Many Europeans hoped to assimilate African students by bringing them to Europe and educating them in some of their finest schools. Unfortunately, these Europeans mainly acted in their own interests rather than the interest of the students. The British, for example, recruited promising students from wealthy and influential African families with the idea that they would eventually return to Africa as political leaders and would be “sympathetic to the interests of the British ruling class” (Adi 72).
Still others wanted Africans to fully assimilate to European culture, losing their own identity and heritage in the process. The racism and the racial restrictions present in Europe would likely influence an African there to be ashamed or try to shed his “African-ness” but many African intellectuals did quite the opposite. While some may have completely embraced or rejected Western civilization, I think the majority of African intellectuals were somewhere in the middle, incorporating only parts of Western civilization into their own lives.
Instead of returning home to be influential in politics there, many Africans remained and got involved in European politics. Some “were often able to play a pivotal role in the development of the politics of resistance to slavery, colonialism, and European imperialism” (Adi 70). Additionally, “the African presence itself” was influential to the social and political conditions in Europe (Adi 71).
Rather than lose their African identity in order to fully immerse themselves in a European identity, many sought “to rehabilitate the black race” (Wilder 156). Intellectuals such as Damas, Senghor, and Cesaire used their European schooling to their advantage. In Paris, what eventually came to be known as the movement of “Negritude” started out as “‘interminable discussions’ among students who shared ideas” (Wilder 156). However, with their recommitment to their African culture some completely shunned any ties to European culture. For example, one woman was ridiculed for identifying with her white heritage and marrying a white man (Wilder 154).
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Short Essay 7
For Europeans, the African was perceived as being new and exotic as well as savage and inferior to the white race. The former was greatly used in advertising and entertainment while the latter was used as propaganda to discourage interracial relationships and to justify the European conquest of Africa. African culture was extremely popular, especially in the early twentieth century, giving Europeans a temporary escape from the familiar and the mundane.
The African “seemed to offer…a source for renewal and a means for celebrating life and sexuality” (Berliner 206) that the European wanted to explore and exploit without damaging their own reputations. This sexuality was admired by Europeans, but the fear of interracial sex was overwhelming. “Blackness” was viewed as symbolic of “sin, death, ignorance, sexual deviancy, virility, fecundity”, thus further promoting the supposed purity of the white race (Archer-Straw 24). In theater, Africans were often half-naked and running wild, while Europeans appeared to be more refined and sophisticated in order to justify Africa’s conquest (Archer-Straw 31) and to make Africans appear to be terrifying.
In the nineteenth century, the African continent was still only beginning to be explored so it was essentially unknown to the majority of Europeans, “fuelling fantiasies for the driven, disillusioned and disaffected of Europeans society who sought a place either to lost, to find or to expand oneself” (Archer-Straw 29). African culture was exciting for Europeans, especially music and dancing. In the early twentieth century, jazz became very popular and black entertainers were very common in Parisian clubs (Berliner 209).
The African “seemed to offer…a source for renewal and a means for celebrating life and sexuality” (Berliner 206) that the European wanted to explore and exploit without damaging their own reputations. This sexuality was admired by Europeans, but the fear of interracial sex was overwhelming. “Blackness” was viewed as symbolic of “sin, death, ignorance, sexual deviancy, virility, fecundity”, thus further promoting the supposed purity of the white race (Archer-Straw 24). In theater, Africans were often half-naked and running wild, while Europeans appeared to be more refined and sophisticated in order to justify Africa’s conquest (Archer-Straw 31) and to make Africans appear to be terrifying.
In the nineteenth century, the African continent was still only beginning to be explored so it was essentially unknown to the majority of Europeans, “fuelling fantiasies for the driven, disillusioned and disaffected of Europeans society who sought a place either to lost, to find or to expand oneself” (Archer-Straw 29). African culture was exciting for Europeans, especially music and dancing. In the early twentieth century, jazz became very popular and black entertainers were very common in Parisian clubs (Berliner 209).
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Short Essay 6
In the minds of Europeans in the twentieth century, Africans were viewed as “the Other”. Essentially that they were foreign and inferior to the white race. The idea of “us” vs. “them” was prominent during this time. As the supposedly superior race, whites needed to make sure they were kept completely separate from blacks so as to avoid “contamination” and to be perceived as polar opposites.
The French used black soldiers in their occupation of Germany after World War I as a “subtle kind of psychological warfare”(Campt 32), much to the dismay of the Germans. Allegedly, Africans were especially suited for warfare given their “robustness, endurance…[and] an incomparable power to shock their enemies” (Campt 33). Another fear of black troops in Germany was over their “alleged sexual misconduct” (Campt 36). Interracial marriage and/or mixed race offspring were perceived as huge threats to Europe in the twentieth century.
Studies in areas such as eugenics and phrenology supported the notion that blacks were inferior to whites and that mixing the two races “had an impact on both the intellectual capacity and psychological constitution” and would result “in the ‘pauperization’ of the genetic traits of the ‘superior’ white race (Campt 39). The fears over intermarriage and consequently a mixed race population often led the state to ban whites and blacks marrying each other.
Africans were portrayed as the “racially inferior ‘Black enemy’” (Campt 57) in addition to being supposedly dangerous. Thus laws were put in place to restrict the rights and the entrance of Africans in some Europeans countries. Great Britain enacted legislature such as the Special Restrict of Coloured Alien Seamen Order in 1925; “directed solely against coloured migrants…it was clearly racist (Bush 207).
The threat of mixed race children was thought to be eliminated through the banning of interracial marriage and sex, but such was not the case. Taking the issue even further was the physical implementation of eugenics. A woman accused of being a nymphomaniac would be relieved of her ailments by removing her ovaries or uterus; upon its removal, a man with an enlarged prostate would no longer experience the “uncontrollable sexual desire” to attack young girls (Stone 96). Some of these procedures were forced upon blacks to further lessen the threat of mixed race offspring.
The idea that whites were a superior race was not a short-lived one and, unfortunately, they often went to extremes to prove their point. The ‘otherness’ of black culture was accentuated by the differences, even exaggerated or completely imagined, between blacks and whites. Blacks were considered to be fearful, barbaric, uncivilized,etc. and white Europeans supported the myth with their supposedly scientific research.
The French used black soldiers in their occupation of Germany after World War I as a “subtle kind of psychological warfare”(Campt 32), much to the dismay of the Germans. Allegedly, Africans were especially suited for warfare given their “robustness, endurance…[and] an incomparable power to shock their enemies” (Campt 33). Another fear of black troops in Germany was over their “alleged sexual misconduct” (Campt 36). Interracial marriage and/or mixed race offspring were perceived as huge threats to Europe in the twentieth century.
Studies in areas such as eugenics and phrenology supported the notion that blacks were inferior to whites and that mixing the two races “had an impact on both the intellectual capacity and psychological constitution” and would result “in the ‘pauperization’ of the genetic traits of the ‘superior’ white race (Campt 39). The fears over intermarriage and consequently a mixed race population often led the state to ban whites and blacks marrying each other.
Africans were portrayed as the “racially inferior ‘Black enemy’” (Campt 57) in addition to being supposedly dangerous. Thus laws were put in place to restrict the rights and the entrance of Africans in some Europeans countries. Great Britain enacted legislature such as the Special Restrict of Coloured Alien Seamen Order in 1925; “directed solely against coloured migrants…it was clearly racist (Bush 207).
The threat of mixed race children was thought to be eliminated through the banning of interracial marriage and sex, but such was not the case. Taking the issue even further was the physical implementation of eugenics. A woman accused of being a nymphomaniac would be relieved of her ailments by removing her ovaries or uterus; upon its removal, a man with an enlarged prostate would no longer experience the “uncontrollable sexual desire” to attack young girls (Stone 96). Some of these procedures were forced upon blacks to further lessen the threat of mixed race offspring.
The idea that whites were a superior race was not a short-lived one and, unfortunately, they often went to extremes to prove their point. The ‘otherness’ of black culture was accentuated by the differences, even exaggerated or completely imagined, between blacks and whites. Blacks were considered to be fearful, barbaric, uncivilized,etc. and white Europeans supported the myth with their supposedly scientific research.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Short Essay 5
I think that European imperialism in Africa was not spontaneous but essentially planned. I agree with Roberts, that Europe “tried to mould [sic] Africa for imperial purposes” and raced to beat other nations in order to gain the most territory on the continent(Roberts 24). Ultimately, what Europeans saw in Africa was the potential for political influence, trade, and labor.
It had been long assumed that blacks were inferior to whites based upon supposed “scientific research” and Africans were thought to be godless heathens and not capable of reaching the same levels of intelligence as whites. They allegedly were not sophisticated enough to rule themselves either, so nations such as France and Britain established governments in their territories thus making the Africans there French or British subjects.
Before it was tainted by European powers, Africa was overflowing with natural resources. But Europe saw more than just mining and trading opportunities, they saw human labor. When more manpower was needed for military campaigns, Africans were used. France used mostly Africans as its infantry because the French were not acclimated to the heat and humidity and often got sick (Vandervort 117). Even as late as World War I France used Africans to supplement its troops.
If Britain had not taken the land, then certainly France or Germany would have(and vice versa) and then Britain would have looked weak or had less influence in politics or trade in Africa. So whether any of these European powers thought it morally wrong to do so, it did not matter because in the end it was all about having more power in the eyes of their rivals.
It had been long assumed that blacks were inferior to whites based upon supposed “scientific research” and Africans were thought to be godless heathens and not capable of reaching the same levels of intelligence as whites. They allegedly were not sophisticated enough to rule themselves either, so nations such as France and Britain established governments in their territories thus making the Africans there French or British subjects.
Before it was tainted by European powers, Africa was overflowing with natural resources. But Europe saw more than just mining and trading opportunities, they saw human labor. When more manpower was needed for military campaigns, Africans were used. France used mostly Africans as its infantry because the French were not acclimated to the heat and humidity and often got sick (Vandervort 117). Even as late as World War I France used Africans to supplement its troops.
If Britain had not taken the land, then certainly France or Germany would have(and vice versa) and then Britain would have looked weak or had less influence in politics or trade in Africa. So whether any of these European powers thought it morally wrong to do so, it did not matter because in the end it was all about having more power in the eyes of their rivals.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Short Essay 4
Ouladah Equiano’s view of freedom was unique from other slave narratives in that he was not born in slavery, but was captured as a child and taken out of Africa with the slave trade. For a slave born into those circumstances, freedom is desirable even though he/she has never experienced it. But for a slave who was born free and later captured, knowing the freedom that was stolen from them would be a huge motivator to regain it.
Equiano saw freedom as that which was most desirable above all else. He had known freedom in Africa before it was taken away from him and he was determined to reclaim his freedom. At one point he was promised his freedom after a sea voyage, but was tricked into being sold upon reaching the island of Montserrat.
A freed or escaped black was continually fearful of being recaptured and sold again into slavery. When Equiano’s friend, John Annis, was reclaimed by his former owner, he unsuccessfully attempted to help free his friend. Equiano, also having known what it was to desire liberty, was determined to do whatever he could to ensure that his friend should not be returned to slavery.
Europeans also regarded freedom very highly, but seemed to believe it was something to aspire to or something that had to be earned rather than given freely. Equiano chastises those who refuse to teach slaves to read yet then claim they are uncivilized. He claims that most slaves are unable to study religion until after they have either escaped or been released from their masters. Equiano also rebukes those who do allow slaves to be taught religion yet then claim they are heathens.
Equiano and other enslaved Africans knew how valuable freedom was to a man. At the same time, Europeans also viewed freedom as quite valuable, although they believed that not all men were as deserving of liberty. Europeans claimed that African slaves were not civilized enough to be granted freedom, yet they never gave them the chance to learn anything and thus prove they could be civilized.
Equiano saw freedom as that which was most desirable above all else. He had known freedom in Africa before it was taken away from him and he was determined to reclaim his freedom. At one point he was promised his freedom after a sea voyage, but was tricked into being sold upon reaching the island of Montserrat.
A freed or escaped black was continually fearful of being recaptured and sold again into slavery. When Equiano’s friend, John Annis, was reclaimed by his former owner, he unsuccessfully attempted to help free his friend. Equiano, also having known what it was to desire liberty, was determined to do whatever he could to ensure that his friend should not be returned to slavery.
Europeans also regarded freedom very highly, but seemed to believe it was something to aspire to or something that had to be earned rather than given freely. Equiano chastises those who refuse to teach slaves to read yet then claim they are uncivilized. He claims that most slaves are unable to study religion until after they have either escaped or been released from their masters. Equiano also rebukes those who do allow slaves to be taught religion yet then claim they are heathens.
Equiano and other enslaved Africans knew how valuable freedom was to a man. At the same time, Europeans also viewed freedom as quite valuable, although they believed that not all men were as deserving of liberty. Europeans claimed that African slaves were not civilized enough to be granted freedom, yet they never gave them the chance to learn anything and thus prove they could be civilized.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Short Essay 3
France had long been associated with freedom. Obviously, slaveholders were less likely to support abolition, although some actually did petition to grant freedom to their own slaves. There were different reasons why the French sought to free slaves who had been brought into their country. For most average non-slaveholding citizens, it was abstract; but for others, and especially those in government or law positions, the motivation was likely based on more personal reasons.
While slavery was wide-spread in the French colonies, it was never formally introduced into France as it had been in America and Great Britain. For that reason, slavery never gained the same popularity and acceptance in France as it did in other nations. Most of the French who supported abolition were average citizens who acted on moral reasons. Christianity, “which held that man was created in God’s image and could not be treated as a beast under the domination of other men” (Peabody 21) , was a huge motivator for people during the 17th and 18th centuries.
According to Peabody, lawyers who took on cases for freedom did so for three reasons – remuneration, experience, and sympathy (Peabody 103). They knew that it was relatively easy to win such cases, and that they would probably be compensated for their efforts if they sought a monetary settlement between the owner and the slave. These lawyers were not necessarily motivated entirely by selfish means, there were those whose moral obligations led them to take on such cases.
Some ci tizens only wanted to free the slaves in France in order to expel them from the country. Poncet de la Grave literally was afraid that slaves would contaminate the white population, linking blacks to venereal disease (Peabody 124). He also sought to ban interracial marriages and succeeded in April 1778, although the law was not strictly enforced (Peabody 129).
French laws concerning slavery were not very descriptive and were full of loopholes. Government officials were especially likely to rule in favor of the slave because there were no laws concerning slavery officially recognized in the courts. Many lawyers pointed out that legislation such as the Edict of October 1716, which allowed colonists to bring their slaves to France without fear of losing them, had never been formally recognized and were thus invalied. An earlier decree from King Louis XIV was also frequently cited. The Freedom Principle (Peabody 14) held that slaves were automatically free upon setting foot in France.
Overall, because most French citizens had not been exposed to the same level and degree as in other nations, they were less likely to be so accepting of the institution of slavery. As it was in France, religion was an important factor in the abolition movement. A government that was not very tolerant of slavery further stopped its spread.
While slavery was wide-spread in the French colonies, it was never formally introduced into France as it had been in America and Great Britain. For that reason, slavery never gained the same popularity and acceptance in France as it did in other nations. Most of the French who supported abolition were average citizens who acted on moral reasons. Christianity, “which held that man was created in God’s image and could not be treated as a beast under the domination of other men” (Peabody 21) , was a huge motivator for people during the 17th and 18th centuries.
According to Peabody, lawyers who took on cases for freedom did so for three reasons – remuneration, experience, and sympathy (Peabody 103). They knew that it was relatively easy to win such cases, and that they would probably be compensated for their efforts if they sought a monetary settlement between the owner and the slave. These lawyers were not necessarily motivated entirely by selfish means, there were those whose moral obligations led them to take on such cases.
Some ci tizens only wanted to free the slaves in France in order to expel them from the country. Poncet de la Grave literally was afraid that slaves would contaminate the white population, linking blacks to venereal disease (Peabody 124). He also sought to ban interracial marriages and succeeded in April 1778, although the law was not strictly enforced (Peabody 129).
French laws concerning slavery were not very descriptive and were full of loopholes. Government officials were especially likely to rule in favor of the slave because there were no laws concerning slavery officially recognized in the courts. Many lawyers pointed out that legislation such as the Edict of October 1716, which allowed colonists to bring their slaves to France without fear of losing them, had never been formally recognized and were thus invalied. An earlier decree from King Louis XIV was also frequently cited. The Freedom Principle (Peabody 14) held that slaves were automatically free upon setting foot in France.
Overall, because most French citizens had not been exposed to the same level and degree as in other nations, they were less likely to be so accepting of the institution of slavery. As it was in France, religion was an important factor in the abolition movement. A government that was not very tolerant of slavery further stopped its spread.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Short Essay 2
The abolitionist movement in Britain was, for a long time, assumed to have been “entirely or even heavily dominated by ‘Quakers, evangelicals and Rational Dissenters’” (Hudson 562). These supposed radicals were considered outcasts, both socially and politically, and were thought to oppose slavery not on the basis on morality, but because they were opposed to the government and the capitalist system in place. A lot of people became extremely wealthy because of the business of slavery, further widening the status of the lower and upper classes.
Even though there were very vocal opponents to slavery, it was still pretty popular in England. Bristol considers its “Golden Age” during the eighteenth century at height of its involvement in the slave trades (Richardson 49). Unfortunately, Bristol did not use its new wealth and status to move into other avenues of business, and when slave trading died out so did the city. There were possibly more proponents of slavery in Bristol than opponents, solely based on the fact that the city was so successful at slave-trading and did not work to find anything else to offer economically to society.
Other cities, such as Liverpool and Glasgow, used their “association with slavery…for even more dramatic local growth and development in the following century” (Richardson 50). Since these cities had more to sustain them than just slavery, people there may have been more willing to abolish slavery and put an end to the slave trades because they had other business opportunities in which to make money. Louis d’Anjou claimed that the first abolitionists were people who had been “left out in the cold” by capitalism and therefore “set out to recreate their society, beginning with the abolition of forced labor” (Hudson 559).
It is simply untrue that only and all radicals were abolitionists. In fact, “some radicals were even directly implicated in the slave-trade” (Hudson 560). The Anglican Church was not entirely absolved of any entanglements with slavery either, having had inherited a plantation in Virginia (Hudson 562). Yet some of the biggest opponents to slavery were social and political conservatives who belonged to the Church (Hudson 560), and it has been reported more recently that some conservative groups rooted in the Church were much more involved in the abolitionist movement than previously thought (Hudson 562).
Early abolitionists in England could be considered both “left-wing” and “right wing” politically. Radicals that opposed slavery did so primarily as an effort to bring down the government and/or capitalism. Many of these radicals were unable to exploit slavery for personal gains as the elite had done and they were unhappy about it. Abolitionist conservatives more often opposed slavery based on moral grounds, even though some of them had become wealth due to their (or their family’s) involvement in slavery.
Even though there were very vocal opponents to slavery, it was still pretty popular in England. Bristol considers its “Golden Age” during the eighteenth century at height of its involvement in the slave trades (Richardson 49). Unfortunately, Bristol did not use its new wealth and status to move into other avenues of business, and when slave trading died out so did the city. There were possibly more proponents of slavery in Bristol than opponents, solely based on the fact that the city was so successful at slave-trading and did not work to find anything else to offer economically to society.
Other cities, such as Liverpool and Glasgow, used their “association with slavery…for even more dramatic local growth and development in the following century” (Richardson 50). Since these cities had more to sustain them than just slavery, people there may have been more willing to abolish slavery and put an end to the slave trades because they had other business opportunities in which to make money. Louis d’Anjou claimed that the first abolitionists were people who had been “left out in the cold” by capitalism and therefore “set out to recreate their society, beginning with the abolition of forced labor” (Hudson 559).
It is simply untrue that only and all radicals were abolitionists. In fact, “some radicals were even directly implicated in the slave-trade” (Hudson 560). The Anglican Church was not entirely absolved of any entanglements with slavery either, having had inherited a plantation in Virginia (Hudson 562). Yet some of the biggest opponents to slavery were social and political conservatives who belonged to the Church (Hudson 560), and it has been reported more recently that some conservative groups rooted in the Church were much more involved in the abolitionist movement than previously thought (Hudson 562).
Early abolitionists in England could be considered both “left-wing” and “right wing” politically. Radicals that opposed slavery did so primarily as an effort to bring down the government and/or capitalism. Many of these radicals were unable to exploit slavery for personal gains as the elite had done and they were unhappy about it. Abolitionist conservatives more often opposed slavery based on moral grounds, even though some of them had become wealth due to their (or their family’s) involvement in slavery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)