Second-class citizenship


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

Slavery has existed since the first civilizations, though the kidnapping of Africans and their brutal enslavement in the Americas has been the most brutal. Past civilizations have allowed people to sell themselves into slavery to pay back debts and slaves have often been allowed to earn there freedom over long periods of time (I do not have sources for these claims, except to say that I have learned of them during my previous education). Within the brutal system of American slavery, slaves had little or no legal protection, could be bought and sold as slaveholders pleased, work brutal hours in even more brutal conditions, and be punished for malfeasance through torture. I believe that part of what allowed these slaves to be brutalized, as never before in history, was the omnipresent racism that slaveholders both participated in and used as a tool for the subjugation of blacks. Patricia Reed, in “Margaret Morgan’s Story: A Threshold between Slavery and Freedom, 1820-1842, documents what I believe to be an inevitable consequence of this racism-supported slavery: the legal marginalization of free blacks.

Wade argues that Pennsylvania laws were ineffective due to their weakness. I wonder, however, how strong those laws would have had to be in order to have prevented the encroachment of slavery and slave catchers upon border and other nearby states. For example, in the United States, which has inherited the English Common Law principle of the presumption of innocence, blacks were slaves until proven free. Why did southern states not require a proof of ownership before allowing blacks, like Morgan and her children, to be sold to slaveholders? That might have prevented their kidnapping and enslavement, but rather they lacked the adequate documentation of manumission, and therefore could not prove their freedom. I argue that to do so would have highlighted the initial kidnapping from Africa. Indeed, if it is unjust to kidnap a black family from Pennsylvania, why would it be more just to kidnap them from the African coast. To ask such a question would be to undermine the fundamental justification of slavery–that blacks were inhuman, and could therefore be enslaved at will.

Though abolitionists and northerners in or near border states were rendered ineffective by the laws and customs of nearby states, I was saddened to learn of the ways in which their own racism hindered their abilities to aid free blacks. For example, Reid mentions that “Pennsylvania state laws had stripped free blacks from bringing criminal charges against whites in court” (372). By granting blacks status as second-class citizens, rather than slaves, Pennsylvanians had acknowledged their belief that blacks did not deserve the full protections of the law. From there, it is a slippery slope to being unable to prevent their enslavement at the hands of unscrupulous slave catchers.

As an American in 2013, I argue that this phenomenon–bigotry with partial acceptance–is not over. In the Davidsonian, my freshman year, I argued that Davidson’s Presbyterian tradition was incompatible with homosexuality, and that we should therefore abandon the Presbyterian tradition. The responses I received were interesting, and I learned several things, but the one that stuck with me the most was that many people believed in accepting gays and lesbians, but that to engage in homosexual activities was still a sin. Not only do I disagree, but I believe that such splitting of hairs is not beneficial to any disfranchised group. To love someone, to include them and accept them, you cannot reject part of their identity. I believe that such rejection fuels homophobia today, and that such racism and exclusion of blacks from the courts and other political processes is what allowed Margaret Morgan and her children to be brutally re-enslaved so long ago.

Ironic Hydra


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

I am excited to learn about more about ships and their role as political spaces since, in reading “The Many-Headed Hydra” by Linebaugh and Rediker, it became apparent to me that, in the cases they discussed, ships served dual roles: (1) to confine and control people, especially slaves and, (2) especially for the African community, to create a sense of cohesion among those who were enslaved and transported on ships. This cohesion served Africans in England well in their London community, according to Linebaugh and Rediker.
Not only cohesion but, as L&R argue, the confinement experienced by all of these groups, including Africans, led to consciousness of  freedom, which was an essential element in inspiring the riots and activism of the working class in this period and later.

I found “The Many-Headed Hydra” to be a particularly interested reading. I appreciated the use of the hydra metaphor because, not only did I learn about its use in the past to describe the so-called ‘mob,’ but the authors’ sympathetic treatment of the working class within this piece adds irony to the metaphor.

I think that perspectives on race in “Hydra” is also a worthy topic. Considering the food riots of 1740 and the resistance to the ‘Intolerable Acts’ in colonial America leading up to the revolution, one must challenge the perception of racism and cultural bias as inherent and natural. As my favorite historian, the late Howard Zinn, suggested in his “People’s History of the United States,” perhaps it is possible that racism is a tool with which the wealthy divide the working classes into separate groups. Though perhaps difficult to prove such a hypothesis, the motives for such action are certainly present: nurturing racism solidifies the validity of race-based enslavement, creates hate between groups of people who might otherwise be unified, and distracts from other issues that might upset people.

L&R also document the cohesion with which workers from various industries and even social strata cohere in order to protest and act against what they see as oppression. In the protests before the revolutionary war, workers of both African and European ethnicity, as well as those who were enslaved and indentured and those who were free worked together to accomplish their goals. Similarly, during the 1768 riots in Ireland “tailors, shoemakers, carpenters” all banded together in activism for the advancement of the working class.

Regarding Slaughter and “The Whiskey Rebellion,” I both agree and disagree with Wade’s assessment. Though perhaps not the most inclusive conclusion, Slaughter’s argument that liberty versus order was the most significant paradigm of the Whiskey Rebellion was supported by some evidence. I think that Slaughter’s incredibly detailed description of the events allows and encourages the reader to make their own analysis, especially when considering the roots of the rebellion, leading all the way to independence movements in what is now Tennessee and Kentucky and Vermont.