Week Five

Monday:
1. Code of Noir: In this reading selection, it's very clear that the French are attempting to remove anything familiar to the natives so that they are more likely to depend on the French/their masters. All other religions are prohibited except Catholicism in order to prevent any outside influences from affecting the thoughts/actions of the native people. I also found it interesting that in quickly reading this document, it seems as though the natives do have rights. I feel as though this was probably a tactic of the government to make the slaves believe that they have rights but then there are passages that completely contradict this. Fro example, when the code states that no black, baptised or not, will be buried in a "holy place" but in an unknown field near where they perished. One last thing that caught my attention was when the code states that if a master dies the slaves will be manumitted but that they are still required to be respectful to the master's family or they will be severely punished. So, even though they were technically free, they were still required to be humble and subservient to the whites.
2. Description...of the French Part of the Island of Saint Domingue: Like we discussed in class, I did find it interesting how the author was constantly using science as the reason behind certain characteristics in the mulatto class. In the second half of this selection, the author discusses a ritual and describes the mulattoes as "weak souls surrender themselves to a dangerous kind of domination". The author talks about this ritual as if it is something that takes over their bodies when they really do not want any part of it. I feel like this was most likely a part of the culture and the people who took part were willing participants and these "miseries" the natives suffer are actually his own opinion.
3. Letter to Those Who Love Mankind: I completely agree with the overall message of this letter. That by refusing the slaves their freedom, the government will be in more danger of creating an uprising/more animosity instead of creating a more stable, loyal group of people. The longer the slaves go without freedom, the more they realize that if they want any sort of justice/liberty, they will have to take matters into their own hands. The part were the author gives the numbers of blacks versus the number of whites was amusing to me. Without actually making a threat, he is letting the whites know that they are clearly outnumbered and they should be more thoughtful of their actions and choices concerning the freedom of the slaves.
Tuesday:
1. Observations on the Origin...Men of Color: It is very clear that the author does not consider slaves in the same class as the free people of color and does everything he can in this writing to distance himself from the slaves and define the mulattoes as a completely different, more sophisticated class of people worthy of their freedom. His definition of a mulatto is proof that it was much more common for a white man and a black women to have a child together instead of a white woman and a black man. He definitely exaggerated on some of the facts given in order to push forward his own agenda.
2. History of the Revolution: It is very obvious that Dalmas is against the negres and their desire for freedom in the way that he describes their actions. If this were the only account of the revolution, it would seem as if the negres were blood-thirsty savages yet cowardly. He refers to them as ignorant and stupid. I feel that they must not be that stupid if they were able to meet in secret, against the code, and organize this revolt against the whites. Also, that their resolve to win their freedom was not shaken despite the severe consequences they would have to face if they did not succeed. It is clear from this writing that it is impossible to take away an individuals or group of people's culture and beliefs.
3. Reports from the Insurrection: I didn't really have too many thoughts about this reading selection. The main thought that I had was that through these letters, we can see that the slaves and mulattoes came to realize, despite the French's efforts to convince them otherwise, that they were just as or even more capable than the whites and that if they chose to fight that they had a chance of winning their Independence.
Thursday:
1. The Abolition of Slavery: Throughout this whole selection, my only thought is, if they, the white government, desired for slavery to end for "quite some time" then why did it take so long? This meeting/ceremony was all it took to declare slavery abolished so it would have been very easy for them to do it at an earlier period of time. Maybe they weren't able to do it before, not for lack of want, but maybe they wanted to have a majority of the colony supporting them in the decision.
2. The Constitution of Saint Domingue: In this reading, it is apparent that the idea of God ordaining a leader for the country was being rejected and, as we discussed in class, the decision was now based more upon social characteristics and not on skin color/bloodlines.
3. Haitian Declaration of Independence: I felt like this was a very motivating selection and if I were a Haitian/slave at that time, I would definitely want to fight for my freedom. The way the author describes the French as "tigers dripping with our blood" and "vulture" also gives a negative connotation and probably causes more of a desire in the people to rid themselves of French control. I really liked the line where he says something to the effect of how they should not let their success and their anger cause them to define themselves as the authority of the Caribbean but they should let their neighbors dwell by their own established rules. This gives the impression that although the author is ready to die fighting the French, he is also humble and understands the need of Independence and liberty within a community.
4. The Haitian Constitution: I feel like the beginning of the constitution is trying to promote economic Independence and growth by ruling that all Haitians must know a trade and that if they go bankrupt or their business fails they will be denied citizenship. It seems a bit harsh but it is definitely a motivation to study and learn a trade so that the economy can grow and the country will prosper. Also, the crown is elected based of social characteristics. Even though this seems like a positive document, I did notice that the people still do not have a say in who is elected to rule, but instead, a certain committee of people choose the ruler. I don't know if the people chose the members of the committee or not, it doesn't really say. It seems as though they have more freedom than they did when the French had control, but they still do not seem to have complete freedom in terms of government elections.
5. Letters: These letters are strange to me. I cannot remember correctly so correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if it was Thomas Jefferson who was complaining about Europe dumping all their "undesirables" in America and now he wants to do the same elsewhere?? It is also interesting to me that the whites always feel as if they have their slaves completely under control and then there are letters like this that show a more fearful side of the whites. As long as they can continue to intimidate the slaves, everything will work out but as soon as the slaves decide to band together against the masters and the government it will be total chaos. It is clear that Jefferson is worried that the slaves in America will become more aware of the revolution occurring in Saint Domingue and be influenced to do the same.

Week Four

The reading "Intro to Words of the Batswana" validates what we discussed in class about a lack of primary sources giving the "natives" perspective. Also, how the native documents were not given priority like those of Europeans. Obviously, European colonization was a concern to the Africans but the passages/excerpts being introduced probably provide a deeper insight into the culture and family life of early South Americans. I think it would be very interesting to read the opinions of the Africans on subjects such as: religion, family values, politics, etc. The one part of this introduction that caught my attention was when it talks about the fact that these documents became available after "rapid political changes". This quote gives the impression that these documents weren't acknowledged by the previous government and that there may have been restrictions on viewing them.

In Kgabo Tebele Motswasele's letter he seems to consider the needs and feelings of all individuals and how using one set language would affect other groups of people. I also liked how he was very polite when disagreeing/replying. I feel like this speaks to the fact that not only Africans, but other native peoples as well, were very civilized, not at all savages. He wants to make sure that all nations feel equal and explains that by choosing one language, it would be like saying one group of people is better than the other. I liked how he used religion to make a point. Since the Europeans most likely brought what they consider religion (Christianity) to South Africa, he was using what they taught to validate his statements. I suppose they probably couldn't argue with that.

I wasn't quite sure if the "Letter from March 1980" was in regards to European or African children. Judging by the comments made about clothing, I'm going to assume that he is referring to African children so I am going to reply with that assumption in mind. If someone interpreted differently I would love to hear their opinion. In this letter, it seems like the writer is in favor of these changes (Christianity and proper dress). Most of his letter seems to shed a positive light on religion and European influence (clothing and education). It appears that he is more disappointed in the African people and their failure to "practice what you preach". I feel that there may be some hesitation among the Africans to let go of their culture and partake in a new one with new ideas. Like what we discussed in class; they may say that they believe and agree with the changes but in actuality don't as much as they seem to.

In the letters discussing Bogadi, it was nice to be able to read the opinions of the Africans and not just the opinions of Europeans. It also seems like the tone of the letters might be based off whether someone had a positive or negative experience with bogadi. I guess I can see both sides of the argument. I feel like these letters might have been written at a time when a newly developed African culture, influenced by European culture, was clashing with the old African culture. Therefore, some disagreed with bogadi and some agreed. I don't agree with buying another human or viewing someones worth as how much can be traded for them but I feel like in this culture the cattle or other items were viewed more as gifts by those who participated. Other cultures partook in these sort of activities as well. For instance, the native americans also gave animals/items to the family of the bride in appreciation for the union. Even today we have a form of this as it is custom for the brides family to pay for the wedding. Although the reasons behind this are not the same as they once were, one of the original reasons was because once the bride and groom were husband and wife, it was the husband who was the provider. Also, we have a ring to signify the marriage, but Africans often considered the gifts or payments (whichever you prefer) as evidence of the union. I think some of the writers feel like they have sacrificed so much of their culture and heritage to European influences that they refuse to rid themselves of another part of what they feel is their culture. One writer even states in regards to traditions "and the ones we have, we will not leave". Again, I feel like these letters and feelings were maybe influenced by personal situations but it was refreshing to read their opinions on the matter.

With the pass laws, I found it interesting that as much as the Europeans "changed" the law to allow more freedom, the wording was just more flamboyant but the law remained almost exactly the same. These passes and certificates and identification papers were just a way to establish a hierarchy between races. The pass laws probably helped to establish discrimination even more so than before. The pass laws were a way to control when and were the Africans were allowed to work and a way to acquire dominance over the African people.

Week Three

I feel that Thomas Keneally did a good job of writing this book without bias and instead lets the reader form their own opinion of the people and situations. There were a couple instances throughout the novel in which you are able to see how Keneally feels. For example, governor Phillips is often, in my opinion, portrayed in a positive light. He seems very level headed and aware of not only the needs of the soldiers and convicts alike but also what needs to happen to establish a successful community. It says at one point that his recovery from the stabbing was a matter of rejoicing because the settlement depended on him. Although Phillips is often thoughtful of the natives as well and desires to understand them better he, as well as others, often questions the reasons behind the hostility of the natives. It seems silly that the Europeans do not realize that the hostility stems from their constant consumption/use of the land's resources(ex. Mutton Bird) and also their mere presence. Although, looking at the reasons often behind colonization, I can see how they may not have thought their presence was a bad thing. Keneally also shows bias towards Australia as a country when he describes the land and its physical features (talks about the mountains, valleys, rivers, etc very positively) which is understood as he is from Australia. These images are contrasted by statements made by certain individuals throughout the book especially accounts of convicts. Due to their situation, I am not surprised that they rarely had something positive to say about the land.

I thought that most of the crimes committed by the convicts were minor and did not deserve punishment. In our society today, stealing a car is a major crime but stealing lace seems juvenile. It is interesting the types of things we view as important/valuable today compared to during that time.

The way the government viewed a successful voyage, in terms of the number dead, was kind of depressing. I feel like most of the captains cared for the health and well-being of the convicts only because the more convicts that were alive upon arrival, the better the captain, crew, and ship.

I found the culture of the natives very interesting in regards to the ritualistic spearing and so forth. In some instances, like the wife beating and when Colby kills the baby, I have a hard time keeping an open mind but when I think about it from the natives point of view I can understand a little better the reasoning behind it (the killing of the infant at least). Colby explains that there would be no way to feed the child to keep it alive so I suppose a quick death would be better than a long drawn out one. I'm not saying that I agree with killing children but I can understand Colby's reasoning. I did appreciate that fact that there were those individuals who were willing to try and understand the natives and respect their culture.

Overall, I thought the book was well written and I felt like I got a lot of insite on all sides of the situation that helped me to better understand the feelings, emotions, and actions of all individuals.

Week Two

After reading the introduction to Cortes' letter you have to wonder what parts are true in his description of the land and it's riches. There are a few things we talked about in class that point to several fictitious statements made by Cortes. For example, when he speaks of "all kinds of herds being found there both grazing and for use of beasts of burden". We know for a fact from lecture today that the region the Aztecs lived in could not sustain work/farm animals nor did they have the resources needed or enough of the resources needed to raise/keep livestock. Spain and what is now present day Mexico are also in different regions so when Cortes says that the land and animals are similar to what they have in Spain, that is not a true statement. I find it interesting that at the beginning of the letter, Cortes gives a glowing review of the country but as soon as he begins to talk about the natives, he does so in a condescending/disgusted tone. He elaborates and most likely exaggerates on their "un-civilized" ways in order to convince others of the need for colonization. He speaks of the great numbers of people sacrificed, probably without understanding that they are prisoners of war, but it seems like he exaggerates on numbers and methods of sacrifice. He feels that the natives would be willing to give up their "heathen" ways if they were brought to God through religion. This is also amusing to me after learning today in class that the Aztec people had a very developed society/culture, even more so than Spain. Basically, like other periods of colonialism, the Cortes did not take time to get all the information but just assumed that the Aztecs would be better off following his way of life.
In the two poems, you can feel the helplessness of the people as their land, way of life, and parts of their culture are taken from them. "Nothing but grief and suffering where once we saw beauty and valor". I'm sure that the land was still the same but it was no longer theirs, so to speak, so they probably did not see it in a positive light after it was taken from them. It probably reminded them of bondage and slavery instead of freedom. They also feel that this situation they are in now is a punishment from their God for misdeeds that they had done/committed. I'm not sure what the significance of the niece is in the second poem so if someone understood it please let me know. I thought that the first poem gives a good visual representation of what the situation was like for the natives as they were colonized. It speaks of water and food tasting bitter and of darkness. These two descriptions helped me to better understand how the people where feeling.
The pictures help to support what we talked about in class about a well developed society. They show different plants and animals, labeled, which shows some sort of education in the society. Also, the pictures depict a working class and an upper class proving an established hierarchy.
I did not really understand much of the "Captives and Cousins". The only thing I really got from the excerpt was that the men treat the women more like possessions compared to individuals. I feel like their trading of the women and children shows the power the men have in the community. I am definantly looking forward to the class discussion to hear others thoughts on this.

Week One

I can see how the video on orientalism relates to our world today and especially to younger generations. In school when I was younger and growing up I was constantly exposed to the generic picture of the "Arab" and assumed that that was their culture and what they looked like. As a child, I did not realize that people from different cultures from all over the world dress and participate in modern culture/activities like "Americans" do. Not only have Middle-Eastern people been portrayed in a certain way, but at one point, and still some today, African Americans and people of Asian decent were portrayed a certain way as well. I think that it is very important for younger generations to be exposed to a more realistic portrayal of the world and its numerous cultures.
I thought that the poster was very, not interesting really but that's the only word I can think of at the moment. The fact that it implies that it is the duty of the "white man" to teach others about the value of cleanliness is just ridiculous. I also found it offensive that you read through this whole advertisement and at the very end it says that in civilized cultures it makes a good toilet soap which basically says that "non-whites" are equal to a dirty toilet.
The section in "The Discourse on Colonialism" that talks about Nazism caused me to think about other situations in history that can also be considered a form of Nazism. We can't forgive Hitler for what he did but we tend to overlook our offences against humanity. The sentence that says "at the end is Hitler" is true. If injustices against other cultures are allowed to continue, we will do what Hitler did too the Jewish race. The description of how the Europeans viewed themselves in relation to other "non-white" reminds me of the requirements for a dog show (being an animal science major I tend to use animal analogies for a lot of things.) In a dog show, only purebred dogs are allowed to compete because they are considered the best of the best. Dogs that are considered "mutts" are not allowed to enter in the show. There are also certain features of the purebreds that must meet certain criteria in the pattern or color of their coat. In reality, the "mutts" tend to live a longer, healthier life because they have the best qualities of several breeds. Same with cattle. Purebreds do have certain qualities that are good but two breeds can be crossed to enhance the qualities (*I am not trying to use the term crossbred as an offensive term but only trying to point out that pure is not always better). I also found the part where it discusses that other nations serve as an outlet for anger and violence of Europeans that would not be allowed in civilized society as ridiculous as the writer does. I completely agree with the writer when he says that it seems as though the colonized nations want to move forward and the colonizers want to move back.
The poem seems satirical to me. I can agree with what the poem says about the people who colonize other nations; the fact that they take advantage of what the native people have. Also, that they colonizers think that they are bettering the natives when really they are destroying their natural way of life. I do find this poem unjustified in a way, not because I disagree with it, but because this poem was written after Europe brought alot of their "undesirables" to America. So, although I do not agree with hindering someones culture or way of living, I think it is ironic that these "Americans" are quite possibly decedents from the so called "scum" of Europe.