Short essay 3

One way that Europeans change their attitudes toward Africans was the beliefs that they held for the better part of 400 years that Africans were savage beast incapable of being “civilized” and the inability to learn. This change came about the further understanding of the African people by European intellectuals who, as time went on and the more knowledge gained about Africans, began to see that the thinking that once dominated European mind process was wrong. It is not to say that the change happened over night or within a reasonable time period but instead was very slow and challenging. Through religious teachings, that all men have a common ancestor, to Darwins Origin of Species that stated scientifically there was no evidence to show that Africans were of different species, created a ripple effect that would began questioning the capabilities of these people and the status quo that was set.

The reasoning for the change can be simplified to the growth of people mentally. It has been mentioned by people of that era and referenced by people of today’s time that civilizations have all evolved from a simplistic culture to a complex society complete with rules and laws. It was an evitable change accompanied with the emergence of more stringent interpretation of the Bible, first hand experiences and the basic form of necessity. People learn from other people with some breaking off to improve what was taught or to change specific things, possibly for the better or simply to have a different way to do things. The curiosity that began to overwhelm people in the early part of the 1800s on what Africans interior was like and the fascination of these people and why they were the way they were pushed forth a sort of social revolution in the world. As ignorance was replaced with knowledge and as the availability of this knowledge grew, so would the perceptions that were once held.

Europeans responded with these changes like any other group of people or things that grew accustomed to the status quo and in a strange twist, remained in their ignorance and fought any type of social change for Africans. This of course is generally speaking since there was always a minority of people who fought for the opposite. There was a side for and a side against changing attitude toward Africans. The side against it of course tried to prove through different avenues that blacks were from different species and hence were subjected to be made slaves. They were savage beasts that could not be civilized. They took into account the superstitions they had and the cultures they had. A main argument was that if they were able to grow, why were they so backwards in technology. Arguers even went as far as to say the art and the things that Africans viewed as aesthetically beautiful, were to them hideous and monstrous.

Africans responded in wide range of different ways. For a good amount of them, especially those that were students or like Equiano who was more or less raised around Europeans, they began to assimilate into the western culture. Africans increased their knowledge in political forms as well as religious and educational. They in a sense began to leave their own culture behind completely. While some Africans did that and were fine with reaching that level, many others began to use the knowledge they gained to learn about where they came from and started to push back to gain knowledge of their people. The African response early on leads to many of the civil rights movements that went on in the early and mid parts of the 20^th century. Identity became important, t o show the world that Africans were no different than any other kind of human beings and that fair treatment was due. As both Europeans and Africans who were tolerant of each other, things such as miscegenation occurred. One of the major focuses that challenged many if not all Africans was that no matter how much it was proved to Europeans that they were not barbarians and beasts, they were all viewed as second class citizens. Accepting them as people with natural human rights and accepting them as equals of the same level were completely different. To add to the hardship, many Europeans viewed African culture (dance, art, music, etc) as monstrous and ugly. As times began to change and people became, in a way, more open to other things, Africans tried to do what could be done to show the beauty in what they see. In the early 1900s, Europeans and the Americas began to accept African culture as different but gave more respect to it. All in all, the African response was very diverse from getting themselves educated and creating organizations to fight unfairness to showing Europeans the beauty of their art. Theirs response causes reactions from Europeans both good and bad. One battle that was always fought and still can be said to be fought today is the battle to rid those of the old thinking that Africans are inherently inferior no matter what they do for themselves. It was this battle that caused the African responses to change so often and forced the response to last longer than it should have.

Short Essay 2

The connection between Christianity and social status was that a Christian man and a non Christian man (although less emphasis was made in the case of Francisque) were on the complete opposite of the spectrum. If one was not Christian, then one was deemed a heathen and an ignorant beast with no morals or human rights. In order to be considered a part of society and to possibly move up the social ladder, one must believe in a form of Christianity and be apart of one of the many different denominations that are available to be accepted into the ranks of civilized peoples. Religion always played a large role in a lot of the law making processes along with how people treated others. It is not to say that what Christianity said was done and followed by all people at all times, but it was an important aspect of it. It is interesting that although many Europeans viewed dark skinned people of inferiority, many of the laws and rules were geared primarily toward Africans, including the issue of religion and how it was practiced. Christianity was important for social status typically in the moral sense rather than in the law sense. It has been seen in many of the areas, there are two social structures, one in the eyes of the law and one in the eyes of individuals. There were many people who believe that slavery was wrong, but they were always in the minority and shunned against. As time went on however, and as the idea of slavery began to dwindle away, people began to speak out more against slavery. Primarily from Christians who deeply followed the teachings of God, spoke out against slavery and its evilness. Although the abolitionist movements became stronger, with many spearheaded by Christians, only the social structure under the law seemed to change at a decent pace. Individuals still viewed dark skinned people as inferior, even if they were to be converted, they were meant to be in the life of servitude.

Readings:

The article “Questioning Slavery” by James Walvin does not speak about Christianity.

The reading of Equiano, Chapter 3 briefly mentions Christianity but not in any detail relevant to the thesis.

The reading by Peabody, titled “Race, Slavery, and the Law in Early Modern France” mentions the idea of religion briefly during the case of Francisque but not in grave detail. The importance of its mention is that during the trial, the lawyers brought up the fact that although he came from a place that practiced a “idolatrous religion”, they had laws and rules. It brings to light that although Christianity and religion are important, they are not the deciding factor by any means.

In Chapter 12 of Equianos reading, does speak of religion but more so as a way to further spread the word of the Lord. Equianos was to be ordained for he ran into problems previously trying to convert Indians to Christianity but in essence failed due to the fact that he was not officially ordained. Since Equiano was already accepted amongst others, it shows that being converted gave him more freedom to travel and more respect from those whom he visited

In the reading “Mobility in Chains” by Garzina, religion is brought up but not in a way to support the thesis. It focuses more on the internal dilemma each African writer went through in their own lives and assimilating into “white” culture.

In “Christianity and the campaign against slavery and the slave trade” by Brown, Christianity was mentioned more in the sense for the leading (or one of the leading) causes for the abolition of slavery movement and eventual ending of the slave trade. It can be asserted that as a whole, through Christian belief, slavery was inherently evil, the effects of it in a social status viewpoint is more toward the minimal side. Blacks or darker skinned people (especially those converted) were viewed higher than beasts that were supposed to be enslaved but they still were not treated or viewed as complete equals.

In the “Status of Black Residents in Eighteenth-Century France “ by Boulle, does speak about Christianity in the sense of that Europeans and all Christians have the duty to convert all those  who are not believers, into believers. It goes no further in trying to uplift the social status of those individuals, where it was still believed that blacks should be taught at the colonies but must be kept in the “dark” as it would be to dangerous for whites to give them freedom. It is mentioned that they must be kept ignorant, which leads to the belief that although they would be considered save in the eyes of God, they are still inherently inferior to the white populations.

In “National Myth, Conservatism, and the beginnings of British Antislavery” by Hudson, Christianity and religion as whole is a major theme. It is argued that religion was manipulated and changed for the greed of people. Christianity, in its purest form, slavery was and always has been against its teachings.

Conclusion:

The readings themselves do not all, and are not entirely focused on the religious aspect of Africans and how it effected social status. At the same time, although they did not directly speak about it, the viewpoints mentioned within the articles affirm that blacks were still viewed as inferiors on a large scale. There are many situations where blacks (born free or enslaved) gained respect from Europeans and were treated fairly. The number compared to those who were not is considerably low, along with the fact that just because they were treated by people of a specific area one way, does not mean they were going to b treated equally the same in other places. Out of the many African writes, from Equiano to Cuffe, many of them travelled quite frequently and travelled far distances. They were treated decently fair toward the middle and ends of their lives after assimilating into a religious denomination. One instance that shows religion as only a small part in creating social structure is in the Peabody article. It mentions of a slave from India, Francisque, who stood trial to win his freedom. His lawyers mention that he is not an African slave and so he should not be treated as such, but treated with more dignity. It is mentioned that although he comes from a culture that practices a idolatrous religion, he comes from a culture that is civilized and has features similar to that of Europeans. The emphasis that where he came from practices a religion, like African religion, deemed wrong because he is not from Africa, he should be treated differently and better. The idea of religion was used to make claims both for the support of the continual mistreatment of Africans and for the abolition of slavery as a whole.  The reading s themselves never mention specifically that with the conversion of Africans into Christianity, they will be viewed and treated as equals with the same access and opportunities as others. It is not even mentioned that they will and are going to be treated at least to the level of the low class white citizens. It is shown and alluded to that although they assimilated into the culture, they are still inferior as a whole to any white European citizen who was born civilized and not having to be taught to be such.

Short Essay 1

The image of Africans throughout the western world changed drastically in the span of 200 years. The ways and the rate in which they changed varied in different parts of the world but the view of the African in its most simplistic sense at one point or another aligned with each other. It would b impossible and irresponsible to believe that all areas of all the countries shared one exact point of view at any one time but in a generalization approach, there were a lot of similarities.

Africans at first, in the eyes of the British, its colonies and other Countries in the region, viewed Africans for the most part as brute beasts who were meant to be enslaved and put to work. They were viewed as slow and incompetent but very strong that would make for a very stable and lucrative work force.  Through much of the 1400s through the 1600s, not much thought was given to the capacity of what Africans could do and whether or not they should be assimilated into the culture as equals.  The English colonies were more stuck in their own ways; possibly due to the fact that they were one of the 1^st to initiate such a mass movement but also that it was the largest empire at the time and was very capitalistic.  In the Mediterranean European countries, Africans at first were viewed in the same light but not as harshly. The treatment given to Africans was more gentle and humane than many of the other European areas. They were more open to the possibility of having Africans assimilated into the culture and were more accepting of them reaching some sort of status within their society.

Over time, although the views were different in parts of the European world, the view of Africans became virtually universal. As stated in the reading of Africa in Europe and the Americas, Africans were inferior to those of the Europeans. They were still looked upon as barbaric and do not posses the ability to freely think for themselves or reach a specific level of intelligence that they would deem satisfactory. During these 200 years, a lot of changes occurred within the countries partaking in the slave trade. The outlook of Africans seemed to change frequently and when the feelings were felt in one culture, there were many others in the various other cultures that felt the same way. One of the main differences, particularly in the Americas that were slow to change was the length of time it took to promote abolition, as a whole. The South was a main   component in the colonies that kept slavery alive and the perception of Africans being inferior. In many other countries such as Brazil and Guyana, people in the area were more welcoming to accept the freedom of slaves and to make a sort of “peace” between the rebellions. They welcomed more of a mixed culture. While it is true that many people in the New World, more so in the North, were moving toward a more cooperating culture, much of the South either refused or simply did not believe that Africans could be “tamed”. A big portion of why Africans were still viewed as they were in that region was due to the production and high demand for cotton that required a lot of manual and physical labor. Much of the European world viewed the need for slave labor as long as it remained lucrative and was cost efficient. As time went on and the industrial revolution began, the need for slave labor began to dwindle down, to an extent.  To further help push toward abolition, slave revolts such as those in St. Domingue and in Cartagena became more numerous leading many people to fear such violent uprising that would be both financially costly and deadly. The ability for slaves to unite and rise above helped shed a light upon the fact that these so called ignorant “creatures” were much more than cheap labor. Each area witnessed such things at a different rate based on the amount of labor, the length of time that slavery was going on, and of course the individuals in each area that perceived things differently.

Eventually, views changed in all parts of the European world but just as the rate of change differed between regions of Europe, the colonies of each specific region of Europe also changed at different rates. It would be inaccurate to say or believe that things change simultaneously throughout the known world when so many different views and different kinds of people occupy so many different regions.  Just like the changes happened for the better, there are multiple times throughout this time period when things began to revert back to its old ways or where areas began to go away from their beliefs, in a sense, trying something new to possibly become more profitable. Changes toward Africans and slavery were derived from profitability. How much money or worth can be obtained with spending the least amount to achieve it or in essence, the beginning of capitalism was the main goal. In the end, differences between the areas differed drastically at times but in many instances, there was a common viewpoint between them all.

Me

Antonio Boyce
The youngest of 3
Originally from Chicago, Il but have been living in AZ for quite some time.
I've taken numerous history classes such as Women in Europe during WWI, Hist before the middle ages, American Military history before 1865, African American History, American History before and after 1865, Civil Rights History, etc.