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.
Monday, February 23, 2009
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.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
About Me
Hey everyone! Just a quick note about myself. I've never had a blog before, but several of my friends do so I've checked them occasionally. I am a History major, and should (hopefully) be graduating this summer. I have taken many online classes before, and am in fact taking 2 others this semester. I really enjoy the flexibility of online classes because they allow me to fit in a full schedule of classes around my work schedule.
Short Essay 1
“The Black Atlantic” could easily be applied to the height of the slave trade during the 18th century. The number of slaves being taken from Africa greatly increased during the 18th century, then started to slow down during the first half of the 19th century. According to Tables I and II, Eltis estimates the number of Africans sent to the Americas at 11,062,000 over approximately 350 years. The business of slave trading was quite lucrative. It is certainly likely that there were more slaves shipped across the Atlantic Ocean to be sold than certain products or crops.
The Africans that participated in “the Black Atlantic” were taken from their homelands and quite often their families and traded halfway across the world to place where the only other people that spoke the same language were fellow slaves. Even then, if they were from different regions, it is likely that they spoke different dialects. Slaves were in unfamiliar territory surrounded by strangers, both black and white. At the time, white slave owners grouped all slaves in the category of Africans, but the Africans did not define themselves in such a broad, general sense but rather “saw themselves in terms of their local communities” (Inikori 48).
Obviously, African slaves were forced to work for no pay. In some regions, such as in the Caribbean where planters grew sugar cane, slaves were sometimes literally worked to death. Sugar cane so valuable that it was cheaper to buy new slaves than to feed, clothe and shelter the slaves already on the plantation. The effects of the slave trade were long lasting. Africans were viewed as inhuman, and slaves were treated as simply property. Freed slaves and their children might have had their freedom, but they still faced many social, economic, and political injustices.
Africans traded to the Americas were not the only ones who faced hardships in the aftermath. Walter Rodney noticed that when populations were decreased so drastically in infested areas, the societies there collapsed (Inikori 49). However, Joseph Miller argued that those millions of Africans that were shipped across the Atlantic or died in the slave wars still would have starved due to the droughts (Inikori 49).
“The Black Atlantic” caused problems on both sides of the Atlantic, but that is not entirely to blame on the foreigners. Europeans were not the only ones involved in the slave trade. In fact, many Africans participated in the capturing and selling of slaves and managed to make quite a profit from it.
The Africans that participated in “the Black Atlantic” were taken from their homelands and quite often their families and traded halfway across the world to place where the only other people that spoke the same language were fellow slaves. Even then, if they were from different regions, it is likely that they spoke different dialects. Slaves were in unfamiliar territory surrounded by strangers, both black and white. At the time, white slave owners grouped all slaves in the category of Africans, but the Africans did not define themselves in such a broad, general sense but rather “saw themselves in terms of their local communities” (Inikori 48).
Obviously, African slaves were forced to work for no pay. In some regions, such as in the Caribbean where planters grew sugar cane, slaves were sometimes literally worked to death. Sugar cane so valuable that it was cheaper to buy new slaves than to feed, clothe and shelter the slaves already on the plantation. The effects of the slave trade were long lasting. Africans were viewed as inhuman, and slaves were treated as simply property. Freed slaves and their children might have had their freedom, but they still faced many social, economic, and political injustices.
Africans traded to the Americas were not the only ones who faced hardships in the aftermath. Walter Rodney noticed that when populations were decreased so drastically in infested areas, the societies there collapsed (Inikori 49). However, Joseph Miller argued that those millions of Africans that were shipped across the Atlantic or died in the slave wars still would have starved due to the droughts (Inikori 49).
“The Black Atlantic” caused problems on both sides of the Atlantic, but that is not entirely to blame on the foreigners. Europeans were not the only ones involved in the slave trade. In fact, many Africans participated in the capturing and selling of slaves and managed to make quite a profit from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)