I’m about two-thirds of the way through The Work of Recognition, and while I suspect that it might be a bit too early to compose a comprehensive post about it, I had an a-ha moment this afternoon that I want to get down before it scurries out of mind:
Until this point, most of my margin notes and question could be boiled down to a single concern: “When is he going to talk about race?” Although reading about Colombia’s bogas; electoral power struggles; literacy concerns; and Candelario Obeso has been properly fascinating, at the end of each of these chapters I couldn’t help feeling like the focus on race was left out--that is, I didn’t feel it was being discussed in ways other texts we’ve read had done so.
In attempting to explain why I felt that way, I was reminded of an earlier reading (I’m almost certain it’s Martinez’s “The Language, Genealogy, and Classification” but I have to confirm) in which race is characterized as parasitic and chameleon-like due to its ability attach to other social phenomena. With that in mind, I started to consider McGraw’s book as illustrating that idea in action, where all of the social, economic, and political frictions McGraw describes are the result of race being ousted from its once-fixed iteration: slavery.
In other words, if we can imagine that emancipation “amputated” the institution that had once housed race, citizenship became the next appendage of the body politic that it attached to--where it could hide in plain sight, so to speak, because of the myth of racial democracy that Lasso describes on her article.
Though I’m almost certain my ideas are reductive and don’t consider everything that McGraw is working towards, I’d like to see the issue of how theories from differing texts interact with one another.
I wholeheartedly agree about waiting for race to be discussed specifically. I think that there is a certain framing of the issue of race though, as I discussed in my post. McGraw discusses the discrimination against the poor, which was largely related to race, on page. 40. I feel like later on McGraw discusses both the liberal and conservative views on emancipation and how each group frames the issue to look a certain way; "while accusing Liberals of engaging in race war, Conservatives also laid claim to emancipation's egalitarian rhetoric" (pg. 65). Race seems to be on the periphery of several of the discussions going on in this text, but never discussed by itself divorced from issues such as classism, sexism, and rights of citizens. For example, on page 67 regarding political rights of black men, sexual deviancy and criminality was ascribed to this group "at a moment when they commanded a public presence." McGraw also acknowledges voter manipulation in the coastal regions where many escaped and free slaves lived. I like your analogy of emancipation "amputating" institutionalize racism and agree after emancipation it hides in plain sight under the guise of other forms of discrimination.
Ricardo, I also like your metaphor and found the connection you made between the Martinez article really fascinating. I totally see where you are coming from in you reading of McGraw and wanting to get at the race question more directly. Reading this text alongside the Lasso piece, I can't help but think that maybe one of the central points of the text has to do with the absence of race and the extent to which the liberal "letrados" went to such great lengths to expunge race from public discourse. Thinking of this in a contemporary U.S. context, I could not help but think about the argument of color blindness so often perpetuated by the right in our own political discourse. In essence, when people deny the impact of race thinking and racism, it amounts, on some level, to kind of new racism, a negation of negation (I think this is a Judith Butler term). In many ways, I think this is where McGraw is coming from. To pretend that people of color were not experiencing racism (or the legacies of racism) or that their racial markers ceased to matter amounted to a kind of negation of these experience. At the same time, the absence of a public discourse on race seemed to mask the private racism and racialized thinking which was still very much a part of the culture. This becomes apparent towards the end of the chapter which focuses most on Obeso. In particular, the eulogies McGraw shares really reflect the extent to which his contemporaries were not only obsessed with his blackness, but seemed to reproduce radicalized stereotypes when interpreting his work and his life. Also, in a later chapter, all of these "color-blind" reforms seem to fall apart when the government becomes less democratic, more authoritarian, and when the relationship between church and state gets resurrected. Essentially, the legacies of race and racism seem to get resolidified as people of color are systematically stripped of their citizenship.
I thought that the section (on page 222)made a stronger argument where it stipulated that “...the renovation of racial thought and cultural hierarchies against Caribbean working peoples attempts to expand rights was a reminder of the ongoing struggle for recognition.” Many of these initiatives had been witnessed long before slaves won their freedom, yet emancipation changed the conditions under which they translated into new forms of public validation. McGraw argues that “racialization at the pivot point of public and private was itself not changing but was contingent on social and political transformations. One consequence of race making through distinctions of public and private life, whether intended or otherwise, was the repudiation of Candelario Obeso’s black citizen.”
Ricardo, I was also thinking about that same point until I realize that in the reading the subject of race was hiding in plan sight. Race according to Jason McGraw was a class ideal. In the beginning he describes race more of an division between the classes. Initially, Escaped Black slaves ran away to the out lands away from the cities and capturing them was no a concern of the government. After some time they merged with the free blacks of those small towns. McGraw also admits that once the recession and the economic collapse, the attitudes of the people changed and the racial disparities transformed into a class and political disparity. Later, he discusses the role that rumors and racist state run propaganda played in influencing the nation's Conservative White elite. So, it may not be so recognizable but the context of race is discuss throughout the book in many scopes. Race was not just the only thing that separated the blacks and the indigenous people from the whites of Colombia. But, once race was introduced into their society, race was the base for many of the nation's other major economic, social, and political conflicts.
Ricardo, I really enjoyed this thread and was thinking about the same question. After closer analyzing the points you guys brought up I went back to see some specific examples or ideas that McGraw states to really identity why he went this route. With this, his main argument (on page 6) stuck out pretty clearly. To paraphrase: recognition was the social status by which individuals identified. To me, when I read this through the first time, I asked myself "RACE?". I loved how you connected it to the theme of chameleon-like as well as parasitic. This book alone was very instrumental in identifying this characteristic to the ideology.
I have not yet finished the book, but thus far I find interesting the juxtaposition between the reality of slaves’, or freed slaves’, lives and the culture of independence, specifically the rhetoric. I also find interesting the influence of spectacle in mediating the reality versus imagined status of individuals. It seems from McGraw’s narrative that those in power were consciously framing the issue of slavery to look to the public like they are promoting equality and emancipation, but in reality, are moving very slowly on the issue. For example, on page 34 McGraw writes that “they looked on emancipation as not only the end of slavery but also the conversion of slaves into citizens.” McGraw also describes public ceremonies (“manumission spectacles” pg. 43) which grant a certain number of slaves their freedom in front of large crowds and celebrations with “public race mixing” (pg. 36). Only a certain number of slaves were granted their freedom at these ceremonies and McGraw mentions that sometimes people would wait to free slaves until special holidays where the audience numbers would be greater. This made visible to the general public the emancipation of some slaves while for the most part the government relied on the slaves to free themselves. These spectacles not only gave emancipation a degree of visibility, but it allowed leaders to discriminate against slaves who had already fled their imprisonment; “with fugitive slave denied legal standing; the manumissions spectacles’ message of lettered leaders gifting of freedom slid into place as the domination story of emancipation” (pg. 33). To me this seems like a deliberate framing of slavery and evidence of an interesting fascination of ensuring visibility of political actions to the public (which is something I have noticed in other respects throughout later sections of the book as well).
For this weeks readings I felt it was necessary to discuss how former slaves were looked at and how this formulated political camps in the newly freed states. It was interesting to me how the act of freeing slaves was looked at as a "patriotic" duty in the Lasso reading, instead of a moral reasoning. "Linking slavery to Spanish tyranny and manumission to re- publican virtue. Prominent citizens were asked to demonstrate their patriotism by helping to fund the juntas." (Lasso 348) So they linked slavery to Spanish dictatorship which I found interesting.
However then when going into the McGraw reading he discussed more into the political leanings in the newly freed nation. These racial wars was one of the important driving forces in the McGraw reading. "This double standard that penalized democratic appeals to citizens as more socially divisive than antiblack racism appeared in an anonymous warning sent to Tomas C. Mosquera from Barranquilla in October 1861. “Africans are the born enemies of the Caucasian race" (McGraw 67) McGraw seems to acknowledge also that this prejudice was more based on a worldly depiction of race however, not solely Spanish based. So for this week we should discuss how political groups eventually used race to gain support in society.
I agree here with the notion of a worldwide prejudice rather than Spanish bias. Many factors including illiteracy and social standing became hotly contested during the post emancipation period which eventually led to these political groups using race as you mentioned to collect support for their groups.
“By the time the wars of independenee ended in 1824,” Lasso argues, “the constitutions of all the nations in Spanish America granted legal racial equality to their free populations of African descent, and a nationalist racial ideology had emerged that declared racial discrimination—and racial identity—divisive and unpatriotic.” She then goes on to ask an incredibly tantalizing question, which she deliberately does not attempt to answer: “In contrast, nineteenth-century nationalism in the United States centered on ideologies of manifest destiny and white supremacy. What explains this difference?” (336-337) While we are primarily concerned with race in Latin America, I do think it is important to ask why these two “Enlightenment” cultures evolved so differently when it comes to race. I think that understanding this difference sheds light on Latin American constructions of race and vice versa. I also think that an important claim in her piece is her contention that examining “the construction of Colombian racial identities against the background of the United States experienee” would suggest “that racial democracy was neither inevitable nor a colonial legacy” (337). Part of our project as a class seems to have entailed not only examining the formation of race and race thinking as part of the Spanish cultural legacy, but also tracing the origins of race itself in Western culture and history. For me, an important question is whether or not race and slavery are as inextricably linked to the Enlightenment as some scholars would seem to suggest. I feel as though Lasso is pushing back against such an assertion. I am interested to see what others think. I am also interested to know whether people have found any answers to her questions (the difference between US and LA racial formations) in other readings, including, but not limited to, those we have experienced in the course so far.
Excellent observation, I agree with you, these readings provide us more materials to make a distinguish between US and LA racial formations. Also, I believe the critical point in both nations is the revolution. If one analyzes both emancipations, LA's citizens were against slavery, of course; some politicians were against it. On the other side, US's citizens were divided into two different groups (South and North) fighting for different goals; there was not a unification.
Lots to think about, Mike; it's great. Also, I forget which of the two readings made the distinction (I'm almost certain it was McGraw, in his introduction) between "slave society" and "society with slaves, "where the former built its laws/identity around slavery in a way that the latter doesn't, but I think that certainly should be factored into any discussions we have in class.
I agree with Yosimar’s comment on how the revolutions were vastly different in their racial mission. Although each region desirered “independence” from European colonialism, race became much more of an issue in Latin America. I suspect that this also partly due to the fact that a majority of the population was of African decent or mixed in LA.
The readings of this week provide us the resources to make an examination of English Colonies and Spanish Colonies in a different point of view (revolution). As we discussed in class, we observed specific levels of inequalities in slavery in both places. I followed before and after the emancipation in both places. In one side, McGraw recognized that citizens enjoyed some equality among people in New Granada, but there was unfairness against Afro-Colombians in specific areas. For example, Struggles within popular politics, the church, education, and the market economy also reflected a profound disagreement over the underlying meanings of rights and duties. (pg. 9). In this case, politicians took advantage of their social and economic power to expand their dominion to have total control over individual minorities. There was no discrimination all was imaginary.
On the other side, Lasso pointed out several factors of levels of disadvantages between Colombia and the United States after the Emancipation. “In the United States, blacks would be excluded from the national imaginary and denied equal legal rights, yet they would form powerful and lasting political organizations that would effectively fight against formal and informal discrimination and prejudice” (pg. 360). Both nations’ emancipation had as an objective to demolish slavery, but both of them obtained different results. Therefore, it would be interesting to bring back this topic again (differences and similarities between Spanish colonies and English Colonies).
I was really interested in lasso's analysis on racial equality and nationalism in Latin America. I really liked the way that she tries to explain why societies with similar colonial pasts of slavery and racial discrimination created, "such divergent racial national imaginaries during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries" (337). She brings in a conversation between the U.S. and Latin America in they ways they went about creating "racial equality." Although both regions had a discourse on racial equality, only in most of Latin America do we see it become an issue of nationalism. This allowed for writings like the Black Legend which states how tyrannical Spanish rule had been. However in the United States they, "had developed ideologies of manifest destiny and white supremacy, which excluded blacks from citizenship, either through schemes for expatriating ex-slaves or by withholding full citizenship rights from free black" (337).
All of this is finally summarized when Lasso says, "In both regions, patriot nationalism exalted the differences between tyrannical European metropolises and American republican freedom. Yet the place of race in the equation of freedom depended less on patriots' notions of freedom— which, after all, drew on the same Enlightenment tradition—than on where their colonial power stood on the issue of race. In other words, it depended on whether racial equality was perceived as a colonial imposition or as a patriot aspiration" (359). I completely agree with with Lasso on this point. After when she states that this had been a long lasting effort by America to maintain white supremacy that is even rooted in the war for independence.
Do you guys agree with this overall argument? When we consider slavery and race, how does plantation life reinforce the U.S. perspective on the myth of racial equality? Do you think that the Latin American race population had anything to do with the fact that they wanted racial equality, while in the U.S. (which had a mostly white population), did not consider this a major national issue?
I agree, I think that both readings seemed to point to foreign race building that constructed a lot of the ideas discussed in the readings. The foreign race building seems to have been a huge effect on the various Latin American wars of independence and their look at Spanish governance in comparison to how the United States viewed the British way of governance. I feel that we should discuss tonight that idea of a Anglo-American based racial thinking.
Some of the more notable aspects in these readings regarded this idea of defining citizenship beyond the scope of simply black and white. For all the time Spaniards spent on creating lines between people based on lineage, post independence, places, like Colombia found themselves in a difficult time period. Struggles between classes, defining citizenship and rights based on literacy and education became high debated topics. Furthering this conflict was another argument based on status specifically with the boatman in port towns which became the driving force of the economy post emancipation. These are stark differences from other emancipated areas like North America in which blacks struggled to find footing following their emancipation while the population in the Caribbean and Colombia found better opportunities partly in due to the struggling government and lack of control in certain areas. I continually struggle to not compare this to the United States experience but I keep coming back to it as it seems like maybe more and more the US is an outlier in the conversation of slavery and citizenship rather than the norm.
I agree with Daniel above. This is what interested me most about the readings, that the idea of race and be transferred through outlets OTHER THAN color. Social status became the outlet to which race embedded itself in (like the chameleon). Race was present is debates about vernacular sense of rights vs the idea of literacy for political inclusion. In his main point he argues that recognition of social status is how race was mainly constructed and carried out in post emancipated Columbia. Also as Daniel mentions, which is probably my favorite idea/topic in this class, is that race, unlike in America (of which we are so exposed to), is unrelated to color and mostly influenced through systems of social control and identification rather than outright appearance.
The notion of equality among all races was, if not unprecedented; at the very least a novel idea. The United States, on the other hand “centered on ideologies of manifest destiny and white supremacy.” The comparison makes me think that although the Latin American ideology raised important issues in the relations of human beings, I can’t help but wonder if class didn’t replace race as a matter of political correctness; however, with the same results of discrimination and inequality as modern conceptions of citizenship.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteI’m about two-thirds of the way through The Work of Recognition, and while I suspect that it might be a bit too early to compose a comprehensive post about it, I had an a-ha moment this afternoon that I want to get down before it scurries out of mind:
Until this point, most of my margin notes and question could be boiled down to a single concern: “When is he going to talk about race?” Although reading about Colombia’s bogas; electoral power struggles; literacy concerns; and Candelario Obeso has been properly fascinating, at the end of each of these chapters I couldn’t help feeling like the focus on race was left out--that is, I didn’t feel it was being discussed in ways other texts we’ve read had done so.
In attempting to explain why I felt that way, I was reminded of an earlier reading (I’m almost certain it’s Martinez’s “The Language, Genealogy, and Classification” but I have to confirm) in which race is characterized as parasitic and chameleon-like due to its ability attach to other social phenomena. With that in mind, I started to consider McGraw’s book as illustrating that idea in action, where all of the social, economic, and political frictions McGraw describes are the result of race being ousted from its once-fixed iteration: slavery.
In other words, if we can imagine that emancipation “amputated” the institution that had once housed race, citizenship became the next appendage of the body politic that it attached to--where it could hide in plain sight, so to speak, because of the myth of racial democracy that Lasso describes on her article.
Though I’m almost certain my ideas are reductive and don’t consider everything that McGraw is working towards, I’d like to see the issue of how theories from differing texts interact with one another.
I wholeheartedly agree about waiting for race to be discussed specifically. I think that there is a certain framing of the issue of race though, as I discussed in my post. McGraw discusses the discrimination against the poor, which was largely related to race, on page. 40. I feel like later on McGraw discusses both the liberal and conservative views on emancipation and how each group frames the issue to look a certain way; "while accusing Liberals of engaging in race war, Conservatives also laid claim to emancipation's egalitarian rhetoric" (pg. 65). Race seems to be on the periphery of several of the discussions going on in this text, but never discussed by itself divorced from issues such as classism, sexism, and rights of citizens. For example, on page 67 regarding political rights of black men, sexual deviancy and criminality was ascribed to this group "at a moment when they commanded a public presence." McGraw also acknowledges voter manipulation in the coastal regions where many escaped and free slaves lived. I like your analogy of emancipation "amputating" institutionalize racism and agree after emancipation it hides in plain sight under the guise of other forms of discrimination.
DeleteRicardo, I also like your metaphor and found the connection you made between the Martinez article really fascinating. I totally see where you are coming from in you reading of McGraw and wanting to get at the race question more directly. Reading this text alongside the Lasso piece, I can't help but think that maybe one of the central points of the text has to do with the absence of race and the extent to which the liberal "letrados" went to such great lengths to expunge race from public discourse. Thinking of this in a contemporary U.S. context, I could not help but think about the argument of color blindness so often perpetuated by the right in our own political discourse. In essence, when people deny the impact of race thinking and racism, it amounts, on some level, to kind of new racism, a negation of negation (I think this is a Judith Butler term). In many ways, I think this is where McGraw is coming from. To pretend that people of color were not experiencing racism (or the legacies of racism) or that their racial markers ceased to matter amounted to a kind of negation of these experience. At the same time, the absence of a public discourse on race seemed to mask the private racism and racialized thinking which was still very much a part of the culture. This becomes apparent towards the end of the chapter which focuses most on Obeso. In particular, the eulogies McGraw shares really reflect the extent to which his contemporaries were not only obsessed with his blackness, but seemed to reproduce radicalized stereotypes when interpreting his work and his life. Also, in a later chapter, all of these "color-blind" reforms seem to fall apart when the government becomes less democratic, more authoritarian, and when the relationship between church and state gets resurrected. Essentially, the legacies of race and racism seem to get resolidified as people of color are systematically stripped of their citizenship.
DeleteI thought that the section (on page 222)made a stronger argument where it stipulated that “...the renovation of racial thought and cultural hierarchies against Caribbean working peoples attempts to expand rights was a reminder of the ongoing struggle for recognition.” Many of these initiatives had been witnessed long before slaves won their freedom, yet emancipation changed the conditions under which they translated into new forms of public validation. McGraw argues that “racialization at the pivot point of public and private was itself not changing but was contingent on social and political transformations. One consequence of race making through distinctions of public and private life, whether intended or otherwise, was the repudiation of Candelario Obeso’s black citizen.”
DeleteRicardo, I was also thinking about that same point until I realize that in the reading the subject of race was hiding in plan sight. Race according to Jason McGraw was a class ideal. In the beginning he describes race more of an division between the classes. Initially, Escaped Black slaves ran away to the out lands away from the cities and capturing them was no a concern of the government. After some time they merged with the free blacks of those small towns.
DeleteMcGraw also admits that once the recession and the economic collapse, the attitudes of the people changed and the racial disparities transformed into a class and political disparity. Later, he discusses the role that rumors and racist state run propaganda played in influencing the nation's Conservative White elite.
So, it may not be so recognizable but the context of race is discuss throughout the book in many scopes. Race was not just the only thing that separated the blacks and the indigenous people from the whites of Colombia. But, once race was introduced into their society, race was the base for many of the nation's other major economic, social, and political conflicts.
Ricardo, I really enjoyed this thread and was thinking about the same question. After closer analyzing the points you guys brought up I went back to see some specific examples or ideas that McGraw states to really identity why he went this route. With this, his main argument (on page 6) stuck out pretty clearly. To paraphrase: recognition was the social status by which individuals identified. To me, when I read this through the first time, I asked myself "RACE?". I loved how you connected it to the theme of chameleon-like as well as parasitic. This book alone was very instrumental in identifying this characteristic to the ideology.
DeleteI have not yet finished the book, but thus far I find interesting the juxtaposition between the reality of slaves’, or freed slaves’, lives and the culture of independence, specifically the rhetoric. I also find interesting the influence of spectacle in mediating the reality versus imagined status of individuals. It seems from McGraw’s narrative that those in power were consciously framing the issue of slavery to look to the public like they are promoting equality and emancipation, but in reality, are moving very slowly on the issue. For example, on page 34 McGraw writes that “they looked on emancipation as not only the end of slavery but also the conversion of slaves into citizens.” McGraw also describes public ceremonies (“manumission spectacles” pg. 43) which grant a certain number of slaves their freedom in front of large crowds and celebrations with “public race mixing” (pg. 36). Only a certain number of slaves were granted their freedom at these ceremonies and McGraw mentions that sometimes people would wait to free slaves until special holidays where the audience numbers would be greater. This made visible to the general public the emancipation of some slaves while for the most part the government relied on the slaves to free themselves. These spectacles not only gave emancipation a degree of visibility, but it allowed leaders to discriminate against slaves who had already fled their imprisonment; “with fugitive slave denied legal standing; the manumissions spectacles’ message of lettered leaders gifting of freedom slid into place as the domination story of emancipation” (pg. 33). To me this seems like a deliberate framing of slavery and evidence of an interesting fascination of ensuring visibility of political actions to the public (which is something I have noticed in other respects throughout later sections of the book as well).
ReplyDeleteFor this weeks readings I felt it was necessary to discuss how former slaves were looked at and how this formulated political camps in the newly freed states. It was interesting to me how the act of freeing slaves was looked at as a "patriotic" duty in the Lasso reading, instead of a moral reasoning. "Linking slavery to Spanish tyranny and manumission to re- publican virtue. Prominent citizens were asked to demonstrate their patriotism by helping to fund the juntas." (Lasso 348) So they linked slavery to Spanish dictatorship which I found interesting.
ReplyDeleteHowever then when going into the McGraw reading he discussed more into the political leanings in the newly freed nation. These racial wars was one of the important driving forces in the McGraw reading. "This double standard that penalized democratic appeals to citizens as more socially divisive than antiblack racism appeared in an anonymous warning sent to Tomas C. Mosquera from Barranquilla in October 1861. “Africans are the born enemies of the Caucasian race" (McGraw 67) McGraw seems to acknowledge also that this prejudice was more based on a worldly depiction of race however, not solely Spanish based. So for this week we should discuss how political groups eventually used race to gain support in society.
I agree here with the notion of a worldwide prejudice rather than Spanish bias. Many factors including illiteracy and social standing became hotly contested during the post emancipation period which eventually led to these political groups using race as you mentioned to collect support for their groups.
Delete“By the time the wars of independenee ended in 1824,” Lasso argues, “the constitutions of all the nations in Spanish America granted legal racial equality to their free populations of African descent, and a nationalist racial ideology had emerged that declared racial discrimination—and racial identity—divisive and unpatriotic.” She then goes on to ask an incredibly tantalizing question, which she deliberately does not attempt to answer: “In contrast, nineteenth-century nationalism in the United States centered on ideologies of manifest destiny and white supremacy. What explains this difference?” (336-337) While we are primarily concerned with race in Latin America, I do think it is important to ask why these two “Enlightenment” cultures evolved so differently when it comes to race. I think that understanding this difference sheds light on Latin American constructions of race and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteI also think that an important claim in her piece is her contention that examining “the construction of Colombian racial identities against the background of the United States experienee” would suggest “that racial democracy was neither inevitable nor a colonial legacy” (337). Part of our project as a class seems to have entailed not only examining the formation of race and race thinking as part of the Spanish cultural legacy, but also tracing the origins of race itself in Western culture and history. For me, an important question is whether or not race and slavery are as inextricably linked to the Enlightenment as some scholars would seem to suggest. I feel as though Lasso is pushing back against such an assertion. I am interested to see what others think. I am also interested to know whether people have found any answers to her questions (the difference between US and LA racial formations) in other readings, including, but not limited to, those we have experienced in the course so far.
Excellent observation, I agree with you, these readings provide us more materials to make a distinguish between US and LA racial formations. Also, I believe the critical point in both nations is the revolution. If one analyzes both emancipations, LA's citizens were against slavery, of course; some politicians were against it. On the other side, US's citizens were divided into two different groups (South and North) fighting for different goals; there was not a unification.
DeleteLots to think about, Mike; it's great. Also, I forget which of the two readings made the distinction (I'm almost certain it was McGraw, in his introduction) between "slave society" and "society with slaves, "where the former built its laws/identity around slavery in a way that the latter doesn't, but I think that certainly should be factored into any discussions we have in class.
DeleteI agree with Yosimar’s comment on how the revolutions were vastly different in their racial mission. Although each region desirered “independence” from European colonialism, race became much more of an issue in Latin America. I suspect that this also partly due to the fact that a majority of the population was of African decent or mixed in LA.
DeleteThe readings of this week provide us the resources to make an examination of English Colonies and Spanish Colonies in a different point of view (revolution). As we discussed in class, we observed specific levels of inequalities in slavery in both places. I followed before and after the emancipation in both places. In one side, McGraw recognized that citizens enjoyed some equality among people in New Granada, but there was unfairness against Afro-Colombians in specific areas. For example, Struggles within popular politics, the church, education, and the market economy also reflected a profound disagreement over the underlying meanings of rights and duties. (pg. 9). In this case, politicians took advantage of their social and economic power to expand their dominion to have total control over individual minorities. There was no discrimination all was imaginary.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side, Lasso pointed out several factors of levels of disadvantages between Colombia and the United States after the Emancipation. “In the United States, blacks would be excluded from the national imaginary and denied equal legal rights, yet they would form powerful and lasting political organizations that would effectively fight against formal and informal discrimination and prejudice” (pg. 360). Both nations’ emancipation had as an objective to demolish slavery, but both of them obtained different results. Therefore, it would be interesting to bring back this topic again (differences and similarities between Spanish colonies and English Colonies).
I was really interested in lasso's analysis on racial equality and nationalism in Latin America. I really liked the way that she tries to explain why societies with similar colonial pasts of slavery and racial discrimination created, "such divergent racial national imaginaries during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries" (337). She brings in a conversation between the U.S. and Latin America in they ways they went about creating "racial equality." Although both regions had a discourse on racial equality, only in most of Latin America do we see it become an issue of nationalism. This allowed for writings like the Black Legend which states how tyrannical Spanish rule had been. However in the United States they, "had developed ideologies of manifest destiny
ReplyDeleteand white supremacy, which excluded blacks from citizenship, either through
schemes for expatriating ex-slaves or by withholding full citizenship rights from free
black" (337).
All of this is finally summarized when Lasso says, "In both regions, patriot nationalism exalted the differences between tyrannical European metropolises and American republican freedom. Yet the place of race in the equation of freedom depended less on patriots' notions of freedom—
which, after all, drew on the same Enlightenment tradition—than on where their colonial power stood on the issue of race. In other words, it depended on whether racial equality was perceived as a colonial imposition or as a patriot aspiration" (359). I completely agree with with Lasso on this point. After when she states that this had been a long lasting effort by America to maintain white supremacy that is even rooted in the war for independence.
Do you guys agree with this overall argument? When we consider slavery and race, how does plantation life reinforce the U.S. perspective on the myth of racial equality? Do you think that the Latin American race population had anything to do with the fact that they wanted racial equality, while in the U.S. (which had a mostly white population), did not consider this a major national issue?
I agree, I think that both readings seemed to point to foreign race building that constructed a lot of the ideas discussed in the readings. The foreign race building seems to have been a huge effect on the various Latin American wars of independence and their look at Spanish governance in comparison to how the United States viewed the British way of governance. I feel that we should discuss tonight that idea of a Anglo-American based racial thinking.
DeleteSome of the more notable aspects in these readings regarded this idea of defining citizenship beyond the scope of simply black and white. For all the time Spaniards spent on creating lines between people based on lineage, post independence, places, like Colombia found themselves in a difficult time period. Struggles between classes, defining citizenship and rights based on literacy and education became high debated topics. Furthering this conflict was another argument based on status specifically with the boatman in port towns which became the driving force of the economy post emancipation. These are stark differences from other emancipated areas like North America in which blacks struggled to find footing following their emancipation while the population in the Caribbean and Colombia found better opportunities partly in due to the struggling government and lack of control in certain areas. I continually struggle to not compare this to the United States experience but I keep coming back to it as it seems like maybe more and more the US is an outlier in the conversation of slavery and citizenship rather than the norm.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Daniel above. This is what interested me most about the readings, that the idea of race and be transferred through outlets OTHER THAN color. Social status became the outlet to which race embedded itself in (like the chameleon). Race was present is debates about vernacular sense of rights vs the idea of literacy for political inclusion. In his main point he argues that recognition of social status is how race was mainly constructed and carried out in post emancipated Columbia. Also as Daniel mentions, which is probably my favorite idea/topic in this class, is that race, unlike in America (of which we are so exposed to), is unrelated to color and mostly influenced through systems of social control and identification rather than outright appearance.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of equality among all races was, if not unprecedented; at the very least a novel idea. The United States, on the other hand “centered on ideologies of manifest destiny and white supremacy.” The comparison makes me think that although the Latin American ideology raised important issues in the relations of human beings, I can’t help but wonder if class didn’t replace race as a matter of political correctness; however, with the same results of discrimination and inequality as modern conceptions of citizenship.
ReplyDelete