Hey all--Didn't get this up in time! Please use this post as the base for comments this week (other than the ones already up) so we can keep it all in one thread.
As I read Pagden’s section on cannibalism, I began to think more about the Munkler piece and the other readings about imagining the Other in the medieval Christian world. Although I was not convinced that the imaging of Monstra could be equated with constructing race, reading Pagden made me reconsider that a bit.
Although I did not get a clear sense of the extent to which any of these groups actually engaged in cannibalism, it is clear that any potentially “factual” accounts could be highly exaggerated and seemed to lead to all sorts of creative and imaginative depictions of otherness. “Accusations of cannibalism contributed to the de-humanization of the outsider,” Pagden observes, “for men who ate other men were never thought to be quite human.” A few sentences later, he notes, “The English settlers in the short-lived Sagadahac colony in New England were convinced that their supposedly cannibal neighbors were equipped with a special set of canine teeth three inches long and the Arab merchants of the Sudan described the Azande – the most famous of the African cannibals – as having dog-faces, dog-teeth and dog-tails” (81-82). These examples seem to demonstrate how little actual observable experience seemed to matter to 15th and 16th century Spaniards, theologians in particular, if it mattered at all. Not unlike the creation of mostly fictionalized and somewhat abstract Other during the medieval period, real encounters with actual people did not seem to matter as much as the images one created in the abstract. At the same time, it is hard to escape the fact that these imaginings were given an added air of credibility based on the fact that they were, supposedly, connected to real experience and encounters. Moreover, it was equally difficult to escape the fact that these imaginings did have real consequences for the indigenous people of the Spanish colonies and played a significant role in the process of their dehumanization.
I agree with this analysis. Although Pagden doesn't get into it a lot, his discussion on dehumanization clearly explains how the Spanish seemed to depict the "other" in what is now a multiethnic society. Whether it was indigenous peoples or African peoples coming over for slavery, it doesn't seem to be quite a difference to the way they were dehumanized by the Spanish through stories.
I agree with you Mike, when you began to equate Padgen’s piece with the construction of race. I also did the same, especially after reading Davis’s piece as well. These readings seem to be an extension of last weeks concept on the Montra, which starts to create this myth of the “savage.” In all, what I got from these readings was that the Europeans that encountered these savages in a, “natural state,” (untainted by civilization), began to justify the idea that slavery is a, “natural” process that can be equated to animal husbandry, as suggested by Davis.
I also agree with you Mike, but mostly made mention of it in my post. As a reiteration of what I understood, the Spaniard view of "savage" was a parallel to the idea of "monstra". This idea was formulated due to their preconceived notions of what to expect of these newly discovered "natural" inhabitants. This further supports the idea of "otherness" and defining people outside of what you come to accept as reality.
The name of the specific reading escapes me now but there was this anecdote on result-orientated thinking where certain medieval scientific "saw" what they were *supposed* to be seeing when in their close observations of the natural world, which led to their claiming that they could see full-grown donkey floating around donkey semen.
It's a crass example, of course, but I think also points towards the cognitive dissonance you're recognizing, Mike.
In Pagden, my attention was grabbed by the quote "Their task, as they saw it, was not to describe remote 'otherness', but to arrive at an evaluation of Indian behavior which would eliminate that 'otherness'." (pg 5). Its an ironic statement because most of their analysis is based on "fantastic natural phenomena". These falsities have settled into the minds of these adventurers and formulated their perception of reality. Adventurers of the new world had a preconceived notion of what to expect, and forced this expectation onto the natural inhabitants. This relates and ties into the comments Mike (above) has made and drew from his time reading and I agree with his view. By bringing these fantastic ideas to life by imposing them onto the natural inhabitants, it contributed to the dehumanization of these peoples.
I agree with your statement. It's like a person who only sees what they want to see in an argument. And then continues to pass on false information. Creating the ignorance you mentioned of adventures in the new world.
In Davis’, “Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World” begins by seeming to try and defferentiate slavery in the New World and Slavery in the Old World. I was really fascinated by the Tupinamba which had a system of slavery set on, “cultural and symbolic” superiority rather than what most associate with slavery, “economic superiority” over others. Davis says, “the function of slavery was to make the Tupinamba feel, honored, superior, or almost god-like as they defined themselves as “nonslaves” (28). The dehumanization and humiliation of other neighboring tribes suggests that there is a sense of superiority amongst the Tupinamba. Davis even somewhat begins to connect this with racism when he says this type of slavery was, “designed to purge society of the ultimate domestic enemy,” (29) which is not language one would associate with Native Americans, but the ones responsible for their demise.
In what ways does this contribute to the myth of the “noble savage” that we read about last week, which is also present in Pagden’s piece?
Is this the beginning of racism in the New World?
Did Portuguese colonizers learn from the Tupinamba, which later results in Brazil becoming the most slave-driven colony in the New Wold? Or is this just another example of the myth of the “noble savage” that justifies slavery for conquering Europeans?
I agree with your point to a point but I also believe that it can be more described as Aristotle's theory of the "natural slave"(31) more than the "noble slave". Davis explains that the slave only purpose was to be a mere tool or instrument for their masters. The slave is to be domesticated in a similar manner a house pet or chattel. The reason that separated slaves from noble people first started as enslaving one's enemies that emerge as an intent to separate individuals based on cultural and social differences. Therefore, Europeans to the New World such as the Portuguese continued the familiar practice. But, Davis sees it as more than just racism and that the natural slave preceded the ideal of racism as per Orlando Patterson's third constituent. Also remember that many natives in the new world already practice their own similar version of slavery before the European arrival.
One of the interesting things that came up in the readings was the church's involvement of Slavery in Spain. It seemed that the morality of slavery was big issue even to go as far as request the church to give them validation that it was okay to do. Ferdinand also held a junta to judge the legitimacy of Spanish occupation.These various meetings as well as the meetings with the church seemed to indicate that maybe these rulers felt they had a lack of reason or righteousness in there actions but if the church or a group of lawyers and theologians provided the crown with a pass they could than continue these actions without concern.
Yesterday’s class was very interesting and helped me clear up some points about the readings. However, I was shot down when I suggested that African Blacks and other barbarians were initially seen as not being human. That it didn’t have any relevance to the argument made me think. As noted in Pagden’s article: Many believed that strange outsiders were members of other species, humanoids, rather than human. During the antebellum period (19th century) Americans of African ancestry were dehumanized via the classification of being deemed as a primate, and not a human. Although the origins of racism remain relatively obscure, the question of” human” when it came to defining Africans is relevant.
As I read Pagden’s section on cannibalism, I began to think more about the Munkler piece and the other readings about imagining the Other in the medieval Christian world. Although I was not convinced that the imaging of Monstra could be equated with constructing race, reading Pagden made me reconsider that a bit.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I did not get a clear sense of the extent to which any of these groups actually engaged in cannibalism, it is clear that any potentially “factual” accounts could be highly exaggerated and seemed to lead to all sorts of creative and imaginative depictions of otherness. “Accusations of cannibalism contributed to the de-humanization of the outsider,” Pagden observes, “for men who ate other men were never thought to be quite human.” A few sentences later, he notes, “The English settlers in the short-lived Sagadahac colony in New England were convinced that their supposedly cannibal neighbors were equipped with a special set of canine teeth three inches long and the Arab merchants of the Sudan described the Azande – the most famous of the African cannibals – as having dog-faces, dog-teeth and dog-tails” (81-82). These examples seem to demonstrate how little actual observable experience seemed to matter to 15th and 16th century Spaniards, theologians in particular, if it mattered at all. Not unlike the creation of mostly fictionalized and somewhat abstract Other during the medieval period, real encounters with actual people did not seem to matter as much as the images one created in the abstract. At the same time, it is hard to escape the fact that these imaginings were given an added air of credibility based on the fact that they were, supposedly, connected to real experience and encounters. Moreover, it was equally difficult to escape the fact that these imaginings did have real consequences for the indigenous people of the Spanish colonies and played a significant role in the process of their dehumanization.
I agree with this analysis. Although Pagden doesn't get into it a lot, his discussion on dehumanization clearly explains how the Spanish seemed to depict the "other" in what is now a multiethnic society. Whether it was indigenous peoples or African peoples coming over for slavery, it doesn't seem to be quite a difference to the way they were dehumanized by the Spanish through stories.
DeleteI agree with you Mike, when you began to equate Padgen’s piece with the construction of race. I also did the same, especially after reading Davis’s piece as well. These readings seem to be an extension of last weeks concept on the Montra, which starts to create this myth of the “savage.” In all, what I got from these readings was that the Europeans that encountered these savages in a, “natural state,” (untainted by civilization), began to justify the idea that slavery is a, “natural” process that can be equated to animal husbandry, as suggested by Davis.
DeleteI also agree with you Mike, but mostly made mention of it in my post. As a reiteration of what I understood, the Spaniard view of "savage" was a parallel to the idea of "monstra". This idea was formulated due to their preconceived notions of what to expect of these newly discovered "natural" inhabitants. This further supports the idea of "otherness" and defining people outside of what you come to accept as reality.
DeleteThe name of the specific reading escapes me now but there was this anecdote on result-orientated thinking where certain medieval scientific "saw" what they were *supposed* to be seeing when in their close observations of the natural world, which led to their claiming that they could see full-grown donkey floating around donkey semen.
DeleteIt's a crass example, of course, but I think also points towards the cognitive dissonance you're recognizing, Mike.
In Pagden, my attention was grabbed by the quote "Their task, as they saw it, was not to describe remote 'otherness', but to arrive at an evaluation of Indian behavior which would eliminate that 'otherness'." (pg 5). Its an ironic statement because most of their analysis is based on "fantastic natural phenomena". These falsities have settled into the minds of these adventurers and formulated their perception of reality. Adventurers of the new world had a preconceived notion of what to expect, and forced this expectation onto the natural inhabitants. This relates and ties into the comments Mike (above) has made and drew from his time reading and I agree with his view. By bringing these fantastic ideas to life by imposing them onto the natural inhabitants, it contributed to the dehumanization of these peoples.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement. It's like a person who only sees what they want to see in an argument. And then continues to pass on false information. Creating the ignorance you mentioned of adventures in the new world.
DeleteIn Davis’, “Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World” begins by seeming to try and defferentiate slavery in the New World and Slavery in the Old World. I was really fascinated by the Tupinamba which had a system of slavery set on, “cultural and symbolic” superiority rather than what most associate with slavery, “economic superiority” over others. Davis says, “the function of slavery was to make the Tupinamba feel, honored, superior, or almost god-like as they defined themselves as “nonslaves” (28). The dehumanization and humiliation of other neighboring tribes suggests that there is a sense of superiority amongst the Tupinamba. Davis even somewhat begins to connect this with racism when he says this type of slavery was, “designed to purge society of the ultimate domestic enemy,” (29) which is not language one would associate with Native Americans, but the ones responsible for their demise.
ReplyDeleteIn what ways does this contribute to the myth of the “noble savage” that we read about last week, which is also present in Pagden’s piece?
Is this the beginning of racism in the New World?
Did Portuguese colonizers learn from the Tupinamba, which later results in Brazil becoming the most slave-driven colony in the New Wold? Or is this just another example of the myth of the “noble savage” that justifies slavery for conquering Europeans?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with your point to a point but I also believe that it can be more described as Aristotle's theory of the "natural slave"(31) more than the "noble slave". Davis explains that the slave only purpose was to be a mere tool or instrument for their masters. The slave is to be domesticated in a similar manner a house pet or chattel. The reason that separated slaves from noble people first started as enslaving one's enemies that emerge as an intent to separate individuals based on cultural and social differences. Therefore, Europeans to the New World such as the Portuguese continued the familiar practice. But, Davis sees it as more than just racism and that the natural slave preceded the ideal of racism as per Orlando Patterson's third constituent. Also remember that many natives in the new world already practice their own similar version of slavery before the European arrival.
DeleteOne of the interesting things that came up in the readings was the church's involvement of Slavery in Spain. It seemed that the morality of slavery was big issue even to go as far as request the church to give them validation that it was okay to do. Ferdinand also held a junta to judge the legitimacy of Spanish occupation.These various meetings as well as the meetings with the church seemed to indicate that maybe these rulers felt they had a lack of reason or righteousness in there actions but if the church or a group of lawyers and theologians provided the crown with a pass they could than continue these actions without concern.
ReplyDeleteYesterday’s class was very interesting and helped me clear up some points about the readings. However, I was shot down when I suggested that African Blacks and other barbarians were initially seen as not being human. That it didn’t have any relevance to the argument made me think. As noted in Pagden’s article: Many believed that strange outsiders were members of other species, humanoids, rather than human. During the antebellum period (19th century) Americans of African ancestry were dehumanized via the classification of being deemed as a primate, and not a human. Although the origins of racism remain relatively obscure, the question of” human” when it came to defining Africans is relevant.
ReplyDelete