"Slavery existed in the African states, and it was sometimes used by Europeans to justify their own slave trade. But, as [Basil] Davidson points out, the 'slaves' of Africa were more like the serfs of Europe - in other words, like most of the populations of Europe. It was a harsh servitude, but they had rights which slaves brought to America did not have, and they were 'altogether different from the human cattle of the slave ships and American plantations.' In the Ashanti Kingdom of West Africa one observer noted that a 'slave might marry; own property; himself own a slave; swear an oath; be a competent witness and ultimately become heir to his master... An Ashanti slave, nine cases out of ten, possibly became an adopted member of the family, and in time his descendants so merged and intermarried with the owner's kinsmen that only a few would know their origin.'" (27)
I'm reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (free here) because one of my least favorite yet most interesting professors recommended it. This is the description:
"Known for its lively, clear prose as well as its scholarly research. A People's History of the United States is the only volume to tell America's story from the point of view of - and, in the words of - America's women, factory workers, African Americans, Native Americans, working poor, and immigrant laborers."
I am trying to unpack my college experience and understand what it all meant. One of the ways that this book is helpful in this process is that it is helping to define for me what perspective Mizzou was taking on history. Although part of me doubts some of the facts that Zinn uses to support his view of history, I feel my hard conservative heart melting towards the oppressed groups throughout history.
Why I wanted to talk about this quote in particular: I have kept a quite offensive idea in my mind for the last couple years and have been gathering evidence to support it. I mostly accept that it's a really dumb idea, but still, it's a pet idea of mine. I have wondered whether slavery (the more gentle and humane version as described above as more akin to serfdom - which also sucked, I know) might not be some kind of practical solution to poverty and unemployment. It's structured, it provides for the basic needs of the slave, and (in a just society) it would have a set date of termination. I don't know what kind of payment system would be worked out, but as I have been reading, some slaves received land and supplies at the end of their slave term. This would also pay off any debt, I would assume. Interesting idea.
Even before most of the Europeans arrived, there were Africans who'd successfully worked off their dues and become land-owning and, in some cases, slave-owning.
ReplyDeleteMany Europeans were also subject to these seven-year obligations when they arrived.
The problem is, of course, that quickly it became a mode of racial oppression and eventually it became race-based chattel slavery, the effects of which haven't disappeared hundreds of years later.
I'm not sure indentured servitude is helpful because all it does is redefine these long-standing racial hierarchies. Those in poverty are often people of color.
Education is the great equalizer. Poor people need to be educated if they're going to have a chance at breaking the social and economic barriers.
That aside, I'm glad you're reading Zinn. He's a hero of mine precisely because he's challenged the status quo, or the "patriotic" recounting of history. Although it's obvious he's writing with a bias (though he says NO historical account is free of bias), it's important to recognize that the most controversial aspect of the book is his interpretation of the facts, not necessarily the facts.
For example, many people don't like it when Zinn calls Columbus a genocidal megalomaniac. I would agree that he was, esp. given the journals that documented his journey. Other people feel it's somehow unpatriotic to challenge our predecessors - Christians seeking religious freedom but who killed Catholics and Masons (and Natives, obviously).
Anyway - that said - I've never read grosser distortions of history than in Christian history texts. For example, one by A Beka Books said that the Trail of Tears was when the Christian settlers were trying to bring the Native Americans to Christ and some of the Native Americans happened to die.
It's this kind of criminal whitewashing that Zinn is reacting to - because history loves to forget genocide, esp. when those who committed the genocide are writing the books.
If you have a chance, you should read "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" - it's a recent history of how nations lie and fall back on racism and stereotypes to convince themselves that mass murder is noble and that they are indeed superior to other humans.
a little random - but I am pretty sure that Matt Damon's character in "Good Will Hunting" mentions this book as one of his favorites--and though I'm a tad bit ashamed to admit it - I was reading the trivia portion on IMDB about the movie - and I think, Matt Damon referenced that book because the author, Zinn was his neighbor - interesting, huh?
ReplyDeleteMarta,
ReplyDeleteI've read this book. You make some interesting points. Swing by. I think you will particularly relate to what I've been tossing around.
Matt