161803398
7th October 2013, 19:38
Interesting Article.
http://www.understandingrace.org/resources/pdf/disease/smedley.pdf
Although there were more Irish slaves in the Caribbean Isles than Africans, those peoples captured in wars with the English, knew nothing about tropical agriculture and were seen as “savages,” (they had a “dangerous nature”) (see Smedley 2007). They often ran away to join their co-religionists, the catholic Spanish, and were considered a “rebellious lot.” Historian Leonard Liggio, quoted from one letter sent to traders by a planter, “Don’t send us any more Irish; send us some Africans, for the Africans are civilized and the Irish are not” (1976, 8).
In contrast to Indians, Africans also had natural immunities to Old World diseases.European colonists recognized that Africans lived longer and were able
to produce more than Europeans who had a high mortality rate. Moreover,
Africans were in a strange land with no powerful allies and, unlike the Indians,
could not escape to familiar territories. They were the most vulnerable of all the
peoples of the Americas.
Sources of English servants began to decline in the latter part of the 17th
century, as jobs became available at home. The slave trade to Africa increased
as internal warfare in Africa made more and more people available for
enslavement. Leaders of the colonies, all large planters, had two objectives: to
impose effective social controls over the population and provide themselves withcheap and easily controlled workers. They readily perceived that they could use the differing physical characteristics of the population to divide them and
demarcate some for permanent slavery. Historian Anthony Parent (2003) argues
that a powerful planter class, acting to further its own economic interests,
deliberately brought a new form of servitude, racial slavery to Virginia over the
period of 1690-1723. In this period, hundreds of laws were passed restricting the
rights of Africans and their descendents. By 1723, even free Negroes were
prohibited from voting.
Colonial leaders were also doing something else; they were laying the basis for the invention of race and racial identities. They began to homogenize all Europeans, regardless of ethnicity, status, or social class, into a new category.
The first time the term “White,” rather than “Christian” or their ethnic names (English, Irish, Scots, Portuguese, German, Spanish, Swede) appeared in the
public record was seen in a law passed in 1691 that prohibited the marriage of
Europeans with Negroes, Indians, and mulattoes (Smedley 2007, 118). A clearly
separated category of Negroes as slaves allowed newly freed European servants
opportunities to realize their ambitions and to identify common interests with the
wealthy and powerful. Laws were passed offering material advantages and social
privileges to poor whites. In this way, colony leaders consciously contrived a
social control mechanism to prevent the unification of the working poor (Allen
1997). Physical features became markers of racial (social) status, as Virginia’s
governor William Gooch asserted, the assembly sought to “fix a perpetual Brand
upon Free Negroes and Mulattos” (Allen 1997, 242).
http://www.understandingrace.org/resources/pdf/disease/smedley.pdf
Although there were more Irish slaves in the Caribbean Isles than Africans, those peoples captured in wars with the English, knew nothing about tropical agriculture and were seen as “savages,” (they had a “dangerous nature”) (see Smedley 2007). They often ran away to join their co-religionists, the catholic Spanish, and were considered a “rebellious lot.” Historian Leonard Liggio, quoted from one letter sent to traders by a planter, “Don’t send us any more Irish; send us some Africans, for the Africans are civilized and the Irish are not” (1976, 8).
In contrast to Indians, Africans also had natural immunities to Old World diseases.European colonists recognized that Africans lived longer and were able
to produce more than Europeans who had a high mortality rate. Moreover,
Africans were in a strange land with no powerful allies and, unlike the Indians,
could not escape to familiar territories. They were the most vulnerable of all the
peoples of the Americas.
Sources of English servants began to decline in the latter part of the 17th
century, as jobs became available at home. The slave trade to Africa increased
as internal warfare in Africa made more and more people available for
enslavement. Leaders of the colonies, all large planters, had two objectives: to
impose effective social controls over the population and provide themselves withcheap and easily controlled workers. They readily perceived that they could use the differing physical characteristics of the population to divide them and
demarcate some for permanent slavery. Historian Anthony Parent (2003) argues
that a powerful planter class, acting to further its own economic interests,
deliberately brought a new form of servitude, racial slavery to Virginia over the
period of 1690-1723. In this period, hundreds of laws were passed restricting the
rights of Africans and their descendents. By 1723, even free Negroes were
prohibited from voting.
Colonial leaders were also doing something else; they were laying the basis for the invention of race and racial identities. They began to homogenize all Europeans, regardless of ethnicity, status, or social class, into a new category.
The first time the term “White,” rather than “Christian” or their ethnic names (English, Irish, Scots, Portuguese, German, Spanish, Swede) appeared in the
public record was seen in a law passed in 1691 that prohibited the marriage of
Europeans with Negroes, Indians, and mulattoes (Smedley 2007, 118). A clearly
separated category of Negroes as slaves allowed newly freed European servants
opportunities to realize their ambitions and to identify common interests with the
wealthy and powerful. Laws were passed offering material advantages and social
privileges to poor whites. In this way, colony leaders consciously contrived a
social control mechanism to prevent the unification of the working poor (Allen
1997). Physical features became markers of racial (social) status, as Virginia’s
governor William Gooch asserted, the assembly sought to “fix a perpetual Brand
upon Free Negroes and Mulattos” (Allen 1997, 242).