tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88443546308419356492024-02-08T05:35:20.862-08:00Rodney Dangerfield and MeNels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8844354630841935649.post-74954383528681228652010-12-21T10:10:00.000-08:002010-12-22T15:46:21.867-08:00Essays<strong>Thesis</strong><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2458876&da=y">The Making of Audubon Park: Competing Ideologies for Public Space</a><br /><br /><strong>Thesis Research Essays</strong><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459033&da=y">Darwin Evolved: The Changing Response to Evolutionary Thinking in 19th Century America</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459427&da=y">The American "Atmosphere" at the Turn of the Century</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459428&da=y">Didactic Landscapes: Parks and Social Reform</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459450&da=y">Historic New Orleans</a><br /><br /><strong>Coursework Essays</strong><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2458756&da=y">To Lead or Not to Lead: The Role of the United States in the 21st Century</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2459047/the-long-march-pdf-december-21-2010-2-46-pm-427k?da=y">A Long Time Coming: Developments in Understanding of the Long March</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459059&da=y">I Thought we Were Friends: America’s Role in European Anti-Americanism</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459169&da=y">The Emergence of the Enslaved Protagonist: A Historiography of Slavery Resistance</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2461304&da=y">Cold War “Victory” for the West: The Demise of the Communist Ideal</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459412&da=y">Boys Will Be Boys: The Influence of Gender in the Spanish-American War</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459198&da=y">A Work In Progress: Elitism, Exploitation, and Beauty in American City Planning</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459237&da=y">Et Tu Brutus?: Africa's Role in American Slavery</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459263&da=y">American Idealism During WWI</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459264&da=y">The Democratization of American Culture: How "The Real World," and "American Idol" have Changed the Country</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459407&da=y">Progressivism: The Waltz with Modernity</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459416&da=y">Dropping the Bomb: Truman’s Simple Answer to a Complex Situation</a><br /><br /><strong>Reviews</strong><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2461305&da=y">Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union, by Scott Shane</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459228&da=y">Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, by George Chauncey1890-1940</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459186&da=y">Strangers at the Gate: Social Disorder in South China, 1839-1861, by Frederick Wakeman Jr.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459252&da=y">“The Sale of Motherhood: Wet-Nursing and Slave Women in Colonial Cuba” and ”Free People of Color in Spanish Mobile, 1780-1813”</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2459439&da=y">The Archives of New Orleans Public Library</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2461310&da=y">Mao’s War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China, by Judith Shapiro</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2459267/dupont-4th-essay-pdf-december-21-2010-4-23-pm-158k?da=y">Voices of Protest</a><br /><br /><strong>Annotations</strong><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2461318&da=y">The Great War and Modern Memory, by Paul Fussel</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=2461493&da=y">The Response to Industrialism 1885-1914, by Samuel P. Hays</a>.Nels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8844354630841935649.post-72553654062092387782010-12-21T09:34:00.001-08:002010-12-21T09:34:55.046-08:00To Lead or Not to LeadNels Abrams <br />HIST 4501<br />Professor Bischoff<br />Spring 2009<br />To Lead or Not to Lead: <br />America’s Role in the 21st Century<br /> Fareed Zakaria argues in The Post-American World that the hegemony of power that the United States of America has enjoyed since the end of the Cold War is coming to an end. Zakaria is an Indian-American journalist with extensive international experience; he is well-situated to examine the relationship of America with the rest of the world. His journalistic background comes through in the title of the book, which was somewhat misnamed and appears calculated to increase sales, not represent the book. Although the title is titillating—even controversial—Zararia’s argument is fairly consistent with mainstream contemporary thinking on foreign affairs. Basically, The Post-American World echoes many of the same opinions expressed by Thomas Friedman in his best-seller, The World is Flat. According to both men, the economic success of China and India, among others, is changing the dynamics of global power. Instead of a single superpower orchestrating world affairs, international politics will feature a contest between myriad powerful nations. This diversity of power does not necessarily indicate a decline in the “American empire,” however. Ultimately it will be in the hands of the American people and their leadership to determine if the United States accepts and adjusts to thrive in the new environment, or resists and fails in the face of an unavoidable future. <br /> The rise of China and India, along with the creation of the European Union, will dramatically alter international relations in the coming years. From one perspective, the success of these powers is an American success story. During the Cold War it was not at all clear that these populations would embrace capitalism and democracy. China and Eastern Europe were communist, and India under Nehru was certainly left-leaning. Today all three regions comprise an important part of the global marketplace that American leaders worked so hard to establish. And although China is still nominally communist today, this reveals their political and not economic framework. The new era of international relations will be shaped by the strengths and weaknesses that each of these regions possess. In terms of population size, education, infrastructure, and political system, each situation is unique. The important thing for Americans to remember is that this new era is not a threat, but an opportunity. For decades American leaders tried to defeat an economic and political rival, the Soviet Union. Now that communism has been dead for a generation, these regions have thrived. Instead of fearing their success, the United States must recognize that this is exactly what it was fighting for, a global commitment to capitalism and mutual growth through competition. <br /> The rise of China is the biggest development on the world stage today. To demonstrate the impact of China, Zakaria cites some statistics that almost defy plausibility. For example, “China has grown over 9 percent a year for almost thirty years, the fastest rate for a major economy in recorded history.” What this rate of growth means is that “[t]he size of the economy has doubled every eight years for three decades. In 1978, the country made 200 air conditioners a year; in 2005, it made 48 million.” China’s phenomenal economic success is made possible by its large population size. With four times as many people as the United States, the “twenty fastest-growing cities in the world are all in China.” <br />With these statistics it is clear that China will be a major factor in the new era of international relations, what Zakaria has called the “post-American world.” What is less clear, however, are the problems behind the numbers. Their meteoric rise is possible in part because they started so low. Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution decimated the country’s agriculture and economy. Despite its undeniable recent success, China’s GDP is still twenty-five times lower than that of the U.S. In addition, China is terribly polluted due its dependence on coal for its energy supply and lack of environmental ethic. The pollution is beginning to pose problems, such as a severe loss of potable water. Lastly, human rights issues both domestically and internationally (occupation of Tibet and support of Sudan’s leadership) complicate China’s reputation. For all these reasons, China has been careful to accept its growing power quietly. Chinese leaders changed their slogan from “peaceful rise” to “peaceful development” because they did not want to threaten existing powers with confrontational imagery. China is aware that its lack of democracy and large population size can be threatening, and is taking steps to preclude a conflict of powerful nations. The United States must reciprocate these actions and not fall prey to fear of competition and difference.<br /> India is another Asian country whose burgeoning economy is set to transform the world stage. And, because of its democracy and religious population, India is seen more as an ally than a threat. The legacy from the British occupation plays a large role in this Western acceptance of India; the English established a political and economic framework that is both successful and comprehensible to Europeans and Americans. In addition, because India has a more youthful population than China, it is set to have a larger population and greater comparative advantage in labor in the near future. Perhaps the ability to offer cheaper labor will offset the disproportionate growth in the Indian economy. Up to this point, India’s upper class has benefitted from the boom in technological outsourcing and telecommunications, but the poor are not convinced the gain is broad enough for the control as a whole. Zakaria dismisses critics of India’s policies as bitter radicals; however, there are valid concerns about his trickle-down theory of economics. In any case, India is poised along with China to usher in a new era of Asian influence in global affairs. <br /> The European Union is only given brief attention in The Post-American World and that is unfortunate because after the Iraq War damaged the United States’ credibility as a responsible superpower, the E.U has emerged as powerful entity in international affairs. Established in 1993 by the Treaty of Maastricht, the European Union has unified a diverse group of countries into a patchwork alliance through such measures as a common currency, the euro, and passport privileges. With half of the world’s foreign investment, a stable and strong currency, and a $30 billion trade surplus, some countries are now looking to the E.U as a stabilizing force both politically and economically. Although the dollar has been the accepted currency for foreign reserves in banks around the world, the Euro is increasingly being supplemented due to Europe’s responsible image. The presidency of George W. Bush has accelerated this trend; foreign investors are now aware that single election can drastically alter a country’s performance and that is not good for stable markets. The E.U, which features dozens of countries, is more balanced in this regard and one rogue election is not likely to alter the entire European economic stability. The primary limitation for continued European success in the coming years is its aging population. Due to low birth rates and resistance to immigration, Europe is losing its ability to replenish the economy with young, active workers and thinkers. Regardless of this limitation, the E.U will definitely have a seat at the table in future discussions of global importance. <br /> The emergence of China, India, and the E.U has changed the dynamics of the international community; however, what has made their success into a possible threat to American prosperity is not their competition with the U.S, but rather the failure of the George W. Bush administration. In the new era of diverse powers, aggressive unilateral action by the United States is not appropriate leadership. The Iraq War has been almost a complete disaster for American foreign affairs. American ally French president Sarkozy went so far as to tell Condoleezza Rice that the U.S is “one of the most unpopular countries in the world.” This sentiment is the result of Bush’s policies and not unjustified anti-Americanism. In fact, a tremendous opportunity for global leadership was lost during the Bush administration. <br />After the attacks of September 11th, practically the whole world was united in support of the United States. Unfortunately, instead of capitalizing on the unprecedented goodwill, the president set a course to reverse that support into almost universal disapproval. Bush’s go-it-alone Iraq strategy was regarded as arrogant and irresponsible by the global community. His insensitivity to foreign opinion was further demonstrated with the appointments of Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton, two men who were disliked abroad, to critical international posts. By labeling major European powers “Old Europe,” Secretary of Defense alienated important allies in a time of war. The combination of all these instances of poor diplomacy resulted in a significant drop in America’s international image. Zakaria presents an insightful metaphor comparing the Iraq war and its consequences to the Boer War and its role in the downfall of the British Empire. There are indeed many similarities and the U.S could plausibly be started on the path to decline. Fortunately for the U.S, however, the election of Barack Obama provides fresh hope for responsible leadership and the utilization of the many assets that the United States has to thrive in the new era. <br />If the Boer War is the appropriate metaphor for Bush and the Iraq War, perhaps the Great Depression and president Franklin Roosevelt are the appropriate metaphor for Barack Obama and the current circumstances. And, like the situation confronting FDR, the best approach to handling the new era is to not allow “fear itself” to determine policy. It is important that the new administration recognizes economics are not zero-sum, and they welcome the new large national economies as allies and not adversaries; it is possible for everybody to prosper when the aggregate GDP keeps increasing. A legitimate concern for the future of America is that previous success does not hinder adjusting to new realities. The Qing Empire refused to change, believing that it had the recipe for success. Oil-rich countries don’t develop diverse economies because they are too attached to what is working at the moment. The United States must recognize that its leadership of the 20th century does not necessarily lead to leadership of the 21st, and that it will take confidence and ingenuity to succeed. The new president seems to be aware of all this. His messages of “hope” and “change” hit exactly the right notes during the campaign. Obama’s presidency specifically, and America’s democratic process in general, provide the first major advantage to continued American prosperity. <br />Barack Obama represents the power and flexibility of the American political system. This is not to say that he is definitely going to succeed—it’s too early to tell—but his presidency demonstrates the ability of the people to make changes in leadership when policies are not succeeding. In a changing world, that ability to adapt will be vitally important. And this flexibility is not a singular event on the presidential level; both the House and Senate became Democratic during Bush’s second term in office. Early in his term Obama has demonstrated that his approach to foreign policy will rely heavily on the public diplomacy that was lacking during the past administration. He has begun discussions on the removal of the ignominious Guantanamo prison in Cuba, and he has assured the world that unilateral aggression is over by beginning a dialogue with Iran. International citizens expressed their approval of the new president with massive crowds of supporters during his trip overseas. By not being afraid to compromise and participate in global politics, Obama has regained international political leadership for America. At home, a diverse population of Americans shares the global enthusiasm for the United States’ new direction. <br /> Immigration is another major asset for the United States. The youth, desire, and diversity of the immigrant population in America will fuel the innovation and hard work necessary to succeed in the new era. Without the immigrants—who are an advantage that are unfortunately seen as a disadvantage by many—the United States would be facing the same problem of an aging population that Europe faces. The immigrants’ desire to “make a better life for themselves” is somewhat of a cliché. But so is the stereotype of the “lazy” South American. They are a diverse population full of people both with and without professional ambition. There is enough ambition among American immigrants, however, to both perform exhausting manual labor and succeed in great numbers at the highest levels of education and business. Because immigrants come from across the globe they bring a wide array of perspectives, a critical asset for innovation. American diversity can negate the historical trend for empires to become rigid in their thinking. The challenge for the country is to maintain an environment that is conducive to immigration. This means a strong economy, yes, but also a welcoming society. As other countries begin to succeed and provide alternative locations for living and making money, the United States must be careful not to create a hostile environment for foreigners through aggressive wars abroad and discriminating policies at home. The United States prides itself as the “melting pot,” but history has also shown that groups of immigrants have had a hard time gaining acceptance here in the past. The new era of competitive global powers will require that America treats the people who choose to immigrate here as the asset that they are. <br /> Education in American can either be a great strength, or a liability. Public schools in America are lauded for their ability to teach children “how to think.” In place of preparation for exams, students are allowed to challenge the material and think critically about what they are learning. The ability to think critically will be vital in the new era, but standardized tests show that American students are falling behind in key areas such as math and geography. Many critics deride the United States for its poor scoring on these tests. Zakaria notes that these poor scores are more a result of inequality than quality. According to him, “students in the top fifth of American schools rank among with the world’s best.” This argument is ultimately unconvincing. With more jobs being outsourced overseas the standard response has been that Americans will simply do the upper level work. However, it will take an educated general populace to occupy that niche. Further, in order for a democracy to thrive, it is necessary to have informed voters. Clearly a transformation in public education is necessary. Fortunately, American universities are still the best in the world. That the best students and the best facilities are to be found in the United States is without debate. The challenge for higher education in America lies with its unique demographic; almost half of the students are from foreign countries. If these students leave the United States after graduation, the country would suffer from a very serious “brain drain.” This problem is connected closely with the need to retain immigrant workers. A welcoming society and thriving economy are the way to maintain these assets. <br /> The American economy is its greatest asset in the new era. It is easy to get blinded by the glare of the incredible growth of China, but the reality is that the United States is still the undisputed leader in the global economy. By a long shot. In 2007 the U.S accounted for an incredible 26% of the global GDP. That figure has remained constant for the better part of a century. The U.S dominates the aspects of business which profit most in the current market and also the high-tech industries of the future. It is not a decline in the American economy that has people talking about the “post-American” world. The difference is the increasing prosperity of other countries, most notably China and India. As the leader of the economy, the United States is in a great position to capitalize on its advantages to thrive in the 21st century—if the political leadership can adjust to changing realities.Nels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8844354630841935649.post-78029042703838605812010-12-21T09:26:00.000-08:002010-12-21T09:28:54.952-08:00To Lead or Not to Lead: America's Role in the 21st Century1
<br />Nels Abrams HIST 4501 Professor Bischoff Spring 2009 To Lead or Not to Lead: America’s Role in the 21st Century Fareed Zakaria argues in The Post-American World that the hegemony of power that the United States of America has enjoyed since the end of the Cold War is coming to an end. Zakaria is an Indian-American journalist with extensive international experience; he is well-situated to examine the relationship of America with the rest of the world. His journalistic background comes through in the title of the book, which was somewhat misnamed and appears calculated to increase sales, not represent the book. Although the title is titillating—even controversial—Zararia’s argument is fairly consistent with mainstream contemporary thinking on foreign affairs. Basically, The Post-American World echoes many of the same opinions expressed by Thomas Friedman in his best-seller, The World is Flat. According to both men, the economic success of China and India, among others, is changing the dynamics of global power. Instead of a single superpower orchestrating world affairs, international politics will feature a contest between myriad powerful nations. This diversity of power does not necessarily indicate a decline in the “American empire,” however. Ultimately it will be in the hands of the American people and their leadership to determine if the United States accepts and adjusts to thrive in the new environment, or resists and fails in the face of an unavoidable future. The rise of China and India, along with the creation of the European Union, will dramatically alter international relations in the coming years. From one perspective, the success of these powers is an American success story. During the Cold War it was not at all clear that these populations would embrace capitalism and democracy. China and Eastern Europe were communist, and India under Nehru was certainly left-leaning. Today all three regions comprise an important part of the global marketplace that American leaders worked so hard to establish. And although China is still nominally communist today, this reveals their political and not economic framework. The new era of international relations will be shaped by the strengths and weaknesses that each of these regions possess. In terms of population size, education, infrastructure, and political system, each situation is unique. The important thing for Americans to remember is that this new era is not a threat, but an opportunity. For decades American leaders tried to defeat an economic and political rival, the Soviet Union. Now that communism has been dead for a generation, these regions have thrived. Instead of fearing their success, the United States must recognize that this is exactly what it was fighting for, a global commitment to capitalism and mutual growth through competition.
<br />2
<br />The rise of China is the biggest development on the world stage today. To demonstrate the impact of China, Zakaria cites some statistics that almost defy plausibility. For example, “China has grown over 9 percent a year for almost thirty years, the fastest rate for a major economy in recorded history.”1 What this rate of growth means is that “[t]he size of the economy has doubled every eight years for three decades. In 1978, the country made 200 air conditioners a year; in 2005, it made 48 million.”2 China’s phenomenal economic success is made possible by its large population size. With four times as many people as the United States, the “twenty fastest-growing cities in the world are all in China.”3
<br />With these statistics it is clear that China will be a major factor in the new era of international relations, what Zakaria has called the “post-American world.” What is less clear, however, are the problems behind the numbers. Their meteoric rise is possible in part because they started so low. Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution decimated the country’s agriculture and economy. Despite its undeniable recent success, China’s GDP is still twenty-five times lower than that of the U.S. In addition, China is terribly polluted due its dependence on coal for its energy supply and lack of environmental ethic. The pollution is beginning to pose problems, such as a severe loss of potable water. Lastly, human rights issues both domestically and internationally (occupation of Tibet and support of Sudan’s leadership) complicate China’s reputation. For all these reasons, China has been careful to accept its growing power quietly. Chinese leaders changed their slogan from “peaceful rise” to “peaceful development” because they did not want to threaten existing powers with confrontational imagery.4 China is aware that its lack of democracy and large population size can be threatening, and is taking steps to preclude a conflict of powerful nations. The United States must reciprocate these actions and not fall prey to fear of competition and difference.
<br />India is another Asian country whose burgeoning economy is set to transform the world stage. And, because of its democracy and religious population, India is seen more as an ally than a threat. The legacy from the British occupation plays a large role in this Western acceptance of India; the English established a political and economic framework that is both successful and comprehensible to Europeans and Americans. In addition, because India has a more youthful population than China, it is set to have a larger population and greater comparative advantage in labor in the near future. Perhaps the ability to offer cheaper labor will offset the disproportionate growth in the Indian economy. Up to this point, India’s upper class has benefitted from the
<br />1 Zakaria, Fareed. The Post-American World (New York: W.W Norton & Company, 2008), 89 2 Ibid., 89 3 Ibid., 90 4 Ibid., 106
<br />3
<br />boom in technological outsourcing and telecommunications, but the poor are not convinced the gain is broad enough for the control as a whole. Zakaria dismisses critics of India’s policies as bitter radicals; however, there are valid concerns about his trickle-down theory of economics. In any case, India is poised along with China to usher in a new era of Asian influence in global affairs. The European Union is only given brief attention in The Post-American World and that is unfortunate because after the Iraq War damaged the United States’ credibility as a responsible superpower, the E.U has emerged as powerful entity in international affairs. Established in 1993 by the Treaty of Maastricht, the European Union has unified a diverse group of countries into a patchwork alliance through such measures as a common currency, the euro, and passport privileges. With half of the world’s foreign investment, a stable and strong currency, and a $30 billion trade surplus, some countries are now looking to the E.U as a stabilizing force both politically and economically. Although the dollar has been the accepted currency for foreign reserves in banks around the world, the Euro is increasingly being supplemented due to Europe’s responsible image. The presidency of George W. Bush has accelerated this trend; foreign investors are now aware that single election can drastically alter a country’s performance and that is not good for stable markets. The E.U, which features dozens of countries, is more balanced in this regard and one rogue election is not likely to alter the entire European economic stability. The primary limitation for continued European success in the coming years is its aging population. Due to low birth rates and resistance to immigration, Europe is losing its ability to replenish the economy with young, active workers and thinkers. Regardless of this limitation, the E.U will definitely have a seat at the table in future discussions of global importance.
<br />The emergence of China, India, and the E.U has changed the dynamics of the international community; however, what has made their success into a possible threat to American prosperity is not their competition with the U.S, but rather the failure of the George W. Bush administration. In the new era of diverse powers, aggressive unilateral action by the United States is not appropriate leadership. The Iraq War has been almost a complete disaster for American foreign affairs. American ally French president Sarkozy went so far as to tell Condoleezza Rice that the U.S is “one of the most unpopular countries in the world.”5 This sentiment is the result of Bush’s policies and not unjustified anti-Americanism. In fact, a tremendous opportunity for global leadership was lost during the Bush administration.
<br />After the attacks of September 11th, practically the whole world was united in support of the United States. Unfortunately, instead of capitalizing on the unprecedented goodwill, the president set a course to reverse that support into almost universal disapproval. Bush’s go-it-alone Iraq strategy was regarded as arrogant and irresponsible by the global community. His
<br />5 Ibid., 228
<br />4
<br />insensitivity to foreign opinion was further demonstrated with the appointments of Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton, two men who were disliked abroad, to critical international posts. By labeling major European powers “Old Europe,” Secretary of Defense alienated important allies in a time of war. The combination of all these instances of poor diplomacy resulted in a significant drop in America’s international image. Zakaria presents an insightful metaphor comparing the Iraq war and its consequences to the Boer War and its role in the downfall of the British Empire. There are indeed many similarities and the U.S could plausibly be started on the path to decline. Fortunately for the U.S, however, the election of Barack Obama provides fresh hope for responsible leadership and the utilization of the many assets that the United States has to thrive in the new era. If the Boer War is the appropriate metaphor for Bush and the Iraq War, perhaps the Great Depression and president Franklin Roosevelt are the appropriate metaphor for Barack Obama and the current circumstances. And, like the situation confronting FDR, the best approach to handling the new era is to not allow “fear itself” to determine policy. It is important that the new administration recognizes economics are not zero-sum, and they welcome the new large national economies as allies and not adversaries; it is possible for everybody to prosper when the aggregate GDP keeps increasing. A legitimate concern for the future of America is that previous success does not hinder adjusting to new realities. The Qing Empire refused to change, believing that it had the recipe for success. Oil-rich countries don’t develop diverse economies because they are too attached to what is working at the moment. The United States must recognize that its leadership of the 20th century does not necessarily lead to leadership of the 21st, and that it will take confidence and ingenuity to succeed. The new president seems to be aware of all this. His messages of “hope” and “change” hit exactly the right notes during the campaign. Obama’s presidency specifically, and America’s democratic process in general, provide the first major advantage to continued American prosperity.
<br />Barack Obama represents the power and flexibility of the American political system. This is not to say that he is definitely going to succeed—it’s too early to tell—but his presidency demonstrates the ability of the people to make changes in leadership when policies are not succeeding. In a changing world, that ability to adapt will be vitally important. And this flexibility is not a singular event on the presidential level; both the House and Senate became Democratic during Bush’s second term in office. Early in his term Obama has demonstrated that his approach to foreign policy will rely heavily on the public diplomacy that was lacking during the past administration. He has begun discussions on the removal of the ignominious Guantanamo prison in Cuba, and he has assured the world that unilateral aggression is over by beginning a dialogue with Iran. International citizens expressed their approval of the new president with massive crowds of supporters during his trip overseas. By not being afraid to compromise and participate in global politics, Obama has regained international political
<br />5
<br />leadership for America. At home, a diverse population of Americans shares the global enthusiasm for the United States’ new direction. Immigration is another major asset for the United States. The youth, desire, and diversity of the immigrant population in America will fuel the innovation and hard work necessary to succeed in the new era. Without the immigrants—who are an advantage that are unfortunately seen as a disadvantage by many—the United States would be facing the same problem of an aging population that Europe faces. The immigrants’ desire to “make a better life for themselves” is somewhat of a cliché. But so is the stereotype of the “lazy” South American. They are a diverse population full of people both with and without professional ambition. There is enough ambition among American immigrants, however, to both perform exhausting manual labor and succeed in great numbers at the highest levels of education and business. Because immigrants come from across the globe they bring a wide array of perspectives, a critical asset for innovation. American diversity can negate the historical trend for empires to become rigid in their thinking. The challenge for the country is to maintain an environment that is conducive to immigration. This means a strong economy, yes, but also a welcoming society. As other countries begin to succeed and provide alternative locations for living and making money, the United States must be careful not to create a hostile environment for foreigners through aggressive wars abroad and discriminating policies at home. The United States prides itself as the “melting pot,” but history has also shown that groups of immigrants have had a hard time gaining acceptance here in the past. The new era of competitive global powers will require that America treats the people who choose to immigrate here as the asset that they are.
<br />Education in American can either be a great strength, or a liability. Public schools in America are lauded for their ability to teach children “how to think.” In place of preparation for exams, students are allowed to challenge the material and think critically about what they are learning. The ability to think critically will be vital in the new era, but standardized tests show that American students are falling behind in key areas such as math and geography. Many critics deride the United States for its poor scoring on these tests. Zakaria notes that these poor scores are more a result of inequality than quality. According to him, “students in the top fifth of American schools rank among with the world’s best.”6 This argument is ultimately unconvincing. With more jobs being outsourced overseas the standard response has been that Americans will simply do the upper level work. However, it will take an educated general populace to occupy that niche. Further, in order for a democracy to thrive, it is necessary to have informed voters. Clearly a transformation in public education is necessary. Fortunately, American universities are still the best in the world. That the best students and the best facilities are to be found in the United States is without debate. The challenge for higher education in America lies with its unique demographic; almost half of the students are from foreign countries.
<br />6 Ibid., 192
<br />6
<br />If these students leave the United States after graduation, the country would suffer from a very serious “brain drain.” This problem is connected closely with the need to retain immigrant workers. A welcoming society and thriving economy are the way to maintain these assets. The American economy is its greatest asset in the new era. It is easy to get blinded by the glare of the incredible growth of China, but the reality is that the United States is still the undisputed leader in the global economy. By a long shot. In 2007 the U.S accounted for an incredible 26% of the global GDP. That figure has remained constant for the better part of a century. The U.S dominates the aspects of business which profit most in the current market and also the high-tech industries of the future. It is not a decline in the American economy that has people talking about the “post-American” world. The difference is the increasing prosperity of other countries, most notably China and India. As the leader of the economy, the United States is in a great position to capitalize on its advantages to thrive in the 21st century—if the political leadership can adjust to changing realities.Nels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8844354630841935649.post-87054459427852877412008-12-16T09:50:00.000-08:002008-12-16T10:04:10.611-08:00Slave Resistance HistoriogaphyNels Abrams<br />Professor Mitchell<br />AmHist 6501<br />Fall Semester<br />THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SLAVE RESISTANCE: <br /><br />The Emergence of the Enslaved Protagonist<br /><br /><br />The history of slave resistance has roots that reach through centuries and across the globe. Where there are enslaved people there is resistance, and the “peculiar institution” plays a prominent role throughout history. The empires of Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, and South America are but some of the many examples of the use of slavery to exploit a position of power. The United States of America provides yet another example.<br /><br />Slavery was an integral element in the culture and economy of the United States from the colonial era until the end of the Civil War in 1865. The origin of slavery America was the Portuguese exploration of the African coast. Accounts of resistance to enslavement are found in the surviving documents of the time. Historical studies of slavery, however, were conspicuously silent on the subject of resistance, despite its now-obvious relationship to the subject. Herbert Aptheker’s Negro Slave Revolts in the United States 1526-1860 finally broke the silence in dramatic fashion .<br />To understand Herbert Aptheker and his work he must be seen in the context of the history of slave resistance. It is the purpose of this study to provide that context—both the intellectual community that he was responding to and the diverse studies that have followed his ground-breaking work. The study of slavery prior to Aptheker largely ignored resistance to enslavement and consequently could be seen as incongruous in a historiography of slave resistance. These works are included because they provide the appropriate framework from which to understand Aptheker and later studies; he didn’t write in a vacuum and it is important to know to whom he is responding. <br /><br />The authors of the books and articles that are the focus of the latter part of this study have transformed this field of study in ways unimagined by Aptheker. In fact, although Aptheker will be shown to occupy a place of privilege as founder of the field, it is another historian—Frank Tannenbaum—whose work allowed the maturation of the study of slave resistance. Although each author examined in the study is worthy of individual research the narrative of their collective work will take center stage. <br /> This study is divided into two parts. The first examines the contentious debates that defined the historiography of slavery until the 1950’s. The reader will be introduced to the plantation nostalgia of U.B. Phillips, the righteous anger of Aptheker, and Elkins’s “Sambo,” among others. The second part begins with Frank Tannenbaum’s Slave & Citizen, the book which expanded the field of study both geographically and intellectually. The reader will witness how modern thinkers have increased the sophistication of slave resistance studies by incorporating psychology, community, and gender in the discussion. The result is a fully mature field of study that is limited only by the creativity and ingenuity of future scholars. <br />* * *<br /><br />The debate over slavery was polarized and contentious in the antebellum era. A geographic and cultural divide separated the abolitionists in the North from the apologists in the South. The abolitionists used crude media such as images to appeal to the illiterate as well as sophisticated propaganda. William Garrison made an historical impact with his newspaper The North Star. In the academic community, John Codman Hurd’s Law of Freedom and Bondage is an excellent example of partisan literature against the institution of slavery . Less interested in convincing others than with protecting their way of life, the South’s apologists wrote less material directed to the public at-large. Thomas R.R Cobb’s Inquiry into the Law of Slavery is typical of an academic response to the intellectual attacks from the North . Of course not all intellectuals of this time were emotionally invested in a particular position on the subject. Frederick Law Olmsted, famed park architect and editor of The Nation, traveled through the South in the 1850’s and was widely respected for his ability to fairly depict an accurate assessment of slavery. His work has been a critical source for later authors on both sides of the argument . <br /><br />With the conclusion of American slavery at the end of the Civil War there was an opportunity to study slavery with a fresh perspective. The partisan nature of the debate could be discarded as the new history would not be regional but American. Further, the emotional intensity of antebellum years was able to cool off with the passage of time. Ultimately, however, the lines of debate were too entrenched to escape. James Ford Rhodes emerges as the historian who defined this generation of scholarship. He contributed a significant advancement to the field by recognizing that slavery was a systemic problem that indicted both the North and the South, but his scathing attack of slavery served more to fuel the old polemic than advance historical understanding. Rhodes’ detailed criticism of specific aspects of slavery would establish the pattern for subsequent research . <br /><br />In 1918, twenty five years after the publication of James Rhodes’s History, Ulrich B. Phillips ushered in a new era in the historiography of slavery with his book American Negro Slavery . Written during the Progressive Era—an era characterized by racism, anxiety over threatened values, and the effects of industrialism—American Negro Slavery systematically portrayed plantation life as honorable for the whites and benevolent to the blacks. Phillips had bucolic memories from childhood of visiting his relatives on the plantations and his protective nostalgia shaped the content of the book. The explicit claims of the book are the racial inferiority of black people and the necessity of paternal management. The power of the work came from its exhaustive research and precise articulation of apologist sentiment. The Southern position now had a clear, scholarly voice that would dominate the field until after World War II. <br /><br />Phillips’s later work, Life and Labor in the Old South, is often referred to as the seminal work of slavery studies and the prototype for the Southern slaveowner perspective. This study argues that that designation is misplaced. As many iconic books are more often referred to than read, Life and Labor has mistakenly replaced the earlier American Negro Slavery for many scholars. The earlier publish date of American Negro Slavery is the first indication of which book should have priority of place, but there are enough examples of authors’ later works being more important to prevent chronology from being the sole determinant. <br /><br />The reason American Negro Slavery is more accurately described as the prototype of the Southern slaveowner perspective is because the attributes that define that perspective—racism and paternalism—are more forcefully argued in this book. The racism that justifies racial slavery in American Negro Slavery has been moderated to a cultural justification in Life and Labor in the Old South. And while cultural chauvinism isn’t mistaken for progressive thinking, it does mark a step away from his earlier stance. The paternalism in Life and Labor has undergone a similar change in emphasis. The beloved master now recognizes “I am violating the natural rights of a being who is as much entitled to the enjoyment of liberty as myself (sic).” Phillips’s contemporaries recognized the iconic stature of American Negro Slavery and respond most directly to that work. <br /><br />The hegemony of Phillips’s ideology was challenged by several authors . For primarily racial reasons these critiques were unable to significantly redirect the dominant perspective. The Harlem Renaissance fostered the articulation of a black intellectual voice and W.E.B Dubois represented that voice with his alternative views on slavery. His views were largely ignored. C.L.R. James wrote Black Jacobins in 1939 to demonstrate the brutalities of slavery in Haiti and the leadership of the slave community to confront their subjugation. Unfortunately the lesson many academics learned from James’s treatment of the Haitian Revolution was that the violent barbarism of the black revolutionaries served as evidence of the need for white control. <br /><br />It is at this juncture Herbert Aptheker makes his entrance into the historiography. As a young PhD student Aptheker published his American Negro Revolts in 1938 for his dissertation . The title suggests the challenge to the premise of slave accommodation in American Negro Slavery. Inside the cover the reader is confronted with an exhaustive list of over two hundred and fifty incidences of resistance to enslavement. The sheer numbers erase any claim to universal black acceptance of slavery. With his impressive use of primary sources and eye for detail, Aptheker raises a serious challenge to Phillips’s thesis. <br /><br />Despite its obvious scholarship, a few considerations limited the immediate impact of the American Negro Revolts. First, Aptheker’s emotional political investment. He was a committed communist who allowed his beliefs to color his work. The content of the work is undermined by his frequent use of exclamation points, which is not meant as a critique of style but seen as an indication of a lack of objectivity. Indeed, the book ends with an emotional appeal to take the lessons from slavery “to defeat fascism.” Second, Aptheker’s status a novice. In the hierarchy of academics Aptheker was irrelevant at this point in his career. As late as the 1950’s Richard Hofstadter refers to him only as “a student.” Lastly, the narrow focus of the book. At the time scholars of slavery were dealing with the subject as a whole. Aptheker’s narrow focus provided specific insight but was not in a position to challenge the overall perspective of Phillips. The task of formulating a broad new perspective to counter the full range of Phillips’s ideology would be left to later, more established scholars. <br /><br />Richard Hofstadter wrote “U. B. Phillips and The Plantation Legend” in 1944, the same year he published Social Darwinism in America . The article is a measured criticism of the methodology used by Ulrich B. Phillips in his two books. Before dissecting Phillips he acknowledges there are practical reasons for Phillips sources; the larger plantations generally kept better records and were more prominent in the legal records. However, Hofstadter claims that Phillips was “well aware” of the limitations of his sources and the resulting misrepresentation their use would entail. He cites as a primary example Phillips’s selective sampling of States’ records. Phillips’s books only examine plantation records in states with the largest plantations. The result is a skewed perspective that illuminates the practices of only a small percentage of slaveowners. Hofstadter precludes any justification for Phillips on the grounds that he was unaware of other possible sources by referring to the writing of Frederick Law Olmsted. Olmsted, claims Hofstadter, “made a practice of traveling off the main river lines” in order to more accurately portray the full spectrum of slavery. Ultimately, Phillips is found to have allowed his personal bias to shape his research and therefore his conclusions are invalidated. <br /><br />In 1956 Kenneth Stampp wrote the book that would definitively end the Phillips legacy, The Peculiar Institution. Stampp addressed each category that Phillips used to glorify plantation slavery and systematically dismantled his arguments. If the debate on slavery is viewed as a competition, it is clear fifty years later that Stampp “won.” But academics aren’t a competition and the moral conviction that helped Stampp write such an excellent book also caused him to fall into the pattern of partisan conflict established by the abolitionists and continued through Rhodes and Phillips. In addition to the knock-out punch Stampp delivers, The Peculiar Institution was important for introducing the concept of “day-to-day resistance.” <br />Stampp provides several examples of slave resistance that corroborate Aptheker’s depiction of slavery in the South. Far from being the stupid and obedient quasi-humans that Phillips portrays in American Negro Slavery, the enslaved men in Stammp’s book actively fight their subjugation. Aptheker emphasized revolts to demonstrate the intelligence and courage supposedly absent in African-Americans and Stampp uses examples of revolts to the same end. In fact, Stampp celebrates slave revolts as a testament to the inner dignity and desire for freedom shared by all mankind. In addition to the revolts and conspiracies Stampp describes “day-to-day resistance.” Looking past the overly simplistic revolt/accommodate model, Stampp writes about subtle resistance like breaking tools, feigning illness, and performing careless work. Due to the covert nature of these actions the evidence for their existence is largely speculative. The long-term impact of Stampp’s examination of the different forms of resistance has been to validate resistance as field of study and to greatly expand how resistance is defined and studied. The short-term impact was to claim victory for the abolitionist perspective. <br /><br />“Enough is enough” was the response by Allan Nevins to the seemingly interminable back-and-forth between opposing camps of thought. His magnum opus Ordeal of the Union was an eight-volume examination of the civil war that sought to end the partisan scholarship surrounding slavery . In Nevins’s view it was clear that the enslavement of black people was “the greatest curse...that America has ever known”; however, the South needed “compassion and help, not condemnation.” Following the political legacy of Abraham Lincoln in his academic writing, Nevins sought to preclude further malice toward past adversaries. As an accomplished and respected scholar Nevins closed the books on the subject of slavery. At this point in the historiography slave resistance had been introduced by Aptheker and expanded upon by Stampp but still had not been recognized as a field of study worthy of examination outside the larger picture of slavery in general. <br />* * *<br /> The study of slavery and resistance was not over. In 1946 Frank Tannenbaum opened the doors to a completely different approach to researching slavery—an Atlantic perspective—and reinvigorated slavery studies in the process. Slave & Citizen was a comparative study of American and Latin American slavery . Tannenbaum argued that the legacy of slavery on the Iberian Peninsula resulted in a framework of customs and laws that provided relative humanity to enslaved people in Latin American colonies. The absence of such a legacy in Dutch, English, or French history meant that enslaved people in their colonies wouldn’t have a framework to protect them against the cruelty of the market. By contrasting American slavery to slavery in other cultures Tannenbaum was able to transcend the question of whether slavery was wrong and begin a discussion of what lessons can be learned from analyzing slavery. <br />Slave & Citizen, which is a small book, had a big impact. The impact wasn’t felt at first. Stampp didn’t even mention Tannenbaum in The Peculiar Institution. Eventually, however, the implications of the book became clear. From his background as a Latin American scholar Tannenbaum was able to influence future research by recognizing American slavery as part of a larger, Atlantic phenomenon. A lot of the research being done today follows in his footsteps, as having a broad geographical understanding of slavery is fundamental to contemporary studies. With the opening of a new door in slavery studies there was an implicit challenge to open other doors and continue the enrichment of the field. <br /> <br />Stanley Elkins takes up the challenge in his book, Slavery . As a PhD student at Columbia University Elkins studied under Richard Hofstadter, a well-known intellectual who was introduced in this study as a critic of Ulrich Phillips. Elkins’s dissertation would turn into the book that defined his career. An incredibly ambitious study, Slavery sets out to accomplish several things: one; differentiate between slavery in capitalist and non-capitalist cultures; two, use psychology to interpret the lack of resistance in American slavery; and three, to compare American and British abolitionists. This study will focus on Elkins’s explanation of resistance. <br /> <br />Elkins addressed the lack of slave revolts in the American South by explaining the psychology of “Sambo.” According to Elkins, earlier authors either ignored or denied the existence of Sambo because his existence undermined their beliefs in racial equality. The evidence, however, suggests that Sambo did exist and that he was the dominant archetype among slaves. If the old racial justifications of southern slaveowners are rejected, there must be another explanation. Elkins argued that the institution of slavery couldn’t be the answer because there was not a corresponding personality type in other cultures with slaves. Elkins arrives at the conclusion that it is American plantation slavery that creates the Sambo archetype. <br /> <br />Specifically, the closed-system nature of American slavery was responsible for Sambo. By closed-system Elkins means a situation where the dominant values have hegemony and there are no alternative models of success to emulate. In America the slaveowners were able to create such a system. Conversely, in South America the Crown and the Church were powerful institutions that prevented the slaveowners from exerting omnipotent control over their slaves. Elkins uses an analogy to the concentration camps of World War II to demonstrate how the closed-system of the South was able to turn presumably resistant people into Sambo. In the concentration camps the survivors exhibited infantile behavior and internalized the kapo value system. They did so because deviation to the dominant values was penalized by death. The shock of initial capture transitioned to feigning acceptance to the almost inconceivable, allegiance. According to Elkins enslaved men and women in the American South underwent a similar process. Slavery was a controversial book that aroused heated criticism (comparing Sambo and the “infantile” Jews in concentration camps tends to do that). And although there were fundamental flaws in his argument Elkins reinvigorated the discussion of slavery and of slave resistance. <br /> <br />In the 1960s Eugene Genovese was a radical intellectual who found many faults in Elkins’s thesis . For example, Elkins claimed that Sambo was a uniquely American personality archetype. The reality according to Genovese was that the stereotype of slaves as lazy, stupid, and happy was universal among slaveowning cultures throughout the Americas. The absence of a corresponding moniker isn’t sufficient to claim an absence of the personality archetype. Further, Elkins assumed that obedience necessarily indicated an acceptance of the dominant values. The enslaved men and women in Saint Domingue were obedient until 1791. Slaveowners knew that violence was underlying the veneer of plantation serenity. Their elaborate system of laws and punishment was designed to maintain security in a tenuous situation. Lastly, the distinctions that Elkins used to differentiate the closed-system of slavery in the American South from the open-system of slavery in Latin America were false. The power of the Crown and Church in Latin America was too distant to be influential in day-to-day activities on the plantations. And when their representatives did involve themselves in the affairs of slavery they often tacitly supported the status-quo in order to benefit financially. Elkins’s thesis falls apart if any Genovese’s arguments are valid. <br /> <br />John Blassingame was another author who felt compelled to respond to Elkins’s concept of the compliant Negro slave. In 1972 he published Slave Community to argue that the relative lack of slave revolts did not indicate an acceptance of enslavement . Enslaved men and women actively resisted their subjugation in a variety of ways besides armed conflict. Specifically, Blassingame demonstrates that slaves formed communities as a means of establishing autonomy and an identity outside of their owners’ control. These communities are forms of resistance because they contradict the paternal view of slaveowners that their slaves are simply extensions of their will. <br /> <br />Families and Religion are two of the cultural associations slaves formed to distance themselves from their owners. The slave family has often been characterized by its lack of cohesiveness. The practice of breaking up families through sale did not, however, completely dismantle the power of enslaved families. In a clear response to Elkins, Blassingame argues that parents were authority figures to their children that embodied different values than the masters and therefore prevented the formation of a “closed-system” of slavery. Although slaveowners encouraged the family unit for reasons of security and profit, the enslaved families found companionship and love that denied their defined role as a slave. Slaveowners also supported religion on the plantation. They hoped the bible’s message of obedience and acceptance would resonate with the slaves. But the enslaved community shaped their religious practices to fit their own needs. In particular they emphasized the emancipation of the Jews and the reuniting with loved ones in the afterlife. And if there is any doubt about the inherent resistance of slaves’ spirituality, the lyrics “when will the lord free the sons of Africa?” serves as a poignant response. <br /><br /> The introduction of slave communities as forms of resistance and identity was an important contribution to the historiography of slavery and slave resistance. Blassingame’s greatest contribution, however, was to place the enslaved men and women at the center of the story. Throughout the American South, Caribbean, and Latin America black people comprised a majority of the population. Incredibly, until Blassingame their perspective was ignored. When the enslaved were discussed, even in instances of resistance, they were presented as peripheral to the larger story of white history. This bias is evident in the sources. Previous authors attempted to depict the history of slavery through plantation records, travel accounts, and court records—all written by contemporary whites. Blassingame was the first to primarily rely on slave memoirs and interviews. Aptheker was ahead of his time in recognizing the agency of the enslaved, but even his catalogue of slave resistance is more an indictment of the system than an attempt to understand slavery through slaves’ eyes. By establishing the slave as a protagonist in the narrative, Blassingame facilitated a much richer history of slavery.<br /><br /> The protagonists in The Making of Haiti by Carolyn Fick are the thousands of slaves who took advantage of the confusion in the French revolution to successfully fight for their freedom . This revolution, seen from the traditional white perspective, can only be seen as a disaster or a result of French benevolence. Neither captures the story. Shifting the frame of reference to the participants in the struggle allows the greater truth to be revealed: the Haitian revolution was an historical moment of global importance. The demise of Napolean’s empire, the Louisiana Purchase, and the independence of South America are all directly related to the events that unfolded on the politically divided island in the Caribbean. <br />An academic silence followed the failure of white historians to view the Haitian Revolution through the perspective of the enslaved. In 1990 Carolyn Fick gave a voice to the common slave revolutionary and provided valuable new insights in the process. As the subtitle of her book implies, The Making of Haiti: The Saint Domingue Revolution from Below demonstrates that the course of the struggle was often dictated by the masses and not by elites. Several heroic moments by the elite, such as General Dessalines’s defection from the French army, would not have been possible without the power of mass resistance. Fick’s bottom-up approach complements C.L.R James’s portrayal of Toussaint L'overture and other leaders in Black Jacobins. <br />By emphasizing the role of the common slave Fick is able to bring to light conflicts within the struggle. The elite blacks, creoles, and the masses all had unique interests that sometimes conflicted with each other. In fact, both the creoles and elite blacks were willing to support the institution of slavery as long as their own rights and privileges were protected. The understanding that black people did not share universal values and see each other as belonging to a homogenous community continues to play a major role in research.<br /> <br />James Sidbury continued the exploration of new aspects of cultural tension in slave resistance in his excellent book, Ploughshares to Swords . Written seven years after the publication of The Making of Haiti, Sidbury focuses on the American revolt conspiracy popularly known as “Gabriel’s Rebellion.” The tension is manifested in the Virginian nature of the slaves’ revolt. Although the slaves were brutalized by Virginian society they attempted to gain their freedom within the society, not overturn it. This form of struggle for freedom was very different from the Haitian model and Sidbury argues this distinction is due to the influence of American culture among African-Americans. <br /><br />The revolutionaries in Haiti were largely African. Because they had experience with African society they could aspire to recreate maroon communities and eventually Haiti itself according to African values and norms. The Voodoo religion served to unite the revolutionaries, sanctify their actions, and distance themselves from their Christian oppressors. In 1801 Virginia the enslaved population had been born in America and only knew American values. Instead of reference to an alternative society, they were forced to appropriate the white symbols of power to serve their own needs. Thus, instead of voodoo the would-be revolutionaries united under the banner of Christianity. Christianity was far less radical than voodoo because its equality rhetoric was tempered by the doctrine of obedience. With every attempt to demonstrate the power and legitimacy of the revolution through American symbols such as literacy and horses, the leaders paradoxically confirmed the structure of the dominant culture. The tension between acknowledging Virginian society while simultaneously attempting to overthrow it is captured perfectly in the slaves’ use of Virginian legal ceremony to swear allegiance to the revolution. <br /><br />The decision to either partake in the revolution or benefit from alerting the authorities provided a more conscious tension for the enslaved. Terms like “traitor” or “snitch” have often been given to the men and women who decided to inform on the “heroes.” Sidbury argues that complex circumstances blur such easy black-and-white distinctions. To label someone a traitor and someone a hero it must first be assumed that the two individuals belong to the same community and share common interests. The primary obstacle to this unity was the variety of relative freedoms allowed slaves in early nineteenth century Virginia. Many slaves had won hard-earned privileges such as hiring out their time and visiting their family. These slaves had a lot to lose if the revolution failed and the whites retaliated harshly. Many urban slaves also enjoyed friendly relationships with lower-class whites and wouldn’t want to see them hurt or those relationships put in jeopardy needlessly. Lengthy slave negotiations and The Great Awakening had opened up many small liberties and interracial bonds that precluded universal acceptance of rebellion. <br /><br />Walter Johnson, in his 1999 book, Soul by Soul, argued that slave resistance did more than create limited opportunities for a select few; it shaped the entire Southern culture . With over one million slaves sold in the United States between the Constitution and the Civil war, the intranational slave trade was integral to the Southern economy and westward expansion. Beyond the numbers the threat of sale loomed large over daily plantation life. The slaveowners used this threat to maintain control of the slaves, their most valuable and most dangerous property. Slaves shouldered the owners’ dreams of both fortune and status and with so much depending on them, they had leverage. <br /> <br />Johnson depicts Antebellum South society as a constant interplay between the owners and slaves. The owners used every method to trick, cajole, or force their slaves to conform to their imagined roles. The slaves used corresponding methods to assert their individual wants and needs. This dialogue was necessarily uneven because the power of the government stood behind the slaveowner, but the slaves’ unique role in Southern culture held influence as well. An example of this process was the sale of the slave at the trading block. Described as a “hall of mirrors,” the trading block featured the slave, slave-trader, and potential slaveowner each manipulating shared symbols and jargon to influence the sale. Although the buyer had the final say because he had the money, the slave shaped the sale by presenting himself as a hard-working, healthy, and obedient slave or as an ill malcontent with a lack of skills. From the transaction of sale to everyday life on the plantation the enslaved were able to use their knowledge of what the owner desired—a functioning farm to establish his status—to manipulate him to accede to their desires. These privileges were substantial and an overseer or anyone else who tried to undermine the established precedent was fiercely challenged. <br /><br /> Stephanie Camp agrees that the “daily tug-of-war over labor and culture” shaped Southern society to accommodate competing interests. She argued in her 2004 book, Closer to Freedom, however, that historians need to look deeper . The emphasis on public negotiations has failed to properly acknowledge the role of women, as women’s resistance often took place privately. To understand the “hidden and informal” aspects of women’s resistance requires new approaches. The distinctions between personal/public and resistance/accommodation are blurred when the typical fields of resistance for a bondwoman—her body and her home—are the focus of the study. Camp’s accounts illustrate how women’s history in enslavement transforms the field of slave resistance.<br /> <br />Enslaved women faced unique challenges. They were prevented from performing skilled labor and traveling off the plantation to work. The resulting lack of geographic knowledge limited their opportunities to run away. The slaveowner custom denying paternity rights placed the family obligations on the shoulders of the women. And, worst of all, they suffered sexual abuse from the overseers and owners. The bondswomen responded to these unique challenges in different ways. Camp uses an example of women dressing up nicely to attend a dance to demonstrate the reclamation of their bodies. If the owners thought their bodies belonged to them, a well-dressed women dancing illegally challenged that assumption. Her fancy clothes state her personal worth and the dancing on contested terrain proves her autonomy. <br /><br />A bondswoman’s home was another private terrain of resistance. The owner defined this space as a location to rest and prepare for labor. Camp’s protagonist who placed abolitionist propaganda on the walls of her home was defining her home in a radically different manner: as a source of rebellion. Both of these private acts of resistance would not be included in previous histories because they lack a direct encounter between slave and slaveowner. Camp wishes to make clear that the myriad ways slaves resisted transcended the spectrums and dichotomies placed upon their behavior. In unique ways each individual resisted enslavement through thoughts and ctions that held meaning for them. <br /> <br />The study of slave resistance has come a long way. The original discussions of slavery placed the enslaved on the periphery of their moral battles. Eventually slave resistance was recognized by Aptheker and later utilized by Stampp to shift the academic community away from Phillips’s slaveowner perspective. The back-and-forth debate wasn’t moving forward until Tannenbaum demonstrated the opportunities left to explore. The later studies placed the enslaved as the protagonist of the story and greatly enriched the field. Because there are likely to be few new sources to become available on slave resistance, future scholarship will have to become increasingly creative to make further advances. <br /><br />One opportunity that this study recognizes is the concept of slave obedience amidst rebellious slaves. After Stanley Elkins’s Slavery the field has become united in its focus on resistance as the defining characteristic of enslavement. But throughout many of the works mentioned in the previous pages there were indications that large numbers of slaves felt loyalty to their owners. Some even lost their life in protecting his honor or property. A moral position against slavery should not preclude research on an unexplored subject. Whatever paths the studies of slave resistance take, the authors will have the works of an impressive group of people to support them.Nels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8844354630841935649.post-44820466974834097032008-12-16T09:49:00.000-08:002008-12-16T10:00:11.457-08:00Urban history critical historiographyNels Abrams<br />Dr. Hirsch<br />Fall semester<br />HIST 4543G<br />A Work In Progress: <br />Elitism, Exploitation, and Beauty in American City Planning <br />William H. Wilson. The City Beautiful Movement. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.<br />Jane Jacobs. The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1961.<br />M. Christine Boyer. Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1983.<br /> <br /> City Planning is an academic discipline and a component of municipal governance. As such it is subject to criticism from both scholars and the citizens whose lives are affected by planning decisions. M. Christine Boyer, in her book Dreaming the Rational City, charges city planning with serving the needs of capitalism at the expense of the people. Saturated with academic jargon and references to Marx and Foucault, Boyer clearly wishes to do battle with her fellow scholars. Jane Jacobs provides a more pedestrian attack. Writing from the perspective of an urban resident and to an audience of educated laymen, Jacobs critiques the origins and ideology of city planning in her influential book The Life and Death of Great American Cities. Jacobs is not interested in winning theoretical battles; she wants to preserve and develop the diversity of urban America. City planning has its advocates as well. William H. Wilson defends an oft-maligned aspect of planning in The City Beautiful Movement. Together these books provide insight into the tension between democracy and a reliance on experts. Boyer and Jacobs demonstrate the error of leaving city planning in the hands of businessmen and well-intentioned bureaucrats. Wilson argues there was at least a tenuous balance of citizen and expert influence in city beautiful. Without addressing race and immigration, however, the authors ultimately provide an incomplete analysis. <br /> <br />William Wilson is a professor of history at the University of North Texas. His book City Beautiful won the Lewis Mumford Prize of the Society for American City and Regional Planning History and was named Outstanding Book in Architecture and Urban Planning by the Association of American Publishers. The book is unabashedly revisionist. According to Wilson “in planning no less than in other activities, history belongs to the winners” and the city beautiful movement has been misrepresented by the engineers that comprised the victorious City Practical (Wilson, 3). In the first part of City Beautiful Wilson offers an alternative perspective on the origins and ideology of the movement. The subsequent chapters are case-studies of different cities. These case-studies demonstrate utility and democracy were a much larger influence on the movement than has been traditionally recognized.<br /> The origins and ideals of city beautiful are rooted in the legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted. Wilson argues that Olmsted contributed three primary principles to city beautiful: comprehensive planning, the social and economic justification for urban nature, and the importance of consulting. Olmsted’s negative view of the city, however, separated him from city beautiful. Therefore he is an important antecedent to the movement and not a founder. <br /> <br />In 1893 the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition provided another important contribution to the formation of the movement. The fair’s combination of neoclassical architecture with landscape design would come to define city beautiful for many observers. This influence has led many to claim the exposition was the origin of city beautiful. Wilson believes that Daniel Burnham, the director of the exposition, created that misconception to obtain power for himself and his colleagues. The falsehood continued to be perpetuated by city beautiful advocates who wished to legitimize their movement by the success of the exposition. In fact, the exposition was a culmination of earlier developments, not the start of one. Chicago benefitted from “over twenty years’ activity in the sanitary and aesthetic improvement of cities” (Wilson, 57). <br /> <br />The city beautiful lasted roughly from 1900 to 1910. During this time, critics claim, the movement pursued ornamental design through undemocratic channels in an attempt at social control. These charges are false. First, city beautiful believed beauty and utility were inseparable. “Beautiful” works in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania included “filtered water, intercepting sewers, and flood control.”(Wilson, 139) In Seattle, Washington the plans revolved around a civic center that featured an efficient train station and governmental buildings—hardly frivolous uses. The charge of undemocratic planning stems from the unique cases of Washington D.C and the Chicago World’s Fair. In both circumstances planners enjoyed expanded authority. But these projects don’t mean city beautiful was inherently undemocratic. In each of the cities studied in City Beautiful there was a long political process shaped by compromise and popular support. In Kansas City grassroots organization and newspaper editorials generated enough voters to carry “every precinct of ever ward.” (Wilson, 117) The last charge, city beautiful as social control, is a misunderstanding of environmentalism, the widely-held belief that a person’s situation affected his behavior. It is true the proponents of city beautiful wanted to use natural landscapes and imposing buildings to change urban society. But they intended their planning to inspire, not control people. <br /><br /> Wilson’s City Beautiful is an excellent book. Part one is the best, where he develops his ideas about the origins and ideals of the movement. After an insightful look at the contributions of Olmsted, municipal improvement, and the Chicago World’s Fair, the reader has a nuanced understanding of the factors that led up to and defined city beautiful. Wilson is convincing in his argument that utility was an important part of city beautiful. The battle with city practical was more “about vocational and professional dominance” than “two distinct approaches to planning.” (Wilson, 3) Also, he does an excellent job invalidating the standard claims made against the movement. The biggest flaw of this work was its narrow focus. Using only a handful of case-studies, Wilson presents city beautiful as a minor episode and not the national movement that it was. Further, the era of city beautiful was heavily influenced by immigration. Ignoring immigrants at the turn of the 20th century is like ignoring Russia’s role in the Cold War. You can’t make sense of urban planning around 1900 without acknowledging the immigrants and the nativist response. <br /> <br />Jane Jacobs shares Wilson’s belief in the influence of city beautiful on city planning. But for Jacobs that influence has been catastrophic. In Great American Cities she hopes to expose the error of planning today’s cities based on the values of previous generations. Setting the tone early, her first sentence declares “this book is an attack on current city planning and rebuilding.” (Jacobs, 3) Jacobs is writing as a resident of Greenwich Village who has witnessed the folly of planning first-hand. Also, her experience as associate editor of Architectural Forum allowed her to witness the machinations of city planning from a professional perspective. The result is “perhaps the most influential single work in the history of town planning.” (NYTBR) With page-turning prose, Jacobs critiques planning’s abstract ideology, describes what truly makes a city work, and provides solutions for ending the cycle of blight and dullness. <br /> <br />The introduction to the book is focused on the ideology of city planning. According to Jacobs the English court reporter Ebenezer Howard is the intellectual patriarch of planning. Unfortunately for cities and those who live in them, Howard “hated the city and considered it an outright evil.” (Jacobs, 17) The Garden City movement, which emphasized small populations and open spaces, was the result of his influence. It was intended more as a substitute to cities than a means of improving them. Subsequent developments in planning, city beautiful among them, accepted the anti-city bias. In the 1920’s European architect Le Corbusier followed this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. His Radiant City demonstrated the result of “decentrist” thinking in urban planning: a collection of skyscrapers spread out in a Great Park. The tragedy is that city planning in the 1960’s—the time Jacobs was writing—continued to be influenced by an intellectual tradition clearly opposed to modern cities. The utopian theories about how people should be living prevented planners from dealing with cities as they were.<br /><br /> The first and second parts of the book deal with the social and economic behavior of cities. Indicative of her common-sense approach, Jacobs starts with several chapters on sidewalks. It is here that most urban citizens spend interact with others, spend money, and get around. Jacobs argues that sidewalks provide other, less obvious, functions as well. Functioning sidewalks provide safety. Violent or criminal acts are prevented by the presence of so many people to act as witnesses and protection. In a modern take on the concept of “it takes a village to raise a child,” sidewalks also serve to assimilate children. The variety of activities and adult role-models provide a far richer adolescence than suburban or ghetto living. The numerous people who participate unknowingly in neighborhood safety and child rearing are naturally in the area due to the diversity of the area. In fact, diversity is the key to Jacob’s argument. In addition to the social benefits listed, the economic vitality of the city is dependent on diversity as well. Small blocks, high concentration, aged buildings, and mixed primary uses are the four essential factors in the diversity that sustains a city neighborhood. The “Great Blight of Dullness” that results from an absence of one of these factors is what is ruining cities today. (Jacobs, 34)<br /> The third and fourth parts of the book deal with the problems of modern cities and how to solve them. The problem is primarily a lack of diversity and is caused by both public and private planning. Private planning results in dullness due to the self-destruction of successful neighborhoods. Jacobs voices the widespread belief that “hip” areas become sterile as moneyed interests move in to capitalize on the popularity. As the diverse elements are driven out the atmosphere that created the success is driven out with them. Public parks and projects accomplish the same result. Because these massive works are single-use, commerce is unsustainable and therefore no viable neighborhood can develop. Jacobs’s different strategies for rebuilding the slums and planning vibrant cities all boil down to her four factors for urban diversity. With creativity and micro-projects, planners can invigorate cities using these four factors as guidelines. <br /> <br />Great American Cities has left a big imprint on city planning in America and deservedly so. The emphasis on mixed-use neighborhoods was the greatest contribution. Also of importance, Jacobs successfully involved the American people in the discussion. This involvement has strengthened city planning by removing it from abstraction and scholarly journals. The journalistic prose which captured so many readers, however, limits the book as well. Many of Jacobs’s claims are unsubstantiated by evidence. Does high density result in lower crime? Do kids really prefer streets to parks? We don’t know. The lack of citation and bibliography forces the reader to accept Jacobs on faith. Another failing of the Great American Cities is its narrow focus. Jacobs explicitly aims her argument at only the largest cities. By limiting the focus to only a handful of cities, Jacobs renders her analysis irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of city planning. Many of Jacobs’s arguments would work well in smaller cities and she should not allow her big-city chauvinism to eliminate them from consideration. Her admitted bias towards big cities is the last weakness in an otherwise excellent book. Jacobs’s description of “very nice towns if you were docile and had no plans of your own” reveals a prejudice that undermines her status as a serious author. (Jacobs, 17) <br /> <br />M. Christine Boyer provides another scathing attack on city planning in Dreaming the Rational City. Instead of making an appeal to the common man, however, Boyer challenges traditional academic perspectives on the historiography of planning. Currently a professor at the school of architecture at Princeton University, Dreaming is the culmination of her dissertation while a student at MIT. The book focuses on the years 1890-1940 and is heavily influenced by Foucault and Marx. Boyer’s thesis is that city planning has always been a tool for capitalist interests. <br /> The “closing of the frontier” marked the birth of city planning. Frederick Jackson Turner’s speech at the Chicago World’s Fair forced Americans to metaphorically look behind and see what they had accomplished and what they had left behind. The view was not pretty. Unchecked capitalism had created poverty, class divisions, the destruction of nature, and chaotic, unsafe cities. But the profits were too high to make any real, systemic changes. Foreign imperialism was one solution. Further disciplining the domestic workforce was another. With an extremely cynical eye, Boyer explains how superficially beneficial programs were really serving capitalism. Parks were built to “sustain the physical endurance of the workforce” and schools designed to “produce a labor force diversely skilled and disciplined.”(Boyer, 7) Municipal improvements like sewage and roads were built to facilitate commerce. Even public relief was instituted, not to help the poor, but to grease the wheels of the economy. In the end, all this was not enough to mask the problems of social unrest inherent in an exploitative society. <br /> <br />The answer was more discipline. Earlier efforts had been naïve in their dependence on environment’s ability to inspire morality and good character—in other words, a good worker. The creation of an institutional authority with broad powers would be necessary to plan an efficient city. The first step was the Pittsburgh survey of 1907. This standardized, comprehensive analysis enabled greater surveillance and control. Concrete measures like zoning and eminent domain exemplified the move away from influencing the working class to directly controlling them. Regional development provided a greater sphere of control as well. However, with the growth in governmental power a dilemma formed: how to exercise control over the public while not interfering with private business interests. Eventually the solution was found. The government would take over projects that were necessary but not profitable, leaving the private sector in control of profitable projects. The result has been a disaster. City planning is now an institution of professionals who exercise no real benefit to the people.<br /> <br />Dreaming has many shortcomings. Boyer’s loyalty to Foucault and Marx undermines the integrity of the whole work. The reader gets the impression she is imposing a theoretical model on a complex situation and the model just doesn’t fit, try as she might. Her blind acceptance of the evil bourgeoisie prevents her from seeing the humanity of Progressivism. True, there was a sense of elitism in the middle-class leaders of the movement. But playgrounds as an evil? Boyer’s overzealous adoption of class battle has removed her perspective past cynicism to just unbelievable. Dreaming is also limited by its ignorance of race and migration to the cities. These two crucial factors exerted tremendous pressure on city planning. By not mentioning either race or migration in her analysis, Boyer weakens her position. Last, but not least, Dreaming is poorly written. Boyer’s prose is repetitious and confusing. What useful contributions she has are lost in the mess. <br /><br />Race and immigration are integral aspects of city planning. The Progressive Era’s efforts to improve the cities were a direct response to the massive immigration of Europeans looking for industrial jobs. Nativist chauvinism wished to somehow mitigate the influence of the undesirable, but necessary, newcomers. The Great Migration into northern cities forced the North to confront its underlying racism. The result was the creation of racial ghettoes that “contained” the black Americans. Understanding the confrontational origins of city planning movements is essential to presenting an accurate history of city planning. The top-down management that Boyer and Jacobs attack was heavily influenced by prejudice. Consequently, their silence on race and immigration removes the legs that their arguments stand on. <br /><br />Because city planning is relevant to so many people it is vulnerable to attack. The criticisms evaluated here were incomplete. However, their insistence on a more democratic city planning is an important voice to be heard. Business interests and large governmental projects have not served the needs of urban citizens. Wilson’s advocacy of city beautiful is useful for today’s planning as well. His insistence that beautiful is not incongruent with practical is a refreshing perspective in the era of suburban sprawl. Many of America’s most cherished urban spaces—the mall at Washington D.C, Central Park, and countless university campuses—were designed with an emphasis on architectural and natural beauty. A new national focus on urban planning could result from the growing awareness of the inefficiency of the suburbs and increasing transportation costs. Allowing for considerations of race, immigration, democracy, utility, and beauty will be our challenge.Nels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8844354630841935649.post-65793446771086459992008-12-16T09:47:00.001-08:002008-12-16T09:58:24.557-08:00Comparative Slavery PaperAfrica and Slavery<br />Shaw, Rosalind. Memories of the Slave Trade: Ritual and the Historical Imagination in Sierra<br />Leone. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2002<br />Smallwood, Stephanie. Saltwater Slavery. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007<br />As the study of slavery has expanded from a nostalgic remembrance of a static South to encompass a broader, more dynamic Atlantic view there still remains an auspicious absence: Africa. This relatively understudied continent plays an obvious role in the history of slavery, and its past neglect provides tremendous future opportunities <br />for research. Ironically, it appears that Africa has been marginalized in the very <br />field of study meant to illuminate the tragedies of African marginalization. <br />Saltwater Slavery, by Stephanie Smallwood and Memories of the Slave Trade, by Rosalind Shaw are two excellent books that step into this void. Their recent publication indicates that African focused scholarship is a late-comer in the attempt to expand the history of slavery outside American borders. It is this shift of focus toward Africa that is the greatest general contribution of these authors. Specifically, Smallwood provides an in-depth analysis on how the increasing market pressure of the slave trade transformed both the role of slavery in Africa and African coastal society as a whole. Shaw contributes a rebuttal of the popular idea that West Africans have forgotten the slave trade. <br /><br />Rosalind Shaw has been doing research in Sierra Leone since 1977—including living there for nearly two years. Her original focus was on “women’s negotiations of marital relationships through divination (Shaw p.44).” During a fellowship at Harvard she came across sources on Sierra Leone from the 14th to the 19th century that placed the divination rituals she had been studying in a larger historical context. These readings “transformed my project, enabling me to reconceptualize both divination and gender discourses in terms of social memory (Shaw p.45).” Her resulting thesis is that slavery in Sierra Leone is remembered mimetically in Temne ritual. <br /><br />Stephanie Smallwood explores many facets of the Atlantic slave trade in Saltwater Slavery but the central topic of the book is the effect of slavery on “saltwater slaves.” This term refers to slaves born in Africa and transported to the Western Hemisphere across the Atlantic Ocean. Smallwood differentiates these slaves from American born slaves because of the immense cultural divide that she perceives between them. Socially marginalized in their new “home”, the one-way nature of the slave trade created a permanent disconnect with their lives in Africa as well. Their situation is described as “purgatory” and the slaves themselves as the “living dead”. Smallwood argues that this ambiguity is the defining characteristic of saltwater slaves; the misnamed “middle” passage implies a beginning and an end to the story, but these men, women, and children were denied the ability to live and die according to their traditional narrative of life. <br /><br />Ms. Shaw is an anthropologist and Ms. Smallwood is an historian. Subsequently, they use a different set of sources to arrive at their conclusions. Shaw is primarily guided by previous academic scholarship, John and Jean Comaroff feature prominently, and her own extensive field work. Pa Fonah and Pa Koroma were Muslim diviners with whom she worked closely. Smallwood’s “principal source of evidence is the archive of the English Royal African Company, which received a royal charter in 1672 and, formally at least, monopolized the English slave trade through 1698 (AHR).” In addition to this formal account Shaw looks at private correspondence between people involved in the slave trade to gain an understanding of the thoughts and feelings behind the numbers in the ledgers. Through these sources Shaw hopes to discern indirectly the story of the African slaves themselves. There does exist a peculiarity with regards to Smallwood’s sources: for an author who expresses a desire to learn about the lives of the slaves there is hardly any use of contemporary slave testimonies. While there are legitimate concerns for the validity of supervised interviews, surely they merit consideration alongside indirect speculation from official slaveholders’ documents. <br /><br />A benefit of studying the African role in slavery relatively late in the historiography of the subject is that we are able to use the most up-to-date methods of scholarship. In this case that means the recent emphasis on time and place allow for a more specific analysis. Smallwood starts by limiting her place of study to the Gold Coast. Although the Gold Coast didn’t export nearly as many slaves as, say, the Bight of Benin, the historical importance of the Gold Coast in the origins of Atlantic slavery makes this an ideal choice for examining the evolution of slavery through time. Shaw looks explicitly at Sierra Leone from 1978 until 1992. However, we will later examine her belief that a large historical era can be analyzed through the lens of her contemporary anthropological research. <br /><br />Smallwood depicts the origins of the slave trade in Africa as largely inter-African. Until 1540 the Portuguese traders were only interested in gold and it was the African leadership that was buying slaves to support their kingdoms and transport the heavy European goods. This all changed with the discovery of the “New World.” By 1640 over 700,000 enslaved Africans had made their way to Spanish-American ports. The effect of this forced exodus of Africans on the Gold Coast was, amazingly, that trade virtually stopped. As a slave-importer the Gold Coast was economically hurt by the opening of the new markets. With the development of Brazil as a major sugar producer; however, eventually the demand grew large enough to transform the merchants of the Gold Coast into slave exporters. <br /><br />Initially the slaves that were exported were prisoners of war. The custom in West African warfare at that time was to kill the male captives as a means to prevent retaliation. The prospect of gaining a profit with your captives while preventing them from future acts of revenge must have seemed like a great deal to the kings. This incidental slave trading eventually succumbed to the pressure of the slave trade market. The seemingly endless appetite of the New World for slaves combined with increasingly powerful and militaristic African nations to establish an Atlantic slave trade capable of sending millions of prisoners overseas. <br /><br />Smallwood prepares this context of Atlantic slavery to better demonstrate how this system affected its victims. And victims they were. From the onset we witness a similarity among those enslaved: they were society’s powerless. War prisoners, criminals, and the lower class comprised the majority of the cargo. And, in addition to the trauma of becoming enslaved, there was a qualitative difference between African slavery and European slavery. In Africa slaves were marginalized but still belonged to the community. There wasn’t as distinct a psychological categorization of the slave as the “other” as found in the New World. According to Smallwood, that is one of the great tragedies of Atlantic slavery. She argues that saltwater slaves were completely alienated from any kinship or community. Unlike the deceased in Western Africa, they were not venerated and they were not able to participate in their proper ancestral roles after death. <br /><br />In this conclusion I think Smallwood may have gone too far. Her sense of horror for the Atlantic slave trade is justified, but I don’t agree that the middle passage necessarily stripped all the captives of the capacity to “exist meaningfully” and to “social annihilation (Smallwood p.60, 61).” Human beings are remarkable adaptable creatures and I have faith many of the saltwater slaves were able to find meaning and community in their new surroundings, no matter how deplorable the situation. <br /> <br /> <br />It is at this point—the formation and memory of culture—that Saltwater Slavery becomes especially relevant to Memories of the Slave Trade. The historical memory of slavery in America has been well documented and is recognized as a major contributor to modern culture. Our remembrance of that legacy is both discursive and practical. The discursive, or verbal, memory can be seen in our countless books and documents. In Shaw’s words, practical memory is history that is forgotten because it is “embedded in habits, social practices, ritual processes, and embodied experiences (Shaw p.7).” The prominence of black Americans in the South and continuing racial tensions could be seen as examples of a practical consciousness of slavery in the United States. It was from America’s background of rich and detailed slavery documentation that Edward Ball went to Africa. Incredibly Ball found that the Sierra Leoneans had apparently forgotten about the slave trade. Could this be true? His findings have been influential in establishing that West Africans are ignorant of their past. <br /><br />Professor Shaw concedes that many Sierra Leoneans are unfamiliar with the slave trade as a historical fact. However, she claims that Ball fell into the classic anthropological trap of mistaking cultural confusion for ignorance. First, for West Africans memory is not a simple act of recall. Memory for them “means defining their place and position in the world, asserting links with particular people and places,” and it is clear that the slave trade is not something you would want to attach yourself to. Second, Ball brought a Western prejudice towards the superiority of discursive versus practical memory. Shaw is adamant in her work that practical memory is at least as important as discursive. Far from being forgotten, the slave trade and consequent episodes of violence in Sierra Leone have been incorporated in such a way as to help the people navigate their way successfully through the world.<br /><br />The bulk of Memories of the Slave Trade is concerned with providing examples of specific rituals that embody elements of the slave trade. Shaw believes that four examples are particularly illuminating. I will demonstrate two of those here. First, the “shrine of the rice granary” was used by families that had kidnapped and sold a child from within their own community. It was hidden in the household’s granary to avoid suspicion. To this day these shrines exist and sacrifices are made to protect the family from the spirit of the victim. Second, the bocio are wooden carvings of people in shackles and chains that are used as ritual objects to provide protection and strength for their owners. These examples are joined by human leopards that ate children, witches, and sorcerer politicians. <br /><br />Each of these seemingly preposterous archetypes has a correlation with historical cultural belief. Atlantic slavery was associated with cannibalism, witches were suspected of stealing souls and forcing them to work in America, and the increasing power of politicians and their close relationship with slave trading were seen as the result of sorcery. <br />So far Shaw has demonstrated the enduring legacy of rituals and totems from the slavery era. Next, she is careful to point out that these examples do not imply a pre-modern persistence in African-culture; the rituals and totems were transformed through history to become an alternative modernity, not a relic from the past. Shaw argues this transformation is seen in the metamorphosis of spirits from benign forest beings to the predominantly negative beings discussed earlier. Additionally, the spirits and their shrines moved in the ritual landscape of the Temne people from the home to the more ominous rivers and roads. These changes can be attributed to the violence of the Atlantic slave trade. In the presence of powerful, destructive forces controlled by African “Big Men” and the European traders, the relatively weak common people reconfigured there worldview to best adapt to the new challenges. <br />Professors Shaw and Smallwood have contributed two excellent books that complement and challenge each other. They both share an emphasis on the role African society played in slavery, both domestic and foreign. <br /><br />For too long the slave-trade has been portrayed as the exploitation of an inconsequential population. Both women, however, move from their shared African roots to disparate conclusions. Smallwood proposes a dead-end of “salt-water” culture. For her, the African-born slaves in America existed in a limited past. They could not find common ground with their American contemporaries nor return to their African homeland. A tragic story if ever there was one. Shaw attempts to demonstrate the continuance of the past in modern African memory. The previous assumptions of a forgotten past are repudiated by the living, practical memory of slavery in West African rituals. Writing on different topics, from different backgrounds, and with different style—Shaw is more technical—each author demonstrates the potential of African-focused research. <br /><br />Nels Abrams<br />University of New OrleansNels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8844354630841935649.post-47508956142934274662008-12-16T09:44:00.000-08:002008-12-16T09:54:38.609-08:00Slavery Forum PaperA Study of<br />“The Sale of Motherhood: Wet-Nursing and Slave Women in Colonial Cuba”<br />and<br />”Free People of Color in Spanish Mobile, 1780-1813”<br /><br /><br />Contemporary studies of slavery recognize the many different shapes and forms of the <br />“Peculiar Institution” throughout its history. Slavery under European, African, or South American rulers resulted in dramatically different experiences. In the study of colonial slavery in the New World, Europe is in the position of power and our focus narrows on Dutch, Spanish, French, English, and American institutions. Among these empires, it is generally accepted that Spanish slavery was the relatively best situation to be enslaved in. Why? Although there is legitimate skepticism towards quantifying the quality of life, surely the enslaved would welcome a high rate of manumission and Spanish colonies allowed a larger percentage of blacks to gain their freedom. Authors Richmond Brown and Sarah Franklin demonstrate that the determination of enslaved men and women to make the most of their limited opportunities played as important a role as institutional advantages in their achievements. <br /><br />Richmond Brown describes the possibilities for black people in the Spanish city of Mobile in his article “Free People of Color in Spanish Mobile, 1780-1813.” Sarah Franklin also examines slavery in colonial Spain in her article “The Sale of Motherhood: Wet-Nursing and Slave Women in Colonial Cuba.” Her subject is more explicitly gendered, focusing on the apparent paradox of slave wet-nurses in a society that reveres motherhood. <br /><br />Brown uses a variety of sources—Church records, census results, and private business transactions—to depict the culture of Spanish Mobile at the turn of the 19th century and the opportunities within that culture for free people of color. The article starts by introducing us to Charles LaLande, who is used to represent the black elite of Mobile. A mason and a military man, LaLande has the three characteristics Brown argues are necessary for social acceptance by the white community: a trade-skill, military experience, and Church connections. That acceptance is possible at all is due to the small population of Mobile and the Spanish legal code. Brown writes that “colonial Mobile was a ‘face to face’ society and practicality prevailed over legality. The constant shortage of population and the lack of skilled workers…tended to minimize racial distinctions.” More important than this fleeting frontier egalitarianism was the imposition of Spanish law in 1780; owners no longer had to obtain council approval to manumit their slaves and the right to self-purchase was recognized legally. <br /><br />Enslaved women benefitted disproportionately under this system. New Orleans’ notary records between 1781 and 1803 demonstrate that about two-thirds of the manumitted slaves were female (624 to 364). This imbalance was due to the prevalence of interracial unions between slave owners and their slaves. Brown argues that “most of the manumissions involved female slaves and their children, in many cases owners’ mistresses and offspring.” In colonial Spanish society interracial unions were accepted and the disparity between white women and men in Mobile fostered a high percentage of these relationships. In spite of their numerical advantage, free females of color are secondary figures in Brown’s examination of black culture in Mobile. Patriarchal norms prevented women from positions of power and subsequently we only catch glimpses of individual women as widows or mistresses benefitting from their male counterparts. <br /><br />We are now familiar with the social and legal practices that differentiated the culture of colonial Spain from its European counterparts. The right to self-purchase and relative acceptance of interracial relationships created possibilities for social advancement for people of color. Brown argues “free people of color occupied important positions in Spanish Mobile and enjoyed a perhaps surprising range of opportunities.” He supports this argument with several examples of free black ownership of homes, businesses, and even slaves. Regis Bernoudy was a free man of color from New Orleans that bought a home on St. Charles Street worth $3,400. At the time this was one of the nicest homes in the city, black or white owned. For financially secure men like Bernoudy, affiliations with the militia or the Catholic Church were all that remained to become accepted as a gentleman. The image of a respected, wealthy black man in Mobile juxtaposed with the hopeless plantation laborer of English colonies is a vivid example for the relative differences between the imperial powers. <br /> <br />Sarah Franklin shifts our focus from the mainland to the island colony of Cuba. And while Mobile, Alabama and Cuba today aren’t exact replicas of each other, in the early 19th century both were Spanish colonies and shared many characteristics. The specific topic Franklin wishes to address is wet-nursing and the female experience of slavery. She uses slave advertisements to understand how these women were perceived by the white community and gain insight into the role of wet-nursing in that community. <br /><br />Slavery studies have traditionally treated enslaved men and women as a homogeneous subject. The shared burden of manual labor in plantation slavery was thought to have erased any gender distinctions. It is true that female slaves toiled in the fields and were not afforded the same “fairer sex” prejudices assigned to white women; however, gender differences remained. <br /><br />Being both a slave and a woman relegated you to the “lowest rung of the Cuban hierarchy”. Female slaves were stripped of the delicate stereotype that would have spared them grueling work in the fields, but did not benefit from an increase in their perceived ability to perform skilled labor. In many ways, these women got the proverbial “short end of the stick.” Male slaves had a monopoly on the skilled jobs. Masonry, shoe-making, and driving were all performed exclusively by men. Incredibly, from this position of apparent social weakness, female slaves were able to find avenues for their success. <br /><br />Female slaves worked disproportionately in the cities. The particularly urban need for high numbers of domestic workers resulted in a high percentage of urban slave women. Franklin demonstrates that women dominated several domestic occupations: Nanny, Ironer, Maid, Laundress, Nurse, Sewer, Seamstress, Wet nurse, and Hair Stylist, for example. The urban setting for these occupations proved to be invaluable. With access to the marketplace, many women were able to make enough money to purchase their freedom. Because female slaves cost less than men, the amount needed to fulfill this ambition was lower as well—an unintended benefit of female marginalization. <br /><br />Wet-nursing has not been included in past examinations of urban slave women’s paths to freedom. The demands of the job did not allow extensive contact with the market economy and therefore didn’t fit the prevailing pattern. Franklin does not wish to negate the market-access theory, but her data suggests wet-nursing should be recognized as yet another route to freedom utilized by slave women. <br />An examination of Coartación records, the legal status of slaves who had paid a down payment towards self-purchase, supports her argument. Franklin states that wet-nursing “appears prominently in the skill set of coartada slaves for sale.” Because slavery births were infrequent the number of women able to be a wet-nurse was limited. The resulting discrepancy in supply and demand made wet-nursing a highly sought-after and profitable skill. Franklin urges further investigation into the intriguing role that wet-nursing played in colonial Cuba<br /><br />The conclusion of “The Sale of Motherhood” is conjecture on why Spanish families were in demand of wet-nurses. We have already seen the benefits for participating black women. But as a society that reveres motherhood, it is perplexing why Spanish women would relinquish such an integral aspect of being a mother to a slave. Franklin confirms the priority of Motherhood in Spanish Cuba in her statement that “for white women, motherhood was esteemed above all else. And for upper-class white women, motherhood defined their role in society.” And also, “Motherhood for white women signaled great prestige.” The paradox is dismantled nicely with Franklin’s observation that Spanish motherhood was not defined by the mundane, daily acts of care such as changing diapers or breast-feeding but rather by a successful supervision of their development. She was the coach, not the player. <br /><br />From this common-sense explanation Franklin ventures onto less stable ground. She proposes that an additional motive for slavery wet-nursing was population control. The reasoning is that the Haitian revolution had scared the white people of Cuba into paranoia about Africanization. They also understood that lactation delays pregnancy. Consequently, they implemented the practice of slavery wet-nursing to limit the number of babies born to slave mothers. This theory suffers from being unnecessarily complex and from ignoring other, easier methods of population control such as selling excess slaves for a profit. Her earlier theory centered on motherhood roles is strong enough to explain the phenomena on its own. <br /><br />Richmond Brown and Sarah Franklin do an excellent job depicting the interplay between slave agency and institutional opportunity in their respective articles “Free People of Color In Spanish Mobile, 1780-1813” and “The Sale of Motherhood: Wet-Nursing and Slave Women in Colonial Cuba.” Brown’s snapshot of colonial Mobile brings to the forefront an image from slavery largely absent from common understanding: prominent free people of color. Their wealth and social standing are a testament to the will of these men and the relative humanity of Spanish slavery. Facing perhaps greater adversity as both slaves and women, Franklin’s protagonists have brought to light another aspect of the ingenuity and perseverance necessary to confront enslavement. <br /><br />Nels Abrams<br />University of New OrleansNels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8844354630841935649.post-48472735455748238482008-09-17T19:50:00.000-07:002008-09-17T20:02:30.020-07:00Short Essay on ProgressivismProgressivism: The Waltz with Modernity<br />By Nels Abrams<br />The Progressive Era in the United States took place around the turn of the 20th century. Although its exact duration is open to interpretation, the depression of 1893 and the end of WWI will serve as acceptable bookends. This period in our history is significant for its radical changes and, perhaps more importantly, for its prominent role in the creation of modern America . But before I begin to elaborate more fully on that idea, allow me to stop a moment to illuminate what is meant by “modern.”<br /><br />“Modern” is a slippery word. Depending on the source, one could plausibly use the term in as varied terrain as Napoleon’s France or the factories of New York. We are given a glimpse into the heart of the matter by Emile Durkheim, the founder of Modernization Theory, through his analogy of societies’ modernization to the evolution of an organism; each start out simple and grow in complexity and interdependence. This understanding was given support in our class lecture when modernization was explained at different times as the ‘move from community to society’ and as ‘becoming more complex and interdependent’. For the purpose of this essay “modernization” will imply the process of growth, increasing diversity, and specialization.<br /><br />Progressivism has a special relationship with the modernization of America. On the one hand it can be seen as a response to large, outside forces. The second industrial revolution, burgeoning cities full of immigrants, and a vast train network transformed the country. The earlier political, economic, and social landscape based on communities and personal relationships was torn apart. The upheavals of change left everyone scrambling to make sense of their new surroundings. On the other hand, it is important to recognize the influence of Progressivism in actively modernizing America. Many of the developments of that era shape our lives to this day. <br /><br />Americans had responded to increasing modernization before. The Populists, for example, were dealing with many of the same issues as the Progressives. What distinguishes the Progressives—and marks their contribution as the beginning of the modern era—is that they responded to modernization on its own terms. They did not reject the changing world; they used modern methods to solve modern problems. In this essay I hope to demonstrate the dual role of Progressivism as a response to and an integral part of the modernization of America. <br /><br />The 2nd Industrial Revolution from 1870-1914 had a tremendous impact. Innovations in the chemical, electrical, and steel industries increased production exponentially. Scientific Management methods such as the assembly line were established to handle the new production capacity. The resulting demand for cheap labor in the factories prompted millions of immigrants to flood into the major cities for work. The combined effect of these developments was to greatly increase the diversity of our population and to create a much more urban national demographic. The predominantly Protestant Reformers felt their culture was threatened by the massive influx of people and they responded by disenfranchising the “undesirable” voters. This legislation reversed the trend of an increasing voter base championed by Andrew Jackson. Racism in the South shaped the reform and subsequently the political power of blacks was crippled for generations. <br /><br />The expansion of the railroad network combined with improved communication technology to both connect people living in distant locations and diminish the significance of communities’ local relationships. The Pacific Railroad nailed in the Golden Spike connecting the coasts in 1869 and a new national society overwhelmed the autonomy of previous community institutions. This development met with both enthusiasm and resentment. While trade increased, local companies and farmers suddenly found themselves competing with far away strangers. Also, the railroads charged uneven rates to exploit the South and West for the benefit of Northeast financial centers. Progressive Republican leaders such as Robert LaFollete of Wisconsin fought in congress for railroad regulation and tariff reform. The division in the Republican Party between traditional conservatives and progressives handed the 1912 presidential elections to the Democratic candidate, Wilson. <br /><br />The urban centers’ growth created new problems such as sanitation, mass poverty, and crime. For these reasons the Progressive movement originated in the cities. A “new middle class” of urban professionals motivated by ambition and altruism used their expertise to take the lead. These reformers claimed that party politics were inefficient and corrupt, so they took steps to take power away from the “machines” and the immigrants they represented. The Progressives wanted to streamline governance and ensure that people they could trust—experts—were making the important decisions. Examples of this reform were increasing the power of the mayors and establishing civil-service guidelines for public posts. This emphasis on administrative government continues today, with over 1,000 appointed commissions. <br /><br />There was another group of Progressive reformers who focused on ameliorating the negative social consequences of modernization. A change in the intellectual atmosphere from Social Darwinism to the Social Gospel prompted many people to adopt different views towards the less fortunate. Failure was now recognized as systemic instead of the result of personal sin or weakness. These reformers were led by women, with Jane Addams and her Hull House as perhaps the most famous example. They improved schools and hospitals, built public playgrounds, and generally attempted to, as 1901 Mayor Fagin said, make cities “a pleasant place to live in.” <br /><br />The distinction between the “Social Reformers” and the “Structural Reformers” was hazy. Some people worked on both sets of issues and many shared similar socioeconomic backgrounds. In addition, they all had faith in the Progressive method: identify the problem, do research to discover the root causes, develop public support through the dissemination of knowledge, and legislate. This secular faith in sociology and science blended easily with their religious zeal because there wasn’t a necessary contradiction between the two in that era. <br /><br />Modern America owes a lot to the men and women of the Progressive era. The technology and trains of that time gave us international power. Administrative governance and public responsibility for social welfare are integral aspects to our democracy today. As we round the corner into the 21st century, we face new waves of immigrants, revolutionary technology, and an increasingly interconnected world—the Progressive Era’s successes and failures could provide timely lessons.Nels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8844354630841935649.post-57263003795399973132008-09-17T19:49:00.001-07:002008-09-17T20:03:45.953-07:00Annotated Bibliography of BookHays, Samuel P. The Response to Industrialism 1885-1914. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.<br /><br />Author Samuel P. Hays believes that the dominant literature regarding the Progressive period has “adopted the ideology of the reformers themselves”; specifically, that the era was defined by a revolt against the corruption and abuses of big-business. This simplistic picture of the “haves” vs. the “have-nots” was adequate for the sensationalistic muckraking journalism of the times but fails to portray the complexities that comprised the Progressive movement. <br /><br />The Progressive reformers according to Hays can best be understood by viewing their actions as part of a larger societal response to the overwhelming influence of industrialism. What distinguished the Progressive movement from Populism was that the populists attempted to reject the implications of industry and to remake society. The progressives were unified in their acceptance of industry as fact but their responses were as varied as the specific needs and situations of the people affected: farmers, businessmen, women, immigrants, everybody had to make unique adjustments. In his book “The Response to Industrialism” Hays interprets the Progressive movement as the cumulation of these different, often conflicting, reactions. <br /><br />A common thread throughout these reactions was organization. The new world created by industry was national, if not international, and the individual efforts that worked locally were no longer effective. Each segment of society sought to strengthen their influence through collective effort. The business community became the most powerful due to its disproportionate “capital, technical and managerial skills, and public influence.” Big business attempted to mitigate the unsettling effects of free market competition by establishing trusts and holding companies. Labor and Farmers responded in kind through the creation of powerful unions such as the American Federation of labor (AFL) and agricultural Co-operatives. Clearly these separate concentrations of power were not mutually beneficial; each organization conflicted with the others over important issues. <br /><br />In addition to professional differences there were significant conflicts of interest between geographic regions. Economic growth was uneven around the United States after the Civil War. Hays argues that some of this disparity is due to the natural disadvantages of the South and West but that these disadvantages were exacerbated by the pseudo-colonial exploitation of the North. The South was hindered by the tremendous loss of capital accompanying the emancipation of the slaves, widespread infrastructure damage during the war, and a lack of capital and industry. Similarly, the West was handicapped through a lack of transportation and water. The North again used its influence to further retard the West’s development through low tariffs for raw materials and high tariffs for manufactured goods. These tariffs protected northern industry from competition while undermining the farms. <br /><br />The international effect of industrialization in the United States was that America was thrust into the position of a global power. Although there were some reservations about becoming involved in foreign affairs that resulted in an erratic acceptance of this role, the undeniable trend was toward more active international participation. Hays ends his survey of Progressivism with an examination of several specific instances of aggressive American intervention.Nels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8844354630841935649.post-31550175391161151162008-09-17T19:37:00.000-07:002008-09-17T20:04:11.156-07:00Annotated Bibliography of EssayAnderson, William G. "Progressivism: An Historiographical Essay." The History Teacher 5 (1973): 427-52.<br /><br />William Anderson’s essay provides a brief introduction to the development of American historical thought towards the era of Progressivism. He believes that this era is important because the elements that define our modern American liberal state—bureaucracy and social welfare—have their roots in the turn of the 20th century. Anderson is interested in demonstrating that historians from different generations were influenced by unique economic and political situations and subsequently arrived at interpretations of Progressivism that fit within the prevailing academic understanding of their time. These disparate conclusions are varied in almost every aspect: perceived leadership, origins of reform, objectives, and reasons for the end of the era. <br /><br />Anderson addresses each of the following interpretations in a more-or-less chronological order. He starts with the “Old Liberal” interpretation of the 1920’s. Next he examines the emergence of the “Consensus” view championed by Hofstadter. The “Regional” approach follows and is applauded for recognizing the conflicting interests of many of the reformers. The radical 1960’s produces the “New Left’s” critique of Progressivism as corporation-dominated. After a brief look at some revisionist interpretations of old theories Anderson describes the view from the 1970’s that Progressivism never truly existed as a unified movement. <br /><br />The conclusion of the essay is that the new computer-based and quantitative methodology will contribute significant, yet limited, advances to our understanding of this era. The primary engine for new interpretation has proven to be a changing political-cultural climate, not methodological innovations. Because the political spectrum is represented across the board in Progressive history the future works will carve out niches somewhere in-between.Nels Abramshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11080071498931697658noreply@blogger.com0