POSTS – Page 8 – Atlantic History

Historical Context Final Project Piece

November 18, 2016December 16, 2020Dr. Shrout

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

Shreshta Aiyar

Dr. Anelise Shrout

HIST 410

18 November 2016

Historical Primary Source Analysis

My final project will study Catholic justifications for Native American and African exploitation in the Atlantic World. I will analyze Catholic Spain’s tactics and intentions for exploration, and I will discuss with detail primary sources that signify European supremacy over Native Atlantic peoples. By studying the Spanish Requirement of 1513 and Christopher Columbus’s Journals, I will explain how European Catholicism largely contributed to Native oppression.

The Spanish Requirement of 1513 was a document that was read in Spanish to Native and Indigenous peoples of North and South America when conquered by Catholic Spain. Under the Requirement, the Spanish requested that Native peoples adopt the Catholic church as their religion, and that they accept subservience to the Spanish. Should indigenous peoples reject this offer, the Spanish would “powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church” (Requirement of 1513). The Spanish Requirement of 1513 represents the usage of Catholicism as a means to conquer and oppress Native American peoples. The Requirement is also an extension of Spain’s home religious and political climate. As Moors were being expelled from Granada, Queen Isabella used Just War Theory to justify the forced conversion or exploitation and conquering of Indigenous Atlantic peoples. Queen Isabella sought to expand Catholicism in order to spread Spain’s social, religious, and economic influence across the globe. In The Church Militant and Iberian Expansion, 1440–1770, historian C.R. Boxer analyzes relations between the regular and the secular clergy; the mission as a frontier institution in many climes and many cultures; the close and inseparable connection between Cross and Crown; and the role of the Inquisition overseas. The Church Militant and Iberian Expansion, 1440–1770 is an important secondary source that relates to the Spanish Requirement of 1513 because C.R. Boxer studies the impact of Catholicism on colonization. Boxer examines the effects of a Catholic crown, of Church Militant groups, and of missionaries on Atlantic civilizations, concluding that Catholicism played a pivotal role in European domination of the New World.

Christopher Columbus’s journals are an example of European supremacy and domination of Native Atlantic peoples. His journal entries depict the roots of white supremacy that endangered indigenous populations. The desire to achieve “God, Glory, and Gold” is evident in Columbus’s writings, and through Catholicism, he separates Europeans from Native Atlantic populations. Columbus showed that religion and exploration went hand in hand regarding Catholic expansion beyond Spanish boarders. Columbus states in his writings that the Native peoples “would be good servants and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion” (Christopher Columbus’ Journals). This ideology is further discussed in Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra’s Puritan Conquistadors: Iberianizing the Atlantic, 1550–1700. In this book, Cañizares-Esguerra argues that there is a striking resemblance between Spanish and Puritan discourse surrounding colonization. Puritan Conquistadors: Iberianizing the Atlantic, 1550–1700 compares and contrasts colonization by the Puritans and the Spanish and overall argues that the Spanish were much harsher and more evil towards Native Americans. However, both the Puritans and the Spanish believed in Christian superiority, and this is a common theme that contributes to the subordination of Indigenous peoples. Christopher Columbus and Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra both expose Catholicism and religion as tools of social superiority that stigmatize Native Americans as uneducated, savage, and non-religious.

In my final project, I hope to connect Catholicism with modern day Euro centrism in the Atlantic. I seek to bridge the Atlantic past of religious dominance over Native Americans with the present day state of American culture and politics, especially through the eyes of Native Americans. It is my goal to research Catholicism’s direct and indirect impacts on the Atlantic between the 15^th and 19^th centuries, as well as on today. Through the Requirement of 1513 and Christopher Columbus’s journals, it is evident that Spanish Catholicism was a tool used to dominate and exploit Native Americans in order to improve and skyrocket Spanish social status and economic importance. C.R. Boxer and Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra both successfully analyze the impact of white religion on the Atlantic, arguing that because of Catholicism and Puritanism, European religion is still a dominant driving force today in social, political, and economic power. I hope to expand on these points in my final project and create a concise digital history project that explains the exploitation of Native American peoples through a religious historical lens.

Abolishing Slavery in the Western Atlantic, 1750-1888 (Due 11/28/2016)

November 18, 2016December 16, 2020Dr. Shrout

Abolition was not an overnight success. Rather, it was a protracted process shaped by the actions of black and white abolitionists as well as of enslaved peoples. Often times, enslaved peoples would work both for their masters and as abolitionists, doing so to pursue personal and community freedom. Abolition was also not a movement with a singular process. Some activists embraced gradual emancipation, some demanded immediate equality. Others advocated for peaceful activism while white and black militants wanted to fight for black liberty (Egerton et al, 462). The end of slavery did not end the Atlantic, but it did shift the connections between Europe, Africa, and the Americas from an economy based on free labor to imperial dynamics and global processes.

Chapter 14 reminded me of the image “La Figure des Moulins a Sucre”. “La Figure…” encapsulates the social and economic justifications of slavery that would later translate into centuries of Native and African oppression and exploitation. Through the images of willing African sugar labor and smiling masters, “La Figure…” represents the economic and social driving forces of the Atlantic: consumer success through enslaved labor. Chapter 14 discusses how ridding the Atlantic of slavery is a process still incomplete. To unravel the cycle of racism and prejudice woven into the economic backbone of the Atlantic is to acknowledge the institutionalized systems of inequality and exploitation that founded Atlantic success.

In a previous post, Enrique Angulo states that “nearly every reading we have read this semester has had something to do with the economic exploitation of others or the development of the global marketplace, [and] while this is probably and accurate way to look at Atlantic History it is also incredibly depressing.” I completely agree with Angulo’s comment and and would like to point out that the history of the Atlantic is largely intertwined with the social and political history of the United States. The success of the West would not be possible without the forced labor of people of color. White civilization is built upon the skeletons of enslaved and marginalized communities, and the history of the Atlantic proves that the vast spaces of Europe and North America profited largely due to the exploitation of Native and African peoples.

Week 13 Emancipation and Empire

November 16, 2016December 16, 2020Dr. Shrout

Sven Beckert’s work Emancipation and Empire: Reconstructing the Worldwide Web of Cotton Production in the Age of the American Civil War explores the effect the ending of the American institution of slavery had on the world economy. Under the race based institution of slavery cotton production in the US had little to no labor costs. Plantation owners only needed to provide their slaves with room and board which cost them significantly less then providing them with living wage. Once the American Civil war ended and the institution of slavery was outlawed in the United States cotton production slowed and the world economy was in need of alternate sources. My peer Chris pointed out that three nations in particular rose up to meet the demands of the market, which were India, Brazil, and Egypt. These countries experienced a brief era of economic expansion before depression hit the marketplace and everyone suffered.

I earlier stated that I believed that slavery was a topic that came up to frequently in our readings; I would like to now revise that statement to include economic exploitation and the global marketplace. I feel like nearly every reading we have read this semester has had something to do with the economic exploitation of others or the development of the global marketplace, while this is probably and accurate way to look at Atlantic History it is also incredibly depressing.

Emancipation and Empires

November 16, 2016December 16, 2020Dr. Shrout

In Emancipation and Empire: Reconstructing the Worldwide Web of Cotton Production in the Age of the American Civil War, Sven Beckert analyzes the rise and fall of American cotton as a global commodity along with its relations to the American Civil War. Becker discusses the shift in importance of cotton before, during and after the Civil War, and how this affects the American economy, American foreign relations, and American slavery.

Cotton was an incredibly important commodity prior to and during the American Civil War. Cotton brought in large amounts of revenue to America, and what stemmed was relationships with Europe, Asia, and Africa. As nations in these continents depended on American cotton, foreign ties strengthened as a result. What also strengthened from the boom in cotton before and during the Civil War was American slavery. Slavery and the success of cotton are directly linked, as free labor provided quick, cheap, and convenient access to the backbreaking process of harvesting cotton.

The Civil War put the state of slavery in jeopardy, and as a result, the state of cotton production was also put into question. Beckert writes that the Civil War was “not only a struggle over American territorial integrity and the future of its ‘peculiar institution’ but also about slave labor and nation-building in the world at large” (Beckert, 1409). Not only did the Civil War question the ethics and morals that continued to justify slavery, it also challenged the economic status of the United States and its commodities. This reminded me of Erin Wroe’s post where she states the reformation of industrial cotton production outside the United States represents the growth in demand and international ability to match American competition. While American cotton production was heavily relied on free labor, nations outside of the US began to invest in industrial methods of production.

Beckert’s writings also reminded me Vieira’s Sugar Islands in that like sugar, cotton became a global commodity that allowed America’s economy to blossom into an international powerhouse. Cotton represents a later form of economic power and dominance in the Atlantic, as both products’ success were heavily dependent on the exploitation and labor of Africans.

Southern Cotton and Economic Integrity

November 16, 2016December 16, 2020Dr. Shrout

In the wake of Britain’s high-ranking marketing enterprises on resources overseas, many occupied countries sought rural changes in how they farmed goods for these mercantile companies. As Sven Beckert in Emancipation and Empire was describing, this was in conjunction with the price of cotton in the eastern U.S. rising deeply throughout the world in the 1860s, with Britain as the main spectator of this dilemma. As Tram Hua elaborated, the American Civil War erupted its own outbreak of a “cotton famine” to the world in the hopes that countries who prospected the most from selling and producing the crafted material would approve of the Confederacy’s disgruntled view of global commerce. The South banned all exports of cotton goods to Britain just so they can be recognized as a legitimate, autonomous democracy once they infiltrated an economy that in and of itself [probably] held more power than the South’s own little government along the Atlantic.

It appears that the North subtly achieved its own take on installing an auxiliary patron in Liverpool, London, to divert from the South’s political and commercial cause. Outside of the U.S. in places around India, Egypt, and Brazil, local impatient demands for commercialized cotton incentively stirred up the need to increase the price of cotton exports from European commercial entities. Meanwhile, Liverpool recruited other regions around the world, namely Argentina, China, Central Asia, and Togo in West Africa to manufacture more cotton goods to keep the U.S. industrial states satisfied for the time being. Of course, who could forget the protagonistic appeal of the obsolete effect industrialism had on slavery to ensure what was starkly shown to be the best shift in Atlantic history, politics, and economics?

Cotton and The Civil War

November 16, 2016December 16, 2020Dr. Shrout

Cotton had always been an important cash crop but after Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793, the cotton industry transformed. Blessed with the desire climax to grow this crop, the cotton gin, and the use of slave labor force, American South quickly dominated the cotton industry. When the outbreak of the Civil War occur in 1861, it was much more than just the internal struggle between the Northe and the Southern states. The war affected the worldwide cotton production and global capitalism. After the Northern blockade successfully kept cotton from leaving the South, the number of 3.8 million bales of cotton exported to Europe in 1860 fell to virtually nothing just two year later (Beckert,1408).

Like Viktoriya Shalunova said to her blog, “The impact of the American Civil War changed the lives of slaves by emancipation. It also caused the flourishing economies of Egypt, Brazil, and India to become a word player in the cotton industry.” The cotton famine created a crisis across the globe also subsequently created a new kind of imperialism (Beckert, 1411). Countries were now in the race to become the new world’s market for cotton production and exportation. During the Civil War years, Indian cotton alone prevented the collapse of the European cotton industries. In Egypt, vast amount of its fertile land converted to cotton cultivation, thus permanently changed the country’s economy. In Brazil, farmers abandoned their crops to focus on cotton, thus doubling Brazilian cotton export (Beckert, 1414).

Global Adaptation in a Changing Market

November 16, 2016December 16, 2020Dr. Shrout

Sven Beckert illuminates the global implications of the American Civil War and its effect on the Southern cotton industry. Internationally, the Civil War created reason for profitable cotton markets, and all pieces and parts included (i.e. labor, land, and imperial interests), to evolve. Prior to 1861, the American south dominated cotton production and export across the globe. Textile manufacturers in Great Britain benefitted directly from their relationship with U.S. coastal growers and their cheap cotton, afforded by non-wage labor. “In England alone, it was estimated that the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of all people was based upon the industry, one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth.” (Beckert, 1408) Two short years later, Union naval blockades and foreign policy conflict all but terminated British-American cotton relationships. Europe as a whole was negatively effected. Economic adaptation was vital for the survival of such a profitable business, otherwise global war may have occurred a generation earlier then it actually did. Fortunately, markets in Egypt and India filled the void, in turn generating new imperial interests decades before petroleum commanded the same degree of covetousness. As Egerton et al argued in chapter thirteen, new imperialism followed closely behind industrialization. In this case, Beckert suggests necessity generated imperialism, and adaptation formed the environment for it to flourish.

The new cotton industry would prove more expensive in the years following the emancipation of slavery in the U.S. Cotton, it seems, was much more difficult to attain when not farmed by slave labor. As Vince points out, labor wages, market fluctuations, capitalist traps, and environmental hazards changed the global cotton economy and created new avenues through which imperialist interests were able to navigate freely. Cotton, like sugar before it, spanned the Atlantic, connecting nations and creating trade networks so intertwined that an event on one Continent could mean disaster on another.

Post-Civil War changes in Cotton Production

November 16, 2016December 16, 2020Dr. Shrout

Prior to the Civil War economies around the world depended on slave produced American cotton. The emancipation of slaves in America meant that cotton production would naturally fall and prices would increase due to labor costs that were previously non-existent. Concerns regarding land availability were shifted to worries dealing with who would cultivate the cotton. India capitalized on the new changing market, but rather than exporting to their traditional British and Chinese partners they found success exporting to continental Europe and Japan. Brazil and Egypt would also capitalize on the tumultuous American cotton industry between the 1850’s and 1870’s. Matthe Liivoja accurately states on his blog that, “This allowed the structure of slavery to change and America depended on cotton production in other countries to fill the void in the wake of Emancipation at the end of the Civil War.” Cotton entrepreneurs would still find ways to make money despite losing their work force. Sharecropping, money lending and crop liens presented new obstacles for cotton producers looking to make a living growing the crops. These new capitalist traps and market price fluctuations had adverse effects on already vulnerable rural grower’s living conditions. Indian and Brazilian cotton growers specifically faced devastation when cotton prices plunged in 1873 and food prices skyrocketed due to drought. All these new problems were caused by a new world cotton economy that no longer thrived on American slave labor. Basic economic principles like supply and demand and competitive pricing were magnified as foreign economies tried to efficiently make money in the newly open cotton production market. Bureaucrats and manufacturers assured the survival of capitalist friction that was represented previously by land owners and slaves. Rebellion in Brazil and India could not prevent imperial powers from finding cheap effective means of production despite the end of slavery at the end of the Civil War.

Cotton is King

November 15, 2016December 16, 2020Dr. Shrout

Cotton is King

The Industrial revolution shock the world market, it completely transformed the world economy leading to a large global market. As my classmate Robert stated in his blog post, British “textiles had helped launch industry and through its continued growth came a huge demand for cotton.” To meet the demand the United States southern plantation owners invested in more enslaved men, larger areas to cultivate and new forms of technology such as the cotton gin. By 1860 Southern United States plantations cultivated the majority of the world’s cotton; but while cotton production rose southern political power diminished, to the point where they felt succession was necessary. They formally declared their secession after the results of the 1860’s election, however, the new president-elect will refuse to let them succeed and will be forever remembered as keeping the Union intact. The war of Northern Aggression had begun, a war the southern confederacy thought wouldn’t last, after all, they figured they had the support of all of Europe. The North placed a blockade on the Southern States removing their ability to export their primary cash crop, cotton, by placing the blockade the Union made a great gamble, Europe was no longer acquiring cotton and therefore had a reason to back the Southern South, however, if they stayed out of the war the blockade would surely strangle the sSouthern Confederacy. English parliament was at odds its merchants required cotton but they couldn’t openly support a war based on the abolition of slavery. The solution they came up with was to outsource, during the American civil war production of cotton rose drastically in India, Brazil, and Egypt. These three countries/colonies rose to meet the demand of cotton and it paid off for Great Britain, they now successfully removed the middle man (northern merchants) and managed to acquire raw materials at a cheaper rate. This brought the three colonies into the world market, bringing large wealth into the area, however, it exposed them to the influx of the world economy. They now had to worry about falling prices for their raw goods that they were completely dependent on, during the depression is 1873 prices fell so low that may lose their farms. This form of trading reminds me much of the prices of oil, there are numerous countries that are completely dependent on oil prices and when they fall the nation suffers.

Seeds of Change: Cotton and the Civil War

November 15, 2016December 16, 2020Dr. Shrout

When people think about the Civil War, they think about a war between the Anti-slavery Union and the pro-slavery Confederacy. What people don`t always know or think about is the effect cotton production had on the war and the changes that occurred afterward. At the time of the Civil War, home grown cotton was primarily cultivated in the South where ideal climates and the use of plantations as well as slave labor was held. Little did America know that cotton would actually play a role in capitalism and global trade. Since the South had trade relations with England, the North set up a blockade to prevent the cotton from being shipped overseas, thus cutting a supply network to the agrarian South. In relation to Viktoriya’s Post, I agree on the fact imported cotton declined and led to unemployment in the South. So, a divided America needed some other way to revive its cotton industry.

Not only did cotton production greatly influence trade, it led to Emancipation because the Union`s victory freed the slaves. It also caused turmoil and needed a supply of laborers to pick up the pieces. As a result, Great Britain needed to find other producers overseas. So, they looked to “West Africa and India (Beckert, 1420).” This allowed the structure of slavery to change and America depended on cotton production in other countries to fill the void in the wake of Emancipation at the end of the Civil War. Inventions like the cotton gin were exported to Europe and helped to accelerate cotton production in the United Kingdom. The Union, however, had relations with other cotton growers like “Egypt, South America and even India which aided Northern victory (Beckert, 1418).” Finally, England didn`t have to depend entirely on one country for one commodity, they could use others for cotton production. In conclusion, I have learned emancipation and the Civil War actually created a more diverse trade network across the globe.