Rich Newcum
Hst498 se3

Throughout the history of cultures there has always been “others”. The Greeks referred to everyone living outside of Greece as babaros, but an other need not live in a foreign land. An other is one who is looked at and treated differently because of some difference, noticeable or not. These unfortunate people suffered for not fitting the mold of a particular time and place. Classic cases of others include: women, Jews, Christians, lower castes, and blacks. Africans were especially looked at as something not only different to the white European of the early 20th century, but as culturally and biologically inferior as well.
The Scramble for Africa, where various European countries “colonized” (divvied up) the continent, placed whites in a position where they had to deal with Africans on a much larger scale. There was a small population of freemen and their descendents living in Europe, but the carving of Africa itself required the white governments to scrutinize these people as never before. The Scramble itself goes to show how little the whites thought of Africans. To be so cavalier to think that these lands required white stewardship exemplifies the theory that Africans were believed to be culturally backwards and had no right to govern themselves. It is also interesting to note that there was actually very little interest in Africa as a resource for any particular empire. Sections of Africa were gobbled up to prevent rival nations from having it.
The occupation of the Rhineland after The Great War was another unique situation in the examination of African as other. Whites were brought face to face with Africans again, but this time it was in Europe. The French used their “colonial” troops from their various holdings in Africa (as well as Asia) to occupy the borderlands of the recently defeated Germans. Much of Germany, at this point, was starting its obsession with race and was scandalized that blacks were put in such a lofty position. There were debates and articles running rampant with concern about the black menace that faced not only the white Germans, but whites as a whole. The focus of this paranoia was a handful of children that resulted from the union of a black and white. Stereotypes and other fictions sprouted. Black men were demonized as sexually depraved monsters that carried a multitude of diseases.

SE 2

There is freedom and then there is freedom. In the late 18th century, most Africans living in Europe had freedom but they didn’t have freedom. Both the English and the French prided themselves on the freedom from slavery on their own soil, while condoning and depending on the institution in their colonies. It is hard to understand how the Africans living in these places felt about the concept of freedom especially if they were manumitted slaves. Freedom is relative and any free “negro” in Europe had to appreciate their new freedom more than their enslaved cousins yet they were far from being treated as equals.
Ouladah Equino was an English slave who was not your garden variety slave. He was educated and obviously so if he wrote a narrative. He was also fortunate enough to have a skill set that allowed him freedom from plantation slavery. As a shipboard steward, Equino had the freedom to travel and see the world. But if asked what he thought freedom was, he might reply that the freedom he wanted most was the ability to choose his own master(of a ship, not slaves) and especially chooses his own method of worship. Equino spent a lot of time discussing religion and his struggle to be a perfect Christian. I was surprised at the lack of racism involved in his quest for a good church. It seemed that every religioso that he met treated him very kindly and invited him into their homes and churches. This freedom to worship must have been very important to him.
The Africans who lived in 18th century England and France had much in common, although their experiences were not generally identical. Both countries had a liberal view of freedom within their traditional borders although slavery did still exist there. There was no massive agricultural slavery practiced in Europe but instead plantation owners and some other well-to-do would bring or buy enslaved African servants. Depending on the year (and which French court district), a slave in either place could gain their freedom if they were proactive and took their case to court. France, for a time, only allowed domestic slavery for those that wished their slave to learn a trade or for religious training. Since this was seldom the case many slaves went to court and sued for freedom. Most were successful, especially in Paris. English courts, though later than France, manumitted slaves as well. Slavery there was turned on its head by the Somerset case which put slaves in a better position to demand wages or flee from abusive masters. But freedom from bondage was not necessarily equal to “freedom”.
The relationship between Africans and Europeans in this era was obviously biased. Most Europeans only knowledge or experience of Africans was “slave race”. Generations of Europeans were born and died “knowing” that Africans were godless primitives who were culturally backward and were made for slavery. Even many of the abolitionists, who abhorred the conditions and treatment the slaves experienced, fought for their freedom, but not their equality. Shortly after either country championed freedom from slavery, there were movements to ship the free Africans away from their shores.

The abolition movement in Britain during the 18^th century can be expressed as “left wing” or “right wing for a variety of reasons. One reason is the motivation for abolition and another is the political orientation of the abolitionists themselves. The two articles that most emphasize either end of the political scale are Walvin’s Questioning Slavery and Hudson’s “Britons Never Will Be Slaves”.

Walvin argument can be seen as an expression of left wing politics. The motivations he lists can easily be deemed left wing. He continually sites Enlightenment thinking as “specifically critical of slavery”, especially such concepts as freedom of labour and economics. There is also a Marxist element to Walvin’s case (which is about as left as you can go). “It was at once, an argument about gender, about class—and about freedom.” (p 163) He even singles out an argument by the proletariat “To working people, it represented an oppression far worse than their own.” (p163). As for the Abolitionists themselves, Walvin gives much of the credit to Quakers and women’s groups as the spearhead of the movement. Both of these groups are seen a more liberal selection of the British population.

Hudson, on the other hand, claims that England’s Abolitionists were far more conservative than given credit for. The largest part of his argument entails which “right wingers” were anti-slavery. In fact most of his essay is either name dropping conservatives or denouncing the left. He will have you believe that the Anglican church, not the Quakers, were more responsible for the demise of slavery. He identifies the left as “dissenters, radicals, and nonestablishment groups and repeatedly tries to associate them with the commerce of slavery. (p562) More time is spent refuting a leftist theory of abolition than explain a right wing movement. “..Abolition was not a rearguard action by an embattled cadre of morally progressive dissenters and radicals.” (p570) The two components of a rightwing abolition movement that he does embrace are the moral stance by the Anglican Church and the actual legality of slavery itself. He sums up, “British antislavery had far more to with how Britons wished to view themselves and their historical destiny than with adherence to truth and justice” (p571)

Now as to the cost-benefit analysis of the slave trade in Britain, we need to reconcile both arguments. Slavery cost England the title of International Good Samaritan, meaning that after abolition the English were able considered themselves a force of global good. The main cost of slavery was the inhumane treatment the slaves suffered. The morality of kidnapping people, separating them from their families, and forcing them to do hard labor was a cost that could not be measured. The benefit could be measured. Merchants, bankers, insurers and others profited immensely from the trafficking in humans. All of England also benefited from the cheap labor that was supplied by African labor. “I pitty them greatly, but I must be mum, for how could we do without sugar or rum” (Williams 594)

Bienvenidos

My name is Rich and I too am a History major. I'm trying to get my degree by December and am ready to be done. I live far away from ASU and an online class is more appealing than the actual subject matter. I am of mostly European descent and I do not enjoy the horrid tales of my ancestors and their racial slavery (but for some reason the brand of slavery the Romans practiced doesn't phase me). I think Inikori goes into this phenomenon.
I enjoy European History and have taken classes on just about everything. I have kids and am currently their primary caregiver...Mr Mom. Sorry that this first blog of mine seems a little dreary because I'm probably one of the more wild and zany people you'll never meet. I like to argue and look forward to some lively debates.