Rodney and Augustus begin the article with a clear goal: to break down the myths and falsified histories that have been perpetuated by those who did not wish to verify and celebrate West Indian stories. The so-called “heroes” of history are the oppressors therefore they had control over the narratives that are studied; this is made evident not only through the misconceptions the authors present, but also by the fact that the majority of primary sources to back up their arguments are from slave owners, slave-ship authorities and anti-abolitionists. They also present some misconceptions from the other end of the scale that present black slaves as heroes, for example they argue that power shifts and differences in station meant many of the oppressed turned on each other. They also allude to the idea that certain misconceptions were played up for the benefit of slaves themselves; they suggest that slaves manipulated white masters into thinking they were not as smart that could not understand, when in reality they were capable and self-sufficient.
Some of the misconceptions the authors chose to disprove are as follows; that slaves were being taken away from barbarity and undeveloped social structures, that all slaves came from the lower classes and criminal populations, and the misconception that all black slaves were docile and tolerant of their lot, as well as lazy and unmotivated. They also argue that torturous slave treatment was not actually consistent all the way up until abolition and that the rights of slaves around this time have been wildly misconceived.
At one point the authors reference European serfdom, which is a term I had not heard before. It is a descriptor for the “condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord”* which is essential the makings of early slavery. The authors reference this when debunking the myth that people were already enslaved in Africa – domestic slavery was present, however it was nothing in comparison to the horrors that would await slaves transported to the Americas brought about by the Europeans.
This particular piece of writing fits in well with Session 3’s theme as it discusses why those perpetuating the beginnings of racist ideologies reinforced these myths. It not only presents the misconceptions but also dives into why oppressors wished people to have certain preconceptions about slaves. For example, the authors discuss how those who skew history to their perception are usually those who wanted to spread their racist, colonialist, or slavery-apologist opinions.
When reading this text, a few points need to be taken into consideration for analysis. Firstly, this piece was written nearly 60 years ago, which is why terminology and phrasing is fairly outdated and would now possibly be considered inappropriate. There are also several sweeping statements made about black slaves that are backed up with little evidence and more likely a product of normalised racism of the 60’s. For example, “The fact that the negro slave could laugh at himself, his master, and those who surrounded him stands high to his credit.” Here, the writers are speaking as if it is some inordinate achievement or trait for a black slave to have a sense of humour, which is in my opinion, quite dehumanizing and othering. Secondly, this source uses very few other sources to back up arguments, which is evident in its limited bibliography. This potential taints its reliability and usefulness. However, they do reference C.L.R. James at one point, who was a West Indian historian who was considered a “pioneering and influential voice in postcolonial literature.”**
Dear Aylie, this is a perceptive analysis of this journal article. You summarise its contents well before moving on to critique aspects of the work. You are right to point out the 1960s mentality of the piece. It does mention some pro slave writers who produced this racist and simplified view of black salves being brought from barbarity to civilisation –including Carlyle and Trollope whom you could comment on as following the ‘tradition’ of pro-slave writing covered in this session (session 3). The Caribbean Quarterly is a cultural history journal so it may be that the lack of historiography is due to the nature of the journal as well as to the time of writing in the 1960s (which you identified well). This post is very well written and provides some useful links as references.