The experience of being black or of mixed race was far different in Latin American countries than in the U.S. Like the U.S. there was a long tradition of miscegenation, from the first settlers who arrived sans women to begin setting up shop in the lands from Mexico and downward through the South American continent and began intermingling with the Indian women. When slaves were brought by the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Dutch, they too began to have children and intermarry with the European and native people. Unlike the U.S., where this mixing turned political and slavery became a means of dehumanizing blacks, the blacks and mixed race people of Latin America remained empowered by a common sense of humanity. The readings emphasize that while slavery was very much a reality, the social constructs of Latin American society and its approach to race created a very different experience and environment.
Latin America was not devoid of its own ideas of racial separation, developing its own hierarchy of society. However, I found it interesting that the central idea underlying the racial caste system was as much social as racial. The blacks, brought from Africa and sold just as theyd been around the world, were at the bottom rungs of society. However, this owes more to them being slaves and connected to hard labor than to race. The race is more incidental and while used to manipulate and exploit it never really becomes the damning principle it is in the American South, where as John Jea notes in his narrative that blacks become personified as devils. Being black or mixed didnt necessarily mean that you were destined for a life of slavery. As the reading notes, free blacks and mixed families could but white papers that would give them the same financial, educational, and social privileges as whites. In Brazil, I found it interesting, that slaves had the same rights as free blacks in terms of education, the right to defend themselves and their wives (against lecherous advances by other men). This is a big contrast to the Southern states rules not only during slavery but after the Reconstruction as well. There is not that sense of hate or racial superiority. Instead, if a black could improve their social status they could achieve the same fortunes as a while, even that of marriage to another race.
The reading notes that in marriage and society a persons status was decided more by their origins as a sondaughter of the Old World or the New World. This led to a lot of intermarriage and miscegenation, as a result people in the highest accolades of society were of mixed race heritage. Important I think in the major difference between the Southern U.S. states policies on slaveryrace and those of Latin America lies in the one drop concept. Where in the U.S. one drop of black blood, no matter how insignificant, branded a person as black with all the discrimination it entailed. On the other hand, in Latin American countries, one drop of white blood had the same connotations. In addition, since the people of Latin America were more ambiguous over the subject of race, the religious justifications for slavery failed to take hold. I think the people of Latin America, particularly the rulers, were less inclined to accept the propaganda against race and if that had been the case in the U.S. perhaps the history of African American would have been very different.
Though Ive really only been able to cover a couple of the variations in the experience of Africans and mixed individuals in Latin America versus the U.S., the basic difference was how race was approached and explained in the two areas. By approaching race as a consequence of nature and not a condemnation by an angry God, blacks and mixed people were able to become part of the society. They were not just chattel but people, who were in some instances owned by other people. While it doesnt justify the practice of slavery in Latin America it shows how differently the practice was broached across not just history but the world.
Latin America was not devoid of its own ideas of racial separation, developing its own hierarchy of society. However, I found it interesting that the central idea underlying the racial caste system was as much social as racial. The blacks, brought from Africa and sold just as theyd been around the world, were at the bottom rungs of society. However, this owes more to them being slaves and connected to hard labor than to race. The race is more incidental and while used to manipulate and exploit it never really becomes the damning principle it is in the American South, where as John Jea notes in his narrative that blacks become personified as devils. Being black or mixed didnt necessarily mean that you were destined for a life of slavery. As the reading notes, free blacks and mixed families could but white papers that would give them the same financial, educational, and social privileges as whites. In Brazil, I found it interesting, that slaves had the same rights as free blacks in terms of education, the right to defend themselves and their wives (against lecherous advances by other men). This is a big contrast to the Southern states rules not only during slavery but after the Reconstruction as well. There is not that sense of hate or racial superiority. Instead, if a black could improve their social status they could achieve the same fortunes as a while, even that of marriage to another race.
The reading notes that in marriage and society a persons status was decided more by their origins as a sondaughter of the Old World or the New World. This led to a lot of intermarriage and miscegenation, as a result people in the highest accolades of society were of mixed race heritage. Important I think in the major difference between the Southern U.S. states policies on slaveryrace and those of Latin America lies in the one drop concept. Where in the U.S. one drop of black blood, no matter how insignificant, branded a person as black with all the discrimination it entailed. On the other hand, in Latin American countries, one drop of white blood had the same connotations. In addition, since the people of Latin America were more ambiguous over the subject of race, the religious justifications for slavery failed to take hold. I think the people of Latin America, particularly the rulers, were less inclined to accept the propaganda against race and if that had been the case in the U.S. perhaps the history of African American would have been very different.
Though Ive really only been able to cover a couple of the variations in the experience of Africans and mixed individuals in Latin America versus the U.S., the basic difference was how race was approached and explained in the two areas. By approaching race as a consequence of nature and not a condemnation by an angry God, blacks and mixed people were able to become part of the society. They were not just chattel but people, who were in some instances owned by other people. While it doesnt justify the practice of slavery in Latin America it shows how differently the practice was broached across not just history but the world.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment