In this article, there were two main points that jumped out at me that I believe could use further discussion.
First, on June 18, 1452, “a bull authorizing the Portuguese to reduce any non-Christians to the status of slaves” was created. This concept confuses me in numerous ways. To begin with, the Portuguese and African population did not speak the same language, so how could they have known that they were non-Christians? In addition, what are the requirements in those days to be considered a Christian? Did they have to believe in a God? Therefore, the African population very well could have believed in a God or higher power, and hence, would have been considered Christian. This verbal barrier, if it would have been overcome, in turn could have dismissed the non-Christian belief (whether or not they considered themselves Christian). Next, there are many other populations that would have been considered to be non-Christian, so why were they not taken advantage of? What was so special about the African population? I believe it was the fact that they looked different, spoke a different language, and the fact that they were an easy target due to the ports that could be established that made them a prime source of prey for slavery.
Second was the concept of ‘Chattel Slavery’ in which “slaves are commodities to be bought and sold, rather than domestic servants or agricultural workers.” This concept basically means that the slaves were a piece of property, therefore reducing them to not having any rights as people or have free will. This concept however, was very smart for the owners because if they were servants or workers, then theoretically they could have worked off their debt and therefore received rights as a free person. By being a slave they could be kept indefinitely, as well as their offspring.
Overall this article touches base on two different concepts, those of power and race. The white population used their power to enslave the African population, and turn them into a property that could then be exploited. In doing this they proved that they were stronger and a better peoples. On the other hand, the African population was taken over due to their race. Their race was different, not the same as the white population, and therefore they were unequal and inferior. Both of these concepts hold true throughout the development of slavery and racism over the past century, and I am sure they will be further looked into in the weeks to come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi! There is much to be appreciated here in your responses to various readings. I will offer a few impressions and give feedback. I am more and more aware, as a teacher and researcher, of the deep and penetrating effects of media, myth, and nostalgia which have formed certaun impressions upon younger generations, specifically related to the historic, economic, religious, and social contexts of power, oppression and privilege in a U.S. context. Your insights and hunches provide the audience a strong sense of how social location and suspending judgement are both criical factors in expanding the possibilities of critical thinking and engagement. I'd like to bring awareness to this quote, taken from this post:
ReplyDelete"In doing this they proved that they were stronger and a better peoples. On the other hand, the African population was taken over due to their race. Their race was different, not the same as the white population, and therefore they were unequal and inferior."
I often recommend to students (who are new to the field and discipline of Social Sciences and who have not yet had experience with the contemporary, critical theories and methodologies of race, gender, sexuality, and class) to be reflective, exercise stepping outside one's reactions (as a practice and method)and try to hold or to suspend judgements and reactions until more information is sought/gleaned/identified. This may be difficult at times, especially when a researcher's position may be challenging for a student to comprehend, especially when the student feels 'outside' the researcher's experiences, meaning: has little or no experience with those issues being addressed,yet the student may feel that the critique is directed ather/him personally, or directed at their social-economic-political group affiliation. It is important to remember (especially when we strongly disagree with another perspective/experience of real life), to examine our own restraints to hearing, and to consider why a person's position may grate up against our own. Understanding--and examining privilege through the contexts which have established which group is dominant/subordinate in specific historical moments is key to discerning contexts of our own power relationships, and the systems which structure power, oppression and violence.
Although I think there are many possible responses to the quote above, and I would encourage more discussion on that, my curiosity about the above quote at the moment is based upon how it reflects normative thinking and the mass consumption of 'race' (a social construct) as absolutely natural, unproblematic (for dominating groups), and merely a 'complaint' for subordinated-violated groups.
It takes courage to be 'out' about one's personal truths. We will be doing more work to examine the dominance of white culture, through the famous quote of Sherman Alexie, the Native American award winning author, (former WSU student), who refused to take an American History class in order to receive his final credits required for graduation. His remark was to the effect of "why should we be required to take American History? That is redundant. American History is everywhere, in every space, public and private, on every street, in every town, it is in your face all the time, no matter where you go. What we should be taking is what American History has hidden in plain site--the Native American Holocaust."
Good luck with moving through these important exercises in penetrating how race, religion, language, gender and oppression are complex and intersecting systems, which are NEVER capable of being disentangled from one another, or from the contexts in which they are invented and deployed for the certain benefits of specific groups.