Essay 7

It is difficult to ascertain the "desires" of Europeans participating in African culture. Primarily, they seem to have become involved in their colonialist pursuits in Africa largely for the purpose of stymieing their continental rivals, rather than for some genuine desire for resources or other natural benefits, though this certainly changed when the abundance of oil in certain key areas became known and its uses became more pivotal to the functioning of western society as a whole. It became a land grab, of sorts, as the various powers jockeyed with each other in expanding their overseas holdings. Possessing and maintaining successful colonial ventures in Africa meant prestige for the home nation, a place of pride amid the tumultuous and often tense international developments of nineteenth century European politics.
What European nations of the nineteenth century felt they contributed to African culture may be more readily ascertained, but it is just as subject to modern stereotypes. The image of colonialism that exists today is often one of a pompous European aristocrat lording himself over subject peoples and delivering his superior culture and religion to the unwashed heathens of the world. In reality, this may have been the case to some great extent, but the conditions were invariably more complicated, as well. In India, for example, it can be argued that regional nobility actively cooperated with, or at least benefited from their interactions with British colonialism in terms of how they themselves profited from arrangements made with said officials. In Africa there may not have been a ruling elite that cooperated as fully with colonial overlords, but there was nonetheless a similar sense upon the part of the colonial administrations themselves that their presence was one that bestowed superior values and ideas upon a less developed people. Regardless of the innate racism and arrogance inherent in such assumptions, they seem be widespread in almost all cases where one culture or country imposes its will upon a country or group of people.

Essay 6

The lectures and readings on eugenics this week add a deeper insight into the idea of otherness and the condition of Africans living in Europe during the first part of the twentieth century. This development alters the way in which European attitudes toward non Europeans are perceived, primarily because, at that time, European thinkers in the field of eugenics were considering biology and breeding to be a paramount factor in what they considered the necessary development and improvement of society as a whole. That these theories came at the expense of entire races of people seems lost upon the movement, or else that itself is to be included in a goal which, by its very nature, persecutes everyone who falls below the social ideal of the time.
The one consolation for the African population in Europe during the period was that it was fairly marginal in relation to the overall population numbers of western European countries. In terms of the eugenics movement, African populations in European countries were secondary to the significantly larger Jewish population spread throughout the whole of Europe. These lines of thoughts, however vile, seem to run a splintered course in terms of European thoughts on the vitality and viability of certain elements of national population. The attitudes of the old blood aristocracy toward the working class, and likewise, the attitudes of the working class toward the authority of society were conflicting in nature and contributed to the discussion of what, indeed, was a proper social attitude. This stratified status in most European countries made the selection of a "superior" or preferable kind of citizen a more delicate act simply because the ideals of society were seen very differently, depending upon ones own social status.

Essay 5

Imperialism certainly contained elements of cultural/racial arrogance, for without them there would be great difficulty for a European nation, or any nation, for that matter, in forcing its will upon another people. By applying the rationalization that European peoples, values, and technologies were superior to African or Asian values and technologies, one could make the argument that the exploitation of the inferior latter by the superior former is perfectly acceptable, even desirable, in that the African or the Asian people thus subjugated would then benefit from exposure to a superior people and a preferable way of life. Such an idea, or at least the vague rationale behind it, can be seen to some degree in the Indian Wars that stretched throughout much of the nineteenth century in American history, where justifications were given in an effort to make the case that it was acceptable for white settlers to take land formerly in the possession of indigenous peoples.
This may stray beyond the scope of this course, but an idea similar to the one put forward by this essay assignment could easily be applied to Nazi Germany and other twentieth century powers and the conflicts which ensued when one group of people put forward their own racial/cultural superiority as a rationalization to conquer/eliminate another group of people. That certainly isn‘t to say that European colonialism was blanket genocide, only that colonialism was and did require a certain kind of self superior mindset in order for the arrangement to be carried forward at all. In this case, regions of Africa were made to be subservient to European nations based simply upon the ideas Europeans had about their own superior culture, as well as the more practical reality that nineteenth century European nations were technologically and military superior, and that few, if any of the colonial subject nations were in positions to realistically mount a prolonged and competitive resistance sufficient enough to ward off colonial occupations for anything more than a brief respite. Regardless, the same attitude prevails.

Essay Four

The concept of “freedom” as described by Equiano, and as understood by his contemporaries, both African and European, is a fragile term to define. Its fragility comes from the relative ambiguity of freedom, itself, as already demonstrated by reactions in France to the issue of slavery and how it related to their own sense of national identity. Freedom for the African slave would mean, obviously, freedom from the direct subjugation of one man by another, freedom from the status of property, to instead assume one of dignity and humanity, and lastly, some independence regarding future lifestyle and or decisions reflecting one’s overall outcome.
Freedom for the slave as seen by the French meant, more than anything, that they technically could not be seen as slaves while in the physical boundaries of France itself, lest the entire national psyche become a gigantic hypocrisy. Freedom for the slave as seen by the British meant, in the early nineteenth century, that slavery would end, a step that was undoubtedly painful for a government that had certainly seen its nation benefit greatly from the financial boon that was the slave trade, regardless of the moral cost. Equiano’s concept of freedom is almost impossible to judge on its own merit simply because of the constraints placed upon it by Europeans who themselves held final say over the status of slaves in their own countries, and if, and for how long slavery would continue as a legal institution. Even the final reckoning of this process of delineating freedoms has continued into modern times, or at least into the late twentieth century in parts of the western world, still longer in others.

Essay Three

The French appear to have been faced with a deep moral conflict when the issue of slavery confronted them. It wasn’t the idea of slavery per se, as slavery itself was an established and economically valuable facet of life in French colonial holdings. What happened was the challenge, by its simple nature, that the notion of slavery posed to the French idea of self. The qualities gained and then cultivated since the beginnings of France as a kingdom, the very notions of what it meant to be a Frenchman, were irreconcilable with the idea that a man could own another man as property. How this played out in the practical may not always have been the most altruistic of responses, but nonetheless the two ideas were not compatible, and, in concept at least, slavery did not and could not exist within France itself. That slavery flourished in the colonies was a completely different matter, and one that would have ironic consequences in itself, as French magistrates struggled to deal with surging numbers of Africans in France seeking their freedom and the potential stress this could place on how they already quantified the order of things. Returning freed slaves to the colonies would have done nothing but incite revolt, as those in bondage heard the words first hand of their brethren who had since been made freemen simply by existing within body of France itself, rather than one of its holdings.
That is what makes the French response to slavery singularly unique. The pressures of monarchy and the history of the country, its roots in feudalism, its emerging ideals and the long tradition of superior knowledge, and a supreme self confidence in French notions of citizenship and philosophy led to a clash with the reality of slavery. Obviously, the results were compounded by the limitations of the bureaucracy to process slavery as it applied in practicality, though it was simultaneously in conflict with the overall system. The idea, though, makes this a battle of reality against perception, not necessarily with how the French saw the world, but rather, how they saw themselves.

Essay Two

Conventional wisdom would suggest that such a radical change in British policies would come from the left, from the voices of dissent perpetually railing against the perceived faults of government and society at large. In actuality, the chief opposition to the slave trade came from the very segment of society that would otherwise be seen as most loyal to the government and to the accepted practices of eighteenth century England. The conservative elements of society, those rooted deep in religion and what would seem to be the core of stable British society, were the very elements that brought forth the definitive victory against the slave trade in Great Britain.
The idea of conservative religious thinkers and activists coming together to protest the continuation of the slave trade appears to have become a reality for moral reasons, in sync with their own beliefs, and in that regard it suddenly becomes far less audacious a thought to think of the conservative segments of the population being the ones to demand such sweeping change on a national level. The slave trade is seen as a moral ill, not just a social one, and its abolition would go on to become a badge of honor for the English system of government and its national identity. That is not to say that the abolition of the slave trade was without its opponents, or that the process was itself one to be welcomed by all quarters of English society. The sheer economic impact of robbing the English port system of one of, if not its most vital trade was undoubtedly a dire consideration for those on both sides of the issue, both in parliament and among those personally invested in the struggle, on both sides.
Bristol, Liverpool and London each benefited immensely from the slave trade, experiencing periods of great economic and practical expansion. The desire on the part of abolitionists to do away with the slave trade certainly created a backlash throughout England and from all who were directly, or indirectly, invested in its continued survival. Not only the slavers themselves, but entire industries, entire ports were dependent upon the slave trade for their prosperity, and this could not have been an easy decision for the members of parliament to even contemplate, let alone commit to. That makes it especially important that the more conservative elements of English society would be the ones to call for such a significant change in policy, one that would simultaneously shatter the preconceived notions of economic prosperity for a handful of major English port cities, while at the same time cementing an important lasting aspect of the English national identity.

Essay 1

The idea of the Black Atlantic as defined by our readings is valid, though the Gerzina essay does rely excessively, at least early on, upon symbolism and the superimposed idea of white “tourism” in the seventeenth century over the slave trade. The concept behind the term is concrete enough, and easy to follow. The Atlantic ocean was traversed by Africans in huge numbers during the centuries before, and the years immediately after the abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain. Right or wrong, the Atlantic sea lanes became the primary method with which Africans entered the larger global community, at least to a great extent. The slave trade was clearly responsible for much of this and in the worst of ways, ferrying human cargo under the most degrading of conditions across the ocean for profit and to supply colonial enterprises in the Caribbean and the Americas with laborers. For many Africans, this was the defining exodus from Africa itself, a forced journey under the very worst of circumstances.
What makes the Black Atlantic apt is the way in which the ocean became a beacon of freedom and a metaphor for liberty, a way for at least some itinerate Africans to experience a life other than slavery and servitude. Black sailors enjoyed a kind of lifestyle that was dramatically advanced from the conditions inflicted upon those who were taken across the Atlantic under duress. In this way, the Atlantic ocean serves as both the backdrop for depredations inflicted upon captive Africans during the peak years of the slave trade, and also as the primary zone of emancipation, at least to an extent, for Black seamen. The parallel is not lost upon Gerzina, who further transposes white narrative tales of early tourism and liberated travel over the dualistic nature of the Atlantic slave trade and the freedom offered by ships to Black sailors. The sad irony of tourism and slavery coexisting within the same environment is not lost upon the reader, or the historian, but the significance of the Atlantic in the African exodus, forced or not, is nonetheless valid and deserved.