapter 18 beyond a timeline oriented military history to a thorough examination of the significance of these military events in how they impacted society.

Works Cited:
Alan Taylor, American Colonies (New York: Penguin Books 2001), 421-443.
Dana Harvey, “The Changing Role of The Indians”, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/the-changing-role-of-the-indians/
Alex Palinski, “Britain’s Rise to Power”, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/britains-rise-to-power/

January 27, 2014

More to the Davis’ Story: examining slave resistance and African slavery

Davis demonstrates how there are many sides to every story, shedding the light on information and perspectives that many of us were never exposed to in our elementary studies of slavery, but even Davis is unable to share the whole truth. In his blog post, “Early African Slave Treatment” Dana discusses Davis’ arguments that slavery was present in Africa before European arrival, writing, “Davis shows that slavery amongst Africans was not a new practice and their treatment, in some cases, was much better than it could have been if they were not taken from Africa.” I would challenge this assertion as I do not feel that ever explicitly makes this argument himself. Davis does write “Even the slaves could benefit, it was claimed, since they were rescued from being killed, starved or cannibalized in primitive Africa” (81), however I believe Davis is trying to share a common argument justifying slavery at the time. That said, he comes across as supporting this argument because he does not take the time to address its fallacies. Many regions and kingdoms in Africa have long histories of slavery, but slavery pre-European arrival was very different from the notions of slavery we are familiar with having studied North American history – “chattel slavery” did not exist and slaves were still part of their societies’ kinship systems, affording them the opportunities for social mobility. Slaves were also traded through the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes before European arrival, but even abroad slaves in the Arab world, India and Indonesia slaves worked primarily in the home as domestic servants and their children were often freed and integrated into society. Furthermore, even when African slaves were treated humanely in the Americas, they still had to endure the 6-7 month journey from the African interior to the coast (during which 400-600 in every 1000 slaves died), before reaching the deplorable conditions of the slave ships. I not want to discount the great examples Davis provides of when slaves were treated with some measure of humanity in America, nor do I mean to imply that all African slaves were better off before European arrival, I simply want to address what I see as a gap in Davis’ examination.

I was also surprised and disappointed that Davis did not give greater attention to African resistance to slavery in these chapters. He gives a couple examples, such as slave ship mutinies and Stono Rebellion (Davis 139), but these imply that the only way slaves resisted was through armed conflict, which is not the case. In HIS 168 we discussed how every action from taking longer to perform a task, to retaining an independent culture and language, to running away, can be seen as a form of resistance. Davis seems to make a concerted effort to condemn slavery and celebrate the instances when slaves were treated with respect and granted additional rights, but he focuses on these example from the white American/European perspective praising these cases for their morality, without acknowledging the role that slaves played in advocating for change and better treatment. Resistance is fundamental to slave identity and humanity, to overlook it is to enable the images of slaves as broken and helpless or inferior human beings. I would argue that Davis’ top down, systematic approach the issues and institutions of slavery subtlety and unintentionally perpetuate dehumanizing views of slaves as “the other”, undermining his seemingly progressive arguments.

Works Cited:
David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 77-140.