Hi every one;
I heard of this book which relates well to the Feb 13th debate (Thomas Jefferson on trial.) It discusses Jefferson's relations with Hemings. Hear is the link for the book review if any one is interested, I thought it looked pretty cool! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/books/review/Foner-t.html?pagewanted=1
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Glory: a great film that everyone should see.
This film covers almost everything that Dr. Young spoke about today in class; Here is a clip from the film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAe7Dkf8lNY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAe7Dkf8lNY
Monday, March 23, 2009
Higher Learning
I recently saw "Higher Learning" for the second time, and if you haven't already seen it, it's great. It's really the best mainstream movie I can think of that deals directly with racial tension, as well as college life and education in general in the US. Ice Cube, Laurence Fishburne and Omar Epps make it even better. But beware: you might cry...
You can watch it on hulu.com
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
House Negro v. Field Negro
Hello All,
On Wednesday, we discussed the distinctions between field labor and domestic labor on antebellum plantations. Click here to see what malcolm X has to say about the issue..
Monday, February 23, 2009
Hello All,
So, today we talked about the cartoon drawings of Edward William Clay. You can find them here.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Making the Grade
Hello All,
There is a story in the New York Times about college students and grading. You'll find the link here. What do you think?
Monday, February 9, 2009
Julia and Kevin
Sean and I wanted to have a group meeting 10 minutes before class on Wednesday to make sure that we are all on the same page in terms of witnesses. We also thought that we'd have a group meeting on Friday during when class would meet to discuss our trial strategy and possibly do a run through of our presentation. I do not have your email addresses, so feel free to post a response if you have any questions about the trial or conflicts about the meeting times. Hopefully one of you will read this before next class. In any case, we'll see you soon.
-Nisha
-Nisha
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Last Debate
I just had a quick thought about the debates that just took place last week. I thought that it would be silly to think that the slave trade was simply racial. I believe the whole thing had to do with capitalism. I have seen in my own lifetime the heartlessness of businessmen in our country. I've seen it with the outsourcing of jobs, which leave Americans without jobs, and the use of illegal immigrants to get cheap labor. With the use of outsourced labor we get products like the ones in past months made with led paint, harmful food products, and drugs made of drywall. My point is that in the American slave trade, plantation owners and slave traders did not look at africans with racial tensions. They saw them as cheap labor, and simply did not care about the fact that they were people. The horrible treatment they recieved was not because of their race. It was because they were the slave class in that society, and in past civilizations, the slave class is the one that recieves the least amount of respect, if any.
-Julia
-Julia
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Why Not the Jews?
This question pertains to the debate discussed on 1/30/09. Why was the Jewish population in Europe not utilized as slaves if it was purely for economic gains and not about race? The Jewish population was expelled from many countries in Europe at this time or segregated in these countries like the Africans or Moor's. They were seen as inferior and had been persecuted for their religion as long as Africans had been persecuted for their differences. They were also in Europe and thus would be cheaper to trade and ship since it bypasses the long journey to Africa. The jewish populations immunity to diseases were the same as the European which makes it even cheaper and safer for the slave traders. So clearly they should have been made as slaves unless the White Europeans couldn't bring themselves to put their own race into slavery.
Toni Morrison NPR interview for 'A Mercy' + Debate Questions
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96118766
Of interest are the comments and links to Ms. Morrison reading selections from her newest novel. This interview also ties in with our debate on Race and Slavery.
I have questions for both teams.
The Debate Topic: (from memory) Did race (and racism) play a role in the enslavement of Africans in the Americas?
First let's define Racism:
Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
For the Con Team.
The very word slave originates from the ethnic group used as slaves during the Middle Ages: slavs. Racialized slavery (as defined by impressing others not of your ethnic group into servitude) is found in many civilizations across time (including, but not limited, to the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, & Ottomans.) From what I understood, you were arguing that African slavery in the Americas did not have a racialized component; it was purely economic in nature, with racism later being used to justify and perpetuate it. How do you explain that traditional forms of slavery involved using the "other" -war captives, kidnapped individuals, defeated enemy populaces- who were viewed as inferiors as slaves without bringing racism into the discussion?
For the Pro Team.
This is less of a question and more of a rebuttal to a response your team gave when the Con team compared the enslavement of Africans in North America to Native Americans by the Spanish in the Americas.
You mentioned the initial enslavement and then protection from slavery of Native Americans by the Spanish as a rebuttal against the idea that certain groups were viewed as slaves, or at the very least enslavable; that Africans, due solely to their race, were enslaved, while the Spanish somehow realized that the indigenous peoples of Central and South America were somehow deemed to be more human, or less slave like.
The Spanish repudiation of this scheme to enslave the natives is a red herring in terms of arguing for the racialized slavery of Africans over other groups. This was done less because they were viewed as free people, and more because of several separate factors, among which were:
-the plantation and mining labor led to them being literally worked to death: primarily from hunter and gatherer societies, they did not have the practice of or constitution for hard labor;
-the diseases that the Europeans brought decimated their populations;
-it was relatively easy for the natives to run away (they were not transported far from where they originated from, and knew the language and the terrain)
as the early Spanish settlements in the Americas were primarily coastal;
-and the missionaries that came with conquest opposed their exploitation, both writing tracts against their enslavement (de las casas is the most famous author of these) and protected them in the mission settlements set up by various religious orders. The Catholic priests considered enslavement to be problematic in terms of converting the Natives to Christianity.
This is not to say that the Spanish were not racist, or that racism did not play a factor in racial slavery of the indigenous in Spanish America. Indeed, in one of the first letters of Columbus (to the Spanish King and Queen) upon reaching the Americas and interacting with the inhabitants, he states that the indigenous people that he encounters are meek, mild, and unarmed, and therefore would be perfect slaves. A ready workforce which he had stereotyped as exploitable by temperament and lack of defense, who were viewed as inferior by lack of "civilization" (clothing, religion, material goods) and were of a separate and distinct racial group: this sounds like a textbook definition of racism to me.
Ultimately, the fact that the Native population was rapidly dwindling due to overwork and disease, increasing hostile, religiously and politically protected, and easily mobile (compared to Africans) led to their reduced use as slaves, not the idea that the Spanish were less racist against them then Africans. Indeed, writings from that time that argued they should be protected from slavery show that Spanish believed the Native Americans to be simple and childlike; as such, the Spanish acted paternally towards the Natives by not enslaving them. I suppose one could argue that they believed this to be their "White Man's Burden."
I apologize if this seems overly didactic, but I thought the response you gave was not grounded in historical basis. Feel free to respond if you think that what I have written is incorrect, or that I misinterpreted your arguments.
That is all. -ND
Of interest are the comments and links to Ms. Morrison reading selections from her newest novel. This interview also ties in with our debate on Race and Slavery.
I have questions for both teams.
The Debate Topic: (from memory) Did race (and racism) play a role in the enslavement of Africans in the Americas?
First let's define Racism:
Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
For the Con Team.
The very word slave originates from the ethnic group used as slaves during the Middle Ages: slavs. Racialized slavery (as defined by impressing others not of your ethnic group into servitude) is found in many civilizations across time (including, but not limited, to the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, & Ottomans.) From what I understood, you were arguing that African slavery in the Americas did not have a racialized component; it was purely economic in nature, with racism later being used to justify and perpetuate it. How do you explain that traditional forms of slavery involved using the "other" -war captives, kidnapped individuals, defeated enemy populaces- who were viewed as inferiors as slaves without bringing racism into the discussion?
For the Pro Team.
This is less of a question and more of a rebuttal to a response your team gave when the Con team compared the enslavement of Africans in North America to Native Americans by the Spanish in the Americas.
You mentioned the initial enslavement and then protection from slavery of Native Americans by the Spanish as a rebuttal against the idea that certain groups were viewed as slaves, or at the very least enslavable; that Africans, due solely to their race, were enslaved, while the Spanish somehow realized that the indigenous peoples of Central and South America were somehow deemed to be more human, or less slave like.
The Spanish repudiation of this scheme to enslave the natives is a red herring in terms of arguing for the racialized slavery of Africans over other groups. This was done less because they were viewed as free people, and more because of several separate factors, among which were:
-the plantation and mining labor led to them being literally worked to death: primarily from hunter and gatherer societies, they did not have the practice of or constitution for hard labor;
-the diseases that the Europeans brought decimated their populations;
-it was relatively easy for the natives to run away (they were not transported far from where they originated from, and knew the language and the terrain)
as the early Spanish settlements in the Americas were primarily coastal;
-and the missionaries that came with conquest opposed their exploitation, both writing tracts against their enslavement (de las casas is the most famous author of these) and protected them in the mission settlements set up by various religious orders. The Catholic priests considered enslavement to be problematic in terms of converting the Natives to Christianity.
This is not to say that the Spanish were not racist, or that racism did not play a factor in racial slavery of the indigenous in Spanish America. Indeed, in one of the first letters of Columbus (to the Spanish King and Queen) upon reaching the Americas and interacting with the inhabitants, he states that the indigenous people that he encounters are meek, mild, and unarmed, and therefore would be perfect slaves. A ready workforce which he had stereotyped as exploitable by temperament and lack of defense, who were viewed as inferior by lack of "civilization" (clothing, religion, material goods) and were of a separate and distinct racial group: this sounds like a textbook definition of racism to me.
Ultimately, the fact that the Native population was rapidly dwindling due to overwork and disease, increasing hostile, religiously and politically protected, and easily mobile (compared to Africans) led to their reduced use as slaves, not the idea that the Spanish were less racist against them then Africans. Indeed, writings from that time that argued they should be protected from slavery show that Spanish believed the Native Americans to be simple and childlike; as such, the Spanish acted paternally towards the Natives by not enslaving them. I suppose one could argue that they believed this to be their "White Man's Burden."
I apologize if this seems overly didactic, but I thought the response you gave was not grounded in historical basis. Feel free to respond if you think that what I have written is incorrect, or that I misinterpreted your arguments.
That is all. -ND
Definition of Racism
This question pertains to the first debate that took place this Friday, on whether racism was the cause of slavery in America. Both groups included a definition of racism in their opening statements and it is evident that the definition of racism will have a profound effect on whether you view racism as the cause for slavery in America. It is also evident that the definition of racism has been debated and continues to be debated as the con group pointed out. Therefor I was wondering what everyone thought were key points that should be included in the definition of racism.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
I just adore the hypocrisy of the slaves rights. If you were an African that was forced into slavery, you were practically a slave for life, especially under the rulings in the House of Burgesses in Virginia. However, if you were born in the Americas, your freedom was decided by the right of your parents, essentially meaning that if your parents were free (which was highly uncommon) so were you. Its such terrible logic, and typical of easily intimidated Europeans of the time.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Just a thought
I was wondering, while I was reading chapter 2, whether Spain and Portugal's role in slavery is part of their national consciousness. In the US we have a population that is the result of slavery. Slavery literally shaped America and American culture and it is ingrained in our national consciousness. We have a kind of collective guilt and remorse about slavery. I'm wondering if Spain or Portugal have any such sense of guilt or responsibility. They don't have any kind of daily reminder of slavery, but after all, it was the Portuguese that started it all in the first place.
The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade on the Web
You'll be interested to know that the records for over 34,000 slave ship voyages are available and searchable online. You can research a specific slave captain, slave ship, or Atlantic port.
Race and Ancient Egypt
Last week, we discussed the various debates circling around the issue of race and Ancient Egypt. Students interested in the remix version of B.D.P.'s (Boogie Down Productions) song, "You Must Learn" can find it here. Pay special attention the last verse, where KRS-ONE talks explicitly about the origins of Greek and Egyptian philosophy. Also, Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra is a must see.
Welcome to History 376
Hello All,
Welcome to the first post of our class blog. I am hoping that this blog will give us all an opportunity to communicate outside of class about issues and topics related to African American History. Let the blogging begin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)