Reflection #3: Westward Expansion 2/18

The class discussion has helped me understand important concepts of America’s westward movement.  It’s interesting that people believed it was their ‘right’ to own the western hemisphere; and defined this as their ‘manifest destiny.’ I wonder where, and how, this concept originated? Does the concept of manifest destiny portray an extension of American ambition, or does it show that Americans believed they were supreme?

I felt the first election was important to US History and to the world. The translation of power without bloodshed, represents a true beginning of ‘Democracy’ in the world. This historic election was followed by the historic westward expansion. The motivation for the westward movement is extremely intriguing. People moved in one direction, ironically seeking two different ideals – capitalism and anti-capitalism. The attraction towards the ‘West’ was in the minds of the people, showcasing that only humanity can inspire itself.

The westward movement also changed the nature of employee and employer relationships. I feel the westward movement freed the employees and initiated the creation of the individualistic, corporate culture of contemporary America. This movement also fueled the separation of domains between men and woman. Women and men started valuing themselves by their ability to earn money. I believe that in America today, although separate domains for men and woman don’t persist and gender equality has been established, many people still value themselves by the amount of money they earn.

The westward movement, fueled social and lifestyle changes. The views of the working class are reflected in the entertainment they sought. This concept was particularly interesting; as it defines a way of interpreting the values of people in a given time. The minstrel shows, which ridiculed the black slave, indicated that the working middle class was jealous, of what it imagined was the life of a slave. My interpretation of this, made me realize how shallow the thoughts of the white middle class people were.  Slavery was a moral wrong, how could anyone be jealous of a slave? Did these people even understand or know what slavery was? Shouldn’t the working middle class be sympathetic towards the slaves for what they had to endure? Where was the spirit of human brotherhood? I further question, when did Americans realize that slavery was a moral wrong and so was racism? How did American morality change from this radical, racist extreme to how we know it today? I believe the roots of modern American culture, lie in this answer.

Post 1: Slaves Search for Natural Rights

 “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  

As the founding fathers drafted these words, the mission statement of the US constitution; slavery was abundant in the US and many of the founding fathers themselves owned slaves. The constitution preached the right for ‘life, liberty and a pursuit to happiness;’ in a sharp contrast to the millions of people who were deprived of their personal freedom, and compelled to perform labor and services. The irony of this situation and era in US history is alarming, implying that slaves were not considered ‘people’ but property.

The slaves were also people, similar to the founding fathers, who sought freedom.  Although little is known, or documented, about the slaves, the runaway advertisements depict that most slaves risked their lives and fled seeking freedom.  After searching the runaway advertisements, it can be suggested that slaves also recognized ‘natural human rights’ and sought them in their ‘intent’ for running away; they fled to seek freedom, protection, family life and a right to life by choice.

A brief reading of the advertisements portray many physical characteristics of slaves, their attire, belongings and their skills. It is interesting to note that the only human insight, of the slaves and their desires, are reflected in the “intent” for the slaves’ escapes.  I brief search by “intent” of the runaway advertisement derives that 17 advertisements were placed under change in home/work or owner; suggesting that slaves ran away to seek choice. 44 advertisements are categorized under the intent ‘fear of punishment,’ asserting that slaves sought some sort of protection and equality. 305 advertisements are placed under the intent to rejoin family, and 805 listed under the intent of freedom; clearly depicting the slaves’ desires for some sort of natural rights and liberty.

Anthony, a 17 year old slave fled from his owner, one of the founding fathers of the US constitution, James Madison.  The advertisement placed in the Virginia Gazette, on November 22, 1786, explains the physical characteristics of Anthony. It mentions that he was a “servant” in Madison’s residence. The advertisement allows us to create a physical impression of Anthony as it is very descriptive. We can also assume that Anthony was clever, from the writing, which notes that Anthony may have already got a “Pass” and changed his clothes and name. This proves that Madison believed Anthony to be smart and quick. It is apparent from this advertisement, that Anthony sought the most basic of all rights – freedom and a right to life by choice.

Johnny also fled in search for freedom. Johnny was owned by Edmund Randolph, another founding father. From the advertisement printed in the Virginia Gazette in December 12, 1977, it is understandable that Johnny had been a slave for a long period. Johnny had also “waited” upon Randolph’s uncle. Similar to most announcements, Johnny’s physical attributes and clothes are described in great detail. In this notice, we gather an insight to Johnny as person who described as a heavy drinker. The ad is revealing as it mentions that Johnny could read and write; and helps us understand the life of a slave in a manner not depicted through other readings. An advertisement for Ben, who also escaped in a quest of freedom, is particularly interesting. This advertisement refers to a ‘settlement of free negroes,” educating us of the existence of such a settlement. These small snippets of information help us comprehend the lives of the slaves, and assert that slaves too risked their lives in a quest for freedom.

The pursuit to happiness includes closeness to families. Many slaves sought, by means of escape, to be near their loved ones. Tom, a 28 year old slave is said to have run away to rejoin his wife, who is also a slave. This ad allows you to think that slaves were married to each other.  Tom’s advertisement is interesting as it claims that Tom has already had the small pox.  It is possible to assume, from this advertisement, that Tom may have been treated by his master, Griffin Stith. This would help us to understand the relationship between the slaves and the masters, a matter that could never be comprehended by reading the ‘history’ of slavery in the US.

One of the most interesting advertisements that I came across was for Mann, placed by John Smith. We learn that Mann is a fifty year old man, who speaks well and has slit ears. This depicts that Mann was an intelligent person who had a hard life, and probably spent most of it as a slave. The advertisement makes it apparent, that Mann ran away to seek the most fundamental of ‘natural rights,’ the right to protection and the right to live. Mann has been outlawed for threatening to burn his master’s house! John Smith’s notice states, “If any person will deliver me his head, severed from his body, they shall receive 10 l. current money: If taken alive and delivered, 40 s…”  This clearly defines the agency possessed by the slave owners over the slaves.  Mr. Smith wants Mann to be beheaded; endorsing that owners deemed themselves demigods, with a right to chose life or death for their slaves. This is explicit in explaining the lack of agency of the slaves. A clear grasp, of the life of a slave and how they were treated, is perhaps best defined by the advertisements rather than other readings.

The advertisements provided me with a solid understanding of slavery; which could never be understood from the factual readings in Wikipedia. A mere definition,” Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons — known as slaves — are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to perform labour or services. The term includes the status or condition of those persons who are treated as the property of another person…” and a surplus of facts, cannot in essence portray why slavery and the slave trade was called “Maafa” (Swahili for holocaust.) The horror of slavery and its affect, on millions of people, will never be known due a lack of documentation from the victim’s perspective. An interpretation of the runaway advertisements, gives us a deeper picture into the lives of the slaves. Ironically, from the perspective of a “subscriber,” we learn about: the physical characteristics of the slaves, what skills they possessed and how some were literate, and in this manner we can start to acquire miniscule amounts of knowledge on their personal lives, hopes and desires.  The one fact, missing in the history readings, ascertained by the advertisements is that the human desire for natural rights, presides in every man, in every situation. The elite, with agency, wrote elaborate documents to assert their need for ‘natural rights.’ Similarly, in the same nation at the same time, the slaves ran away from their masters to seek freedom, family, and life -endorsing the human need for ‘natural rights.’

Reflection #2: American Revolution

Watching the clip from patriot and analyzing the perspectives of the director was interesting.The director or producer’s chose to represent the motive for Mel Gibson’s violence to personal matters rather than political ones. Furthermore, the director chooses to mention that Mel Gibson doesn’t own black slaves; which is highly unlikely given the time and situation of the movie. I felt the producers of the movie were concerned about using ideas and themes that were commonly accepted, so that their audience reach would be larger. In a small way this makes you realize that “slavery” is an avoided and almost taboo topic in the US. The reason for this general discomfort with ‘slavery’ could be due to several factors such as:  it’s a sensitive topic to many African Americans who may still be able to trace their ancestors to those days, the horrific nature and cruelty by which slaves were treated could be provocative even today, many are embarrassed by it and most don’t want to accept it as part of their great history. A sense of denial is easily seen, similar to the Germans regarding the holocaust. In fact, in the wiki article the word “maafa” is used  to describe the transatlantic slave trade, which essentially means “holocaust” in Swahili.

Considering the large amount of slaves that were present during the US revolution, it would be interesting to know what the slaves’ perspective on the US Revolution. Were they involved in anyway with what happened? Were they forced to fight? How did they feel about it? Did this bring about any hope to them? Perhaps, a director willing to consider history for what it is, should make a movie on the life of a slave, from the slave’s perspective, and how different political movements affected him and what he thought of it. Wouldn’t that be really interesting?

I felt, one of the most important aspects of the US revolution was that everything was documented and written. This was never represented in the reading, and it is crucial in understanding not only the US revolution but also American society. This need for documentation distinguishes the US revolution from others, in its approach towards freedom. I believe the US revolution was neither radical nor conservative but rather very educated. The unique nature of the US revolution helped me understand the importance of documentation, and law, to the US culture. I thought it was important, and with the theme of the US revolution, for John Locke’s natural rights to be documented .The notion that you shouldn’t state the obvious, or that writing the natural rights may seem redundant can be understood; however, I feel redundancy is sometimes good in reminding and making a point. I understand how stating the obvious can give doubts, but I feel the natural rights have gained immense value because they were documented. In line with American thinking and history, would the natural rights have received as much honor and importance if someone hadn’t made an effort to spell it out?

It was easy to relate to the fate of the elite colonists and the whole concept of ‘all men are created equal” and how this worked against the elite colonists. The same thing happened in Nepal last year. The political leaders joined together to over throw the despotic monarch; after this was accomplished the notion of “we are all equal” remained in the nation. This led many people to question the authority of the politicians, creating a similar confusion for Nepali politicians as it did for elite colonists centuries ago.  

Class Reflection 1: Prespective in History (colonial US) 2/9

I found the magnitude of the transatlantic slave trade to be overwhelming! It was odd that such a massive violation of human rights, affecting millions of people, could transpire for years without anyone raising their voice against it! I wondered, did people retaliate against this brutality? Who were they, and did they achieve anything? Or did the world watch in silence, reaping the twisted benefits that this brought to their lives? Were they afraid to have an opinion due to the power bases involved? Or perhaps they did speak up, but historians never included them in their stories.The concept of perspectives in history, portrayed in John’s Smith Map and the “new world” was very interesting. It made me think that history is not just a recollection of facts, but more an interpretation of the historians’ views. The word “history” depicts this – his story!  It also made me wonder, how credible is history? It seems to me that history was a novelty for the rich and educated, to express their opinions by representing what they thought was important. In this manner the ‘historians’ could delete the actual history of the uneducated and the poor. By erasing, or overlooking, certain factors that the historians didn’t find important; they recreated ‘history.’ They took what they felt was important and showcased that, eliminating the experiences of others; and thereby, creating a new history for the readers! In a way, the historians told what they wanted to, so that they could shape the views of the readers and future generations.I think we see this in the depiction of Native Americans, who are portrayed in the pages of history as savages who scalped the settlers! Similarly the settlers have shown their acts as “conquests.” However, upon a closer look, what actually happened was an invasion, which is morally wrong. It is quite obvious that history had a view, and perhaps the real history can be found in the lines that were never written. I believe the internet will have a profound effect on history.  The greatest aspect about the internet is that every story is recorded in a 1000 different perspectives! The power exercised by previous historians to pick and choose what they wanted to maintain as history is definitely gone. Today we don’t write history, we write our opinions as well.