This weeks readings grappled with
the origins of racism and how it shaped interactions between the masters and
the slaves themselves. Davis focuses on historical slavery to view the
progression of racism and how it originated. A large portion of Davis’s text
focuses on the biblical origins of the ideology. Many in the Antebellum South
would use the “Curse of Ham” to justify the pain they were inflicting, yet the
biblical passage itself never mentions the color of Ham or Canaan’s skin. This
in itself begs the question of why individuals felt the need to justify this
ideology when they were also using the labor of Caucasian slaves. Davis
explores the change in European thought from one that often depicted Black
people as equals and quick-witted (if dangerous), as was the thought process
the case of the Romans, to one that viewed those with dark skin as, dimwitted,
slow, and to some extent evil. Davis also looks at the origins of slavery in
the context of racism. Examining how the institution changed over time.
In the reading “Slavery, Race and
Ideology in the United States of America” Barbara Jeanne Fields presents a different
perspective. She forwards the idea that racism as an ideology did not take hold
before the institution slavery in the New World was created. Positing instead
that it grew out of the inherent classism inherent in slavery. In Fields’
opinion slavery itself had to be the precursor to racism because without it the
institution would have been quickly crushed. Fields also examines how the
institution of slavery exists today, why do we still feel the need to
differentiate an author from a black author.
She applies this to how we deal with race today still evaluating it as a real
difference rather than the social construction that it is. Throughout the
reading I found myself asking the question of how today’s form of racism
differs in theory from that of the antebellum south. Today we perilously
attempt to avoid the subject while constantly re-engrain it in our society.
This action leads me to question if to some extent today’s version of racism is
different in action but not in form.
Interesting final question at the end, Julia. It does seem like exploring and analyzing a historical construct raises the dangerous possibility of re-engraining those ideas and attitudes in the present.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder what thoughts you and others have on how the two readings interacted with one another. Is one more persuasive than the other? Why do these authors reach such different conclusions on essentially the same question? Is it problematic that Fields began her historical overview with a considerations of the present and then moved backward chronologically to consider the historical origins that established these dynamics that manifested themselves as she wrote late in the 20th c.?
In response to Julia's and the book's question on the origins of racism, Davis touches briefly on one of the more plausible and direct contributing factor, the desire of white Europeans to marry and reproduce within themselves and to reject outsiders in this process.
ReplyDeleteIberian fears about Jews infiltrating and corrupting their "pure Christian bloodlines" were transferred to blacks as a result of racist attitudes spread to the Iberian peninsula by its previous occupiers, the Muslims. Part of this fear was driven by Europeans recognizing the differences in physical traits between themselves and Africans, and no doubt holding some desire, whether conscious or not, not to allow the Africans' physical traits to begin appearing on Europeans.
Another possible reason for the lack of desire to allow Africans to become full-fledged members of Iberian society was the incorrect correlation between the land of origin of chimpanzees and Africans. The Europeans knew that both came from roughly the same area and incorrectly deducted that this mean that the Africans were in some way related to the chimpanzees.
Through ignorantly and suspiciously labeling the Africans as outsiders and therefore undesirable, the Iberians paved the way for more systematic and institutionalized racism to come.
Personally, I find Fields’s argument to be more compelling. I found the modern beginnings of her work as an interesting way to start the piece, but none the less her logic stood out as stronger. Fields’s argument for racism not as an instinctual part of human nature, nor as a simple idea, but rather an ideology gives the idea that it was structured by humans as a control for other humans. This categorization as an ideology is strongly backed up by the historical precedent she gives with the birth of this hierarchy being with white indentured servants, but then spilling over onto the slaves when they became more prominent. The idea that this brutality used on the indentured servants, and the slaves even more so, forced the power-holding whites to need to systematically subordinate these peoples. These racist tendencies quickly found themselves into the minds of Southern and Northern Americans alike. The most compelling part of Fields’s thought on the topic arose in the first video posted by Mr. Kogan. In this clip Fields addresses the answer to whether or not racism came naturally. Her answer is that initially it didn’t matter if it was instinctual or not, but now it has become such a natural part of American history because it was put in place by laws and shared in thought as acceptable and normal for so many years. I find this element of her argument to be the most compelling.
ReplyDeleteI think that the two texts bring up explanations for racism that differ in a few ways, but both seem to reflect on the idea that racism was constructed around the master class looking for a sort of "natural slave." The natural slave possessed characteristics that made them physically and mentally "different" from the master class--or, at least, the master class hoped this. Davis talks about the "Curse of Ham" for the majority of the chapter and how people in the Antebellum South used the Curse to say blacks were made to be slaves, even if skin color is never mentioned in the original text. As we went over in Chapter Two of Inhuman Bondage, it was simply the idea of an “other” that seemed to draw slaveholders to the conclusion that black foreigners were their perfect “natural slaves.”
ReplyDeleteOut of the two texts, I thought Fields had a more convincing argument (though I wouldn’t place hers on a much higher plane than Davis’, considering the final footnote in Field’s piece is complimenting Davis for his help, so they seem to play of each other in some respect)—while it seems out of place at first to begin with the present day narrative of racism, Fields managed to use it as a strong foothold to express her point about racism in the New World developing as the nascent nation did. The pervasive nature of racism has reinforced its existence, bringing back Julia’s point about our tendency to call white authors simply “authors” whereas black authors are defined by their skin color. Clearly, racism persists.
In this weeks reading of the “construction of race and racism,” I found it especially interesting, as Mr. Kogan points out, how Fields and Davis could approach and answer the distinction of race in such different ways. Julia discusses the numerous biblical anecdotes that Davis provides which I felt were used merely as justification for slavery in several separate cultures. In contrast, Fields discusses more in depth the ideology of slavery and it’s implications. As Jacob said, slavery became natural because it was accepted and reinforced by laws for so many years. This pairs nicely with Fields’ explanation of the construction of race distinctions because they were reinforced by the “ritual repetition of the appropriate social behavior” which “makes for the continuity of ideology” (113). This quote demonstrates that slavery did not truly become race oriented until Americans were perpetually exposed to the mindset that skin color differentiated power; because the sole purpose of owning slaves was not to create white supremacy. As Fields explains white “slaves” or indentured servants had many prior generations of debate and struggle which formed ever-changing terms and conditions of their servitude; on the other hand, Africans brought into the slave trade had no means of simulating this type of debate which consequently formed in unchanging treatment of their people. This produced the “ritual” slave-race distinction of American society, which people who weren’t exposed to the constant mindset would find absurd.
ReplyDeleteI think that although the two texts are different, the way they interact is pretty nice. Both texts discuss the idea of the master class controlling the slaves through a system of authority as well as how African Americans are a particularly special example because they really the only group of people who is discriminated against largely based on appearance and biology. In Davis's text, he often describes the "natural slave" and in one particular example he makes the "connection between dehumanizing labor and people with a highly distinctive physical appearance" and describes "blacks in terms that fit Aristotle's image of natural slaves" (62). Davis points out that in many cultures the lowest peasants on the totem pole could often be distinguished from the superior white leaders simply because of how they looked black due to their soot. Black came to represent the impoverished and the lesser, while white and clean came to represent power.
ReplyDeleteOne place where the two texts overlap quite a bit is in their description of authority and a hegemony was built in society over time through the use of skin color and race. Fields points out that the idea of race is not something we are simply born with rather, it is developed throughout history. This directly relates to Davis's idea that over time black came to be associated with bad, which is one of the reasons over time race problems began to develop. Both texts argue how race was a developing factor in the way a hegemony was created, but Fields points out how because we had not developed any sort of disagreement or resistance with Africans in the past, it would be much easier to make them into slaves without resistance. Although not explicitly stated in either text, I think one of the reasons it became so natural to turn Africans into slaves was the idea mentioned by Davis that black has always been inferior and unsought after, which already provided Americans with a predisposition.
One of the reasons I found Field's writing more persuasive is her examination of the racist ideology. She discusses how race spurred from white upperclass citizens trying to maintain their control. Race is just esoteric. If you are not discussing it consistently in relation to race struggles, it can never hold up because it is just a made up concept. The only reason race remains a problem is because we keep bringing it back into fruition. This is another cross roads between the two texts because the idea of race and control was simplified by the easy distinction in color, another possible reason for the targeted focus on African American people.
I also enjoyed Field's discussion of how the slaves in the past have not always been African, but rather they were American and they just slowly phased out and the Africans phased in to fill the gap. I found he explanation of the transition towards African slaves to be compelling.
This weeks readings focused on the origin of slavery and the racism that came from the relationship between “the master class” and the slaves. While Davis refers back to original ideas and passages from the bible to explain the origin of slavery, Fields gives a chronological view of how Africans became the people who were enslaved. Although different, the two authors explain what they believe the origin of slavery is, and the texts support each other.
ReplyDeleteLike others, I also found Fields to be more convincing from the beginning because of the contemporary example she gave in the beginning (to answer Mr. Kogan’s question, I don’t find it problematic at all that she did this. I actually think it helped her argument because she made it relatable to modern pop culture then she dived into strong evidence of what she believed to be the origin of slavery). One of the examples I found interesting was how at first Afro-American and Euro-American were seen as much as the other and it wasn’t until later when “Afro-Americans began living long enough to be worth enslaving for life” (104 Fields) that African-Americans became part of the image of slavery. Like Harry points out, both authors argue that slavery wasn’t something that was already there it was something that society created as black represented poverty and white represented the master class.
Both readings talked about the progression of slavery, as well as their origin. Barbara Jeanne Fields focused more on modern examples and by her starting with the a present example and going back chronologically she linked her argument to modern times more than Davis. Davis does not focus too much modern slavery in this chapter.
ReplyDeleteUnlike most of my peers, I find Davis' argument more convincing. Fields argues that racism cannot be passed down like a family artifact, instead it is created. Davis gives examples of ideologies in ancient texts and justification for racism based on the bible where he talks about the "Curse of Ham". Aristotle claimed “some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” He believed slavery was predetermined and justified slavery. Therefore, the famous philosopher and teacher can pass his knowledge onto his students or other scholars. Fields reaches another conclusion that I disagree with because ideology of one person can heavily influence the ideology of another person. If a great philosopher and teacher like Aristotle can justify slavery, he can influence other people including his pupils. The "Curse of Ham" becomes a widespread theory. Would these people have come to the same conclusion if they had analyzed the Book of Genesis by themselves? Field's examples may have been more contemporary but Davis' argument made more sense to me.
As many have found interesting, Fields and Davis touched upon the same topics, yet their overall opinions upon the origins of racism parallel. Davis essentially believes racism has been around for as long as we can remember, while Fields leans more toward the belief that slavery made racism. In a way to simplify this idea for me, I paralleled these two historians to Locke and Hobbes’s conflicting critiques upon the Social Contract Theory. In short, Locke believes humans are inherently good, striving toward the best individuals they can be, while Hobbes believes Humans are inherently evil, and their inherent evil is the only reason society stands (i.e. society depends upon the overarching dominance of another group). Here’s a basic comparison between the two: http://jim.com/hobbes.htm. Where Davis argues that racism has been and always will be part of human nature, obviously acting as Hobbes, Fields would disagree, believing that humans are inherently good, yet slavery/society has influenced humans to distinguish race (similar to Locke). However, the slavery (or society for Hobbes) that Fields believes prompted racism would be created by the thoughts of Davis, who argued humans have always fostered tendencies toward slavery and racism. Therefore we find that in Field’s thoughts, she links back to Davis’s initial thought that slavery and racism existed in the first place. Thus in my (difficult to explain) thinking Davis actually holds a more persuasive argument against Fields’s ideas. Overall, however, as Silvia remarks upon, although the texts seem to have differing opinions, they both base off of the origins of slavery. From this common context they both oddly support one another.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I disagree with Silvia’s response to Mr. Kogan’s question of whether or not Fields’s reverse chronological order is problematic. My problem with it is that the future does not influence the past. That is, her use of current issues with race to exemplify past issues is disjoint and just feels unnatural.
P.P.S. It was hard to be a contrarian with this reading.
Another interesting take upon the origins of racism and slavery: http://www.enargywebzine.eu/spip.php?article75
ReplyDeleteBased on this week's reading, I'd like to try and answer the question Julia posed at the end of the post. She asked the question: to what extent is modern racism different from the racism of the past?
ReplyDeleteRace, as was reinforced by the Fields chapter, is a social construct. When humans realized that sun and work darkened skin, this began the earliest forms of "racism" (the term had not come into use, nor had the concept of race entered the minds of human beings). As Davis pointed out, this physical difference lent to the distinction of classes: those who did not have to work for their money stayed inside and remained fair, while those who were employed as field laborers darkened in the elements. As skin color is a very tangible thing, it is an easy concept for people to grasp.
Soon, Davis explained, this distinction translated between peoples-- in particular, the concept added to the tension between naturally light and dark skinned people. As Fields mentions, this distinction is a load of bull, and has no scientific evidence to back up this claim that "races" are actually that different. As she proved with her example of the sports announcer, this sort of biological claim is still alive today. These claims allow the master class to appease anxieties that they could be dethroned by "minorities." All in all, I believe that the two readings illustrated the fact that racism today does not truly deviate from the past. A belief that there is a fundamental physiological difference between different colors of people is still just as dehumanizing as it was 300 years ago.
Jacob, your comparison of the two authors to Hobbes and Locke is interesting. However, I differ from you in that I agree more with Fields position, especially in regard to her idea that it was the production of crops, not racism, that was the main driving force behind the creation of the institution of slavery.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at last week’s readings, it was established in the Greene and Morgan reading (the packet) that the European’s enslavement of Africans was related to the interactions of Europeans and African slave traders. It seemed to me that slavery was not a social structure that was deliberately created to reaffirm white supremecy, but was rather a structure that was meant for primarily financial gain (this does not make slavery any less immoral). Therefore, if it is true that money was the main factor behind the genesis of American slavery, then Fields’ argument that racism is an ideology that arose from slavery makes sense to me.
One of Fields’ most broad claims is that all societies “assume that nature has ordained their social arrangements” (106). I found this claim to be persuasive because it explains that racism has very real origins, in this case, the social structure of slavery. This differs greatly from Davis, who claims that racism has roots that go back to ancient times.