While there’s a lot going on in this week’s readings, there’s one tidbit in the Padgen text I kept returning to regarding the Castilian crown’s right to enslave the indigenous populations in America, theologians who opposed said enslavement, and how perceptions of the Portuguese slave trade in West Africa influenced the conversation—particularly, that “those who laboured hard in defence of the Indians often had little concern for the fate of the Africans” (32).
Although Padgen claims this had “nothing to do with the colour of the two races…or a difference in their social behavior” but “merely a question of legal status vis-à-vis the Europeans,” (33) the reasoning felt odd because I wasn’t sure what understanding of “race” he was using in this particular instance: the Foucauldian, where “race” emerged as a result of European sovereignty; or “race” as enacted by what Nirenberg called “religious ‘enmities’” (174)? Did anyone else pause at this? Is it useful to ask which theoretical framework of Padgen is thinking about in this text?
I think Ricardo is raising some key points, and I would like to see this discussed further in class. I think that Pagden's essential point about color here is that it was sort of a non-issue where the Spanish theologians and crown were concerned. The treatment of "Indians" only seemed to become an issue because they were under the legal jurisdiction of Spain while African slaves were not. While this seems like a plausible distinction to be made, it really sounds like little more than a convenient way of turning a blind eye towards chattel slavery. But, at the same time, I think that Pagden is perhaps cautioning against seeing this double standard as simply the product of a "racial" prejudice based on skin color alone. It seems that in the minds of the Spanish elite, this was relatively unimportant. This obviously seems very odd from our perspective since so much of our ideas of race have to do with appearance and color.
Equally important, Anthony Pagden tells us about how the representation that the Spaniards make about the natives has to do with that idea of barbarity. In fact, the belief that Europeans had bequeathed by ancient Greece to try to recognize others who did not have their culture.This representation sought two purposes; one was to meet those new creatures of which there was no greater knowledge and another that was the legitimization of their power over these new land. The term barbarian in a first instance is used to distinguish those people, societies, or culture that are different or alien to a particular nation.
In regards to your question of whether or not it is useful to ask what theoretical framework Padgen is using, I think it is always useful. This is a simple answer, but I think that to be able to really understand what the author is arguing it is always essential. I think it is interesting throughout the different examples the criteria that is used in creating the slave, or other, category. This incorporates the concept of barbarity that Mike refers to above in that the term "barbarians" was used to determine who was a part of the society and who was not. The continual defining of barbarians or other category maintains the social hierarchy in favor of the ruling class. This definition can be different for every society, which helps to explain how slavery was not always defining by the submission of one skin color to another, though this is hard for us to re-imagine slavery as a more broad spectrum considering the history of slavery in America.
This week I was particularly perplexed by the concept and attempted justification for the equation of human beings to animals or chattel. This came up a few times in the first chapter of Inhuman Bondage in the examination of different historical master-slave dynamics (ex. Tupinamba and American slave trade). It seemed that through all the examples there is the same master-slave power dynamic that is exemplified through a quote on page 34; “They saw the master’s identity depended on having a slave who recognized him as master and owner, and that this in turn required an independent consciousness.” A master class is not possible without a slave class, the discussion of the honor created by the possession of slaves by masters makes me wonder how much or little masters were complacent in the degradation of slaves to maintain their power rather than just maintain a social status quo. It makes me wonder how people were able to negotiate their morals and their justifications for maintaining this inequality. The idea of “social death” was particularly intriguing when thinking about the needs to create a body of people that fill the slave position of the power dynamic (pg. 31). The idea on page 30, “slavery may well have been modeled on the domestication of animals, especially livestock and beasts of burden” really stuck with me throughout the rest of the reading. Did anyone else feel really bothered by the implication of the deliberateness of how slaves were treated from the beginning?
Absolutely. From a stylistic point, I think Davis was deliberately including the gruesome details of slavery to drive the point home for historians/readers that slavery was, fundamentally, a gruesome enterprise. And I emphasize that because after working through the Padgen text, I realized that I wasn't letting the reality of what I was reading sink in.
Aside from that, I think both readings did a pretty good job of explaining how the arguments for and against enslavement for the Medieval powers (including the application of the "animal" analogy you're referring to) stemmed from the Aristotelian binary of mind/body. Although Davis says that it would be "absurd to blame Aristotle for all the uses to which his writings have been put" (55), I certainly found myself doing so.
After I read both readings, I realized that the idea of slavery was acceptable for Western civilization, which in fact, they did not find anything bad enslaving people. For Spaniards and other Western cultures adopted some Greeks’ philosophy to distinguish themselves with different civilizations. They seemed themselves as “unique” such as Greeks “the distinction of having created democracy; they also came to see slave labor as absolutely central to their entire economy and way of life” (Davis, pg. 41). After that, I asked myself this question; if I believed that slavery is acceptable and part of the society, why shouldn't I distinguish from "them". Moreover, religion played a huge role again in slavery. The Christian faith is then going to modify this type of differentiation a little more. Indeed, the awareness of the unity of the genre, it left then the belief that the barbarians are not men, by the idea that they were men who did not think they acted honestly with reason. “For Christians, no less than for Greeks, the hierarchy of nature, the Great Chain of Being, was so constructed that the highest member of one species always approaches in form to the lowest of the next” (Pagden, pg. 22). In other words, if one person is not Christian or Western is considered as Barbarian, which means “Barbarians” can be considered as slaves. It was clear to me how the Western Civilization and Church determined who was a slave and not. It would be interesting to analyze this perspective with some social issues that we have in our society such as white supremacy.
I think your point about the influence of religion is right on. The three religions justified slavery in one way or another. The relation between religion and the ruling elite as characterized by the Greek's attitude towards manual labor: that it was slaves work merits further analysis. We should discuss the evolution of the power elite when describing the evolution of slavery and its contemporary connotations. White supremacy is a good example of the influence of the power elite on the rank-and-file.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteWhile there’s a lot going on in this week’s readings, there’s one tidbit in the Padgen text I kept returning to regarding the Castilian crown’s right to enslave the indigenous populations in America, theologians who opposed said enslavement, and how perceptions of the Portuguese slave trade in West Africa influenced the conversation—particularly, that “those who laboured hard in defence of the Indians often had little concern for the fate of the Africans” (32).
Although Padgen claims this had “nothing to do with the colour of the two races…or a difference in their social behavior” but “merely a question of legal status vis-à-vis the Europeans,” (33) the reasoning felt odd because I wasn’t sure what understanding of “race” he was using in this particular instance: the Foucauldian, where “race” emerged as a result of European sovereignty; or “race” as enacted by what Nirenberg called “religious ‘enmities’” (174)? Did anyone else pause at this? Is it useful to ask which theoretical framework of Padgen is thinking about in this text?
I think Ricardo is raising some key points, and I would like to see this discussed further in class. I think that Pagden's essential point about color here is that it was sort of a non-issue where the Spanish theologians and crown were concerned. The treatment of "Indians" only seemed to become an issue because they were under the legal jurisdiction of Spain while African slaves were not. While this seems like a plausible distinction to be made, it really sounds like little more than a convenient way of turning a blind eye towards chattel slavery. But, at the same time, I think that Pagden is perhaps cautioning against seeing this double standard as simply the product of a "racial" prejudice based on skin color alone. It seems that in the minds of the Spanish elite, this was relatively unimportant. This obviously seems very odd from our perspective since so much of our ideas of race have to do with appearance and color.
DeleteEqually important, Anthony Pagden tells us about how the representation that the Spaniards make about the natives has to do with that idea of barbarity. In fact, the belief that Europeans had bequeathed by ancient Greece to try to recognize others who did not have their culture.This representation sought two purposes; one was to meet those new creatures of which there was no greater knowledge and another that was the legitimization of their power over these new land. The term barbarian in a first instance is used to distinguish those people, societies, or culture that are different or alien to a particular nation.
DeleteIn regards to your question of whether or not it is useful to ask what theoretical framework Padgen is using, I think it is always useful. This is a simple answer, but I think that to be able to really understand what the author is arguing it is always essential.
DeleteI think it is interesting throughout the different examples the criteria that is used in creating the slave, or other, category. This incorporates the concept of barbarity that Mike refers to above in that the term "barbarians" was used to determine who was a part of the society and who was not. The continual defining of barbarians or other category maintains the social hierarchy in favor of the ruling class. This definition can be different for every society, which helps to explain how slavery was not always defining by the submission of one skin color to another, though this is hard for us to re-imagine slavery as a more broad spectrum considering the history of slavery in America.
This week I was particularly perplexed by the concept and attempted justification for the equation of human beings to animals or chattel. This came up a few times in the first chapter of Inhuman Bondage in the examination of different historical master-slave dynamics (ex. Tupinamba and American slave trade). It seemed that through all the examples there is the same master-slave power dynamic that is exemplified through a quote on page 34; “They saw the master’s identity depended on having a slave who recognized him as master and owner, and that this in turn required an independent consciousness.” A master class is not possible without a slave class, the discussion of the honor created by the possession of slaves by masters makes me wonder how much or little masters were complacent in the degradation of slaves to maintain their power rather than just maintain a social status quo. It makes me wonder how people were able to negotiate their morals and their justifications for maintaining this inequality. The idea of “social death” was particularly intriguing when thinking about the needs to create a body of people that fill the slave position of the power dynamic (pg. 31).
ReplyDeleteThe idea on page 30, “slavery may well have been modeled on the domestication of animals, especially livestock and beasts of burden” really stuck with me throughout the rest of the reading. Did anyone else feel really bothered by the implication of the deliberateness of how slaves were treated from the beginning?
Absolutely. From a stylistic point, I think Davis was deliberately including the gruesome details of slavery to drive the point home for historians/readers that slavery was, fundamentally, a gruesome enterprise. And I emphasize that because after working through the Padgen text, I realized that I wasn't letting the reality of what I was reading sink in.
DeleteAside from that, I think both readings did a pretty good job of explaining how the arguments for and against enslavement for the Medieval powers (including the application of the "animal" analogy you're referring to) stemmed from the Aristotelian binary of mind/body. Although Davis says that it would be "absurd to blame Aristotle for all the uses to which his writings have been put" (55), I certainly found myself doing so.
After I read both readings, I realized that the idea of slavery was acceptable for Western civilization, which in fact, they did not find anything bad enslaving people. For Spaniards and other Western cultures adopted some Greeks’ philosophy to distinguish themselves with different civilizations. They seemed themselves as “unique” such as Greeks “the distinction of having created democracy; they also came to see slave labor as absolutely central to their entire economy and way of life” (Davis, pg. 41). After that, I asked myself this question; if I believed that slavery is acceptable and part of the society, why shouldn't I distinguish from "them". Moreover, religion played a huge role again in slavery. The Christian faith is then going to modify this type of differentiation a little more. Indeed, the awareness of the unity of the genre, it left then the belief that the barbarians are not men, by the idea that they were men who did not think they acted honestly with reason. “For Christians, no less than for Greeks, the hierarchy of nature, the Great Chain of Being, was so constructed that the highest member of one species always approaches in form to the lowest of the next” (Pagden, pg. 22). In other words, if one person is not Christian or Western is considered as Barbarian, which means “Barbarians” can be considered as slaves. It was clear to me how the Western Civilization and Church determined who was a slave and not. It would be interesting to analyze this perspective with some social issues that we have in our society such as white supremacy.
ReplyDeleteI think your point about the influence of religion is right on. The three religions justified slavery in one way or another. The relation between religion and the ruling elite as characterized by the Greek's attitude towards manual labor: that it was slaves work merits further analysis. We should discuss the evolution of the power elite when describing the evolution of slavery and its contemporary connotations. White supremacy is a good example of the influence of the power elite on the rank-and-file.
ReplyDelete