This week’s readings discussed the roots of slavery. Eric
Williams discussed the roots of slavery from an economic standpoint. Williams
stated that “slavery caused racism, but economic motives, not racial impulses
caused slavery” (2). William’s discusses the roots of slavery and points out
that slaves came from numerous ethnicities and numerous religions, but the goal
was always the same, to make a profit. Williams found that slave labor in the
New World consisted of people who were “brown, white, black, and yellow;
Catholic, Protestant and pagan” (2). Williams points out that because the
slaves were of so many different ethnicities and religion, they could not have
been the defining factors of the creation of slavery. Williams states that the
first slaves were Indians, but they were found to not be suited for plantation
style work based on the culture they used to live in, he then states that the
Indian slaves were replaced by poor white servants. Slavery was a common
punishment for poor white people and became an increasingly popularly used for
of punishment. However, using white slave labor had some big disadvantages such
as creating manufacturing conflict with England, and creating a desire for
independence. White slaves or servants could also run away from the plantations
much easier and they were more difficult to replace, they also expected land at
the end of their service contracts. The Negro had a much more difficult time
escaping and did not have a contract for land at the end of his/her servitude. This
to me makes it seem like slavery was a racist structure, but William’s goes on
to state that Negro slaves were simply used because they were cheaper and more
effective workers and that the white servitude just set up for the Negro
servitude. Do you think that based on this understanding of William’s reading
that slavery was primarily due to economic reasons or racial reasons? Which
came before which? How does this interact with last week’s reading?
Davis also discusses the roots of slavery, but he believes
that race and religion played into the creation of slavery as primary factors.
In one instance, Davis describes how “because black African slaves were so far
removed from their places of origin, they were truly ‘nationally alienated’”
(94). This national alienation provided the slaves with a disconnect which
meant that they did not have the ability to interact with plantation owners and
white society the same way white servants or slaves did. Davis also describes
how poorly they were treated and how cruel the names were that they were
called, indicating to me that he carries a belief that slavery has racist
roots. Davis also indicates that due to the interconnectedness of white people
in Europe due to religion, white people were no longer an option for slave
labor. Do you find Williams’ or Davis’ argument to be more persuasive? I think
I tended to find Williams’ to be more persuasive because I think economics
preceded cultural and religious motives.
In a way, both William's and Davis' arguments overlap by discussing how African slaves were "nationally alienated" and "more ideal" for slavery. They both agree that the obvious distinction in their skin color was ideal for slave masters. William points out that indentured servants could eventually blend in and attain property. While white slaves spoke the same language and blended into the colonies, African slaves could never escape from slavery. The Indian slaves had darker skin compared to their white masters but they had the advantage of living in the New World and knowing the land. African slaves were disadvantaged because of the transportation to an alien world.
ReplyDeleteDavis' argument begins to contrast with William's text with his statement that race and religion played into the creation of slavery. William states that "racism was the consequence of slavery". He supports his statement by explaining how slavery came in various different skin tones and religions. However, African slaves seemed to be best suited for the job with his conspicuous complexion, ignorance of the English language, by being a stranger to the New World and their resistance to diseases.
While reading Davis' chapter, I began to see opposition to inhuman treatment of slaves with Afonso setting restrictions and rules for the slave trader's ship such as separation of the sexes. Unfortunately, like most things in history, this separation proved to be more beneficial to the oppressor than the oppressed for it made it easier for the crew members to rape the black women. Were any of the regulations intended to treat the slaves as actual human beings?
Interesting final question, Mickey. Given Davis' initial argument about the central feature of slavery being based "on the domestication of animals, especially livestock and beasts of burden" (30), I'm not sure if slave holding and perceiving that individual's humanity are compatible aims. Given Davis' characterization, what do others think? Is Davis too sweeping here with his conception of dehumanization of slaves and that it might be possible for regulations to acknowledge the slave's humanity?
DeleteIn reference to Harry’s question about the reason for slavery—that question being whether it was driven by race or by economics—I think Williams focuses more on economics but also does call into account the theory that race was a factor. He notes, “the features of the black man…were only the later realizations to justify a simple economic fact” (6). Here, he clearly marks his standpoint that he believes racism came after the enslavement of Africans as a consequence of Africans taking the place of indentured servants and entering a hierarchy that already existed and evolved to fit them later. In comparison, Davis uses just that “justification” Williams referred to to say race did, indeed, have an effect. Personally, I think Williams’ point about Africans fitting into a pre-constructed hierarchy is correct—they did take the spot of indentured servants—but Davis is correct in how race made that hierarchy evolve so that Africans were treated much worse than indentured servants and, in reality, had very little hope of creating a life for themselves in the New World due to language barrier, unfamiliarity with the environment, scars from being torn away from their lives in Africa, and countless other factors.
ReplyDeleteI would tend to agree with Harry in asserting that Williams was more persuasive in his argument for the economics-based establishment of slavery.
ReplyDeleteOne of his more compelling points he introduced on page 3, where he writes that "the ultimate successor of the Indian...was not the Negro but the poor white". The colonizers and plantation owners chose their source of labor not based on race or color, but on who was easily available and amenable for labor exploitation. After the decline of Indian slavery, the most logical choice was poor whites, a numerous group in England that was easy to transport to the Americas.
Another interesting fact that the Williams passage brings to light is the word "poor". Williams implies that economic class, not race, was the main dividing factor between the slaveowners and the slaves, and was what allowed the slaves to be exploited in the first place.
Another point for economically motivated slavery regards the violence and lawlessness with which the enslaving of the future forced laborer was conducted. It is common knowledge to most people that Africans were violently and forcibly taken from their homelands and placed on a ship to America, but the most common image of white indentured servitude during roughly the same time period would most likely include poverty, debt, and hope to start a new life. Williams proves this notion false by mentioning the rampant kidnapping that sprouted up in British cities, once again demonstrating that the future slaves' race treatment or position was irrelevant in regards to race.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is a bit of truth to both of the readings this week. Much like Fields argued last week I believe that racism as we look at it today in a type of white black dichotomy did not originate until the economics of it were viable due to a number of factors. That being said I also believe that there was an initial framework that Davis discusses that Davis discusses that made it easier for the institution of slavery to take hold and made racism as it existed in the new world possible. The idea that many religions banned slavery of fellow believers it laid the groundwork for the idea of “the other” that allowed New World slavery to exist. Williams’ idea that economics provided the structure for slavery to be created is intuitive and persuasive, given that in the New World, and around the world, economic shaped structures as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis week’s readings, like the others we have read so far, address the origin of slavery and the different factors that have to be addresses when attempting to figure out if slavery or racism came first. Davis argues that slavery came from slavery, and Williams argues that economics began slavery, which later caused racism. While the two authors have different views on the origin or slavery and racism, they both seem to agree that the fact that Africans were different from them made them seem like the best option. It is interesting to see how some people made the transition from having slaves of different ethnicities, skin colors, and religions to preferring African slaves because they were clearly different so running away was more difficult, and there was no contract therefore no limit to how long they owned a slave.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Harry, and think Williams gave a more persuasive argument because he shows how slavery and racism came together after the economics factors that made having African slaves replace most other slaves that were owned. I think both of these articles directly relate to the texts we read last week because Fields also argued that Africans were enslaved not out of racism but because they were the option that produced the largest income. To answer another one of Harry’s questions, I believe that racism was a product of slavery (so slavery came first). Slave owners did not look to enslave Africans because of their differences or because they believed they were superior at first, and this is proven because at first, slaves came from many different ethnicities.
I find it interesting that every week so far, the majority of people, this includes myself, usually find the non-Davis reading more convincing. What is it about Davis’s arguments that isn’t convincing? Or is it just that the work of all of the authors we have read so far just present their points better?
In my opinion, this weeks reading was a great tie to last weeks reading because it deals with slavery in a very objective viewpoint. As we all established last week, race is a social construct; therefore it is logical that economics began American slavery and race later justified it. The first enslavement of Africans by Europeans was a deal made between two entities, rather than a conquered nation unwillingly handing their people over to slavery. This levels the playing field until the concept of race comes on the scene as a result of physical and linguistic differences. Williams' argument made this change over time abundantly clear, which is why I found his argument more compelling.
ReplyDeleteI think the development of race in relation to money is rather interesting because it speaks to human nature as a whole. We've created a bizarre system of value and goods, and we've done awful things in the name of the economy, and our reading outlined this.
I agree with Simone’s point that this week’s reading tied especially well with last week’s. As I’m sure many of these readings will connect in the future when regarding race, this week did make some interesting points that weren’t been highlighted last week. As both Davis and Williams agree, slavery, especially in the new world, was a very economically productive market. Where they disagree is that with Williams only economics, without racism, fueled slavery while Davis says Racism coupled with economics fueled slavery. While it may be easy to say racism isn’t a part of human nature and that it is only a result of slavery, it can be dangerous to stick to absolutes. Davis makes this very clear when he shows that racism has been coupled with slavery since the 1400s (79). The truth is, although more brutal and common racism may have stemmed from slavery, racism has existed in many forms and it had to have helped fuel the slave trade in some way or another.
ReplyDeleteTo address Silvia’s question over why the majority of people have sided with the other readers more so than Davis; Since I have been slightly more inclined to agree with Davis’s points I would say the delivery of his difficult to cope with. While these other critics have been very straight to the point, Davis likes to set up a background for each point, and then he posits his views. Thus in a way Davis seems a bit more beat-around-the-bush while the other authors have been more direct.
As opposed to the majority of my classmates, I found Davis’s reasoning for economics as a driving force for slavery more compelling than that of Williams. There were a few key points that he made to truly exemplify his point. The first of these was his mention of how slavery was never really planned to be an institution, or even a common labor source in either Europe, or the western hemisphere. Davis mentions that slaves as a commodity was introduced by African traders as an alternative to trading in gold, which was visited in the Morgan reading from Week Two. I think this perpetuation of an idea that has already arose once in our four weeks makes Davis more compelling; additionally, Davis continues this idea when he points out that the English capitalized on slaves economically as more than just a work force, but they also sold them to the Spanish colonies when they had an excess of them. This connection is something that was not included in the Williams excerpt. Moreover, Davis includes the point made by Williams that the Europeans capitalized on slavery in order to power the intense trade of goods grown in the West Indies such as sugar, coffee, rice and tobacco. The use of slaves in this sense was obviously for the purposes of monetary gains, as opposed to racism. For the more thorough evaluations done by Davis, I find his argument more compelling.
ReplyDeleteOne line from the Davis chapter that I found intriguing was when he says, “the New World of 1750 emerged from a long series of fortuitous, haphazard, and even catastrophic events” (81). Contrary to the argument that most of us (as a class) have attributed to Davis, saying that he thinks racism was a preexisting framework for slavery, this quote seems to suggest that Davis is also of the opinion that slavery, colonization, and the New World as a whole, fell into place in a non-premeditated way. This idea would also agree with the points that are made in the Williams reading. This is seen especially when Williams describes the progression from Indian slaves, to white indentured servants, and finally to African slaves, in a way that shows how profit was the consistent motive, and that racism was not the overarching and preexisting structure.
ReplyDeleteThe two readings have both similarities and differences. When compared with each other, I think the Davis chapter is more persuasive. This is largely due to the fact that Williams’ argument relies heavily on the logical chain he presents that leads to African slavery. On the other hand, Davis has a more in depth explanation about the roots of slavery that I found to be more convincing.
Like Jacob B., I think that Davis poses some very interesting and convincing points about the economic structure of slavery. Especially the fact that powerful African rulers “sold slaves for luxury goods… rum and brandy, metal good, bars of iron, tobacco, and personal ornaments” (100). The one “luxury good” I found very astonishing to see in the list Davis presents is tobacco; this is interesting because powerful Africans would both sell slaves (or “barbadoes” them, as Williams describes) to the tobacco plantations, yet they would also add to the demand of tobacco.
ReplyDeleteAlso unlike many of my classmates I didn’t find Williams reading to be more persuasive. I thought the two readings were actually quite complimentary of each other, with both saying that Sub-Saharan Africans proved to be the most effective mean of filling the huge labor demand in Europe, the West Indies, and the United States. As Trevor states, it is important to recognize that the population that African slaves fill the role of are “poor” people in society. They replace Indians and indentured servants such as “redemptioners” and convicts. All of these being people having “bad” qualities and a low social status, which, in combination with the language barrier that we have read about in the past few weeks, made mistreatment of these very cheap new workers very easy. Especially, as Williams elucidates, because Africans starkly stood out from indentured servants which made it harder for them to escape.