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 “The Roots of Early Black Nationalism,” Sara Fanning aims to argue that Haiti “played a far greater role in the cultural and political activities of northern free blacks than historians previously credited.” (Fanning) Although she provides extensive support to the measures taken by Haitian officials to cater to the Free African American population in the United States, she does not give adequate evidence that these actions led to real influence in the United States. She spends most of her time describing reasons as to why her claims would be supported, but not enough concrete evidence to African American reactions to her specific reasons.
After the Haitian Revolution, Fanning portrays Haiti as an attractive place for African Americans to reside. The Constitution provided for equality, banned white ownership of plantations, and the country was characterized by a military presence, demonstrating their willingness to defend their newfound freedom. After the revolution and stints of civil war, however, Haiti needed more people if it was going to be able to survive economically; it was already difficult enough as many countries refused to recognize their independence. It was for this reason that officials were often sent to the states to recruit for Haitian immigration, official declarations made that would be published in black newspapers in the US, and even the constitution modeled after that of the United States (although this was probably not for publicity reasons, it came to be used as one.)
Fanning gives plenty of reasons for Haiti to be attractive to African Americans, and that these qualities were made apparent, but rarely gives specific examples of how the African American population felt about them. She often uses language such as “would not have gone unnoticed” or “must have been welcomed” in an attempt to give the nationalist movement relevance, but these are simply assumptions. She is able to show that emigration occurred after some publicity attempts, but a connection with her specific examples is not clearly shown. The most relevant exception would be the naming of the Boyer Masonic Lodge in New York, but even then she mentions he failed to bring the expected number of migrants.
This is not to discredit Fanning’s article, as there is valuable information. I simply feel that her Abstract does not match the content of her article, and a change in thesis could greater reflect the evidence given.
As seen in Eli’s post, much of our knowledge of slavery we see as conventional, something everyone learns about throughout their education. We often find, though, that much of what we learn is not the entire truth, and we can be misled. I feel like Fanning plays on our natural inclination to trust a historian, as without careful reading much of the assumptions she makes in her article could be accepted as fact. It is important as young historians ourselves to always be aware of what we are reading and how evidence can be skewed or misleading.