European Colonization and the Native Peoples
The first known contact between Europeans and native Canadians occurred
in the 10th century in the Arctic, Greenland, and Labrador when the Vikings landed on Baffin Island and along the Atlantic Coast. The Saga of Eric the Red
is a detailed account of the voyages of Eric the Red (or Eirik
Thorvaldsson), Leifr heppni Eiriksson, Bjaarni Herjolfsson, and a number
of other known Vikings. Eric the Red's son made other voyages to the
Island of Newfoundland (then called Vinland). Not much is known
of this time, but the natives seem to have held their own against the
Europeans as mounting hostilities between Vikings and natives—the
Beothuk of the Island of Newfoundland—put an end to attempts to
establish a European settlement on "Canadian territory." Nothing
significant came of the Vikings' voyages to Canada, although
Scandinavian attempts to colonize northern Newfoundland may have
continued for up to six decades (between 990 and 1050).
Later contact in Eastern Canada was very short-lived. In 1497, Giovanni Caboto (called John Cabot in English and Jean Cabot in French), an Italian explorer in the pay of England, travelled to Newfoundland and later Cape Breton (now in Nova Scotia), believing he had discovered the Indies. As Christopher Columbus had done before him on arriving in the Caribbean in 1492, Cabot called the people he met Indians. Giovanni Caboto took possession of the terra nova he called St. John's (in honour of the saint of the day) on behalf of King Henry VII of England. Some historians consider him the first discoverer of Canada, but no settlement was established.
In 1524, Giovanni da Verrazano made an exploratory voyage to North America for the king of France. After reaching North Carolina, he sailed up the coast to the mouth of the Hudson River, then to Cape Breton Island. Because of the beautiful trees and landscapes he admired in what is now Maryland and Virginia, Verrazzano supposedly called Eastern Canada Arcadia (Acadia). But some historians instead believe that Acadia comes from the Micmac word Algatig meaning "campsite," while others consider it a variant of the Malecite word Quoddy meaning "fertile place." Later, in 1603, Samuel de Champlain revived the word Arcadia, writing it alternately as Arcadie or Acadie. In any case, Verrazano knew he was in neither Asia nor Africa, but on another unknown continent.
A few decades later, between 1576 and 1578, Martin Frobisher made three expeditions to the Canadian Arctic via Labrador. He also believed he had found the legendary Northwest Passage and thought he had stumbled upon gold deposits on Baffin Island. However, the further explorers penetrated into the icy northern expanses, the fewer riches they discovered. Contacts with the Inuit were highly sporadic. In 1583, Sir Humphrey Gilbert took possession of the Island of Newfoundland on behalf of England in order to settle the area, but he also found many Spanish, Portuguese, and French fishing boats. On his return, his ship, the Squirrel, sank in a storm and Gilbert and his entire crew perished, leaving the English settlers they had brought to the island to their own fate. According to historians, the colonists made life difficult for the Beothuk, driving them inland.
Among the Europeans, however, the French and British had the most contact with native Canadians. At first, the French were concentrated on the island of Newfoundland, in Acadia, in the St. Lawrence Valley, and a bit later around the Great Lakes and as far as the Ohio Valley (a bit further south). The British were left with Hudson and James bays and later laid claim to Newfoundland, Acadia, and then the entire east coast of North America. We also know that the Dutch and Spanish occupied land in the south, and the Russians in the northwest, but none of these areas were in Canada per se.
Linguistically, Cartier's voyages helped establish the toponymy of Eastern Canada very early; remember that Jacques Cartier introduced the toponym Canada to Europe. Below is linguist Marthe Faribault's description of Cartier, who was strongly influenced by Amerindian names:
The establishment of trading posts and missions altered relations between Amerindians and Europeans (mostly the French), especially in eastern North America in the pays d'en haut or Great Lakes region. This led to a rapid increase in trading and a growing mixed population. Speaking both local languages and French, the Métis became valued intermediaries between the Europeans and natives. The arrival of missionaries led to cultural and linguistic interference. While these men wanted to transform native culture into something more similar to the European Christian model, they learned native languages instead of trying to eliminate them. Nonetheless, the missionaries' arrival kicked off a systematic attack on the traditional religion, beliefs, and customs of native communities, not to mention the spread of disease. This attack continued and intensified when both French and British colonial governments took charge of "Indian affairs."
French colonization began in earnest when Samuel de Champlain founded
Québec City in 1608. But successes were slim—by 1627 New France included
only a hundred-odd inhabitants split into two groups, one in Québec and
the other in Port Royal (in Acadia, now Nova Scotia). Canada was still a
tiny country in terms of population, although it included much of North
America. It was nothing compared to New Holland (Dutch New York), which
already boasted 10,000 inhabitants, and the British colonies with
80,000. And until 1660, France considered abandoning the shores of the
St. Lawrence.
Then, between 1627 and 1663, the population rose from 100 inhabitants to some 2,500. In 35 years, approximately 1,250 French immigrants moved to the little colony; the birthrate doubled the contingent. At the time, the French colony had settlements in the St. Lawrence Valley, Acadia, and Newfoundland; Louisiana was added in 1682. Until the Treaty of Utrecht (1763), New France included five territories, each with its own government: Canada, Acadia, Newfoundland, Hudson Bay, and Louisiana. And the western frontier of Canada and Louisiana opened onto the rest of the continent (see map of New France before 1713). In the late 18th century, the territory known as New France covered a large area extending from Baffin Island in the north to Mexico in the south, and including practically half of modern-day Canada and the United States. In itself, New France had made remarkable strides between 1663 and 1754: French Acadia had 10,000 inhabitants, Canada had 55,000, and faraway Louisiana had 4,000. In contrast, native populations had dropped dramatically due to fatal diseases transmitted by the Europeans: Of 300,000 natives, not even 200,000 remained.
New France was highly vulnerable compared to the British colonies, for while the French had space, the English had numbers. New France was constantly under threat of being swallowed up by England's territories in the north (Hudson Bay since 1713) and south (New England) with their total population of one million plus a workforce of 300,000 slaves.
In Louisiana, the French had established alliances with many nations, including the Choctaw, Creek, Natchez, Ouma, Nakota, and Lakota.
Having strengthened their alliances with the natives, the French controlled not only Acadia and the St. Lawrence Valley, but also the Ohio Valley, which stretched from Fort Detroit to Louisiana and the mouth of the Mississippi. The following table provides details on these alliances:
The table above shows that the French had formed alliances with some 23
nations and the English with 7, while 15 others remained neutral. Since
the English were more numerous, the support of Amerindian allies seemed
less important. On the whole, it may be said that the French forged
fairly cordial—although highly paternalistic—ties with native peoples
except the Iroquois, with whom they were often at war, at least until
the Great Peace of Montréal in 1701.
Historic writings also mention the "colonial genius" said to have characterized the French in North America. Apparently, their approach with the natives was more conciliatory and open than that of their European rivals. In France and England in North America, Boston historian Francis Parkman (1823–1893) clearly expresses this theory: "Hispanic civilization crushed the Indian; British civilization scorned and neglected him; French civilization adopted and took care of him." In reality, the French were no more virtuous than other European colonists, but French imperial policy was entirely based on alliances with the natives. For the governors of New France, the "Indian policy" took precedence over all else, for without their Indian allies, the New France colonies would have been empty shells destined for rapid extinction. And under pressure from dissatisfied Indians, the governors did not hesitate to dismiss the offending officers. Sir Raymond de Nérac, a young French officer who came to fight the Iroquois, wrote in his Mémoire sur les postes du Canada of the price of allying with the natives:
The influence of any Onontio in Canada depended on how readily he adapted to the rules of Indian chieftainship, or "savage ways." He had to inform his native allies of his plans and consult them regularly. His "orders" were actually "proposals": The governor (Onontio) proposed but did not dispose! And to maintain harmonious alliances, he had to "clear away the clouds" by giving ceremonial speeches and presents. The French and the natives developed a whole ritual for giving gifts and countergifts through a "good trade" policy that consisted of offering the natives more goods even if they brought fewer furs. The French had learned that the natives were receptive to rewards, so they lavished them with gifts. Remember that in addition to their military value, the Amerindians were an economic necessity, as they supplied the French in furs, whether beaver pelts in Canada or deer skins in Louisiana.
Christianized Iroquois living in Akwesasne, Kahnawake, Kanesatake, and Oswegatchie also joined the French in fighting the British forces positioned along the Atlantic coast. In 1667, the Iroquois converted by the French Jesuits left the Iroquois Confederation to settle along the St. Lawrence River near Montréal. In 1690, the Mohawk, Onondaga, and Seneca sided with the British against the French, but the Oneida and Cayuga refused to follow suit. In 1710, four Iroquois chiefs (nicknamed the "four Indian kings" by the British) visited Queen Anne of England, to whom they pledged their allegiance.
It is believed that the Beothuk settled on the island of Newfoundland
around 200 A.D. Before the European invasion, it is estimated that about
2,000 lived along the entire island coast except the south portion of
Avalon Peninsula. The natives quickly came to mistrust the Europeans,
whether Spanish, Basque, French, or English.
The French government founded a royal colony in Plaisance, Newfoundland in 1662. Many small French villages had long dotted the entire west coast, the north coast to Cape Bonavista, and south to the tiny archipelago of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Initially cordial, French-Beothuk relations began deteriorating in 1613 when a French fisherman killed a Beothuk attempting to rob him and the Beothuk rose up and killed 37 French fisherman in retaliation. The French then encouraged their Micmac allies to hunt down the Beothuk, who took refuge inland.
Only Avalon Peninsula to the east had a good number of English attracted by the exceptionally abundant fish. A 1680 census shows that 1,700 people lived on the English coast from Bonavista to Trepassey. But at the height of French inhabitation on the island—between 1678 and 1688—some 20,000 French took to the water during fishing season. During that time, England set up its capital city in St. John's (Avalon Peninsula).
This entire lot settled in the coastal regions where the Beothuk had originally lived, leading the natives to retreat inland, where resources were scarcer. Their relations with European merchants and fisherman were generally somewhat hostile. Yet French and English fishermen—too busy with their commercial pursuits to make war—cohabitated peacefully for some time until the French military positioned at Plaisance began to harass English villages with the help of their Micmac allies, even destroying the little town of St. John's. To summarize the situation, one could say that the Europeans completely drove the natives from the island.
But French Acadia soon spurred British distrust. By 1613, English
settlers from Virginia destroyed French settlements in the Port Royal
area. In 1621, England laid claim to Acadia, which it renamed Nova
Scotia, but the Treaty of Saint-Germain (1632) recognized French
sovereignty in Acadia. However, the English threat remained
ever-present, as Acadia remained under French rule for 32 years, versus
31 years under the English, until the Treaty of Breda restored the
territory to France in 1667. Militarily, the Amerindians were a major
defence for the French against the British. This is the main reason that
formal contact between the French and the Amerindians was more
developed than anywhere else in New France (Canada, Acadia, and
Louisiana).
Originally, Acadia was inhabited by two large Algonquin family tribes: the Micmac (also called the Sourquois by the French) and the Malecite (also called the Etchemin). The Malecite occupied the south and west of today's New Brunswick and part of New England (Maine), while the Micmac occupied the rest of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Île Saint-Jean (Prince Edward Island). While the Amerindian population probably varied between 5,000 and 8,000, a Jesuit missionary estimated the Micmac population at approximately 3,500 in 1611.
In 1607, a good part of the little French colony returned to France, but some French decided to stay in Acadia. Some took refuge with the Micmac. Many Acadians followed suit, often partially adopting Amerindian culture. Remember that Acadia spent equal time in English (31 years) and French (32 years) hands. After certain British victories, most Acadians took refuge with their Micmac or Malecite allies, which obviously led to cohabitation and intermarriage. Unlike in Canada (St. Lawrence Valley), mixed marriages occurred not only with coureurs des bois (woodsmen and fur traders), but also with militiamen and even certain members of the French nobility, including Charles de Menou d'Aulney and Charles de Saint-Étienne de La Tour, two competing governors who waged war on each other.
One of the best-known cases of assimilation to native culture involves Baron Jean-Vincent d'Abbadie de Saint-Castin, a French soldier who lived with the Micmac of Maine. He married Pidianske (Marie-Malthilde in French), the daughter of Micmac chief Madokawando. He embraced Amerindian culture to the point of speaking Micmac and becoming tribal chief. Close French-Amerindian relations were apparently approved by France, which considered "Christian Amerindians" as "French citizens." There was much intermingling between the French and Amerindians in Acadia, which was not the case in the St. Lawrence Valley. Some Micmac became Catholic and took French first names, including a number of tribal and band chiefs. In fact, Catholic priests and missionaries enjoyed great influence over both Acadians and Amerindians. Protestant pastors held similar sway over other Amerindians, leading some to adopt French culture while others were Anglicized and Anglicanized. But the Micmac and Malecite were gradually forced inland as French and English colonists monopolized the coastal areas.
Still today, Acadia has many toponyms of Micmac or Malecite origin. One might even say that New Brunswick is the Atlantic province with the most native names for rivers, towns, and other places. Amerindian toponyms generally describe a geographic feature and are never derived from a person's name as in French and English: Cobscook ("boiling tides"), Quispamsis ("little lake"), Aukpaque ("where the tide stops rising"), Wolastook ("beautiful river"), Mactaquac ("where the river is red"), Gaspé ("land's end"), Shubenacadie ("where wild potatoes grow"), Restigouche ("river with a pleasant current"), Wagmatcook ("where the water is clean"), etc.
In sum, relations between Acadians and the Micmac and Malecite were very cordial, leading to a certain number of lasting unions.
Instead, they were forced to "go to the school of Savages" and learn native languages. For example, missionary Jean de Brébeuf spoke fluent Huron barely three and a half years after his arrival. Interpreters who had learned Amerindian languages were well respected and highly popular with New France merchants and companies. At the time, many young Frenchmen chose to live with Amerindians to become interpreters, a well-paid job with certain rewards and many privileges.
According to Mother Marie de l'Incarnation: "It is easier to make a Savage of a Frenchman than a Frenchman of a Savage." Thus, the French did not impose their language on the natives because they were unable to, as most continued to live apart from Europeans and their language. With some exceptions, the colonizers spoke the language of the colonized. From the start of colonization, interpreters had to be trained and friendships built with the Indians. Many officers spoke one or several Indian languages. Most governors appreciated having bilingual or multilingual officers at their sides, as they mistrusted the coureurs des bois, accusing them of misrendering the "harangues" of Indian chiefs. For example, Charles Le Moyne, Lord and Baron of Longueuil, was the personal interpreter of Governor Frontenac in Huron and Iroquois.
Contrary to popular belief, there were very few marriages between the Amerindians and the French at the start of the colony. Only four such unions were reported up to 1665. Records compiled between 1621 and 1765 indicate some 78 marriages between male natives and Frenchwomen, 45 between Frenchmen and female natives, and 540 between two natives, out of more than 44,500 total marriages. There is no way to count the marriages of whites (e.g., coureurs des bois) contracted by Amerindians (according to the "custom of the land") because there is generally no official record of these often temporary unions. Historians believe that especially at the start of the colony, the surplus of single men must have spread a fair number of white genes among the natives, while the white colony was not enriched with much "Indian blood."
We also know that France's Amerindian allies took many Anglo-American prisoners and married them to inhabitants of their own villages. It is believed that 500 such prisoners remained in Canada, some integrating with the French colonists; generally, they were naturalized French, educated in the Catholic faith, and took a French name. According to mission records, e.g., from Québec, Montréal, and Tadoussac, the natives were baptized with Amerindian names, although European first names gradually replaced them. In contrast, European first names seem to have quickly replaced native names in Acadia.
In the St. Lawrence Valley, the French were quite the exception in forming alliances with the First Nations. The French were never powerful enough to take the same approach as the Spanish and Portuguese, who built their empires on conquest, subjugation, and servitude, or the Americans, who massacred the natives to take their land. The French instead lavished the natives with gifts to gain their cooperation in the fur trade and, after 1680, their military support. Thus it was that the French practised a more subtle version of European colonialism. Like other Europeans, the French did not consider the natives as equal partners, but as unruly subordinates in need of proper handling lest they forget their "duties." And even though the natives lived in the very heart of the French king's Canadian colony, they never recognized his sovereignty, retaining their independence throughout the French regime.
On the whole, alliances with the French—although peaceful—harmed the natives, who suffered from diseases and epidemics that decimated their population. Half the Huron were wiped out by epidemics in the first decades of New France.
Most coureurs des bois learned Amerindian languages but also taught the natives basic French, such that the vehicular language between Europeans and Amerindians quickly became French in most of North America. The pays d'en haut thus provided a pool of interpreters sought throughout the continent, including in Louisiana and the New England colonies. In sum, Canada's coureurs des bois were effective in spreading French among the natives.
This borrowing from Amerindian languages continued throughout the 18th century but remained relatively modest, never exceeding twenty-odd words. Linguistic borrowing increased slightly in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A certain number of words borrowed from Amerindian languages are now part of "Canadian French," e.g., achigan, atoca, babiche, carcajou, caribou, maskinongé, ouaouaron, and poulamon.
Note also that Amerindianisms were probably used far more commonly before the 20th century, especially by the coureurs des bois and voyageurs. Contact between the natives and the French in the St. Lawrence Valley declined considerably after the 17th century, albeit without stopping completely. Consequently, borrowings from Amerindian languages gradually declined. Fur traders and explorers continued to visit the Amerindians faithfully until the 20th century, whereas farmers broke ties with the natives sooner, leading to an inevitable decline in borrowed words. Still, a number of words related to fauna (achigan, caribou, maskinongé, wapiti) and flora (pécan) remained in French.
In all, the number of Amerindian words that passed into standard French does not exceed 30. Le Robert dictionary lists the following words: achigan, algonkin, cacaoui, caribou, iroquois, manitou, maskinongé, mocassin, opossum, pacane, pécan, pembina, pemmican, plaquemine, québécois, sconse, skunks, squaw, tabagie, tobaggan, tomahawk, totem, wapiti, wigwam. And most of these words entered into standard French by way of American English.
While Amerindian and especially Algonquin languages gave few words to Canadian French (anorak, manitou, mocassin, squaw, tobaggan, tomahawk, totem, wigwam) and Canadian English (anorak, canoe, totem, sachem, moccasin, papoose, etc.) besides those that reached these languages via standard French or American English—except certain words related to fauna (achigan, caribou, maskinongé, wapiti) and flora (pécan)—native languages made a significant contribution to Canada's original toponymy which, as we know, includes Amerindian, French, and English words.
Borrowings from Amerindian languages—both common words and place names—generally come from Algonquin languages and fall under the same semantic fields (fauna, flora, and local customs). Borrowings from Amerindian toponymy increased in later centuries to the point of forming a large portion of the place names not only in Québec, Ontario, and Acadia, but also all Western provinces. Thousands of place names have Amerindian roots, from Canada, Manitoba, Nunavut, Ontario, Québec, Saskatchewan, etc., to many cities (Ottawa, Toronto, Québec, Shediac, Shippagan, Rimouski, Kelowna, Iqaluit, Saskatoon, Tadoussac, etc.), lakes, and rivers (Athabasca, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Manicouagan, Mistassini, Ontario, Erie, Nipissing, Manigotagan, etc.). All these names reflect Canada's native heritage and greatly contribute to its unique toponymy. However, by the end of the French regime in New France, Amerindians represented no more than 10% of the population of the colony (today's Québec). A number of Amerindian communities that settled near urban centres began speaking French.
The British set their sights on areas north of New England starting in 1610. But the English emigrants had little interest in the colony of Newfoundland, especially since they had to share it with the French. The British population remained weak and fragile for decades. Given that fishing was possible only four to five months a year, investors eventually pulled out. Like the French, the English easily forced the Beothuk inland.
In 1609, British King James I recruited Henry Hudson to explore the Arctic seas. British presence in these regions started in Hudson and James bays. Hudson made expeditions via the arctic seas in search of the famous northeast passage. In 1609, he discovered the river later named after him linking the New York region to Lake Champlain and the St. Lawrence Valley. He disappeared without a trace in 1611, abandoned by his crew on icy Hudson Bay. The toponymy preserves the memory of this explorer with English names such as Hudson, Frobisher, Southampton, Coats, Mansel, Belcher, James, etc. English contact with Amerindians and the Inuit was highly sporadic.
The linguistic influence of English was weak throughout the 17th century in Canada, except for place names adopted in the Hudson Bay region (Hudson, Frobisher, Southampton, Coats, Mansel, Belcher, James, etc.), Newfoundland (St. John's, Cupids, Goose Bay, Corner Brook, etc.), and Acadia (Campbellton, Bathurst, Moncton, Fredericton, Yarmouth, Amherst, etc.). This would change dramatically in the 18th century.
The first Iroquois war lasted nearly a century and ended with the Great Peace of Montréal in 1701. This treaty put an end to both a sixteen-year war and the English-Iroquois coalition. The Iroquois declared at that time that they "would accept neither the English tomahawk nor the French axe." The second conflict was the Seven Years' War (often called the French and Indian War), which ended only with the final defeat of New France in 1760. The last colonial war was fought in 1812–1814 following the U.S. War of Independence (or American Revolution).
Throughout the British-French rivalry, the natives were sometimes shrewd enough to threaten the French with trading with the British if they did not get what they wanted. Obviously, the British and French encouraged their native allies to join them in fighting their adversaries, or to remain neutral. Both militarily and commercially, the natives acquiesced to these requests only when it served their own interests, while pitting the British and French against each other to their advantage. But the end of the colonial conflicts marked the end of what is now called the "active partnership" between natives and Europeans.
Today's New Brunswick became a "disputed land" between the British and
French, as England maintained under Section 12 of the Treaty of Utrecht
that this territory was part of "Acadia, according to its former
boundaries." Starting at that time, the British dealt with native
populations in the conquered lands, especially in "English Acadia."
Certain Amerindian alliances changed, but the French managed to retain
the loyalty of the Micmac in a large portion of English Acadia—then Nova
Scotia.
However, the British were suspicious of the good relations between Acadians and Amerindians. Colonial authorities prohibited interaction between Acadians and the Micmac, and accused the Acadians of encouraging the Micmac to attack British colonists. In addition, the British, who believed that their taking of Acadia gave them authority over the local natives, interpreted French-Indian treaties to their advantage. But the natives had never ceded their land to the French and wanted to retain it under the English regime.
During the French-British conflict, France's Amerindian allies in the St. Lawrence Valley, Great Lakes region, and Ohio Valley had previous agreements with the Grand Onontio ("father" in Huron), the governor of New France and "war chief" of the French. Under these agreements, the natives were paid to transport goods and received a monthly payment for supplying troops with game. But it was even more profitable for them to bring in scalps and capture English prisoners: They received up to 33 pounds for an "English scalp" and 120 to 140 pounds for an "English prisoner." A black man, for example, was worth 600 to 1,500 pounds since he was considered "permanent property." And for participating in organized raids in the southern British colonies, the natives were allowed to help themselves to the "spoils" of pillaged sites.
The French also guaranteed the Amerindians compensation for land used to build forts, even paying them toll charges. Similar agreements were signed between the British and their Amerindian allies (including for "French scalps"), but the natives generally found that the British gave them better goods and paid higher prices on furs in trade negotiations.
During this initial period of steadier contact with the natives, linguistic problems were negligible since the whites—French and English alike—did not and could not stifle the native peoples nor their languages. French and Canadian explorers and missionaries learned Amerindian languages to communicate with native peoples. Obviously, natives and whites had to exchange and borrow words from each other. This changed significantly after the French defeat, to the detriment of the Amerindians.
Later contact in Eastern Canada was very short-lived. In 1497, Giovanni Caboto (called John Cabot in English and Jean Cabot in French), an Italian explorer in the pay of England, travelled to Newfoundland and later Cape Breton (now in Nova Scotia), believing he had discovered the Indies. As Christopher Columbus had done before him on arriving in the Caribbean in 1492, Cabot called the people he met Indians. Giovanni Caboto took possession of the terra nova he called St. John's (in honour of the saint of the day) on behalf of King Henry VII of England. Some historians consider him the first discoverer of Canada, but no settlement was established.
In 1524, Giovanni da Verrazano made an exploratory voyage to North America for the king of France. After reaching North Carolina, he sailed up the coast to the mouth of the Hudson River, then to Cape Breton Island. Because of the beautiful trees and landscapes he admired in what is now Maryland and Virginia, Verrazzano supposedly called Eastern Canada Arcadia (Acadia). But some historians instead believe that Acadia comes from the Micmac word Algatig meaning "campsite," while others consider it a variant of the Malecite word Quoddy meaning "fertile place." Later, in 1603, Samuel de Champlain revived the word Arcadia, writing it alternately as Arcadie or Acadie. In any case, Verrazano knew he was in neither Asia nor Africa, but on another unknown continent.
A few decades later, between 1576 and 1578, Martin Frobisher made three expeditions to the Canadian Arctic via Labrador. He also believed he had found the legendary Northwest Passage and thought he had stumbled upon gold deposits on Baffin Island. However, the further explorers penetrated into the icy northern expanses, the fewer riches they discovered. Contacts with the Inuit were highly sporadic. In 1583, Sir Humphrey Gilbert took possession of the Island of Newfoundland on behalf of England in order to settle the area, but he also found many Spanish, Portuguese, and French fishing boats. On his return, his ship, the Squirrel, sank in a storm and Gilbert and his entire crew perished, leaving the English settlers they had brought to the island to their own fate. According to historians, the colonists made life difficult for the Beothuk, driving them inland.
Start of the European Invasion
Contact became more frequent toward the late 16th century when Europeans (Scandinavians, Bretons, Basques, Normans, etc.) began frequenting the North Atlantic fishing grounds. The natives generally tolerated foreign fisherman, as long as they focused on trade and did not attempt to settle on their land. During this same period, many French (Breton, Basque, and Norman), Spanish, and Portuguese come every spring to fish off Newfoundland, returning in autumn with their salted cod cargo. The island and southern Labrador where the Basque hunted whale consisted only of fishing stands, but that had been there long before Jacques Cartier officially took possession of these territories on behalf of the king of France. The real European invasion is estimated to have begun in the early 17th century when some 1,000 ships arrived each year for fishing and fur trading in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Atlantic coast. The Newfoundland region became a sort of "European annex" for fishermen.Among the Europeans, however, the French and British had the most contact with native Canadians. At first, the French were concentrated on the island of Newfoundland, in Acadia, in the St. Lawrence Valley, and a bit later around the Great Lakes and as far as the Ohio Valley (a bit further south). The British were left with Hudson and James bays and later laid claim to Newfoundland, Acadia, and then the entire east coast of North America. We also know that the Dutch and Spanish occupied land in the south, and the Russians in the northwest, but none of these areas were in Canada per se.
Trading Posts and Missions
Chosen by King François I of France to lead an expedition in search of "gold and other riches" as well as a western passage to Asia, explorer Jacques Cartier set sail from Saint-Malo with two ships and 61 men in April 1534. After twenty days at sea, he caught sight of the island of Newfoundland, passed through the Strait of Belle-Isle between Newfoundland and Labrador, and travelled along the island's western coast, making the entire trip around the Gulf of St. Lawrence. During this initial voyage, he arrived in sight of Prince Edward Island and the coast of New Brunswick, sailed into what he named "Chaleur Bay," and landed on the Gaspé Peninsula, where he erected a cross on July 24, 1534, with the inscription "Long live the King of France." But this upset the natives, and Chief Donnacona (whom Cartier called "captain") told Cartier so. Cartier's account gives some idea of the natives' reaction to the cross erected in Gaspé:We had returned to our ships when the captain came wearing an old black bear skin in a boat with three of his sons and his brother [...] and held forth at us, pointing at said cross and making a cross with his two fingers, and then pointing to the ground all around us as if he wanted to say that all the land was his and we should not have erected said cross without his permission.Initial contact with the natives remained tentative, although Cartier obtained permission to bring two young Indians (Domagoya and Taignoagny) back with him. On his second trip to Canada (1535–1536), Jacques Cartier discovered many Amerindian fishing and farming villages dotting the north shore of the St. Lawrence, from the gulf to Hochelaga (Montréal) via Stadacona (City of Québec). The Micmac and Iroquois were suspicious of this foreign explorer seeking a route to Asian gold, silver, and copper reserves.
Linguistically, Cartier's voyages helped establish the toponymy of Eastern Canada very early; remember that Jacques Cartier introduced the toponym Canada to Europe. Below is linguist Marthe Faribault's description of Cartier, who was strongly influenced by Amerindian names:
In his second voyage (1535–1536), Jacques Cartier travelled up the St. Lawrence for the first time. He met Iroquois at Stadacona ("large cliff" in their language, now Québec City) and named the area the "Kingdom of Canada" from the Iroquois word kanata, meaning "village," while the Montréal area was named the "Kingdom of Hochelaga."Most of the Iroquois villages Cartier mentioned in 1536 no longer existed in 1608 when Samuel de Champlain founded Québec City. We know the natives had a strong warrior tradition. Their goal was rarely to gain land but generally to take prisoners. On his arrival in Canada, Champlain was quickly forced to take a stand in support of the Algonquin in their wars against the Iroquois. The Iroquois managed to virtually decimate the Huron, France's most loyal fur trading partners. The Inuit, Montagnais (Innu), Naskapi, Micmac, and Malecite also established lasting ties with the French, who had continuing difficulty maintaining peaceful relations with the Iroquois nations, at least until the Great Peace of Montréal in 1701.
In the late 16th century, the Laurentian Iroquois withdrew from the St. Lawrence Valley. The Maritime Micmac, who had long travelled there over a portage road along the Restigouche, Matapédia, and Matane rivers or further south via the Etchemin and Chaudière river basins, became more present in the valley. Thus, toponyms from the Micmac language were adopted by the French in the late 16th and early 17th century. Gaspé, from the Micmac word gespeg meaning "extremity," replaced the Iroquois toponym Honguedo used by Cartier. Similarly, Québec—from the Micmac word gepèg meaning "strait"—replaced the Iroquois name Stadacona. Anticosti, from the Micmac word natigosteg ("headland") replaced the toponym Île de l'Assomption given by Cartier. Last, Tadoussac—from the Micmac world giatosog meaning "between the rocks"—was named by the French around 1600.
The establishment of trading posts and missions altered relations between Amerindians and Europeans (mostly the French), especially in eastern North America in the pays d'en haut or Great Lakes region. This led to a rapid increase in trading and a growing mixed population. Speaking both local languages and French, the Métis became valued intermediaries between the Europeans and natives. The arrival of missionaries led to cultural and linguistic interference. While these men wanted to transform native culture into something more similar to the European Christian model, they learned native languages instead of trying to eliminate them. Nonetheless, the missionaries' arrival kicked off a systematic attack on the traditional religion, beliefs, and customs of native communities, not to mention the spread of disease. This attack continued and intensified when both French and British colonial governments took charge of "Indian affairs."
French Influence
French colonization began in earnest when Samuel de Champlain founded
Québec City in 1608. But successes were slim—by 1627 New France included
only a hundred-odd inhabitants split into two groups, one in Québec and
the other in Port Royal (in Acadia, now Nova Scotia). Canada was still a
tiny country in terms of population, although it included much of North
America. It was nothing compared to New Holland (Dutch New York), which
already boasted 10,000 inhabitants, and the British colonies with
80,000. And until 1660, France considered abandoning the shores of the
St. Lawrence.Then, between 1627 and 1663, the population rose from 100 inhabitants to some 2,500. In 35 years, approximately 1,250 French immigrants moved to the little colony; the birthrate doubled the contingent. At the time, the French colony had settlements in the St. Lawrence Valley, Acadia, and Newfoundland; Louisiana was added in 1682. Until the Treaty of Utrecht (1763), New France included five territories, each with its own government: Canada, Acadia, Newfoundland, Hudson Bay, and Louisiana. And the western frontier of Canada and Louisiana opened onto the rest of the continent (see map of New France before 1713). In the late 18th century, the territory known as New France covered a large area extending from Baffin Island in the north to Mexico in the south, and including practically half of modern-day Canada and the United States. In itself, New France had made remarkable strides between 1663 and 1754: French Acadia had 10,000 inhabitants, Canada had 55,000, and faraway Louisiana had 4,000. In contrast, native populations had dropped dramatically due to fatal diseases transmitted by the Europeans: Of 300,000 natives, not even 200,000 remained.
New France was highly vulnerable compared to the British colonies, for while the French had space, the English had numbers. New France was constantly under threat of being swallowed up by England's territories in the north (Hudson Bay since 1713) and south (New England) with their total population of one million plus a workforce of 300,000 slaves.
Alliances with the Natives
To maintain its North American empire, France depended on its alliances with the natives. France had an amazing number of Amerindian allies including almost all the Algonquin in Canada, Acadia, and south of the Great Lakes, i.e., the Abenaki, Micmac, Montagnais, Malecite, Algonquin, Huron, Ottawa, Chippewa (Ojibwa), Cree, Erie, Blackfoot, Illinois, Miami, Potawatomi, and others.In Louisiana, the French had established alliances with many nations, including the Choctaw, Creek, Natchez, Ouma, Nakota, and Lakota.
Having strengthened their alliances with the natives, the French controlled not only Acadia and the St. Lawrence Valley, but also the Ohio Valley, which stretched from Fort Detroit to Louisiana and the mouth of the Mississippi. The following table provides details on these alliances:
Ethnic Group |
French Name |
English Name |
17th Century Location |
Alliance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algonquin | Abénaqui | Abenaki | Acadia | French |
| Béothuk | Beothuk | Newfoundland | - | |
| Micmac | Micmac | Québec | French | |
| Innu (Montagnais) | Idem | Québec | French | |
| Algonquin | Algonquin | Québec | French | |
| Outaouais, Outaouac | Ottawa | Québec, Ontario, Ohio | French | |
| Cri | Cree | Ontario | French | |
| Chien | Cheyenne | Nebraska | French | |
| Illinois, Illiniouk | Illiniwek | Illinois | French | |
| Pied-Noir | Black Foot | Alberta, Montana | French | |
| Poutéouatami | Potawatomi | Ohio, Indiana | French | |
| Saulteur, Odjibouek | Ojibwa | Minnesota, Michigan | French | |
| Renard | Fox | Wisconsin | - | |
| Sac | Sauk | Wisconsin | - | |
| Puan | Winnebago | Wisconsin | - | |
| Ménomini | Menominee | Wisconsin | - | |
| Miami | Miami | Illinois | French | |
| Chouanon | Shawnee | Ohio, Pennsylvania | French | |
| Iroquois | Huron, Pétun, Gens du Pétun | Huron, Wyandot, Tionnontati | Ontario, Québec, Ohio | French |
| Tuscarorin (Six Nation) | Tuscarora | Carolinas | - | |
| Chat ou Érié | Eries | Ohio | - | |
| Susquéhannock | Susquehannock | Pennsylvania | - | |
| Agnier (Cinq Nations) | Mohawk | Québec | English | |
| Onontagué (Cinq Nations) | Onondaga | New York | English | |
| Sénéca (Cinq Nations) | Seneca | Pennsylvania | French | |
| Muskogee | Chacta | Choctaw | Mississippi | French |
| Chicacha,Têtes-Plates | Chickasaw | Mississippi, Alabama | English | |
| Cric | Creek | Carolinas | English | |
| Natchez | Natchez | Mississippi, Louisiane | - | |
| Bayogoula | Bayogoula | Louisiana | French | |
| Ouma | Ouma | Louisiana | French | |
| Alibamou | Alabama | Alabama | English | |
| Chéraqui | Cherokee | Carolinas | English | |
| Quinipissa | Quinipissa | Louisiana | French | |
| Yamassi | Yamasee | Florida | English | |
| Sioux | Quipa | Quapaw | Arkansas | French |
| Ponca | Ponca | Missouri | French | |
| Osage | Osage | Missouri | - | |
| Kansas | Kansas | Missouri, Kansas | - | |
| Dakota | Dakota | Minnesota, Dakotas | - | |
| Lakota | Lakota | Saskatchewan, Montana | - | |
| Nakota | Nakota | Iowa | - | |
| Pied-Noir | Black Feet | Sasketchewan | - | |
| Iowa | Ayohouais | Iowa | Iowa | French |
Historic writings also mention the "colonial genius" said to have characterized the French in North America. Apparently, their approach with the natives was more conciliatory and open than that of their European rivals. In France and England in North America, Boston historian Francis Parkman (1823–1893) clearly expresses this theory: "Hispanic civilization crushed the Indian; British civilization scorned and neglected him; French civilization adopted and took care of him." In reality, the French were no more virtuous than other European colonists, but French imperial policy was entirely based on alliances with the natives. For the governors of New France, the "Indian policy" took precedence over all else, for without their Indian allies, the New France colonies would have been empty shells destined for rapid extinction. And under pressure from dissatisfied Indians, the governors did not hesitate to dismiss the offending officers. Sir Raymond de Nérac, a young French officer who came to fight the Iroquois, wrote in his Mémoire sur les postes du Canada of the price of allying with the natives:
The politics and consideration we must have for the Savages to keep them loyal are incredible. [...] That is why, to serve effectively, a commander must turn full attention to earning the trust of the Savages in his area. To do so, he must be friendly, he must seem to empathize with them, he must be generous without extravagance, he must always give them something.In other words, the policy of French-Indian alliances required a great deal of skill on the part of the French and no doubt involved a certain degree of frustration. Louis-Antoine de Bougainville, an aide-de-camp to Montcalm, regretted this "obligation of being slaves to these Savages," of giving in to "all their whims," of tolerating their "insolence," etc. In reality, the natives were defending their own interests while also accommodating the Europeans. In 1681, Louis XIV wrote the following to Intendant Jacques Duchesneau (1675-1682):
It is also very important to treat the Savages with [...] gentleness, to prevent the governors from requiring any present from them, to insist that the judges severely punish inhabitants who commit any violence against them. It is in this manner that we will succeed in taming them.This directive clearly reflects France's paternalistic attitude toward the natives. Assimilating them would have been ideal, but accommodating them seemed the wisest approach since their support was essential. Compromises went so far that colonial authorities punished French colonists who committed crimes against the natives, while a native who killed a French person risked only a simple reprimand. In New England, an Indian who killed an English colonist was put to death, while a colonist was never punished for killing an Indian. This shows how dependent the French were on their military alliances with the natives in order to remain in New France.
The Political Vocabulary of Alliances
The French and the Canadians had a whole political vocabulary for their alliances. France's native allies were the "children" of the governor and king of France. This "father/child" metaphor was the basis for French-Indian relations in North America. Amerindians in Canada called the governor Onontio ("great mountain"). This term corresponded to the Huron name of first governor, Charles Jacques du Huault de Montmagny (1636–1648), or "Mons Magnus." It was passed down as the official name for all governors of Canada. When a governor died or was replaced, ambassadors from the different nations observed the same ritual: they travelled solemnly to Montréal to meet the new Onontio. The king of France, who lived across the "great lake" (Atlantic Ocean), was the Grand Onontio or Onontio Goa ("highest mountain on earth"). Indian chiefs frequently visited the French court to strengthen French-Indian alliances. The children of Onontio were called Savage allies, allied nations, or Savage nations. They were all under the "protection" of the king of France, who was recognized as the "lord of the land," but were not subject to his laws. Since they were not subjects of the king of France, they were exempt from French justice, as well as seigniorial rent and enrolment in the militia. Over time, the French had to learn to negotiate with the Amerindian nations in the same way as with other European powers, and welcomed the native chiefs as "ambassadors." However, if the French had had the time, they would very much have liked to make the Indians into "French subjects" under French law with a place in the Empire.The influence of any Onontio in Canada depended on how readily he adapted to the rules of Indian chieftainship, or "savage ways." He had to inform his native allies of his plans and consult them regularly. His "orders" were actually "proposals": The governor (Onontio) proposed but did not dispose! And to maintain harmonious alliances, he had to "clear away the clouds" by giving ceremonial speeches and presents. The French and the natives developed a whole ritual for giving gifts and countergifts through a "good trade" policy that consisted of offering the natives more goods even if they brought fewer furs. The French had learned that the natives were receptive to rewards, so they lavished them with gifts. Remember that in addition to their military value, the Amerindians were an economic necessity, as they supplied the French in furs, whether beaver pelts in Canada or deer skins in Louisiana.
The Drawbacks of Alliances
But alliances with the French also led to the decline of the natives. Samuel de Champlain spent 1615–1616 in the pays d'en haut or Great Lakes region to promote fur trading as well as missions among the Amerindians, first by the Recollets (1615) and later by the Jesuits (1626) and Sulpicians (1669). Although the missionaries learned the native languages, they tried to make the natives French by converting them to the Christian faith, but mostly only succeeded in transmitting European diseases against which the poor natives had no resistance. For example, the Huron slowly came to understand that, contrary to the missionaries' warnings, God's wrath was not crashing down on them to punish them for their impiety, but the "black robes" themselves were the main cause of the curse on their land. In the 1630s, smallpox and measles decimated the Huron population, killing thousands. By the 1640s, the population had shrunk by half. Despite the efforts of missionaries determined to treat them, many allied tribes suffered the same fate.Christianized Iroquois living in Akwesasne, Kahnawake, Kanesatake, and Oswegatchie also joined the French in fighting the British forces positioned along the Atlantic coast. In 1667, the Iroquois converted by the French Jesuits left the Iroquois Confederation to settle along the St. Lawrence River near Montréal. In 1690, the Mohawk, Onondaga, and Seneca sided with the British against the French, but the Oneida and Cayuga refused to follow suit. In 1710, four Iroquois chiefs (nicknamed the "four Indian kings" by the British) visited Queen Anne of England, to whom they pledged their allegiance.
The Colony of Newfoundland
It is believed that the Beothuk settled on the island of Newfoundland
around 200 A.D. Before the European invasion, it is estimated that about
2,000 lived along the entire island coast except the south portion of
Avalon Peninsula. The natives quickly came to mistrust the Europeans,
whether Spanish, Basque, French, or English.The French government founded a royal colony in Plaisance, Newfoundland in 1662. Many small French villages had long dotted the entire west coast, the north coast to Cape Bonavista, and south to the tiny archipelago of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Initially cordial, French-Beothuk relations began deteriorating in 1613 when a French fisherman killed a Beothuk attempting to rob him and the Beothuk rose up and killed 37 French fisherman in retaliation. The French then encouraged their Micmac allies to hunt down the Beothuk, who took refuge inland.
Only Avalon Peninsula to the east had a good number of English attracted by the exceptionally abundant fish. A 1680 census shows that 1,700 people lived on the English coast from Bonavista to Trepassey. But at the height of French inhabitation on the island—between 1678 and 1688—some 20,000 French took to the water during fishing season. During that time, England set up its capital city in St. John's (Avalon Peninsula).
This entire lot settled in the coastal regions where the Beothuk had originally lived, leading the natives to retreat inland, where resources were scarcer. Their relations with European merchants and fisherman were generally somewhat hostile. Yet French and English fishermen—too busy with their commercial pursuits to make war—cohabitated peacefully for some time until the French military positioned at Plaisance began to harass English villages with the help of their Micmac allies, even destroying the little town of St. John's. To summarize the situation, one could say that the Europeans completely drove the natives from the island.
Acadia
Acadia was founded in 1604, four years before Québec City, with its capital of Port Royal on the Annapolis Basin. French Acadia more or less corresponded to today's province of Nova Scotia. In 1631, the region was integrated into New France as an independent colony under the name Acadie. At its greatest extension, Acadia covered Gaspé (Québec), Chaleur Bay, current New Brunswick and part of Maine, Île Saint-Jean (Prince Edward Island), Nova Scotia, and Île Royale (Cape Breton Island). In the early 18th century, most of the French immigrants to Acadia lived along the Nova Scotia coast (see map below).
But French Acadia soon spurred British distrust. By 1613, English
settlers from Virginia destroyed French settlements in the Port Royal
area. In 1621, England laid claim to Acadia, which it renamed Nova
Scotia, but the Treaty of Saint-Germain (1632) recognized French
sovereignty in Acadia. However, the English threat remained
ever-present, as Acadia remained under French rule for 32 years, versus
31 years under the English, until the Treaty of Breda restored the
territory to France in 1667. Militarily, the Amerindians were a major
defence for the French against the British. This is the main reason that
formal contact between the French and the Amerindians was more
developed than anywhere else in New France (Canada, Acadia, and
Louisiana).Originally, Acadia was inhabited by two large Algonquin family tribes: the Micmac (also called the Sourquois by the French) and the Malecite (also called the Etchemin). The Malecite occupied the south and west of today's New Brunswick and part of New England (Maine), while the Micmac occupied the rest of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Île Saint-Jean (Prince Edward Island). While the Amerindian population probably varied between 5,000 and 8,000, a Jesuit missionary estimated the Micmac population at approximately 3,500 in 1611.
In 1607, a good part of the little French colony returned to France, but some French decided to stay in Acadia. Some took refuge with the Micmac. Many Acadians followed suit, often partially adopting Amerindian culture. Remember that Acadia spent equal time in English (31 years) and French (32 years) hands. After certain British victories, most Acadians took refuge with their Micmac or Malecite allies, which obviously led to cohabitation and intermarriage. Unlike in Canada (St. Lawrence Valley), mixed marriages occurred not only with coureurs des bois (woodsmen and fur traders), but also with militiamen and even certain members of the French nobility, including Charles de Menou d'Aulney and Charles de Saint-Étienne de La Tour, two competing governors who waged war on each other.
One of the best-known cases of assimilation to native culture involves Baron Jean-Vincent d'Abbadie de Saint-Castin, a French soldier who lived with the Micmac of Maine. He married Pidianske (Marie-Malthilde in French), the daughter of Micmac chief Madokawando. He embraced Amerindian culture to the point of speaking Micmac and becoming tribal chief. Close French-Amerindian relations were apparently approved by France, which considered "Christian Amerindians" as "French citizens." There was much intermingling between the French and Amerindians in Acadia, which was not the case in the St. Lawrence Valley. Some Micmac became Catholic and took French first names, including a number of tribal and band chiefs. In fact, Catholic priests and missionaries enjoyed great influence over both Acadians and Amerindians. Protestant pastors held similar sway over other Amerindians, leading some to adopt French culture while others were Anglicized and Anglicanized. But the Micmac and Malecite were gradually forced inland as French and English colonists monopolized the coastal areas.
Still today, Acadia has many toponyms of Micmac or Malecite origin. One might even say that New Brunswick is the Atlantic province with the most native names for rivers, towns, and other places. Amerindian toponyms generally describe a geographic feature and are never derived from a person's name as in French and English: Cobscook ("boiling tides"), Quispamsis ("little lake"), Aukpaque ("where the tide stops rising"), Wolastook ("beautiful river"), Mactaquac ("where the river is red"), Gaspé ("land's end"), Shubenacadie ("where wild potatoes grow"), Restigouche ("river with a pleasant current"), Wagmatcook ("where the water is clean"), etc.
In sum, relations between Acadians and the Micmac and Malecite were very cordial, leading to a certain number of lasting unions.
St. Lawrence Valley
In the St. Lawrence Valley, things were different because the Europeans came to outnumber the natives. On arriving in what was then Canada, the French tried to apply a policy of Amerindian "integration" or assimilation through marriage, culture, and language. Hopes and efforts were big, judging from a letter written in 1668 by Mother Marie de l'Incarnation, head of child education and founder of the Québec City Ursulines:We have made French a number of Savage girls, both Huron and Algonquin, who have then been married to Frenchmen and proved to be excellent homemakers. There is one among them who can read and write to perfection, both in her Huron language and in our French; no one can tell or be convinced she was born a Savage. [...] His Majesty [...] wishes us thus to make all the Savages French little by little, to make them a polite people. We are starting with the children. Mgr. our Prelate has taken a great many for this purpose, the Reverend Fathers have also taken some into their Collège de Québec; all are dressed in French clothing and taught to read and write as in France. We have taken charge of the girls, as befits our spirit [...].The "civilization" program was based on educating young children in boarding schools. However, the French soon realized the fairly utopic nature of their undertaking, for those they called "Savages" were quite resistant to assimilation. "They care not about learning our languages," we read in Relations des jésuites. The colony's boarding schools quickly lost their native students, who could not adapt to such strict schedules. Powerful minister Colbert tried to relaunch a "Frenchification program" in 1668. But he was dreaming! Mother Marie de l'Incarnation (1599–1672) ultimately admitted the inevitable: "It is yet very difficult, nigh impossible, to make them French or civilize them." French authorities realized that making the Amerindians French, even those taken "from the breast" (from the cradle), was a fantasy. Intendant Jacques Raudot (from 1705 to 1711) estimated in 1710 that this would be "a task of several centuries." The French gave up their efforts.
Instead, they were forced to "go to the school of Savages" and learn native languages. For example, missionary Jean de Brébeuf spoke fluent Huron barely three and a half years after his arrival. Interpreters who had learned Amerindian languages were well respected and highly popular with New France merchants and companies. At the time, many young Frenchmen chose to live with Amerindians to become interpreters, a well-paid job with certain rewards and many privileges.
According to Mother Marie de l'Incarnation: "It is easier to make a Savage of a Frenchman than a Frenchman of a Savage." Thus, the French did not impose their language on the natives because they were unable to, as most continued to live apart from Europeans and their language. With some exceptions, the colonizers spoke the language of the colonized. From the start of colonization, interpreters had to be trained and friendships built with the Indians. Many officers spoke one or several Indian languages. Most governors appreciated having bilingual or multilingual officers at their sides, as they mistrusted the coureurs des bois, accusing them of misrendering the "harangues" of Indian chiefs. For example, Charles Le Moyne, Lord and Baron of Longueuil, was the personal interpreter of Governor Frontenac in Huron and Iroquois.
Contrary to popular belief, there were very few marriages between the Amerindians and the French at the start of the colony. Only four such unions were reported up to 1665. Records compiled between 1621 and 1765 indicate some 78 marriages between male natives and Frenchwomen, 45 between Frenchmen and female natives, and 540 between two natives, out of more than 44,500 total marriages. There is no way to count the marriages of whites (e.g., coureurs des bois) contracted by Amerindians (according to the "custom of the land") because there is generally no official record of these often temporary unions. Historians believe that especially at the start of the colony, the surplus of single men must have spread a fair number of white genes among the natives, while the white colony was not enriched with much "Indian blood."
We also know that France's Amerindian allies took many Anglo-American prisoners and married them to inhabitants of their own villages. It is believed that 500 such prisoners remained in Canada, some integrating with the French colonists; generally, they were naturalized French, educated in the Catholic faith, and took a French name. According to mission records, e.g., from Québec, Montréal, and Tadoussac, the natives were baptized with Amerindian names, although European first names gradually replaced them. In contrast, European first names seem to have quickly replaced native names in Acadia.
In the St. Lawrence Valley, the French were quite the exception in forming alliances with the First Nations. The French were never powerful enough to take the same approach as the Spanish and Portuguese, who built their empires on conquest, subjugation, and servitude, or the Americans, who massacred the natives to take their land. The French instead lavished the natives with gifts to gain their cooperation in the fur trade and, after 1680, their military support. Thus it was that the French practised a more subtle version of European colonialism. Like other Europeans, the French did not consider the natives as equal partners, but as unruly subordinates in need of proper handling lest they forget their "duties." And even though the natives lived in the very heart of the French king's Canadian colony, they never recognized his sovereignty, retaining their independence throughout the French regime.
On the whole, alliances with the French—although peaceful—harmed the natives, who suffered from diseases and epidemics that decimated their population. Half the Huron were wiped out by epidemics in the first decades of New France.
The Pays d'en Haut (Ontario)
The main economic interest of the pays d'en haut region (now Ontario) lay in the fur trade. Understandably, French authorities were initially suspicious of men who became coureurs des bois and spent years roaming the pays d'en haut, or Great Lakes region. Some 2,000 Frenchmen lived in this fur treading area where, with their Indian spouses and mixed children, they formed a much different class than the French of the St. Lawrence Valley. Still, these officially single men brought a French presence to the western part of the colony. Officials in the St. Lawrence Valley then began encouraging miscegenation as a way to assimilate the natives and populate the colony without massive immigration from France. Contrary to expectations, miscegenation did not assimilate the natives, but instead gave rise to a distinct people, the Métis, who founded their own communities along the shores of the Great Lakes.Most coureurs des bois learned Amerindian languages but also taught the natives basic French, such that the vehicular language between Europeans and Amerindians quickly became French in most of North America. The pays d'en haut thus provided a pool of interpreters sought throughout the continent, including in Louisiana and the New England colonies. In sum, Canada's coureurs des bois were effective in spreading French among the natives.
The Linguistic Contribution of Natives
Native languages had minimal impact on the French spoken by early Canadians, except with regard to place names, where the Amerindian influence is obvious. The very first Amerindianisms in French include achigan (a fish, 1656), atoca (cranberry, 1656), babiche (rawhide strip, 1669), cacaoui (duck, 1672), carcajou (a mammal, 1685), etc. Many words borrowed in past centuries are no longer used, generally because the realities they denoted no longer exist. These include micoine ("large wooden spoon"), ouragan ("large wood or stoneware bowl, or birchbark plate"), macak ("type of birchbark basket"), machicoté ("skirt or petticoat"), nagane ("small board for carrying a baby on the back"), sacacoua or sassaquoi ("battle cry, yell; racket"), etc.This borrowing from Amerindian languages continued throughout the 18th century but remained relatively modest, never exceeding twenty-odd words. Linguistic borrowing increased slightly in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A certain number of words borrowed from Amerindian languages are now part of "Canadian French," e.g., achigan, atoca, babiche, carcajou, caribou, maskinongé, ouaouaron, and poulamon.
Note also that Amerindianisms were probably used far more commonly before the 20th century, especially by the coureurs des bois and voyageurs. Contact between the natives and the French in the St. Lawrence Valley declined considerably after the 17th century, albeit without stopping completely. Consequently, borrowings from Amerindian languages gradually declined. Fur traders and explorers continued to visit the Amerindians faithfully until the 20th century, whereas farmers broke ties with the natives sooner, leading to an inevitable decline in borrowed words. Still, a number of words related to fauna (achigan, caribou, maskinongé, wapiti) and flora (pécan) remained in French.
In all, the number of Amerindian words that passed into standard French does not exceed 30. Le Robert dictionary lists the following words: achigan, algonkin, cacaoui, caribou, iroquois, manitou, maskinongé, mocassin, opossum, pacane, pécan, pembina, pemmican, plaquemine, québécois, sconse, skunks, squaw, tabagie, tobaggan, tomahawk, totem, wapiti, wigwam. And most of these words entered into standard French by way of American English.
While Amerindian and especially Algonquin languages gave few words to Canadian French (anorak, manitou, mocassin, squaw, tobaggan, tomahawk, totem, wigwam) and Canadian English (anorak, canoe, totem, sachem, moccasin, papoose, etc.) besides those that reached these languages via standard French or American English—except certain words related to fauna (achigan, caribou, maskinongé, wapiti) and flora (pécan)—native languages made a significant contribution to Canada's original toponymy which, as we know, includes Amerindian, French, and English words.
Borrowings from Amerindian languages—both common words and place names—generally come from Algonquin languages and fall under the same semantic fields (fauna, flora, and local customs). Borrowings from Amerindian toponymy increased in later centuries to the point of forming a large portion of the place names not only in Québec, Ontario, and Acadia, but also all Western provinces. Thousands of place names have Amerindian roots, from Canada, Manitoba, Nunavut, Ontario, Québec, Saskatchewan, etc., to many cities (Ottawa, Toronto, Québec, Shediac, Shippagan, Rimouski, Kelowna, Iqaluit, Saskatoon, Tadoussac, etc.), lakes, and rivers (Athabasca, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Manicouagan, Mistassini, Ontario, Erie, Nipissing, Manigotagan, etc.). All these names reflect Canada's native heritage and greatly contribute to its unique toponymy. However, by the end of the French regime in New France, Amerindians represented no more than 10% of the population of the colony (today's Québec). A number of Amerindian communities that settled near urban centres began speaking French.
English Influence
The first overseas British colony ("plantation") was founded in 1607 in Virginia. The second was established in 1610 by John Guy in Cupids in Conception Bay (Newfoundland). Later attempts to set up colonies were made throughout North America, not only in Newfoundland, but also in Acadia and especially along the east coast, a region that soon became known as New England.The British set their sights on areas north of New England starting in 1610. But the English emigrants had little interest in the colony of Newfoundland, especially since they had to share it with the French. The British population remained weak and fragile for decades. Given that fishing was possible only four to five months a year, investors eventually pulled out. Like the French, the English easily forced the Beothuk inland.
In 1609, British King James I recruited Henry Hudson to explore the Arctic seas. British presence in these regions started in Hudson and James bays. Hudson made expeditions via the arctic seas in search of the famous northeast passage. In 1609, he discovered the river later named after him linking the New York region to Lake Champlain and the St. Lawrence Valley. He disappeared without a trace in 1611, abandoned by his crew on icy Hudson Bay. The toponymy preserves the memory of this explorer with English names such as Hudson, Frobisher, Southampton, Coats, Mansel, Belcher, James, etc. English contact with Amerindians and the Inuit was highly sporadic.
The linguistic influence of English was weak throughout the 17th century in Canada, except for place names adopted in the Hudson Bay region (Hudson, Frobisher, Southampton, Coats, Mansel, Belcher, James, etc.), Newfoundland (St. John's, Cupids, Goose Bay, Corner Brook, etc.), and Acadia (Campbellton, Bathurst, Moncton, Fredericton, Yarmouth, Amherst, etc.). This would change dramatically in the 18th century.
Colonial Battles
The Amerindians played a key role in the colonial battles between Great Britain and France. France's main allies were the Huron, followed by the Abenaki, Micmac, and Malecite, as well as many Algonquin. Britain's primary allies were the Five Nations of the Iroquois. As we saw earlier, the French formed alliances with some 23 nations and the English with 7, while 14 others remained neutral.The first Iroquois war lasted nearly a century and ended with the Great Peace of Montréal in 1701. This treaty put an end to both a sixteen-year war and the English-Iroquois coalition. The Iroquois declared at that time that they "would accept neither the English tomahawk nor the French axe." The second conflict was the Seven Years' War (often called the French and Indian War), which ended only with the final defeat of New France in 1760. The last colonial war was fought in 1812–1814 following the U.S. War of Independence (or American Revolution).
Throughout the British-French rivalry, the natives were sometimes shrewd enough to threaten the French with trading with the British if they did not get what they wanted. Obviously, the British and French encouraged their native allies to join them in fighting their adversaries, or to remain neutral. Both militarily and commercially, the natives acquiesced to these requests only when it served their own interests, while pitting the British and French against each other to their advantage. But the end of the colonial conflicts marked the end of what is now called the "active partnership" between natives and Europeans.
After the Treaty of Utrecht
In 1713, the Treaty of Utrecht—which ended the War of the Spanish Succession—changed the North American political map. England received Newfoundland, Hudson Bay, part of Acadia, and a protectorate over the Iroquois. New France was limited to Canada, part of Acadia (Île Saint-Jean and Île Royale, today Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton Island, respectively), and Greater Louisiana.
Today's New Brunswick became a "disputed land" between the British and
French, as England maintained under Section 12 of the Treaty of Utrecht
that this territory was part of "Acadia, according to its former
boundaries." Starting at that time, the British dealt with native
populations in the conquered lands, especially in "English Acadia."
Certain Amerindian alliances changed, but the French managed to retain
the loyalty of the Micmac in a large portion of English Acadia—then Nova
Scotia.However, the British were suspicious of the good relations between Acadians and Amerindians. Colonial authorities prohibited interaction between Acadians and the Micmac, and accused the Acadians of encouraging the Micmac to attack British colonists. In addition, the British, who believed that their taking of Acadia gave them authority over the local natives, interpreted French-Indian treaties to their advantage. But the natives had never ceded their land to the French and wanted to retain it under the English regime.
During the French-British conflict, France's Amerindian allies in the St. Lawrence Valley, Great Lakes region, and Ohio Valley had previous agreements with the Grand Onontio ("father" in Huron), the governor of New France and "war chief" of the French. Under these agreements, the natives were paid to transport goods and received a monthly payment for supplying troops with game. But it was even more profitable for them to bring in scalps and capture English prisoners: They received up to 33 pounds for an "English scalp" and 120 to 140 pounds for an "English prisoner." A black man, for example, was worth 600 to 1,500 pounds since he was considered "permanent property." And for participating in organized raids in the southern British colonies, the natives were allowed to help themselves to the "spoils" of pillaged sites.
The French also guaranteed the Amerindians compensation for land used to build forts, even paying them toll charges. Similar agreements were signed between the British and their Amerindian allies (including for "French scalps"), but the natives generally found that the British gave them better goods and paid higher prices on furs in trade negotiations.
After the Conquest
After the French defeat on the Plains of Abraham in Québec City (1759) and the capitulation of Montréal (1760), the British conquest in Canada led not only to a political schism, but also to economic and social disruption. Under the 1763 Treaty of Paris, the French ceded Canada, all of Acadia (including Île Royale and Île Saint-Jean), and the western shore of the Mississippi to Great Britain. Clearly, the new political deal rendered French-Amerindian alliances completely null and void.During this initial period of steadier contact with the natives, linguistic problems were negligible since the whites—French and English alike—did not and could not stifle the native peoples nor their languages. French and Canadian explorers and missionaries learned Amerindian languages to communicate with native peoples. Obviously, natives and whites had to exchange and borrow words from each other. This changed significantly after the French defeat, to the detriment of the Amerindians.
https://slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=european_colonization
---------------------
------------------
Canada and USA-America’s Other Original Sin
Europeans
didn’t just displace Native Americans—they enslaved them, and encouraged tribes
to participate in the slave trade, on a scale historians are only beginning to
fathom.
Here are three scenes from
the history of slavery in North America. In 1637, a group of Pequot
Indians, men and boys, having risen up against English colonists in
Connecticut and been defeated, were sold to plantations in the West
Indies in exchange for African slaves, allowing the colonists to remove a resistant element from their midst.
(The tribe’s women were pressed into service in white homes in New
England, where domestic workers were sorely lacking.) In 1741, an
800-foot-long coffle of recently enslaved Sioux Indians, procured by a
group of Cree, Assiniboine, and Monsoni warriors, arrived in Montreal,
ready for sale to French colonists hungry for domestic and agricultural
labor. And in 1837, Cherokee Joseph Vann, expelled from his land in
Georgia during the era of Indian removal,
took at least 48 enslaved black people along with him to Indian
Territory. By the 1840s, Vann was said to have owned hundreds of
enslaved black laborers, as well as racehorses and a side-wheeler steamboat.
Rebecca Onion
A reductive view of the American past might note two major,
centuries-long historical sins: the enslavement of stolen Africans and
the displacement of Native Americans. In recent years, a new wave of
historians of American slavery has been directing attention to the ways
these sins overlapped. The stories they have uncovered throw African
slavery—still the narrative that dominates our national memory—into a
different light, revealing that the seeds of that system were sown in
earlier attempts to exploit Native labor. The record of Native
enslavement also shows how the white desire to put workers in bondage
intensified the chaos of contact, disrupting intertribal politics and
creating uncertainty and instability among people already struggling to
adapt to a radically new balance of power.
Before looking at the way Native enslavement happened on the
local level (really the only way to approach a history this fragmented
and various), it helps to appreciate the sweep of the phenomenon. How
common was it for Indians to be enslaved by Euro-Americans? Counting can
be difficult, because many instances of Native enslavement in the
Colonial period were illegal or ad hoc and left no paper trail. But
historians have tried. A few of their estimates: Thousands of Indians
were enslaved in Colonial New England, according to Margaret Ellen
Newell. Alan Gallay writes
that between 1670 and 1715, more Indians were exported into slavery
through Charles Town (now Charleston, South Carolina) than Africans were
imported. Brett Rushforth recently attempted a tally of the total
numbers of enslaved, and he told me that he thinks 2 million to 4
million indigenous people in the Americas, North and South, may have
been enslaved over the centuries that the practice prevailed—a much
larger number than had previously been thought. “It’s not on the level
of the African slave trade,” which brought 10 million people to the Americas,
but the earliest history of the European colonies in the Americas is
marked by Native bondage. “If you go up to about 1680 or 1690 there
still, by that period, had been more enslaved Indians than enslaved
Africans in the Americas.”
The practice dates back to the earliest history of the
European colonies in the future United States. Take the example of the
Pequot who were enslaved in 1637 after clashing with the English. As
Newell writes in a new book, Brethren by Nature: New England Indians, Colonists, and the Origins of American Slavery, by the time the ship Desire
transported the defeated Pequot men and boys to the Caribbean,
colonists in New England, desperate for bodies and hands to supplement
their own meager workforce, had spent years trying out various
strategies of binding Native labor.
During the Pequot War, which was initially instigated by
struggles over trade and land among the Europeans, the Pequot, and rival
tribes, colonists explicitly named the procurement of captives as one
of their goals. Soldiers sent groups of captured Pequot to Boston and
other cities for distribution, while claiming particular captured people
as their own. Soldier Israel Stoughton wrote to John Winthrop, having
sent “48 or 50 women and Children” to the governor to distribute as he
pleased:
Ther is one … that is the fairest and largest that I saw amongst them to whome I have given a coate to cloath her: It is my desire to have her for a servant … There is a little Squa that Stewart Calaot desireth … Lifetennant Davenport allso desireth one, to witt a tall one that hath 3 stroakes upon her stummach …
A few years after the conclusion of the war, in 1641, the
colonists of Massachusetts Bay passed the first formal law regulating
slavery in English America, in a section of the longer document known as
the Body of Liberties.
The section’s language allowed enslavement of “those lawfull Captives
taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly selle themselves
or are sold to us,” and left room for legal bondage of others the
authorities might deem enslaved in the future. The Body of Liberties
codified the colonists’ possession of Native workers and opened the door
for the expansion of African enslavement.
* * *
Europeans did not introduce slavery to this continent. Many,
though not all, of the Native groups in the land that later became the
United States and Canada practiced slavery before Europeans arrived.
Native tribes, in their diversity, did not have a uniform approach to
enslavement (given Americans’ propensity to collapse all Native people
together, this bears reiterating). Many of those traditions also changed
when tribes began to contend with the European presence. “There are
many slaveries, and colonialism brings different slaveries into contact
with one another,” historian Christina Snyder, who wrote a history
of Native slavery in the Southeast, told me. Contact pushed Native
practices to change over time, as tribes contested, or adapted to,
European demands. But, broadly speaking, Native types of enslavement
were often about kinship, reproductive labor, and diplomacy, rather than
solely the extraction of agricultural or domestic labor. The difference
between these slaveries and European bondage of Africans was great.
Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book The Comanche Empire, writes
of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the
American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised
hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of
that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a
rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a
non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing,
beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a
person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and
privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood
bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and
casual sale; women might be married into the tribe, after which time
they became, as Hämäläinen puts it, “full-fledged tribal members”;
younger, more impressionable children might be adopted outright. After a
period of trauma, captives could, quite possibly, attain quasi-free
status; their own children would be Comanches.
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker. Photos via Library of Congress & Wikimedia Commons.
In his book Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France, Brett Rushforth writes about a similar tradition of “natal alienation” practiced by enslaving tribes in the Pays d’en Haut
(the French name for the Great Lakes region and the land west of
Montreal) in order to strip a captive of his or her old identity and
life. Rushforth does not sell short the awfulness of these processes;
still, he pointed out: “Rather than a closed slave system designed to
move slaves ‘up and out’—excluding slaves and their descendants from
full participation in their masters’ society, even when freed—indigenous
slavery moved captives ‘up and in’ toward full, if forced,
assimilation.” This was more than Africans enslaved by Europeans could
hope for, after the legal codification of hereditary chattel slavery in
the 17th and early 18th centuries.
Native American Slaves in New France
The disconnect between Native uses of slavery and European
understandings of the practice often made for miscommunication. In some
places, ironically enough, Native groups themselves initiated the trade
in captives to the Europeans. In the Pays d’en Haut, Rushforth found in
his research, Indian groups believed in “a diplomatic function of
captive-taking.” Early in their time in the area, French officials found
themselves offered Native slaves as tokens of trust, peace, and
friendship. “When the French embedded themselves in these Native systems
of alliance and trade and diplomacy, they found themselves engaged in
these captive exchanges—not unwillingly, of course,” Rushforth told me.
“At the same time, the French were trading African slaves in the
Caribbean and South America, so it’s not like the Indians forced this
upon the French. The French found the diplomatic function of it to be
kind of confusing. They didn’t know what to make of it at first, and
then they sort of manipulated it to their own advantage.”
Rushforth notes that the political equilibrium that
prevailed before the arrival of Europeans had kept the Native slave
trade minimal. “If you’re a Native group in the Midwest and it’s hunting
season, you have to make a choice,” he said. “ ‘Are we going to go
after an enemy, or are we going to stock up on meat and hides and other
things?’ It’s either hunting or captive-raiding. And so that created
these disincentives to go after captives, because there were all kinds
of reasons you wanted to have peace, all kinds of reasons you wanted to
have your economy running.”
Soon, however, French officials, desiring more slaves, began
to incentivize Native people to take captives by promising desirable
goods in return. Nearby tribes began to raid one another in earnest,
often venturing far into the interior of the present-day United States
to grab Pawnee and other Plains Indians. With French traders now
offering goods and comestibles in exchange for captives, the old
political balance was disrupted. “If you can go raid your enemies and
trade them, for food and cloth and other things, you can actually sort
of collapse those two choices into one,” Rushforth said. “That means the
choice to raid for captives was much less costly for them. And so they
actually did it much more often.” The French, wanting to be secure from
violence in Montreal, made rules that pushed the chaos of raiding
farther away—circumscribing the sale of Native slaves from nearby
tribes, for example. “So they can create all of this extractive force,”
Rushforth noted, “and it just makes everything chaotic and destructive
out there.”
Slate Academy: The History of American Slavery
America's defining institution, as told through the lives
of nine enslaved people. Enroll in the college course you wish you'd
taken, learning from acclaimed historians and writers, alongside Slate's Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion.
As in the Pays d’en Haut, so in the American South, where
the demand for Indian slaves changed the political relationships between
tribes. “Once Europeans showed up and they demanded that the supply of
Native slaves amp up to meet the demand, Native practices regarding
slaves changed,” Snyder said. “So people who might once have been
adopted or killed now became slaves.”
Captives experienced enslavement by 17th-century
Europeans in a much different way than enslavement by another Indian
tribe. If a Native person was made captive by a rival tribe, a set of
relatively predictable traditions governed his or her treatment. But
after a Native captor sold a captive to a European, the person was swept
into a global system. She, or he, was now a commodity. In the South,
Snyder said, “[Natives] basically became slaves in a really similar way
to African slaves, who were also arriving at the same time in South
Carolina.” Reduced to a source of labor, and caught up in a
wide-reaching web of exchange, the Native slave could be sold very far
away. Rushforth points to instances of Apaches and other Plains peoples
being sold, through Quebec, to the Caribbean. “There were Plains Apaches
who showed up on sugar plantations in Martinique,” he said.
While the histories of Native enslavement and enslaving
might seem to be separate spheres of study, they too are intertwined.
Tribal groups could find themselves shifting from enslavers to enslaved,
as their relationships to Euro-Americans, and with other tribes,
changed over time. To illustrate this concept, Snyder points to the
story of the Westo Indians, a group originally from around Lake Erie, who spoke an Iroquoian language. They left the North in the middle of the 17th
century, Snyder says, “probably because of Iroquois competition over
guns and slaving,” and moved to the Southeast, where they enslaved local
Indians for sale to colonists. “But then the colonists got anxious, or
they were afraid that this group was too powerful,” Snyder said; in
1680, a group of Carolinians armed the Savannah Indians and empowered
them to break the Westos’ strength in the area. The remaining Westos
were, themselves, sold to the Caribbean as slaves.
* * *
In the late-18th-century Southeast, the Native
relationship to slavery took a surprising turn. There, a relatively
small group of Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws held Africans
in bondage. Historian Tiya Miles has written two histories of Cherokee slaveholding. Miles places the number of enslaved people held by Cherokees at around 600 at the start of the 19th
century and around 1,500 at the time of westward removal in 1838-9.
(Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, she said, held around 3,500 slaves,
across the three nations, as the 19th century began.)
“Slavery inched its way slowly into Cherokee life,” Miles told me. “When
a white man moved into a Native location, usually to work as a trader
or as an Indian agent, he would own [African] slaves.” If such a person
also had a child with a Native woman, as was not uncommon, the
half-European, half-Native child would inherit the enslaved people (and
their children) under white law, as well as the right to use tribal
lands under tribal law. This combination put such people in a position
to expand their wealth, eventually operating large farms and
plantations. This was the story of James Vann, the father of Joseph, the
steamboat owner; the elder Vann’s mother was Cherokee, while his father
was white.
In the second and third decades of the 19th
century, the Cherokee strategy to keep the American government from
taking their land was to prove their own sovereignty as a “civilized”
people. They were trying, Miles said, “to form a Cherokee government
that looked like the U.S. government, to publish laws, establish a
Supreme Court, establish a principal city, to create a police force, to
create a newspaper.” These efforts were concurrent with the growth of
slavery, another adopted tradition that would show that Cherokees were
truly assimilating.
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker. Photos via Library of Congress & Wikimedia Commons.
The United States government—Congress considered itself in charge of Indian affairs and, starting in the 1780s,
established a series of governmental structures meant to manage tribal
relations—“had really clear ideas about what it meant to be civilized,”
Miles said. “That included a different gendered differentiation of
labor, so men were supposed to stop hunting; they were supposed to come
back and farm. Women were supposed to be in the household. And enslaved
people were supposed to be out in those fields, helping to produce even
more crops and eventually allowing the native man to have more of a
supervisory role.” Indian agents—white men appointed by Congress to
liaise with the tribes—would report to their supervisors on the degree
to which Cherokee slaveholders were fulfilling the expectations of white
observers. Some white onlookers thought James Vann far too lenient in
the way he socialized with the (by one count) 70 enslaved Africans who
worked on his plantation. Still, he prospered, eventually owning 400 to
800 acres of land, a store, a tavern, and a trading post.
The material success of slaveholders such as Vann did not,
in the end, save the Cherokees from removal. While some Native
slaveowners in the South may have been “temporarily enriched” by
slaveholding, historian Claudio Saunt argues,
“as the demand for captives rose, it destabilized the entire region.
The dehumanization of non-Europeans ultimately allowed white colonists
to justify the killing of Southeastern Indians and the appropriation of
their lands.” The explicitly racist underpinnings of slavery in the
South left Native people there, even slaveholders who participated in
the system, vulnerable. When white demand for land prevailed, the Native
population would inevitably lose.
During removal, some wealthy Cherokees were able to take
their enslaved people along. Many walked the Trail of Tears, along with
the Natives who held them in bondage. “If you were rich in the
Southeast, you got to basically start over again with a captive labor
force,” Miles said. “Which doesn’t mean that removal wasn’t awful; it
was still awful. But it meant that you had a leg up in rebuilding your
wealth.”
Slave narratives—there are Works Progress Administration oral histories
given by black slaves who were once owned by Cherokees and other
tribes—report favorably on the experience of being held by Natives.
Miles told me that she thought the historian should take these
narratives with a grain of salt, pointing out that there are also many
stories of Native slaveholders selling or punishing their black
bondsmen. “There were more ways to have a margin of autonomy in Native
American contexts. There are examples of Native people freeing their
slaves and marrying them,” she said. “But at the same time there are
many instances of very violent behavior that tended to take place on the
larger plantations. … So it depended on where you were enslaved and who
you were enslaved by.” Some Native people who held Africans on small
farms, where they might “eat out of the same pot as the master” (as
Miles put it), treated them as a kind of family. In her first book,
however, Miles wrote
about a Cherokee farmer who enslaved an African woman, lived with her
for decades, and never freed her, despite her bearing his children. In
that particular case, years of intimacy did not lead to emancipation.
* * *
The historians I spoke with said that they found this
history challenging to talk about in moral terms—perhaps more so than
the history of African slavery. “I think popular history likes to talk
about good guys and bad guys,” Snyder told me. The complexities of the
history of Native enslavement leave such clear distinctions behind.
“Some may think that I do not philosophize enough,” Alan Gallay writes
in the introduction to his book, “that I have the responsibility of
always separating good from evil, of creating a parable from which the
moral of the story may easily be drawn. I wish that it were so simple.”
The fact that Native people so often assisted in the
enslavement of people from other tribes makes this story a complicated
one. Yes, Europeans did have Native assistance in implementing their
ends; they were also the ones who put Native tribes under the
existential pressures that forced many Indians to sell fellow Natives
into slavery. This tragedy does not make for so clear-cut a narrative
as, say, the bravery of the fugitive African Americans who took the
Underground Railroad to freedom. Yet it is a tragedy nonetheless.
The many stories of Native slavery force us to think about
the strategies Native people used to respond to the relentless European
desire for labor. Some, like the Yamasee—who, with their allies, rose up to challenge British colonists in South Carolina in 1715-16—fought
enslavement with violent resistance. Some, like the warriors who
brought the long coffle of Sioux to Montreal in 1741, or the Cherokee,
Creek, Chickasaw, and Choctaw who took their African slaves to Indian
Country in the 1830s, tried to adapt by becoming part of the system.
Later, some worked within European law to challenge a
tradition of Indian enslavement. In 1739, a Native man known only as
“Caesar” sued for his own freedom in New London, Connecticut. He argued
that his mother, Betty, who had surrendered during King Philip’s War in
1676, should have been set free after 10 years of servitude, rather than
enslaved, and that he himself should have been born a free man. More
than a few second- and third-generation Native slaves brought such cases
in New England in the 1730s and 1740s, and in so doing, writes Margaret
Ellen Newell, they fueled New England’s growing abolitionism, forcing
men in power to reconsider the legal basis for enslavement. Natives were
thus part of the history of American slavery at its beginning, and at
its end.
* * *
Further Reading
New England:
Margaret Ellen Newell: Brethren by Nature: New England Indians, Colonists, and the Origins of American Slavery
The Southwest:
Pekka Hämäläinen, The Comanche Empire
The Midwest:
Carl J. Ekberg: Stealing Indian Women: Native Slavery in the Illinois Country
The Great Lakes:
Brett Rushforth: Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France
The Pacific Northwest:
Leland Donald: Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America
Robert H. Ruby and John A. Brown, Indian Slavery in the Pacific Northwest
Indian Territory:
Barbara Krauthamer, Black Slaves, Indian Masters: Slavery, Emancipation, and Citizenship in the Native American South
Fay Yarbrough, Race and the Cherokee Nation
Gary Zellar, African Creeks: Estelvste and the Creek Nation
The Southeast:
Robbie Ethridge and Sheri M. Shuck-Hall, eds, Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone: The Colonial Indian Slave Trade and Regional Instability in the American South
Alan Gallay, The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670-1717
Alan Gallay, ed., Indian Slavery in Colonial America
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/01/native_american_slavery_historians_uncover_a_chilling_chapter_in_u_s_history.html
--------------
Canada's secret slave-owning past revealed
You've heard this story before, a group of slaves
escape for freedom in the middle of the night. But, here's the twist: These
slaves weren't running towards Canada, they were running away from it.
They were fleeing from Canadian slave owners and headed
for freedom in Detroit.
The brutal depiction of life for U.S. slaves is back in
the spotlight thanks to the Oscar-nominated film 12 Years a Slave. While
American slavery is having its moment in Hollywood, the story of Canadian
slaves — whose lives were as unjust and inhumane as those in the south — has
largely been ignored.
"We tend to think of it as 'not in my backyard'
myth about slavery," says Delorean Kilen, project coordinator at the
Ontario Black History Society. "People don't remember that slavery existed
here because we've been 'slave-free' longer than the U.S."
Slavery existed in Canada for 200 years and was
officially abolished 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation order was
issued by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.
Historians believe there was an estimated 4,000 slaves
who were forcibly brought to Canada, either directly as property, or shipped
through the trans-Atlantic slave trade from other British colonies.
In 1793, Upper Canada outlawed importing slaves and the
practice was officially abolished in 1833 alongside the rest of the British
Empire.
"It's something that people don't want to talk
about and not comfortable talking about," says Natasha Henry, a historian
and educator. "Slavery was used as a tool for both [British and Canadian]
colonies. "By ignoring that we're not portraying a complete history of
Canada."
Rosemary Sadlier is one of many Canadians whose roots reach back to
pre-Confederation. Her mother's family can be traced to 1840, while her
father's ancestors arrived in New Brunswick in 1793.
"Everyone assumes that everyone who is black is a
recent immigrant, but there are thousands of black Canadians who have been here
since the founding of the country," says Sadlier, an author and recipient
of the Order of Ontario.
"In my younger years I didn't come away with a
real sense of my family's historic contributions to this country and I think
there's a way that we are made to feel to various measures that we aren't the
same, we haven't paid our dues, we're visitors in someone else's country,” she
says.
“When you have something like black history it changes
all of those stereotypes because you can't be an unwelcomed visitor in a
country that's your own."
Charmaine Nelson, an art historian and professor at
McGill University, believes a heavy dose of corrective action is needed to
educate people who see slavery as only an American experience.
"We don't ever want to take credit for slavery in
Canada so we have to keep it out there in the tropics or the U.S.," she
says.
Photos and portraits that depict slavery in Canada are
not easily found or publicized, which adds to the difficulty Nelson and other
educators have when talking and teaching the public about this stain on our
nation’s history.
A painting originally called Portrait of Negro Slave is
one of the few items that gives a face to slavery in Canada. The name of the
portrait was controversially changed to Portrait of a Haitian Woman.
“The renaming in effect expels slavery from Montreal
and Quebec, rendering it only a troubling history of tropical colonies like
Haiti and not one of immediate concern to Canadians.”
Here are some common myths about slavery in Canada debunked.
Slavery never
existed in Canada, right?
FACT: Many Canadians are under the assumption that
slavery never existed in Canada (or not at the same levels found in the U.S.),
which is false. The first recorded slave to arrive in Canada was a six-year-old
boy named Olivier le Jeune from Madagascar in 1628. Most slaves were imported
from other British colonies and the Americas.
Was Canada the
first country to abolish slavery before other parts of the world followed suit?
FACT: Although slavery in Canada was officially
abolished in 1833 politicians enacted legislation in 1793 that would set
limitations on slavery in the country. The bill meant slaves would secure their
freedom at 25 if born a slave, which was no help to most since the average
lifespan of a slave was 20 to 25 years.
Weren’t all
black slaves who escaped to Canada from the U.S. afforded all the civil
liberties enjoyed by other European Canadians?
FACT: Despite the warm and fuzzy images and scenes
displayed in most current-day slave narratives, black slaves who escaped to
Canada faced discrimination, violence and segregation. Unlike racist laws that
were found in the U.S. (think: Jim Crow), Canada had largely unwritten racist
codes, which many could argue made it more difficult for black people in
Canada.
Slaves who
escaped north lived out the rest of their lives in Canada
FACT: Some former slaves left Canada for the U.S. once
slavery was abolished in America to escape difficulties in Canada and for
chances at upward mobility afforded to them by moving to cities with higher
black populations. Entire generations of black Canadians were completely lost
to Canadian history by moving to the U.S.
------------
----------------------
White Salvery - from dirty
beautiful vikings right to British-French-Spanish- that's why God so loves the
Irish
------------------
andrewdsmith
Talking about slavery in early
Canadian history is important. It is also important to stress that Native
slaves owned by whites (panis) were much more numerous than Black slaves. It
should also be pointed out slavery in some First Nations societies was only
eradicated by the threat of physical force by white imperialists. Young
Canadians ought to know that after 1815 the Royal Navy played an important role
in the battle against slavery via slave patrols in the Atlantic and actions against
coastal First Nations in British Columbia. This historical information is
important if students are to have a balanced view of “liberal imperialism” in
the twenty-first.
Please note that I’m certain
not an advocate of the sort of “liberal imperialism” or “human rights
imperialism” advocated by Michael Ignatieff in Empire Lite. However, I do think
that the liberal imperialist case does need to be presented to history
students.
-------------
QUOTE:
Although African Negroes were better suited to work in the semi-tropical
climates of the Caribbean, they had to be purchased, while the Irish were free
for the catching, so to speak. It is not surprising that Ireland became the
biggest source of livestock for the English slave trade. 1600s
Irish Slavery
by
James F. Cavanaugh
junglejim@btl.net
by
James F. Cavanaugh
junglejim@btl.net
There are a
great many K/Cavanaughs in North America who trace their ancestry back to a
Charles Cavanaugh, who arrived in Virginia, with a brother or cousin named
Philemon Cavanagh (Felim or Phelim), on or about 1700. Their descendants most
often spell their name with a C, although a variety of both C and K spellings
are found, even within the same immediate family. They were originally
concentrated in the Southeastern United States, particularly Virginia, North
Carolina and Georgia, but now spread to everywhere. Although long standing
family traditions trace Charles and Philemon of 1700 arrival back to Colonel
Charles Cavanaugh of Carrickduff and Clonmullen, (the son of Sir Morgan
Cavanagh, the son of Donnal Spanaigh Cavanagh), a recorded link still evades
researchers.
A possible
link, however, was found in Barbados, where the birth of a Charles Cavanaugh,
son of Charles Cavanaugh, was registered there in January 1679. At the same
time, another Cavanagh was registered as inbound on a ship to Barbados from
Liverpool. And further complicating the entry is the same registry records the
death of a Charles Cavanaugh, son of Charles at the same time. So the
questions: was the dead Charles the new born baby; or perhaps the father of the
baby; or maybe the inbound Cavanagh who may have died on the trip to Barbados,
with his death recorded upon arrival; or another Charles; or.?
These
questions are still unanswered, but a more intriguing question is what were the
Cavanaughs doing in Barbados in the first place? The answer takes us down a
revolting path wandering through one of the most insensitive and savage
episodes in history, where the greed and avarice of the English monarchy
systematically planned the genocide of the Irish, for commercial profit, and
executed a continuing campaign to destroy all traces of Irish social, cultural
and religious being. As the topic was politically sensitive, little has been
written about this attempted genocide of the Irish, and what has been written
has been camouflaged because it is an ugly and painfully brutal story. But the
story should be told.
Transportation
and Banishment
If Queen
Elizabeth I had lived in the 20th Century. she would have been viewed with the
same horror as Hitler and Stalin. Her policy of Irish genocide was pursued with
such evil zest it boggles the mind of modern men. But Elizabeth was only
setting the stage for the even more savage program that was to follow her,
directed specifically to exterminate the Irish. James II and Charles I
continued Elizabeths campaign, but Cromwell almost perfected it. Few people in
modern so-called civilized history can match the horrors of Cromwell in
Ireland. It is amazing what one man can do to his fellow man under the banner
that God sanctions his actions!
During the
reign of Elizabeth I, English privateers captured 300 African Negroes, sold
them as slaves, and initiated the English slave trade. Slavery was, of course,
an old established commerce dating back into earliest history. Julius Caesar
brought over a million slaves from defeated armies back to Rome. By the 16th
century, the Arabs were the most active, generally capturing native peoples,
not just Africans, marching them to a seaport and selling them to ship owners.
Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish ships were originally the most active, supplying
slaves to the Spanish colonies in America. It was not a big business in the
beginning, but a very profitable one, and ship owners were primarily interested
only in profits. The morality of selling human beings was never a factor to
them.
After the
Battle of Kinsale at the beginning of the 17th century, the English were faced
with a problem of some 30,000 military prisoners, which they solved by creating
an official policy of banishment. Other Irish leaders had voluntarily exiled to
the continent, in fact, the Battle of Kinsale marked the beginning of the
so-called Wild Geese, those Irish banished from their homeland. Banishment,
however, did not solve the problem entirely, so James II encouraged selling the
Irish as slaves to planters and settlers in the New World colonies. The first
Irish slaves were sold to a settlement on the Amazon River In South America in
1612. It would probably be more accurate to say that the first recorded sale of
Irish slaves was in 1612, because the English, who were noted for their
meticulous record keeping, simply did not keep track of things Irish, whether
it be goods or people, unless such was being shipped to England. The
disappearance of a few hundred or a few thousand Irish was not a cause for
alarm, but rather for rejoicing. Who cared what their names were anyway, they
were gone.
Almost as
soon as settlers landed in America, English privateers showed up with a good
load of slaves to sell. The first load of African slaves brought to Virginia
arrived at Jamestown in 1619. English shippers, with royal encouragement,
partnered with the Dutch to try and corner the slave market to the exclusion of
the Spanish and Portuguese. The demand was greatest in the Spanish occupied
areas of Central and South America, but the settlement of North America moved
steadily ahead, and the demand for slave labor grew.
The
Proclamation of 1625 ordered that Irish political prisoners be transported
overseas and sold as laborers to English planters, who were settling the
islands of the West Indies, officially establishing a policy that was to
continue for two centuries. In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were
sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and
Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total
population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of
concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners
to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of
transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people
to fill out their quotas.
Although
African Negroes were better suited to work in the semi-tropical climates of the
Caribbean, they had to be purchased, while the Irish were free for the
catching, so to speak. It is not surprising that Ireland became the biggest
source of livestock for the English slave trade.
The
Confederation War broke out in Kilkenny in 1641, as the Irish attempted to
throw out the English yet again, something that seem to happen at least once
every generation. Sir Morgan Cavanaugh of Clonmullen, one of the leaders, was
killed during a battle in 1646, and his two sons, Daniel and Charles (later
Colonel Charles) continued with the struggle until the uprising was crushed by
Cromwell in 1649. It is recorded that Daniel and other Carlow Kavanaghs exiled
themselves to Spain, where their descendants are still found today,
concentrated in the northwestern corner of that country. Young Charles, who
married Mary Kavanagh, daughter of Brian Kavanagh of Borris, was either exiled
to Nantes, France, or transported to Barbados or both. Although we havent found
a record of him in a military life in France, it is known that the crown of
Leinster and other regal paraphernalia associated with the Kingship of Leinster
was brought to France, where it was on display in Bordeaux, just south of
Nantes, until the French Revolution in 1794. As Daniel and Charles were the
heirs to the Leinster kingship, one of them undoubtedly brought these royal
artifacts to Bordeaux.
In the 12 year
period during and following the Confederation revolt, from 1641 to 1652, over
550,000 Irish were killed by the English and 300,000 were sold as slaves, as
the Irish population of Ireland fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000. Banished
soldiers were not allowed to take their wives and children with them, and
naturally, the same for those sold as slaves. The result was a growing
population of homeless women and children, who being a public nuisance, were
likewise rounded up and sold. But the worse was yet to come.
In 1649,
Cromwell landed in Ireland and attacked Drogheda, slaughtering some 30,000
Irish living in the city. Cromwell reported: I do not think 30 of their whole
number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the
Barbados. A few months later, in 1650, 25,000 Irish were sold to planters in
St. Kitt. During the 1650s decade of Cromwells Reign of Terror, over 100,000
Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic
parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In
fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations
from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing free population of the Americas!
But all did
not go smoothly with Cromwells extermination plan, as Irish slaves revolted in
Barbados in 1649. They were hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads were
put on pikes, prominently displayed around Bridgetown as a warning to others.
Cromwell then fought two quick wars against the Dutch in 1651, and thereafter
monopolized the slave trade. Four years later he seized Jamaica from
Spain, which then became the center of the English slave trade in the Caribbean.
Spain, which then became the center of the English slave trade in the Caribbean.
On 14 August
1652, Cromwell began his Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland, ordering that the Irish
were to be transported overseas, starting with 12,000 Irish prisoners sold to
Barbados. The infamous Connaught or Hell proclamation was issued on 1 May 1654,
where all Irish were ordered to be removed from their lands and relocated west
of the Shannon or be transported to the West Indies. Those who have been to
County Clare, a land of barren rock will understand what an impossible position
such an order placed the Irish. A local sheep owner claimed that Clare had the
tallest sheep in the world, standing some 7 feet at the withers, because in
order to live, there was so little food, they had to graze at 40 miles per
hour. With no place to go and stay alive, the Irish were slow to respond. This
was an embarrassing problem as Cromwell had financed his Irish expeditions
through business investors, who were promised Irish estates as dividends, and
his soldiers were promised freehold land in exchange for their services. To speed
up the relocation process, a reinforcing law was passed on 26 June 1657
stating: Those who fail to transplant themselves into Connaught or Co Clare
within six months Shall be attained of high treason are to be sent into America
or some other parts beyond the seas those banished who return are to suffer the
pains of death as felons by virtue of this act, without benefit of Clergy.
Although it
was not a crime to kill any Irish, and soldiers were encouraged to do so, the
slave trade proved too profitable to kill off the source of the product.
Privateers and chartered shippers sent gangs out with quotas to fill, and in
their zest as they scoured the countryside, they inadvertently kidnapped a
number of English too. On March 25, 1659, a petition of 72 Englishmen was
received in London, claiming they were illegally now in slavery in the
Barbados' . The petition also claimed that "7,000-8,000 Scots taken
prisoner at the battle of Worcester in 1651 were sold to the British
plantations in the New World, and that 200 Frenchmen had been kidnapped,
concealed and sold in Barbados for 900 pounds of cotton each."
Subsequently
some 52,000 Irish, mostly women and sturdy boys and girls, were sold to
Barbados and Virginia alone. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were taken
prisoners and ordered transported and sold as slaves. In 1656, Cromwells
Council of State ordered that 1000 Irish girls and 1000 Irish boys be rounded
up and taken to Jamaica to be sold as slaves to English planters. As horrendous
as these numbers sound, it only reflects a small part of the evil program, as
most of the slaving activity was not recorded. There were no tears shed amongst
the Irish when Cromwell died in 1660.
The Irish
welcomed the restoration of the monarchy, with Charles II duly crowned, but it
was a hollow expectation. After reviewing the profitability of the slave trade,
Charles II chartered the Company of Royal Adventurers in 1662, which later
became the Royal African Company. The Royal Family, including Charles II, the
Queen Dowager and the Duke of York, then contracted to supply at least 3000
slaves annually to their chartered company. They far exceeded their quotas.
There are
records of Irish sold as slaves in 1664 to the French on St. Bartholomew, and
English ships which made a stop in Ireland enroute to the Americas, typically
had a cargo of Irish to sell on into the 18th century.
Few people today realize that from 1600 to 1699, far more Irish were sold as slaves than Africans.
Few people today realize that from 1600 to 1699, far more Irish were sold as slaves than Africans.
Slaves or
Indentured Servants
There has
been a lot of whitewashing of the Irish slave trade, partly by not mentioning
it, and partly by labeling slaves as indentured servants. There were indeed
indentureds, including English, French, Spanish and even a few Irish. But there
is a great difference between the two. Indentures bind two or more parties in
mutual obligations. Servant indentures were agreements between an individual
and a shipper in which the individual agreed to sell his services for a period
of time in exchange for passage, and during his service, he would receive
proper housing, food, clothing, and usually a piece of land at the end of the
term of service. It is believed that some of the Irish that went to the Amazon
settlement after the Battle of Kinsale and up to 1612 were exiled military who went
voluntarily, probably as indentureds to Spanish or Portuguese shippers.
However,
from 1625 onward the Irish were sold, pure and simple as slaves. There were no
indenture agreements, no protection, no choice. They were captured and
originally turned over to shippers to be sold for their profit. Because the
profits were so great, generally 900 pounds of cotton for a slave, the Irish
slave trade became an industry in which everyone involved (except the Irish)
had a share of the profits.
Treatment
Although the
Africans and Irish were housed together and were the property of the planter
owners, the Africans received much better treatment, food and housing. In the
British West Indies the planters routinely tortured white slaves for any
infraction. Owners would hang Irish slaves by their hands and set their hands
or feet afire as a means of punishment. To end this barbarity, Colonel William
Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging the importation of Negro
slaves on the grounds that, "as the planters would have to pay much more
for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was
wanting in the case of (Irish)...." many of whom, he charged, were killed
by overwork and cruel treatment. African Negroes cost generally about 20 to 50 pounds
Sterling, compared to 900 pounds of cotton (about 5 pounds Sterling) for an
Irish. They were also more durable in the hot climate, and caused fewer
problems. The biggest bonus with the Africans though, was they were NOT
Catholic, and any heathen pagan was better than an Irish Papist. Irish
prisoners were commonly sentenced to a term of service, so theoretically they
would eventually be free. In practice, many of the slavers sold the Irish on
the same terms as prisoners for servitude of 7 to 10 years.
There was no
racial consideration or discrimination, you were either a freeman or a slave,
but there was aggressive religious discrimination, with the Pope considered by
all English Protestants to be the enemy of God and civilization, and all
Catholics heathens and hated. Irish Catholics were not considered to be
Christians. On the other hand, the Irish were literate, usually more so than
the plantation owners, and thus were used as house servants, account keepers,
scribes and teachers. But any infraction was dealt with the same severity,
whether African or Irish, field worker or domestic servant. Floggings were
common, and if a planter beat an Irish slave to death, it was not a crime, only
a financial loss, and a lesser loss than killing a more expensive African.
Parliament passed the Act to Regulate Slaves on British Plantations in 1667,
designating authorized punishments to include whippings and brandings for slave
offenses against a Christian. Irish Catholics were not considered Christians,
even if they were freemen.
The planters
quickly began breeding the comely Irish women, not just because they were
attractive, but because it was profitable,,, as well as pleasurable. Children
of slaves were themselves slaves, and although an Irish woman may become free,
her children were not. Naturally, most Irish mothers remained with their
children after earning their freedom. Planters then began to breed Irish women
with African men to produce more slaves who had lighter skin and brought a
higher price. The practice became so widespread that in 1681, legislation was
passed forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men
for the purpose of producing slaves for sale. This legislation was not the
result of any moral or racial consideration, but rather because the practice
was interfering with the profits of the Royal African Company! It is
interesting to note that from 1680 to 1688, the Royal African Company sent 249
shiploads of slaves to the Indies and American Colonies, with a cargo of 60,000
Irish and Africans. More than 14,000 died during passage.
Following
the Battle of the Boyne and the defeat of King James in 1691, the Irish slave
trade had an overloaded inventory, and the slavers were making great profits.
The Spanish slavers were a competition nuisance, so in 1713, the Treaty of
Assiento was signed in which Spain granted England exclusive rights to the
slave trade, and England agreed to supply Spanish colonies 4800 slaves a year
for 30 years. England shipped tens of thousands of Irish prisoners after the
1798 Irish Rebellion to be sold as slaves in the Colonies and Australia.
Curiously,
of all the Irish shipped out as slaves, not one is known to have returned to
Ireland to tell their tales. Many, if not most, died on the ships transporting
them or from overwork and abusive treatment on the plantations. The Irish that
did obtain their freedom, frequently emigrated on to the American mainland,
while others moved to adjoining islands. On Montserrat, seven of every 10
whites were Irish. Comparable 1678 census figures for the other Leeward Islands
were: 26 per cent Irish on Antigua; 22 per cent on Nevis; and 10 per cent on St
Christopher. Although 21,700 Irish slaves were purchased by Barbados planters
from 1641 to 1649, there never seemed to have been more than about 8 to 10
thousand surviving at any one time. What happened to them? Well, the pages of
the telephone directories on the West Indies islands are filled with Irish
names, but virtually none of these black Irish know anything about their
ancestors or their history. On the other hand, many West Indies natives spoke
Gaelic right up until recent years. They know they are strong survivors who
descended from black white slaves, but only in the last few years have any of
them taken an interest in their heritage
+++++
There were horrendous abuses by the slavers, both to Africans and Irish. The records show that the British ship Zong was delayed by storms, and as their food was running low, they decided to dump 132 slaves overboard to drownso the crew would have plenty to eat. If the slaves died due to accident, the loss was covered by insurance, but not if they starved to death. Another British ship, the Hercules averaged a 37% death rate on passages. The Atlas II landed with 65 of the 181 slaves found dead in their chains. But that is another story.
+++++
There were horrendous abuses by the slavers, both to Africans and Irish. The records show that the British ship Zong was delayed by storms, and as their food was running low, they decided to dump 132 slaves overboard to drownso the crew would have plenty to eat. If the slaves died due to accident, the loss was covered by insurance, but not if they starved to death. Another British ship, the Hercules averaged a 37% death rate on passages. The Atlas II landed with 65 of the 181 slaves found dead in their chains. But that is another story.
The
economics of slavery permeated all levels of English life. When the Bishop of
Exeter learned that there was a movement afoot to ban the slave trade, he
reluctantly agreed to sell his 655 slaves, provided he was properly compensated
for the loss. Finally, in 1839, a bill was passed in England forbidding the
slave trade, bringing an end to Irish misery.
British
commerce shifted to opium in China.
An end to
Irish misery? Well, perhaps just a pause. During the following decade thousands
of tons of butter, grain and beef were shipped from Ireland as over 2 million
Irish starved to death in the great famine, and a great many others went to
America and Australia. The population of Ireland fell from over 9 million to
bottom out at less than 3 million. Another chapter, another time, another
method. same people, same results.
Cavanaghs in
Barbados
Did the
Cavanaghs in Barbados arrive there as slaves? Yes, definitely. Which Cavanaghs
is hard to pinpoint. The registry at St. Michaels Parish contains the birth and
death of a Charles Cavanagh, son of Charles, which suggests that they were
freemen, as records were not kept for slaves. There is a record of another
Cavanagh living on a small allotment acreage in Barbados, ironically with a
given name of Oliver. (Someone had a sadistic sense of humor.) Oliver Cavanagh
had to be a freed slave or descended from one, and because his parents are not
noted, they had to be slaves. There are records in Ireland of a number of
petitions filed over a number of years after Cromwell by Mary Cavanagh, wife of
Col. Charles, seeking his pardon and return of lands, indicating Charles was
transported. Recently, Jimmy Kavanagh of Dublin has found a registry containing
over a dozen Kavanaghs in Haiti. Perhaps someday, we will be able to sort this
out, but it is doubtful.
We will
explore Charles and Philemon of Virginia in more detail in another article.
=========
----------
A
Slaveholder's View of the "Poor White Trash"
From a
chapter entitled "Poor White Trash," in Daniel R. Hundley, Social
Relations in Our Southern States (1860)
Southern
elite attitudes toward poorer nonslaveholders were often surprisingly critical.
This Alabama author's account describes some of the lifestyle patterns that
separated those in the upcountry from those living in the wealthy plantation
districts. It also suggests why many non-slaveholding whites in the Appalachian
mountain areas were less than enthusiastic about Secession. The term "Poor
White Trash," the author claims, came from the slaves themselves.
The
reader should also notice the criticisms of the free states scattered
throughout here. He is particularly hard on Boston and Massachusetts, the
center of abolitionist agitation--MF.
"To
form any proper conception of the condition of the Poor White Trash, one should
see them as they are. We do not remember ever to have seen in the New-England
States a similar class. . . .But everywhere, North and South, in Maine or
Texas, in Virginia or New-York, they are one and the same; and have undoubtedly
bad one and the same origin, namely, the poor-houses and prison-cells of Great
Britain. Hence we again affirm, what we affirmed only a moment ago, that there
is a great deal more in blood than people in the United States are generally
inclined to believe."
"Now,
the Poor White Trash are about the only paupers in our Southern States, and
they are very rarely supported by either the State or parish in which they
reside; nor have we ever known or heard of a single instance in the South, in
which a pauper was farmed out by the year to the lowest or highest bidder, (whichever
it be,) as is the custom in the enlightened States of New-England. Moreover,
the Poor White Trash are wholly rural; hence, the South will ever remain secure
against any Species of agrarianism, since such mob violence always originates
in towns and cities, wherein are herded together an unthinking rabble. . .
."
"The
Poor Whites of the South live all together in the country, in hilly and
mountainous regions generally, in communities by themselves, and far removed
from the wealthy and refined settlements. Why it is they always select the
hilly, and consequently unproductive districts for their homes, we know not. It
can not be, however, as urged by the abolitionists, because the slaveholders
have seized on all the fertile lands; for it is well known, that some of the
most inexhaustible soils in the South have never yet felt the touch of the
ploughshare in their virgin bosoms, and are still to be bad at government
prices. Neither can it be pleaded in behalf of the Poor White Trash, that they
object to labor by the aide of slaves; for, as we have already shown, the
Southern Yeomanry, who, as a class are poor, work habitually in company with
Negroes, and usually prefer to own a homestead in the neighborhood of wealthy
planters. We apprehend, therefore, that it is a natural feeling with Messrs.
Rag Tag and Bobtail--an idiosyncrasy for which they themselves can imagine no
good reason--why they delight to build their pine-pole cabins among the sterile
sand hills, or in the very heart of the dismal solitude of the burr-oak or pine
barrens. We remember to have heard an overseer who bad spent some time among
the Sandhillers, relate something like the following anecdote of a youthful
Bobtail whom be persuaded to accompany him out of the hill-country into the
nearest alluvial [rich river flatland] bottoms, where there was any number of
extensive plantations in a high state of cultivation, which will aptly
illustrate this peculiarity of the class. So soon as the juvenile Bobtail
reached the open country, his' eyes began to dilate, and his whole manner and
expression indicated bewilderment and uneasiness 'Bedadseized!' exclaimed he at
last, 'ef this yere ked'ntry haint got nary sign ov er tree I How in thunder
duz folks live down yere? By G-o-r-j! this beats all that Uncle Snipes tells
about Carlina. Tell yer what, I'm goin' ter make tracks fur dad's--yer heer my
horn toot!' And be did make tracks for dads sure enough."
"In the
settlements wherein they chiefly reside, the Poor Whites rarely live more than
a mile or two apart. Each householder, or head of a family, builds him a little
but of round log; chinks the spaces between these with clay mixed with wheaten
straw ; builds at one end of the cabin a big wooden chimney with a tapering
top, all the interstices being "dobbed" as above; puts down a
puncheon floor, and a loft of ordinary boards overhead; fills up the inside of
the rude dwelling with a few rickety chairs, a long bench, a dirty bed or two,
a spinning-wheel (the loom, if any, is outside under a shed,) a skillet, an
oven, a frying-pan, a triangular cupboard in one corner, and a rack over the
door on which to hang old Silver Heels, the family rifle; and both the cabin
and its furniture are considered as complete. The happy owner then
"clears" some five acres or so of land immediately surrounding his
domicile and these be pretends to cultivate, planting only corn, pumpkins, and
a little garden truck of some kind or other. He next builds a rude kennel for
his dog or dogs, a primitive-looking stall for his 'nag,' ditto for old Beck
his cow, and a pole hen-house for his poultry. This last he covers over with
dirt and weeds, and erects on one side of it a long Slim pole, from the upper
branches whereof dangle gourds for the martins to build their nests in-martins
being generally regarded as useful to drive off all bloody-minded hawks that
look with too hungry an eye upon the rising generation of dung-hills. Being
thus prepared for house-keeping, now comes the tug of war."
"But,
whatever may be said of the poverty of Rag Tag and Bobtail, of their ignorance
and general spiritual degradation, it is yet a rare thing that any of them
suffer from hunger or cold. As a class, indeed, they are much better off than
the peasantry of Europe, and many a poor mechanic in New-York City even--to say
nothing, of the thousands of day-laborers annually thrown out of employment on
the approach of winter--would be most happy at any time from December to March,
to share the cheerful warmth of the blazing pine fagots which glow upon every
poor man's hearth in the South; as well as to help devour the fat haunches of
the noble old buck, whose carcass hang in one corner suspended from one of the
beams of the loft overhead, ready at all times to have a slice cut from its
sinewy hams and broiled to delicious juiciness upon the glowing coals."
"Indeed,
the only source of trouble to the Sandhillers is the preservation of their
yearly 'craps' of corn. Owing to the sterileness of their lands, and deficient
cultivation, that sometimes fails them, running all to weeds and grass. But
they have no lack of meats. Wild hogs, deer, wild turkeys, squirrels, raccoons,
opossums-these and many more are at their very doors; find they have only to
pick- up old Silver doors; walk a few miles out into the forest, and return
home laden with meat enough to last them a week. And should they desire to
purchase a little wool for spinning, or cotton ditto, or a little
"swatning" to put in their coffee and their "sassefack" tea
or a few cups and saucers, or powder and shot, salt, meat, or other household
necessaries- a week's successful hunting invariably supplies them with enough
venison to procure the wished-for luxuries, which they soon possess themselves
of accordingly, from the nearest village or country store. Having obtained what
they want they hasten back again to their barren solitudes; their wives and
daughters spin and weave the wool or cotton into such description of cloth as
is in most vogue for the time being; while the husbands, fathers, sons, and
brothers, betake themselves to their former idle habits--hunting,
beef-shooting, gander-pulling, marble-playing, card-playing, and getting drunk.
Panics: financial pressures, and the like, are unknown amongst them, and about
the only crisis of which they know anything, is when a poor fellow is called
upon to "shuffle off this mortal coil." Money, in truth, is almost a
perfectly unknown commodity in their midst and nearly all of their trafficking
is carried on by means of barter alone. In their currency a cow is considered
worth so much, a horse so much, a dog so much, a fit buck so much, a
wild-turkey so much, a coon-skin so much, et cetera, et cetera; and by these
values almost everything else is rated. Dollars and dimes, or pounds, shillings
and pence, they never bother their brains any great deal about."
"The
chief characteristic of Rag Tag and Bobtail, however, is laziness. They are
about the laziest two-clogged animals that walk erect on the face of the Earth.
Even their motions are slow, and their speech is a sickening drawl, worse a
deal sight than the most down-eastern of all the Down-Easters while their
thoughts and ideas seem likewise to creep along at a snail's pace. All they
seem to care for, is, to live from hand to mouth; to get drunk, provided they
can do so without having to trudge too far after their liquor; to shoot for
beef; to hunt; to attend gander pulls; to vote at elections; to eat and to
sleep; to lounge in the sunshine of a bright summer's day, and to bask in the
warmth of a roaring wood fire, when summer days are over, and the calm autumn
stillness has given place to the blustering turbulence of hyemal storms. We do
not believe the worthless ragamuffins would put themselves to much extra
locomotion to get out of a shower of rain; and we know they would shiver all
day with cold, with wood all around them, before they would trouble themselves
to pick it up and build a fire: for we recollect to have heard an anecdote of a
gentleman who was once traveling through a section of country peopled by
Sandhillers, on a cold and raw winters day, when be chanced to come up with a
squad of great strapping lazy bumpkins on the side of the road in a woods,
sitting all huddled up and shivering around the smouldering remains of what had
once been a fire. The traveler was himself quite chilled, and thought it
prudent to stop and warm before proceeding any further on his journey. But
imagine his astonishment on asking the miserable scamps why they had suffered
their fire to burn so low, to hear them answer, that they "were afeared
they mout git too cold pickin' up sticks!" Very humanely he gathered
together a pile of dry brushwood lying close at hand, built up in a little
while a roaring fire, warmed himself, and again mounting his horse, rode on his
way; leaving the great loutish clowns quarreling among themselves, as to which
one of them was entitled to the warmest side of the fire!"
"In
physical appearance, the Sandhillers are far from prepossessing, Lank, lean,
angular, and bony, with flaming red, or flaxen, or sandy, or carroty-colored
hair, sallow complexion, awkward manners, and a natural stupidity or dullness
of intellect that almost surpasses belief; they present in the main a very
pitiable sight to the truly benevolent, as well as a ludicrous one to those who
are mirthfully disposed. If any thing, after the first freshness of their youth
is lost, the women are even more intolerable than the men- owing chiefly to
their disgusting habit of snuff-dipping, and even sometimes pipe-smoking. The
vile practice of snuff-dipping, prevails sometimes also among the wives and
daughters of the Yeomanry [that is, respectable nonslaveholders], and even
occasionally among, otherwise intelligent members of the Southern Middle
Classes, particularly in North-Carolina. The usual mode is, to procure a
straight wooden tooth-brush made of the bark of the hickory-nut tree preferred
chew one end of the brush until it becomes soft and pliant, then dab the same
while still wet with saliva into the snuff-bottle, and immediately stick it
back into the mouth again with the fine particles of snuff adhering; then
proceed to mop the gums and teeth adroitly, to suck, and chew, and spit to your
hearts content Ah! It is almost as decent [a]s smoking cigars, and is fully as distingu
as chewing tobacco!"
"Being
usually addicted to this filthy and disgusting vice, or whatever else one may
choose to call it, it is not at all strange that the female Sand-hillers should
so soon lose all trace of beauty, and at thirty are about the color of yellow
parchment, if not thin and pale from constant attacks of fever. Besides, they
are quite prolific, and every house is filled with its half dozen of dirty,
squalling, white-headed little brats, who are familiarly know as Tow-Headson
account of the color of their hair, as well as its texture and generally
unkempt and matted condition. In the main the entire family, both male and
female, occupy the same apartment at all hours of the day and night just as do
the small farmers of the North-west, or the very poor in all large cities. But
it is a rare circumstance to find several families huddled into one poor
shanty, as is more often the case than otherwise with those unfortunates in
cities who are constrained to herd together promiscuously in tenant -houses and
in underground cellars On the contrary, each Sandhiller has his own lowly
cabin, and whilst it is sad to contemplate the hard necessity which forces
father and mother, sons and daughters, all to live in the same narrow room;
still it is pleasant to believe, that the sacred nature of the relationship
between the parties, casts a veil of modesty over the scene, which is wanting
where two or more stranger families are thus promiscuously thrown together in
such close contact."
"Of
course, intelligence of all kinds is at a low ebb with Messrs. Rag Tag and
Bobtail. Few of them can read, fewer still can write, while the great mass are
native, genuine Know-Nothings, though always democratic in their political
faith and practice. Indeed, puzzled to comprehend for what other purpose the miserable
wretches were ever allowed to obtain a footing in this country, we have come to
the honest conclusion, that it was providentially intended, in order that by
their votes, however blindly and ignorantly cast, they should help to support
the only political party which has been enabled thus far to maintain a National
organization [that is, the Democrats]. Nor can they be blamed for voting
the democratic ticket, live they in the North or the South; for to the
democratic party do they owe the only political privilege which is of any real
use to them-the privilege of the elective franchise. This fact, indeed, is
nearly the sum total of their knowledge of our Government or its history. They
remember Washington because he was the Founder, if we may so speak, of the
Republic: they remember Thomas Jefferson because he effected the change in the
policy of the country, whereby they became sovereign freemen, the voice
of each one of them counting one, while that of an Astor or a Girard could
count no more: and they remember General Jackson because he whipped the British
so bad at New-Orleans, and afterwards, while he was President, dared to "
remove the Deposits" in the teeth of opposition from all the moneyed men
in the nation [this a reference to his war on the Bank of the US]; and
it is said that, in certain very benighted districts of Central New-York and
the mountains of East-Tennessee, General Jackson is voted for still at every
presidential election."
"In
religion, the Poor Whites are mostly of the Hard-Shell persuasion, and their
parsons are in the main of the Order of the Whang Doodle. They are also very
superstitious, being firm believers in witches and goblins; likewise old-time
spiritualists, or, to render our meaning plainer, believers in fortune-telling after
the ancient modes-such as palm-reading, card-cutting, or the revelations of
coffee-grounds left in the bottom of the cup after the fluid has been drained
off. Poor simple souls! They have not yet risen to the supernal glories of
table tipping, horn-blowing, and the other modern improvements in the mode of
consulting such as have familiar spirits: for, although these boast that they
number a million or so of adherents in the more enlightened Free States, we
suspect they could hardly drum up in the entire South one thousand fools
credulous enough to embrace their miserable dogmas. Yet in scarcely a
settlement of Poor Whites will you fail to find some gray-bearded old crone,
who professes to be able to tell you all about your past life, as well as to
predict what is to be your future career: but she does not charge very
exorbitant prices for her disclosures, being well satisfied to receive the
small sum of twenty-five cents for each consultation. Whereas, in the
enlightened city of New-York, in which are hundreds of professed star-readers,
(the united annual incomes of nineteen of these Professors of the Black Art
being one hundred thousand dollars and where, it is said, sixteen hundred
persons are foolish enough every week to consult such damnable impostors; the
regular fee varies from one to five dollars. Besides, this can also be said in
behalf of the old women among the Sandhillers who tell fortunes; they never use
their pretended gifts for the purpose of entrapping poor but silly girls, into
such peculiar institutions as are kept by our virtuous and refined Dawsons:
which is more than can be said of one half those dirty dens of superstition
which flourish in the very centers of our refinement and civilization, and the
proprietors of which dare, with unblushing audacity, to advertise in the daily
press the location of their horrid penetralia.
"Another
evil which prevails greatly among the Sandhillers. . .is the iniquitous
practice of drinking alcoholic beverages to excess. And then, too, such vile
stuff as the poor fellows are wont to imbibe. Too lazy to distill honest peach
or apple brandy, like the industrious yeomanry, they prefer to tramp to the
nearest groggery with a gallon jug on their shoulders, which they get filled
with " bust-head," "rot-gut" or some other equally
poisonous abomination ; and then tramp home again, reeling as they trudge
along, and laughing idiotically, or shouting like mad in a glorious state of
beastly intoxication. . . ."
"To so
great an extent are Rag Tag and Bobtail addicted to this shameful vice, that,
in those Congressional districts in which they mostly abound, as we were once
told by a Southern member of' Congress, no person who is temperate and lives
cleanly and like a gentleman, and who will not therefore condescend to drink
and hurrah with Tom, Dick, and Harry, need ever hope for political preferment.
And the character of our informant bore ample testimony to the truthfulness of
his assertion; for a more drunken and besotted wretch we should hardly wish to
see. He said, that, in certain parts of his district, the "red-eye"
was passed around in an old tin coffee-pot, and every man helped himself by
"word of mouth" whatever this slang expression may mean. And we may
here observe, this accounts for the great dissimilarity in the character of our
Southern Congressmen. While these all are more or less innocent of any
participation in the corrupt practices of those Forty Congressional Thieves,
who have brought such deserved opprobrium upon our National Legislature; and
while as a general thing, there is more of good-breeding, of gentlemanly
bearing, of chivalric tone and statesmanlike deportment about the Southern
Representatives than most others-still, it can not be safely denied that some
of them are nothing better than tippling, gambling, and debauched libertines,
not a whit more intelligent or honest than the corrupt ward politicians of our
large cities; men who never make a speech in our Legislative Halls for any
other purpose than Buncombe. Which is true likewise of many Northern
Congressmen-especially of those who live in the North-west where lager-beer and
corn juice have in a measure usurped the place of wholesome water."
". . .
.The Poor White Trash rarely possess energy and self-reliance enough to
emigrate singly from the older Southern States to the South-west, but usually
migrate by whole neighborhoods; and are thus to be seen nearly every summer or
fall plodding along together, each family having its whole stock of worldly
goods packed into a little one-horse cart of rudest workmanship, into which
likewise are often crowded the women and children, the men walking, alongside
looking worn and weary. Slowly thus they creep along day by day, camping out at
night, and usually carrying, their own provisions with thin-bacon, beans,
corn-meal, dried fruit and the like simple and unassuming fare. 'When they
reach a large river whose course leads in the proper direction, they build them
a rude kind of flat-bottomed boat, into which, huddling with all their trips,
they suffer themselves to drift along with the current down to their place of
destination. Having reached which, they proceed immediately to disembark, and
to build their inevitable log cabins, squatting at their free will and pleasure
on Uncle Sam's domain; for they seldom care to purchase land, unless they can
get it at about a "bit" an acre. Owing to this custom of occupying
the public lands without making entry of the same according to law, in most of
the new Southern States the Poor Whites are almost invariably known as Squatters.
When the lands temporarily occupied by them, finally come into market, the
Squatters once more hitch up their little one-horse carts, pile in all their
worldly store, together with their wives and little ones, and again facing to
the westward, go in search of their New Atlantis-which the poor creatures find
so soon as they get beyond the limits of civilization; when they
"squat" as before, raise their little "craps" of corn and
garden truck, shoot bears, deer, and Indians, and vegetate generally like all
other nomadic races. And thus will Rag Tag and Bobtail continue to pass further
and further westward and southward, until they will eventually become absorbed
and lost among the half-civilized mongrels who inhabit the plains of Mexico;
unless it should chance that some new life and energy shall be instilled into
them during their sojourn on our Western frontier, both by contact with the
hardy race of backwoodsmen and hunters who there abound, and the stern
necessity of learning to defend themselves against the predatory bands of
Camanches and Arapahoes, who are always prowling, around, seeking whom they may
scalp and plunder. If such a life fail to work a change for the better in the
miserable wretches, we are inclined to think their ultimate absorption by
Mexico will prove a happy riddance to us; for they are of so little account at
present, that, could every one of them be blotted out of existence tomorrow,
neither the South nor the North, nor the commercial world would be any the
poorer for their loss. Let us cherish a hope, however, that the experiences of
a rough border-life will in time regenerate Rag Tag, and Bobtail, and render
them at some future period both useful and ornamental citizens of our great
Republic. Homo sum, et humani a me nil alienum puto, said Terence, and so say
we: and we congress, moreover, that we feel for the humblest descendant of our
common father Adam, a brotherly sympathy. Not, however, of the patent sort, of
the popular double-self-acting-backward sort, kind Sir, which leads your
worship into the gross errors of socialism, communism, and the like stuff and
nonsense [this is a dig at the North], but a rational sympathy which
would lead us to give ten talents to the man endowed with sufficient capacity
to use ten talents; to give five talents to him who could only manage five; and
three talents to another whom five would make a fool of; but not even one
talent to the poor imbecile, who, not knowing the value of the gift, would
surely wrap it up in a napkin and bury it in the ground, or else throw it away
entirely as something worthless and unprized.
"The
Poor Whites of the South seldom come in contact with the slaves at all, and
thousands of them never saw a Negro; still, almost to a man, they are
pro-slavery in sentiment. Unlike the Southern Yeomen, who are pro-slavery
because these dread the consequences to the humbler whites of the emancipation
of the Negroes, and because also they are intelligent enough to understand what
would be the nature of these consequences; the Poor White Trash are pro-slavery
from downright envy and hatred of the black man. We presume this feeling must
have originated many years ago when the pauper ancestors of the Sandhillers
were first "laid on shore," as our worthy ancestors expressed it like
all other "goods, wares, and merchandise," and very possibly met with
a somewhat supercilious reception at the bands of the powdered and bejewelled
body-servants of the grand old cavaliers of those times. The blacks on their
part too, reciprocate the feeling of hatred at least and look with ineffable
scorn on a "po' white man."
The
author then goes on end his chapter by addressing the northern reader in an
aside:
"Unconsciously to yourself you have been advocating all this time only a
new species of agrarianism [Communism or Socialism or some other form
of radicalism]. Unconsciously you have been sowing the wind, and sooner or
later will surely reap the whirlwind for your pains. Already your laborers,
your operatives, your journeymen mechanics and others, secretly moot the
question: How it happens they remain so poor, while their employers are
constantly growing richer and richer; build their marble palaces, educate their
children in idleness and dissipation, and besides spend half their own days
tuft-bunting and toad-eating upon the continent of Europe. Already, we repeat,
this terrible question is being mooted in secret conclave; and should the time
ever come when it shall be mooted openly-when loudmouthed and earnest men, fresh
from the people, shall bestride Faneuil Hall [in Boston], bawling
for an equal and exact distribution to every mechanic of whatever craft, to
every operative of whatever mills, to every laborer of whatever grade-bawling,
we say, for an equal and exact distribution to the workmen of the net proceeds
combined labor; and denouncing in the same breath pampered capitalists, as so
many lordlings growing rich on the earnings of the moiling and toiling poor,
reaping where they have not sown, and gathering where they have not scattered;
upon what plausible pretext will you, Sir, then seek to gainsay them? You will
have none. Dumb and quaking with fear you would be constrained to acquiesce in
their logic; for they would only use in their own behalf the identical
arguments you have assiduously tried to impress upon their minds for ten years
and more, in order to persuade them to interfere in the affairs of their
neighbors.
"But
you think we are begging the question? You think such a terrible chimera never
has troubled the thoughts of the sober citizens of New-England? You feel
assured that men and women, little boys and girls, can stand to work from ten
to thirteen hours every day, winter and summer, in heat and in cold, making at
that only a beggarly pittance which barely suffices to keep body and soul
together; and yet never once inquire, honest souls I bow it chances that their
employers, who neither toil nor yet do spin, are still reckoned among the
merchant-princes of the land, dress in fine broadcloth and spotless linen, and
in every other respect fire sumptuously every day? Oh! dear, no; you couldn't
begin to think of such a thing. Why should you? Your Reverence is paid from
three to five thousand dollars per annum for talking billingsgate religion,
maudlin sentimentality, anal a cheap philanthropy, and of course it never
occurs to you that what is so profitable to your individual self, is yet sowing
broadcast the seeds of many future disasters to the Constitution and the Union.
It never occurs to you, O astute politician, that those whom you so earnestly
teach how to remedy the sad lot of others, are all the time, although unread in
classical lore, revolving over in their minds the sentiment so often quoted
from Horace: -Mutato nomine, de te Fabula narratur. [The Latin means
something like, change the name, and the story could be about you too--MF]
But, we have written that this question is even now agitating the breasts of
thousands of the sons of toil in New-England; and what we have written that do
we know to be true. For we have heard it discussed in whispers, and under one's
breath as it were, within the very shadows of Faneuil Hall and Bunker Hill
Monument. Nay, within the classic precincts of old Harvard, under the venerable
elm trees which there spread so far-reaching their umbrageous boughs, as well
as in the shadow alcoves of her magnificent Library; we have heard agrarian
utterances from learned schoolmen, and collegians-utterances alike antagonistic
to the spirit of our Federal Constitution, and the generally accepted ideas in
regard to the laws of meum and tuum [mine and yours]. We have there
heard ultra anti-slavery men, when driven to the wall by force of irresistible
argument, confess that they equally abhorred capitalists as slave holders; and
that the only reason why they did not wage as relentless war upon the rich men
of the Free States, is upon the Southern Oligarchs, was owing entirely to the
dictates of policy. The time has not come yet, was the plea they
invariably set up; but after disposing of the Chivalry, then would come the
turn of their own rich men. . . ."
------------------
BLOG:
CANADA MILITARYNEWS: let's bmorelike
beavers/2black?/whitetrashkids WWII fostercare/instead of dissing other
countries how about fixing our own'civilized nations'/putoldfolksinjail and
prisoners in oldfolkshomes/our incredible troops- thank u
-------------
White Slaves,
African Slave Traders,
and the Hidden History of Slavery
African Slave Traders,
and the Hidden History of Slavery
Andrew Guild
Contents
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
|
3
|
|
4
|
|
5
|
|
6
|
|
7
|
|
8
|
|
9
|
|
10
|
|
11
|
|
12
|
|
13
|
|
14
|
|
15
|
|
16
|
|
October 2004
----------
The Forgotten White Slaves Of America
– by – Nehesy
This
story of white servitude is hidden and they represent (AT LEAST) 1/2 to 2/3 of
the first settlers of the America colony.
They were
temporary chattel.
They
were:
The Forgotten White Slaves Of
America
By: Nehesy
(Jan 2009)
You had:
– The
Redemptioners ( specially the Germans who came with all their family but the
family members were frequently sold to different masters);
– The
Indentured Servants who sold themselves for a better life and a better place to
live; they were lured with false promises ie “A land of milk and Honey is
waiting for you in the new world”; and London was characterized by high
poverty, famine and was “infested” with plagues…
– The
kidnapped people of London, Bristol and Liverpool (Men, Women, Children); It
was a Royal policy : POOR RELIEF;
– The poors
and vagrants (Men, Women, Children) of the United Kingdom;
– The loose
or lewd women (prostitutes);
– The
convicts and criminals; who were highly preferred by planters because they were
bound for 14 years at least; The child servants were praised for the same
reason ( long period of bondage)…Maryland and Virginia were convicts’ states…
– The war
prisoners ie Irish and Scottish ( Monmouth Rebels , Covenanters etc); the
“Irish slave trade” is hidden into our history books but it’s a reality of the
past …
–
Apprentices , which was the best form of “bondage” (with the Redemptioners)
because they could learn a job;
– Many
indentured servants came from Europe (Italy and Greece) as well;
– Seamen
impressed in ships ( they were bound to the master’s ship and could whipped in
case of mutiny). They were often kidnapped in British Taverns; many case of
desertions occurred in the Royal and Continental navies. As Richard Brandon
Morris said they were the “last slaves” to be emancipated in 1915…Their hand
could be cut off in a case of aggression against the ship’s captain…
It must be
said that London ( Liverpool,Bristol) Merchants and British authorities (
Royalty; Mayor etc) were responsible for their temporary enslavement, and made
huge profits in selling them to the colonies …
London (
Liverpool , Bristol) Merchants with British Authorities ( specially the
Royalty) were also involved in the African slave trade…
When the
supply of white servants happened to be insufficient in order to match the
labor demand in the colonies, they created the Royal Company of Africa in order
to import (kidnap) more Africans…
When you
have a look at the first census in the American colonies , white servants or
temporary slaves, outnumbered African slaves in all the British colonies (
America and West Indies).
The African
slave trade and the possession of black slaves happened to be more profitable
to the former servants traders/drivers and to the former servants masters in
the colonies. This is why, we African or afro descendants suffered so much..
Planters
were really harsh on them : many servants deaths were due to maltreatment…
After the
American Revolution, British turned to Australia , as a convict colony. The
Jails ships in London ( called “HULKS” were overcrowded).
When the
African slave trade has been abolished, they turned to Asia for the “Pig” Trade
or Coolie Trade, ( China and India). The same suffering, the same
maltreatments, the same riots ( in the plantations and the slave ships)….
Only the European
poor and the middle class went to the new world , the richest stayed in Europe.
Many white
servants and black slaves married together because they suffered the same pains
and maltreatments. Many white servants were involved in slave riots like in the
New York Plot ( see Pr Richard Brandon Morris and Pr Abbott Emerson Smith), and
some even fled to the Indians with their black brethren.
They
suffered the “middle passage” as well, because they died like flies in the
ships who brought them to the colonies, they were packed like “herring”….
With the
time, white servants became overseers, and hatred was installed between the two
communities, by the planters who divided them in order to ruled them…Some white
servants were used in the militia in order to defend the colony from French and
Spanish , but also to kill Indians or suppress slaves insurrections.
The “Divide
and Rule” technique was used against the Indians (first slaves in America) in
order to get allies and slaves. Europeans would give guns to their Indian
allies in order to enslave other Indians. They used this technique in Canada,
North America, South America ( Mexico) , the West Indies (Cuba) and in Africa
as well… But the Indians slaves in North America died like flies, and could
flee easily because after all it was their country.
Europeans
kidnapped Indians , or caused wars between Indians tribes in order to response
to their labor demand.
The American
used the race card in order to ally with the white servants (or former
servants), even if they really despised them , by calling them names : “White
Trash”; “Redneck”; “Hillbillies”; “White niggers” etc.
It’s must be
said that white servant preceded the black slave into the South plantations.
And the
system which was imposed to them ( punishment, tortures, rapes, separation of
families etc) was ready to absorb the black Africans slaves ( See Pr Ulrich B
Phillips).
It was
really “A NASTY” period for poor whites and anything colored ( Blacks, Indians
etc).
The European
rich class caused a lot of suffering to these people , even if they were white
like them ….
Nothing
better could happened to blacks, Chinese or Indians who were bound to that same
class !!!
The seeds
and the framework of their suffering can be found in the story of the white
“slaves” who peopled American and West Indies colonies.
The racial
card and segregation was played against them, and the white colonists had any
mercy for them : Burned alive, Emasculation; Cutting the limbs; Extreme cases
of torture …
This is
stories they won’t tell you at school, or in Hollywood movies. In order to know
a little research process is compulsory…
----------
Chowtaw Indians of United States of
America and the Irish Refugees
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Choctaw-Indians.jpg
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Choctaw-Indians.jpg
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Choctaw-Indians.jpg
On March 23,
1847 the Indians of the Choctaw nation took up an amazing collection. They
raised $170 for Irish Famine relief – an incredible sum at the time – worth in
the tens of thousands of dollars today.
They had an
incredible history of enduring deprivation themselves. Forced off their lands
in 1831, they embarked on a 500 mile trek to Oklahoma called “The Trail of
Tears.” Ironically the man who forced them off their lands was Andrew Jackson,
the son of Irish immigrants.
------------
Irish Slaves – What The History Books
Will Never Tell You
Posted on
March 4, 2016 by Royce Christyn in Sci/Environment // 564 Comments
Did you know that more Irish
slaves were sold in the 17th century than black slaves? With a staggering death
rate between 37% to 50%, this is the story the history books will not tell you.
White and Black
Slaves in the Sugar Plantations of Barbados. None of the Irish victims ever
made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost
slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
The first
slaves imported into the American colonies were 100 White children. They
arrived during Easter, 1619, four months before the arrival of a the first
shipment of Black slaves.Mainstream histories refer to these laborers as
indentured servants, not slaves, because many agreed to work for a set period
of time in exchange for land and rights.
Yet in
reality, indenture was enslavement, since slavery applies to any person who is
bought and sold, chained and abused, whether for a decade or a lifetime. Many
white people died long before their indenture ended or found that no court
would back them when their owners failed to deliver on promises.Tens of
thousands of convicts, beggars, homeless children and other undesirable
English, Scottish, and Irish lower class were transported to America against
their will to the Americas on slave ships. YES SLAVE SHIPS.
Many of the
white slaves were brought from Ireland, where the law held that it was ?no more
sin to kill an Irishman than a dog or any other brute.? The European rich class
caused a lot of suffering to these people , even if they were white like
them.In 1676, there was a huge slave rebellion in Virginia. Black and white
slaves burned Jamestown to the ground. Hundreds died. The planters feared a
re-occurence. Their solution was to divide the races against each other. They
instilled a sense of superiority in the white slaves and degraded the black
slaves. White slaves were given new rights; their masters could not whip them
naked without a court order,etc. White slaves whose daily condition was no
different from that of Blacks, were taught that they belonged to a superior
people. The races were given different clothing. Living quarters were
segregated for the first time. But the whites were still slaves.
In the 17th
Century, from 1600 until 1699, there were many more Irish sold as slaves than
Africans. There are records of Irish slaves well into the 18th Century.Many
never made it off the ships. According to written record, in at least one
incident 132 slaves, men, women, and children, were dumped overboard to drown
because ships’ supplies were running low. They were drowned because the
insurance would pay for an “accident,” but not if the slaves were allowed to
starve.
Typical
death rates on the ships were from 37% to 50%.In the West Indies, the African
and Irish slaves were housed together, but because the African slaves were much
more costly, they were treated much better than the Irish slaves. Also, the
Irish were Catholic, and Papists were hated among the Protestant planters. An
Irish slave would endure such treatment as having his hands and feet set on
fire or being strung up and beaten for even a small infraction. Richard Ligon,
who witnessed these things first-hand and recorded them in a history of
Barbados he published in 1657, stated:”Truly, I have seen cruelty there done to
servants as I did not think one Christian couldhave done to
another.”(5)According to Sean O’Callahan, in To Hell or Barbados, Irish men and
women were inspected like cattle there, just as the Africans were.
In addition,
Irish slaves, who were harder to distinguish from their owners since they
shared the same skin color, were branded with the owner’s initials, the women
on the forearm and the men on the buttocks. O’Callahan goes on to say that the
women were not only sold to the planters as sexual slaves but were often sold
to local brothels as well. He states that the black or mulatto overseers also
often forced the women to strip while working in the fields and often used them
sexually as well.(6)The one advantage the Irish slaves had over the African
slaves was that since they were literate and they did not survive well in the
fields, they were generally used as house servants, accountants, and teachers.
But the gentility of the service did not correlate to the punishment for
infractions.
Flogging was
common, and most slave owners did not really care if they killed an easily
replaceable, cheap Irish slave.While most of these slaves who survived were
eventually freed after their time of service was completed, many leaving the
islands for the American colonies, many were not, and the planters found
another way to insure a free supply of valuable slaves. They were quick to
“find solace” and start breeding with the Irish slave women. Many of them were
very pretty, but more than that, while most of the Irish were sold for only a
period of service, usually about 10 years assuming they survived, their
children were born slaves for life.
The planters
knew that most of the mothers would remain in servitude to remain with their
children even after their service was technically up.The planters also began to
breed the Irish women with the African male slaves to make lighter skinned
slaves, because the lighter skinned slaves were more desirable and could be
sold for more money. A law was passed against this practice in 1681, not for
moral reasons but because the practice was causing the Royal African Company to
lose money. According to James F. Cavanaugh, this company, sent 249 shiploads
of slaves to the West Indies in the 1680’s, a total of 60,000 African and
Irish, 14,000 of whom died in passage.(7)While the trade in Irish slaves
tapered off after the defeat of King James in 1691, England once again shipped
out thousands of Irish prisoners who were taken after the Irish Rebellion of
1798.
These
prisoners were shipped to America and to Australia, specifically to be sold as
slaves.No Irish slave shipped to the West Indies or America has ever been known
to have returned to Ireland. Many died, either in passage or from abuse or
overwork. Others won their freedom and emigrated to the American colonies.
Still others remained in the West Indies, which still contain an population of
“Black Irish,” many the descendents of the children of black slaves and Irish
slaves.In 1688, the first woman killed in Cotton Mather’s witch trials in
Massachusetts was an old Irish woman named Anne Glover, who had been captured
and sold as a slave in 1650.
She spoke no
English. She could recite The Lord’s Prayer in Gaelic and Latin, but without
English, Mather decided her Gaelic was discourse with the devil, and hung
her.It was not until 1839 that a law was passed in England ending the slave
trade, and thus the trade in Irish slaves.It is unfortunate that, while the
descendents of black slaves have kept their history alive and not allowed their
atrocity to be forgotten, the Irish heritage of slavery in America and the West
Indies has been largely ignored or forgotten.
This article was originally
published in 2014 and is frequently updated
-------------------
BLOG: CANADA MILITARY NEWS-Halifax Explosion- nobody helped the
coloureds of NS/White Trash foster kids of WWII/Nova Scotia our black history-
Human Rights and Freedoms in Canada- Nelson Mandela-South Africa Canada Dec 7
2013
MY STORY...
Many of my bestest of best
friends since the late 60s and 70s... are still my best friends.... been there
and love the Nova Scotia Black News... and the sharing THIS IS MY STORY... OF POOR WHITE FOSTER CARE
WHITE KIDS OF WWII GROWING UP IN NOVA SCOTIA... there were many hardships of
those times.... and many of us children, regardless of race, colour, creed,
religion etc. suffered dearly.... MY STORY..
This is honestly the the history of the day and of our times of Canada-
as a member of the 'poor white trash in more foster homes than care 2 count-
WWII baby' the town lived in... no injuns or coloureds were allowed 2 live
there... could shop... but could not live there..... and poor white trash kids
got 2 go 2 school (law)... always church and sunday school but sitting in the
back whilst 'the' families had front pews... but we were the work animals....
we never sat at the big table in the dining room- and the parlour and living
room were truly off limits... and our scraps were not as good as the hunting dogs....
we slept on the floor with an army blanket...-brought in firewood, brought up
the coal and veggies etc from the cellar- and hand me downs - the dress apparel
of the day... were appreciated... food... appreciated..hardship and beatings
and abuse... were part of - 'life' as a poor white trash kid from foster home 2
foster home as a WWII kid.... AND.. WE GOT EDUCATED...GREW UP... AND ALL OF US
CHANGED THE WORLD IN NOVA SCOTIA... AND CANADA... union, human rights and
walking the talk... one step in each community at a time... this is reality....
of those days.... and the heartbreak that was the 'one' dignity of our black
brothers and sisters- was Africville. glorious Africville- 4 all the poverty-
there was a righteous God loving community of faith, dignity and pride ....
that's how I remember Africville.... u inspired us back then... and u inspire
us now. hugs and love. God bless our
troops.
In our Canadian Schools... we were reading Shakespeare in Grade V...
The Wreck of the Hesperus was memorized in Grade IV and in junior high and high
school... we had High English, French, German and Latin.... We had math,
geometry,gym, English,grammar, debating, science, geography, literature, art,
home economics, history-world, industrial arts,ballroom dance-setting formal
dinner walk- SOCIAL GRACES ALSO of sitting, health, manners, respect.
we had 2 line up 2 have our
hands checked 4 cleaniness and teaspoonful of cod liver oil every day in
elementary 4 the first 3 years.... we had skating ponds, old fields 4 ball
games, races, hop scotch, marbles, red rover red rover can we come over, sack
races, egg-spoon walks, plays - which we were allowed 2 write, literature,
music- classical and church, we read encyclopedias by the time we were 12, the
radio was the joy and down time... all could hear- no matter of $$$, race,
religion, creed etc. - for all of these things... most of us grew up and
changed our lives and our world- because we..just...had 2 make it better 4 each
and all...
We came home and the poorest of the poor worked like dogs....and got up
be4 dawn.
Our teacher Miss Brown had the ugliest and meanest old dog... and she
would march (military WWII vet) in them old army boots and a stick the size of
Israel and would measure our backs 4 sitting, printing and writing- and the
blackboard of hell.... and u never wasted her chalk.... At Christmas the
Christians who did NOT believe in gifts and Jewish etc. were givng mittens,
socks, scarfs, hats and what ever else was necessary as part of the school- she
used 2 say... and all kids got the same... period... and all parents quietly
took them... they would dare not 2- Miss Brown frightened the parents more than
us kids... if possible.
In schools - we were shunned quite often... because of our abject
poverty and circumstances and that white trash foster kid of WWII- but if we
were really, really good at something.... teachers started and would pay
attention.... by 13yrs excelled in debate and was the best in all sports (kids;
like us abused and barely tolerated white trash foster kids off and on WWII
babies, just didn't care much and we either feared the world or didn't give a
sheeet... unfortunately 4 me many times, I was the later)
The most heartbreaking thing 2 me on this day is that the mess that is
United Nations refuses 2 make women equal 2 men and does NOT count children-
and 2 many of our troops are dying 4 what??? freedom... basic dignity... human
rights in the cruelest parts of the world on this day of impoverished
nations...
.... and yet a great man of our times has been allowed 2 die with
dignity- and we can remember loudly and quietly... Nelson Mandela changed our
world one broken chain at a time- and
finally... he's free at last. imho
----------
December 3,
2015
·
by
L. Ali Khan
·It should come as no surprise, but
it does for many, that money merchants founded and continue to govern America.
See Debt Serfdom in America. The dominant narrative
that America was established by “puritans” and “pilgrims” escaping religious
atrocities sweeping across Europe is incompletely correct, used mostly for
myth-making and finding a respectable origin for a powerful nation, the United
States of America . But the dominant narrative conveniently if not deliberately
whitewashes the plight of wretched debt servants brought from Europe to make
profits for entrepreneurs. Just as vulnerable migrant workers are now imported
from across the Mexican border to slog in the fields, poverty-stricken Europeans
were transported from across the Atlantic to toil in the “New World” for the
benefit of venture capitalists.
·An indentured servant –also known
as debt servant or peon–is given money upfront and placed under debt. The
person receiving money (or some other benefit such as free voyage to a distant
land) contracts a legal obligation fortified with criminal penalties to work
off the debt by providing labor to the original money master or his assignees.
As debt servants have recurrent need to borrow money to meet monthly expenses,
they remain trapped in cyclical debt. Runaways, like fugitive slaves, are
apprehended and imprisoned or returned to the master. Venture capitalists used
debt servants (known as peons in Spanish colonies) for economic exploitation of
new lands. Debt servitude has been a potent legal alternative to slavery.
·In common law, venture capitalists
and their political allies in the British parliament introduced the idea of
stock company, a forebear of modern day corporation. The East India Company was
launched in 1600 to make profits from ventures undertaken in the “spicy” East
Indies. The Virginia Company of London (VCL) was chartered in 1606 to make
profits from ventures commenced in “savage” America. Other stock companies were
initiated to establish and operate settlements. Stockholders in these companies
were no philanthropists, moralists, or humanitarians; they were speculators
eager to make money by investing money into exotic ventures. These companies
were open to operate by any means necessary, resorting to all forms of human
trafficking, to make profits for stockholders.
From
establishment of the first colony until well into the eighteenth century, the
principal source of labor (from 50% to 75%) in mainland colonies was indentured
servants shipped from England, Scotland, Germany, and other parts of Europe.
Religious strife tearing apart Europe was God’s gift for money merchants as the
strife made debt servants cheap and readily available. Money merchants and
venture capitalists offered entire families “free voyage” to debt servitude in
America. Even Africans were first brought as indentured servants. In1641, the
Massachusetts slave traders passed the first slavery law setting the trend in
American colonies. It was color-blind slave legislation.
Colonial
money merchants and their scions, much like money merchants today, cared little
about racial characteristics or national origin since working hands were
desperately needed to exploit the land and natural resources forcibly taken
from Native Americans. As money merchants and venture capitalists relished
their wealth, they found it commercially logical to cast a wider net of debt
servitude to ensnare Native Americans, Mexicans, and free and freed Africans.
Debt servitude turned into “an equal opportunity employer” for the poor and the
wretched without distinction of race, religion, color, national origin, or
gender.
Millions of
white Americans living today are the descendants of indigent Europeans brought
as indentured servants. Historically, white Americans have much in common with
African Americans, Mexicans, and Native Americans than they do with money
merchants and venture capitalists -old money or new money– who take delight in
turning social and racial divisions into cheap labor.
In 1785,
almost three hundred years after Christopher Columbus’ “discovery” voyage, the
British Parliament passed a law to prohibit transporting debt servants on
English vessels. Conveniently though, other vessels were still available.
Furthermore, the European royalty and money merchants remained open, as before,
to ship convicts to American colonies. These convicts, much like indentured
servants, were used as cheap labor. These convicts married and procreated.
Their progeny faced difficulty in melting with the offspring of affluent
families. In the process, the derogatory term “white trash” was invented to
describe poor white families, mostly living in the South. White servitude, much
like slavery, was stereotyped as morally deficient and criminal. Other
derogatory terms, such as Okies, Hillbillies, and rednecks, are also employed
to degrade poor white families first trapped in cyclical debt and later in
recurring poverty.
White
servitude continued to persist even after the post-Civil War enactment of the
Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except
for crimes. Note that money merchants and their cohorts in legislatures found
no moral imperative to close all doors to involuntary servitude. Convicts as
social outcasts have always been the most vulnerable targets for involuntary
servitude. Note also that involuntary servitude is a much broader term than
debt servitude. In 1867, Congress passed the Anti-peonage Act to specifically
suppress peonage, a model similar to debt servitude, borrowed from the
Spaniards, which was rampant in New Mexico and other places.
Sometimes
laws are merely good wishes, sometimes smoke and mirrors, sometimes blatant
lies, and sometimes bad-faith attempts at correcting mighty market forces. The
servitude market was building venture capitalists and money merchants and its
bounties were lucrative for entrepreneurs, tobacco and cotton growers,
railroads, and other industries. They all needed low-cost and reliable labor.
In 1906, Federal investigations exposed the vibrant presence of European
immigrants “who were lured to the South by promises of high wages but found
themselves in debt working as peons in railroad and turpentine camps.”
Racial and
ethnic rivalries in America hide the hideous role of money merchants that
create debt and debt products to lock in labor and services. Millions of
Americans, the progenies of slaves and debt servants, reject all forms of
racism as a cruel ploy that money merchants, venture capitalists,
entrepreneurs, and morality-free politicians (including Donald Trump) freely
exploit to divide and rule vulnerable people unmindful of historical
mistreatment of their forefathers and foremothers. Most Americans, regardless
of race, religion, national origin, and gender, have much in common than
idiotic racial distinctions invented to separate them. Shared servitude is the
foundation of America and there is no shame for any family in rising from the
bottom of the pyramid built by Pharos. If rich and influential families trace
their roots to some sort of European aristocracy, their ties to the people
matter little because, in light of history, their ways are in opposition to the
ways of the majority.
L. Ali Khan is the founder of Legal Scholar Academy and a
professor of law at Washburn University, Kansas.
--------
BLOGGED:
WHITE
SLAVERY- of the dirty beautiful Vikings who were everywhere-SELLING Irish and
Celtic women/ to first settlers of Canada- my father's family came in 1632 to
NEWFOUNDLAND-Lawn, Placentia Bay- Canada via France via Ireland 1100s....
VIKINGS HISTORICAL SITE NEWFOUNDLAND ... and April 2016 perhaps a 2nd find-
sigh dirty beautiful Vikings
----------
September 11, 2001 - laid bare the absolute heartbreak and hurt from
too many wars..... and our beautiful sons and daughters sacrificed for people
in lands so far away..... until we got to know and understand and adore the
Afghan people and their gentle goodness....
and the fact that the most evil monsters professing to be Muslims
taliban were not and are not muslim or Islam at all.... they are the devil's
excrement and even the devil walks away.... today pray for our troops and
#YazidiRefugees4Canada.
FROM OLD MOMMA NOVA IN NOVA
SCOTIA 2 AFGHANISTAN- LETTER OF LOVE 2 OUR CANADIAN TROOPS- SUMMER OF 2008-
News of the days - myspace
Langley Students honour Canada troops
I LOVE YOU SO MUCH -SUMMER 08
Well the Olympics were a triumph and so they should be. Congratulations to all who participated and remembered the world's best athletes and held them high and proudly around the world for just a little while and took so much national pride in each and every personal achievement.
They are kind of like you.... our heroes- each and every one. What can we say here on this blessed board in your honor that has not be said- well I guess, it's like the old slate and chalk boards used in schools that had one room for all grades and chores started before school and after. I remember so many wonderful little tiny things that held me in awe of each of you and the empowerment and courage you have given women and children day in and day out in a tiny, little country called Iraq over the years (days... according to those precious souls of Zimbabwe- who know suffering and indignity and cruelty of a despot). The Iraqis love you and hard searching on the net and news outlets globally by millions of us has shown so many beautiful pictures and write-ups as to how you achieved so much success and why you are the global face of human rights around the world. All those years of fighting for rights of children and women.... and you won women the vote in Iraq- you won the war that day in the eyes of most women and children- a historical moment for all.
You simply maintained and maintain your course... you showed a good and decent people that the world does indeed care about the women and their blessed children- and now Iraq is a democracy. So many elderly smile your way on the streets and the comfort zone is so obvious. You have become the heroes in a part of the world that expected better of their own blood of blood kill and run cowards. Each and every time something was taken from what little the Iraqis had.... you somehow replaced... and you did it all without a bit of media glitz and glamour and respect that you; of all people who our the blood of our founding fathers and mothers in our free world.... deserved. Now ... we simply don't care globally what much of the media has to say- integrity and journalism cannot be said in the same sentence and people globally are very quick to say so now. You cut through all the crap and lived in the dirt and the mud and often hungry without clean water in clothes not cleaned for days on end. Because that's how it is. You walked the talk and your boots on the ground have more honor than any politician's words ever will.... in my personal view.
The media has become a joke... and a bad one and bloggers, moms and dads and loyal friends and family and communities and good old country music radio families have created a circle of love so deep and so strong around each and every one you that we just know you feel our gentle touch on your cheek and our smiles over your hearts. There is so much that you must miss; however, there is also so much that you teach us each and every day about ourselves as human beings and our ability to give the most who have the least. Why does this never change. I simply don't know.
You are the face of human courage. Zimbabwe by the by, is coming to terms with the wishes of the people and they have a hard old road to hoe; however, a Quebec newspaper today states that progress is being made and the people's elected Morgan Tsvangirai is prepared to accept the post of Prime Minister and leaving Mugabe the presidency to regulate the political crisis he has caused and to lose a great deal of his power which will pass to the people (wonder how much money is still left in Zimbabwe). Let's see if that happens. God Bless them and I will always remember their cry- if you can get rid of despots in Iraq and Afghanistan... why not Zimbabwe. How they prayed for you to come and help them.... just like you are doing there in Iraq and all the miracles you have given and performed.... interesting it has taken you so many years and cost us great men and women of our families... and to the people of Zimbabwe it's like you did all this overnight... seriously- the news in Zimbabwe and some of the Africas is that you succeeded in hardly any time at all and the pride in how good the citizens are treated and the rebuilding and charity work on your own time. They rejoice for Iraq and simply wish the same... how could we not love these people with all our hearts.
How in the name of all that is Holy... do you do it. What does God bless you with that inspires such courage, intelligence, endurance, watching out for each other... loyalty to God and Country above all. You sign the dotted line recognizing that you are signing your most precious thing... your very life. And we have lost a lot of dearly loved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet you do it willingly. You are ruled and over ruled and under ruled, mislead, misread and mistreated so often by those who hold office and promise; that we, the people will protect you and your loyalty where ever you are at all costs.... and you get sold out ... for a few pieces of silver. And you forgive ... each and every time. How do you do it. My personal views.
I know this... you are the person I would hire; my first choice for a neighbor and a friend.... you are the one entrusted with all I hold dear and precious in this world... my family, children, Bible, friends, family, pets, junk I love.... and my general way of life. We; of the country music radio family in the millions and millions who adore you... have pennies in our pockets... and we always give and always will. Our families had so darn little - fishing, farming, hunting.... that was how we survived. We ran bare foot for a reason and always had mended clothes on our backs and store bought.... was just not on our family list- we felt ashamed.... and we should have felt proud. Today I do.
During the WWII- we lost everything- 8 miles of land, lakes, prize horses, farmland that was lush and beautiful- all we had... was each other, our Bible and our community reflecting and rejoicing in our won FREEDOM. We just started all over again... right from scratch. Working and schooling and Church as a youngun was a way of life and clean bed, food in our tummies and warm fireplace was everything. I was born with the Bible in one hand and our love our Military in the other- it was just our way of life.
You have restored all my faith in humankind so many times in so many ways. You serve.... our beloved United States of America, Militia, Reservists along with Canada, our U.K. and our Coalitions... people and countries you do not know nor do you understand- you do your job for very little and are treated worse than those who throw out a pet on moving day... in my personal view... by way to many people who are in charge who have forgotten what it is like to truly live with so little and to value the duty that means our ver life our death on any given day.
Rwanda - 100 days of G7 Leaders SILENCE and 100 days of mainstream media SILENCE- 800,000 children, women and men butchered- and you stood hopelessly by as the politicians in their clean and ultra plush surroundings moved paper, attended functions and simply pretended that you were NOT EVEN THERE. It still is so vulgar and makes me so sick to my stomach.... and that is why Zimbabwe hit me so hard- and we watched this disgrace- and not a thing seemed to be done. Sigh. But Zimbabwe will built from the ashes.... I just know it... they are such beautiful people and the world is watching- we are always watching now.
Burma made fools of us while their citizens died in the thousands and the military regime threw body after body in the river so the press would think they were part of the weather death factor.... not one more penny from my pocket... not one. I want guidelines, accountability (by our chosen people we; the people, select who are accountable themselves- quarterly and no political affiliations... ever) for each and every cent. After 45 years of giving and giving darn it I deserve to know where our money goes from our pockets to these places to help these people who are still dying horribly and over populated, underfed, under educated and somehow - made to feel responsible. Why? How can we be color coded AFTER these people have conveniently received our money - yet millions of people are still dying. You know... after all the billions we have raised and donated- I mean we even collected pennies for Heaven's sake- where are those wonderful lifestyles for these precious children and women and men and elderly .... like we were promised with money we sent instead of buying that extra piece of clothing we wanted so badly or better named shoes for our kids. How can they justify hating us people who gave and give so darn much- when our forefathers and mothers built what we have with their bare hands and their Christian Faith. You, sweet men and women serving who are right there ... especially at the beginning of all these hot zones and hate zones.... how do you amass the courage to get up and put your boots on each and every day my darlins.
Lord... how I love you so much. And just look at your brothers and sisters serving on our homelands- with all we have had to live through. Truly where would we be without you who serve abroad and on our homelands. As so many people are saying... it's time we .... in our own free world... had some of the good times. Cutting back? What is that- I mean are we the only living poor in the free world... us country music radio population. 99.9 per cent of us barely make a living- and are loved only on voting day it seems to me. Then the movied people, the stars, the gollywoods take right over and the media ... well who knows with the media. Somehow quality standards for journalism for the people is so long gone. Do we country music radio people have to always feel so along when we speak for the aged? The visible and invisible disabled? The lack of jobs with decent schools and after school for our children, community centres, social youth groups, sports, art, literature, buses, transportation, safety in the workplace, education about our own history and the beautiful world we live in.
What about the fact that children still cannot vote and; therefore, still have no voice. Same gender relationships are not a blip on my radar... just don't care; what media craze is going and coming from the gollywood hollywood and what sad movies to poke fun at times at the little people and the simple dignity and respect of who and what we are blurred in their billion dollar lifestyles of how they see us 99.9 per cent of the rest of the world... and get away with it- no longer care. BUT... abused and used and ignored children I care...bigtime. I want each and every child to have love and education, education, education in our free world- visible and invisible disabilites not one iota of a barrier to their young hearts and souls and what they could be and give to our world and future. You... who serve... help keep this dream alive.
You are always the heroes. Thank you darlins for loving us... and you don't even know our names. My heart goes out to the Canadian, American, British, New Zealand, Polish, French military losses in Afghanistan. I see the Islamic terrorists are now even looking at moving on out of there real fast and other countries.... who were considered their friends are now feeling the effects of those with no country, no state, no soul and just hate. September 11th taught me to hug my Muslim friends a little tighter and to always stay awake and be alert. Never Again. I love you. You know the corn is fresh, blueberries, old fashioned picnics, suppers, bingo, dancing, card playing and so on are still moving us on..... but we miss you and somehow... a little piece of our soul is empty with you not here at home with us... safe and close to our hearts. Candles are lit and prayers of the evening said for each of you and always to those we have lost.
Iraq is free. Iraq is a democracy and women can vote and hold office and never again will the children of Iraq live shackled to poverty and despots. Congratulations to each and every one of you. September 11th ... we remember.... and congratulations to the Military Forces, Militia and Reservists who withstood so much despair and hurt from our own and those men and women serving who died by politicians words and medias action and inaction in my personal view. They will stand before our Maker just like us poor folk.
Afghanistan is changing and congratulations on having a University named in your honor... United States University. Zimbabwe people showed so many like me why you are our life blood during such harsh and cruel times in today's world. I wonder what the new governments of the free world will bring about in military initiatives.... and whether duty of service will be regarded as the highest job in the land... and not the least. I pray so. Maybe we won't need Military at all and there will be a formal way to respect and honor commitments of each country without losing your blood. You know sweethearts.... what a wonderful world that would be for all children- if we do not need Military, Policing or laws that are so often bought and paid for by who has the most money.... but a real and dignifed world that created knowledge and learning and cultural sharing and prosperity. I mean it.
Until then...in our world- you; precious ones, are the first and most important news of the day... and will continue to be so. I love you so much. Your old momma Nova.
http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2013/07/from-nova-scotia-2-afghanistan-letter.html
Langley Students honour Canada troops
I LOVE YOU SO MUCH -SUMMER 08
Well the Olympics were a triumph and so they should be. Congratulations to all who participated and remembered the world's best athletes and held them high and proudly around the world for just a little while and took so much national pride in each and every personal achievement.
They are kind of like you.... our heroes- each and every one. What can we say here on this blessed board in your honor that has not be said- well I guess, it's like the old slate and chalk boards used in schools that had one room for all grades and chores started before school and after. I remember so many wonderful little tiny things that held me in awe of each of you and the empowerment and courage you have given women and children day in and day out in a tiny, little country called Iraq over the years (days... according to those precious souls of Zimbabwe- who know suffering and indignity and cruelty of a despot). The Iraqis love you and hard searching on the net and news outlets globally by millions of us has shown so many beautiful pictures and write-ups as to how you achieved so much success and why you are the global face of human rights around the world. All those years of fighting for rights of children and women.... and you won women the vote in Iraq- you won the war that day in the eyes of most women and children- a historical moment for all.
You simply maintained and maintain your course... you showed a good and decent people that the world does indeed care about the women and their blessed children- and now Iraq is a democracy. So many elderly smile your way on the streets and the comfort zone is so obvious. You have become the heroes in a part of the world that expected better of their own blood of blood kill and run cowards. Each and every time something was taken from what little the Iraqis had.... you somehow replaced... and you did it all without a bit of media glitz and glamour and respect that you; of all people who our the blood of our founding fathers and mothers in our free world.... deserved. Now ... we simply don't care globally what much of the media has to say- integrity and journalism cannot be said in the same sentence and people globally are very quick to say so now. You cut through all the crap and lived in the dirt and the mud and often hungry without clean water in clothes not cleaned for days on end. Because that's how it is. You walked the talk and your boots on the ground have more honor than any politician's words ever will.... in my personal view.
The media has become a joke... and a bad one and bloggers, moms and dads and loyal friends and family and communities and good old country music radio families have created a circle of love so deep and so strong around each and every one you that we just know you feel our gentle touch on your cheek and our smiles over your hearts. There is so much that you must miss; however, there is also so much that you teach us each and every day about ourselves as human beings and our ability to give the most who have the least. Why does this never change. I simply don't know.
You are the face of human courage. Zimbabwe by the by, is coming to terms with the wishes of the people and they have a hard old road to hoe; however, a Quebec newspaper today states that progress is being made and the people's elected Morgan Tsvangirai is prepared to accept the post of Prime Minister and leaving Mugabe the presidency to regulate the political crisis he has caused and to lose a great deal of his power which will pass to the people (wonder how much money is still left in Zimbabwe). Let's see if that happens. God Bless them and I will always remember their cry- if you can get rid of despots in Iraq and Afghanistan... why not Zimbabwe. How they prayed for you to come and help them.... just like you are doing there in Iraq and all the miracles you have given and performed.... interesting it has taken you so many years and cost us great men and women of our families... and to the people of Zimbabwe it's like you did all this overnight... seriously- the news in Zimbabwe and some of the Africas is that you succeeded in hardly any time at all and the pride in how good the citizens are treated and the rebuilding and charity work on your own time. They rejoice for Iraq and simply wish the same... how could we not love these people with all our hearts.
How in the name of all that is Holy... do you do it. What does God bless you with that inspires such courage, intelligence, endurance, watching out for each other... loyalty to God and Country above all. You sign the dotted line recognizing that you are signing your most precious thing... your very life. And we have lost a lot of dearly loved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet you do it willingly. You are ruled and over ruled and under ruled, mislead, misread and mistreated so often by those who hold office and promise; that we, the people will protect you and your loyalty where ever you are at all costs.... and you get sold out ... for a few pieces of silver. And you forgive ... each and every time. How do you do it. My personal views.
I know this... you are the person I would hire; my first choice for a neighbor and a friend.... you are the one entrusted with all I hold dear and precious in this world... my family, children, Bible, friends, family, pets, junk I love.... and my general way of life. We; of the country music radio family in the millions and millions who adore you... have pennies in our pockets... and we always give and always will. Our families had so darn little - fishing, farming, hunting.... that was how we survived. We ran bare foot for a reason and always had mended clothes on our backs and store bought.... was just not on our family list- we felt ashamed.... and we should have felt proud. Today I do.
During the WWII- we lost everything- 8 miles of land, lakes, prize horses, farmland that was lush and beautiful- all we had... was each other, our Bible and our community reflecting and rejoicing in our won FREEDOM. We just started all over again... right from scratch. Working and schooling and Church as a youngun was a way of life and clean bed, food in our tummies and warm fireplace was everything. I was born with the Bible in one hand and our love our Military in the other- it was just our way of life.
You have restored all my faith in humankind so many times in so many ways. You serve.... our beloved United States of America, Militia, Reservists along with Canada, our U.K. and our Coalitions... people and countries you do not know nor do you understand- you do your job for very little and are treated worse than those who throw out a pet on moving day... in my personal view... by way to many people who are in charge who have forgotten what it is like to truly live with so little and to value the duty that means our ver life our death on any given day.
Rwanda - 100 days of G7 Leaders SILENCE and 100 days of mainstream media SILENCE- 800,000 children, women and men butchered- and you stood hopelessly by as the politicians in their clean and ultra plush surroundings moved paper, attended functions and simply pretended that you were NOT EVEN THERE. It still is so vulgar and makes me so sick to my stomach.... and that is why Zimbabwe hit me so hard- and we watched this disgrace- and not a thing seemed to be done. Sigh. But Zimbabwe will built from the ashes.... I just know it... they are such beautiful people and the world is watching- we are always watching now.
Burma made fools of us while their citizens died in the thousands and the military regime threw body after body in the river so the press would think they were part of the weather death factor.... not one more penny from my pocket... not one. I want guidelines, accountability (by our chosen people we; the people, select who are accountable themselves- quarterly and no political affiliations... ever) for each and every cent. After 45 years of giving and giving darn it I deserve to know where our money goes from our pockets to these places to help these people who are still dying horribly and over populated, underfed, under educated and somehow - made to feel responsible. Why? How can we be color coded AFTER these people have conveniently received our money - yet millions of people are still dying. You know... after all the billions we have raised and donated- I mean we even collected pennies for Heaven's sake- where are those wonderful lifestyles for these precious children and women and men and elderly .... like we were promised with money we sent instead of buying that extra piece of clothing we wanted so badly or better named shoes for our kids. How can they justify hating us people who gave and give so darn much- when our forefathers and mothers built what we have with their bare hands and their Christian Faith. You, sweet men and women serving who are right there ... especially at the beginning of all these hot zones and hate zones.... how do you amass the courage to get up and put your boots on each and every day my darlins.
Lord... how I love you so much. And just look at your brothers and sisters serving on our homelands- with all we have had to live through. Truly where would we be without you who serve abroad and on our homelands. As so many people are saying... it's time we .... in our own free world... had some of the good times. Cutting back? What is that- I mean are we the only living poor in the free world... us country music radio population. 99.9 per cent of us barely make a living- and are loved only on voting day it seems to me. Then the movied people, the stars, the gollywoods take right over and the media ... well who knows with the media. Somehow quality standards for journalism for the people is so long gone. Do we country music radio people have to always feel so along when we speak for the aged? The visible and invisible disabled? The lack of jobs with decent schools and after school for our children, community centres, social youth groups, sports, art, literature, buses, transportation, safety in the workplace, education about our own history and the beautiful world we live in.
What about the fact that children still cannot vote and; therefore, still have no voice. Same gender relationships are not a blip on my radar... just don't care; what media craze is going and coming from the gollywood hollywood and what sad movies to poke fun at times at the little people and the simple dignity and respect of who and what we are blurred in their billion dollar lifestyles of how they see us 99.9 per cent of the rest of the world... and get away with it- no longer care. BUT... abused and used and ignored children I care...bigtime. I want each and every child to have love and education, education, education in our free world- visible and invisible disabilites not one iota of a barrier to their young hearts and souls and what they could be and give to our world and future. You... who serve... help keep this dream alive.
You are always the heroes. Thank you darlins for loving us... and you don't even know our names. My heart goes out to the Canadian, American, British, New Zealand, Polish, French military losses in Afghanistan. I see the Islamic terrorists are now even looking at moving on out of there real fast and other countries.... who were considered their friends are now feeling the effects of those with no country, no state, no soul and just hate. September 11th taught me to hug my Muslim friends a little tighter and to always stay awake and be alert. Never Again. I love you. You know the corn is fresh, blueberries, old fashioned picnics, suppers, bingo, dancing, card playing and so on are still moving us on..... but we miss you and somehow... a little piece of our soul is empty with you not here at home with us... safe and close to our hearts. Candles are lit and prayers of the evening said for each of you and always to those we have lost.
Iraq is free. Iraq is a democracy and women can vote and hold office and never again will the children of Iraq live shackled to poverty and despots. Congratulations to each and every one of you. September 11th ... we remember.... and congratulations to the Military Forces, Militia and Reservists who withstood so much despair and hurt from our own and those men and women serving who died by politicians words and medias action and inaction in my personal view. They will stand before our Maker just like us poor folk.
Afghanistan is changing and congratulations on having a University named in your honor... United States University. Zimbabwe people showed so many like me why you are our life blood during such harsh and cruel times in today's world. I wonder what the new governments of the free world will bring about in military initiatives.... and whether duty of service will be regarded as the highest job in the land... and not the least. I pray so. Maybe we won't need Military at all and there will be a formal way to respect and honor commitments of each country without losing your blood. You know sweethearts.... what a wonderful world that would be for all children- if we do not need Military, Policing or laws that are so often bought and paid for by who has the most money.... but a real and dignifed world that created knowledge and learning and cultural sharing and prosperity. I mean it.
Until then...in our world- you; precious ones, are the first and most important news of the day... and will continue to be so. I love you so much. Your old momma Nova.
http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2013/07/from-nova-scotia-2-afghanistan-letter.html
-----------
Here's the thing Standing Rock protesters did differently — and won
By Jack Smith IV
December 10, 2016
December 10, 2016
CANNON BALL, N.D. — Last Friday, Hawaiian activist Andre Perez faced a crowd of about a
hundred Standing Rock newbies standing halfway to their knees in snow. Most of
those assembled were freshly arrived volunteers at Oceti Sakowin Camp — the
northernmost of the three camps in the area and the closest to the front lines
with police. If volunteers wanted to go to the front lines, where police were
using concussion grenades and tear gas, they had to get through Perez's
training.
"I'm gonna need a couple
of rent-a-cops up here," Perez shouted over the crowd. "This next one
is called a snatch-and-grab."
As Perez and 10 volunteers
played the part of the cops — with safewords if things got a little too rough —
those in the crowd clasped arms to create a human barricade, sitting low in
their center of gravity to make the formation stronger. The Indigenous People's
Power Project, a group of indigenous organizers from around the world, ran the
training every day at 2 p.m.
The victory at Standing Rock
didn't happen haphazardly. It happened because organizers understood that
effective protest is a learned skill. With a series of daily training sessions,
the organizers at Standing Rock taught excited volunteers a traditional model
of activism based on organization, leadership and discipline. The organizers at
Standing Rock say it's time to bring that approach
to sovereignty struggles across the country.
The trainings ran for two
hours, beginning with a review of the principles organizers had adopted listed
at the head of the room on a whiteboard: "We are protectors, not
protesters," "we are peaceful and prayerful" and "no
weapons."
Trainers at Oceti Sakowin Camp
were adamant about non-violence, instructing people never to put hands on the
police and never bring weapons to the front lines. There's always the risk that
youthful zeal and righteous anger could cause things to pop off. All the police
would need in order to escalate their use of force would be one good excuse.
"We've got young bucks
here who are itching to do something, and fight for freedom," Jackie, an
indigenous woman from Wisconsin, told Mic at Oceti Sakowin Camp.
"But we can't have that at the front lines. We've got to stay peaceful, or
else we're hypocrites."
After learning how to handle
an afternoon on the front lines, wash pepper spray out of another person's eyes
and deal with legal matters if you're arrested, other trainers would lead the
group outside to practice protest formations and how to form human barricades.
"We've got to stay peaceful, or else
we're hypocrites."
The informal course was based
on work by the Ruckus Society, an organization that helps activists with
non-violent protest training and tactics when called upon to help. The
Indigenous People's Power Project is an offshoot of Ruckus, built to visit
communities like the Lakota Sioux people of Standing Rock and offer their services,
which includes building custom activist training based on a community's needs.
Ruckus often holds training camps that go on for up to a week at a time, but
the constant influx of new hands at Standing Rock required something more light
and flexible.
"If we keep people tied
down for six hours, the actions might get held up," Sharon Lungo, the
executive director of the Ruckus Society, told Mic. "Nobody's
asking for folks to put themselves in harm's way or get injured. It's not about
sending people to jail. It's about how we strategically intervene."
Those 2 p.m. action trainings
weren't the only meetings. Oceti Sakowin Camp had a robust schedule of
daily programming, updated throughout the day on white boards around
the camp. At 9 a.m. each day was general orientation, where volunteers who just
arrived learned the camp rules: no photographing sacred fires and ceremonies.
And, the camp values: be of service, put indigenous people at the center. And
at 6 p.m. were the meetings about decolonization, a word that's bubbling up
into the mainstream a lot now that indigenous struggles are back in the news.
Before the declaration of
victory on Sunday, the camp was receiving hundreds of new
visitors a day, packing each of these sessions to the brim. By the
time December came around, it was clear to the organizers the camp's population
had more volunteers and guests than it did indigenous people.
"When our white folks
come in, we ask them to take a look at themselves, and look at everything
they've gained on the backs of our communities — not to come in with great
guilt and apology, but to understand that their privilege buys them leverage
and the legal system and media," Lungo said.
The trainers at Standing Rock
emphasized that this means putting indigenous people back at the center, and
for white allies to ask themselves how they can be of service. Barring that,
Lungo said that if white allies can't "come correct," they're free to
leave.
"Are you here with the
best intentions, or are you here with your own agenda?" Lungo said.
"This isn't about taking selfies and hanging with Indians. It's our job as
outsiders to check ourselves. That's why training organizations exist."
The day after the Army Corp of
Engineers announced the
Dakota Access Pipeline would have to consider alternative routes — a short-term
victory for the water protectors — a blizzard tore through
Standing Rock. There were over 127 cases of hypothermia, and tribal elders
asked the visitors and non-essential protestors to head home, at least for the
harsh North Dakota winter. With brutal winds battering the tents and small
structures at Oceti, hundreds of people evacuated for their own safety.
"This isn't about taking selfies and
hanging with Indians."
But Standing Rock isn't the
only fight, and the point of training people in organizing and tactics is
building a network of leaders so that those who stood at Standing Rock can take the fight home
with them. Even as the protest will likely rage on in North Dakota, activists
at home focused on the banks behind the pipeline project, like Citigroup and
Wells Fargo, protesting at offices and keeping bank employees from
entering their buildings.
"This isn't the only pipeline,
this isn't the only dirty energy project," Lungo said. "Carrying that
momentum into your community and applying it is just as important as having a
physical presence out there."
---------------
Slavery Timeline 1501-1600
A
Chronology of Slavery, Abolition, and Emancipation in the Sixteenth Century
This page contains a detailed timeline of the main
historical, literary, and cultural events connected with British slavery,
abolition, and emancipation between 1501 and 1600. It also includes references
to the most significant events taking place outside of the British zone of
influence (in the sixteenth century that was most of the world) as well as key
events in the history of European exploration and colonisation.
While there is plenty of detail in this timeline, it is of
course impossible to record every event related to slavery in this period. The
following selection is thus intended to provide an overview of the topic only.
If there is something I have left out that you think should be included, please let me know.
Click on a date in the list below, or scroll down the page,
for information. Links are given to pages on this website only. For my sources
and for further reading, look at the page Further Reading: Slavery, Abolition, and Emancipation.
1501
|
1502
·
1502: Juan de Córdoba of
Seville becomes the first merchant we can identify to send an African slave to
the New World. Córdoba, like other merchants, is permitted by the Spanish
authorities to send only one slave. Others send two or three.
1504
·
1504: a small group of
Africans - probably slaves captured from a Portuguese vessel - are brought to
the court of King James IV of Scotland.
1505
·
1505: first record of sugar
cane being grown in the New World, in Santo Domingo (modern Dominican
Republic).
1509
·
1509: Columbus's son, Diego
Cólon, becomes governor of the new Spanish empire in the Carribean. He soon
complains that Native American slaves do not work hard enough.
1510
·
22 January 1510: the start
of the systematic transportation of African slaves to the New World: King
Ferdinand of Spain authorises a shipment of 50 African slaves to be sent to
Santo Domingo.
1513
·
2 April 1513: Juan Ponce de
Leon becomes the first European to reach the coast of what is now the United
States of America (modern Florida).
1516
·
1516: the governor of Cuba,
Diego Velázquez, authorises slave-raiding expeditions to Central America. One
group of slaves aboard a Spanish caravel rebel and kill the Spanish crew before
sailing home - the first successful slave rebellion recorded in the New World.
·
1516: in his book Utopia,
Sir Thomas More argues that his ideal society would have slaves but they would
not be 'non-combatant prisoners-of-war, slaves by birth, or purchases from
foreign slave markets.' Rather, they would be local convicts or 'condemned
criminals from other countries, who are acquired in large numbers, sometimes
for a small payment, but usually for nothing.' (Trans. Paul Turner, Penguin,
1965)
1518
·
18 August 1518: in a
significant escalation of the slave trade, Charles V grants his Flemish
courtier Lorenzo de Gorrevod permission to import 4000 African slaves into New
Spain. From this point onwards thousands of slaves are sent to the New World
each year.
1519
·
20 September 1519: The
circumnavigation expedition of Ferdinand Magellan sets out from San Lucar de
Barameda. In December 1520, Magellan discovered the ocean which he named the
Pacific. Magellan died in the Philipines, 27 April 1521. Only one of the five
ships to set out returned to Spain, on 8 September 1522.
1521
·
13 August 1521: with the
capture of King Cuahutemotzin by Hernan Cortés and the fall of the city of
Mexico, the Aztec empire is overthrown and Mexico comes under Spanish Rule.
1522
·
1522: A major slave
rebellion breaks out on the island of Hispaniola. This is the first significant
uprising of African slaves. After this, slave resistance becomes widespread and
uprisings common.
1524
·
1524: 300 African slaves
taken to Cuba to work in the gold mines.
1525
|
1526
·
1526: Hieronymous Seiler and
Heinrich Ehinger of Konstanz become the first Germans we know to have become
involved in the slave trade.
1527
·
1527: earliest records of
sugar production in Jamaica, later a major sugar producing region of the
British Empire. Sugar production is rapidly expanding throughout the Caribbean
region at this time - with the mills almost exclusivly worked by African
slaves.
1528
·
November 1528: a slave
called Esteban (or Estevanico) becomes the first African slave to step foot on
what is now the United States of America. He was one of only four survivors of
Pánfilo de Narváez's failed expedition to Florida. He and the other three took
eight years to walk to the Spanish colony in Mexico. After their return in
1536, the group's leader, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, published an account of
their journey through modern Texas and Mexico (1542).
1530
·
1530: Juan de la Barrera, a
Seville merchant, begins transporting slaves directly from Africa to the New
World (before this, slaves had normally passed through Europe first). His lead
is quickly followed by other slave traders.
1532
·
1532: William Hawkins of
Plymouth becomes the first English mariner to visit the coast of West Africa,
although he does not take part in slave trading.
·
22 January 1532: Martim
Afonso de Souza founds the first Portuguese colony in Brazil at São Vicente.
Sugar production begins almost immediately.
·
15 November 1532: Francisco
Pizaro massacres the Incas at Caxamalca (modern Caxamarca) and captures King
Atahuallpa, an event that marks the Spanish conquest of Peru.
1539
·
30 May 1539: Hernando de
Soto, following reports from Cabeza de Vaca, lands on the coast of Florida. Of
about 1200 men in his expedition, around 50 were African slaves. After
exploring modern Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South
Carolina, the expedition ended in disaster.
1541
·
September 1541: on his third
voyage to Canada, Jacques Cartier establishes the first French colony in the
New World at Charlesbourg-Royal, close to modern Québec.
1550
|
1555
·
1555: the Portuguese sailor
Fernão de Oliveira, in Arte de Guerra no mar (The Art of War at Sea),
denounces the slave trade as an 'evil trade'. The book anticipates many of the
arguments made by abolitionists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
·
1555: Queen Mary of England,
under pressure from the Spanish, forbids English involvement in Guinea.
·
July 1555: a small group of
Africans from Shama (modern Ghana) described as slaves are brought to London by
John Lok, a London merchant hoping to break into the African trade.
·
10 November 1555: a group of
Norman and Breton sailors, under the command of Nicolas de Villegagnon, found
the first French colony in South America. The settlement, close to modern Rio
De Janiero in Brazil, is named La France Antarctique.
1556
·
1556: The Italian city of
Genoa tries to prevent trading in slaves - not for any humanitarian reasons -
but only in an attempt to reduce the numbers of Africans in the city.
·
1556: Domingo de Soto, in De
justicia et de jure libri X (Ten Books on Justice and Law), argues
that it is wrong to keep in slavery any person who was born free.
1562
·
October 1562: John Hawkins
of Plymouth becomes the first English sailor that we know about to have
obtained African slaves - approximately 300 of them in Sierra Leone - for sale
in the West Indies. Hawkins traded the slaves illegally with Spanish colonies,
but the trip was profitable and others followed. These contributed to
increasing tensions between England and Spain. (As well as initiating the
English slave trade, Hawkins also introduced both the potato and tobacco to
England.)
1569
·
1569: a Sevillian Dominican,
Tomás de Mercado, publishes Tratos y contratos de mercaderes (Practices
and Contracts of Merchants), which attacks the way the slave trade is
conducted.
1571
·
1571: the Parlement
of Bordeaux sets all slaves - "blacks and moors" - in the town free,
declaring slavery illegal in France.
1575
|
1573
·
1573: a Spanish-Mexican
lawyer, Bartolemé Frías de Albornoz, publishes Arte de los contratos (The
Art of Contracts), which casts doubt on the legality of the slave trade.
1575
·
20 February 1575: Paulo Dias
de Novães founds the Portuguese colony of São Paulo de Luanda on the African
mainland (modern Angola). The colony soon became a major slave-trading port
supplying the vast Brazilian market.
1577
·
13 December 1577: Sir
Francis Drake sets out from Plymouth on his circumnavigation of the globe.
(Returns 26 September 1580)
1579
·
29 January 1579: with the
Union of Utrecht, the northern provinces of the Low Countries unite to create a
Calvinist republic free from Spanish rule. The United Provinces (modern
Netherlands) soon becomes an important slave-trading nation and an aspiring
colonial power.
1580
·
1580: Following the death of
King Henry of Portugal, and a short campaign by the duke of Alva, Spain and
Portugal are united under Philip II of Spain. Spain thus becomes the most
important colonial power - and the largest participant in the slave trade.
1585
·
27 July 1585: the first
English colony in the New World is established at Roanoke Island (modern North
Carolina), organised by Sir Walter Raleigh and governed by Ralph Lane. It was
not successful, and the colonists withdrew in June 1586.
·
16 November 1585: In the
first of a series of attacks on Spanish colonial interests, Sir Francis Drake
sacks the slave-trading settlement of Santiago in the Cape Verde Islands.
1586
·
11 January 1586: Sir Francis
Drake sacks the Spanish colony of Santo Domingo (modern Dominican republic). He
goes on to sack Cartagena (modern Columbia) and St. Augustine (modern Florida).
These acts of piracy are among the factors that precipitate war between England
and Spain.
1587
·
23 July 1587: A second
English colony is founded at Roanoke Island, again organised by Sir Walter
Raleigh. When it is revisted by English ships in August 1590, it has vanished
without trace.
1588
·
July-September 1588: the
failure of the Spanish Armada (an intended Spanish invasion of England, largely
destroyed by bad weather) provides a boost for English maritime power and for
English colonial ambitions, although the boost may have been more psychological
than actual.
1592
·
1592: Bernard Ericks becomes
the first Dutch slave trader.
1594
·
1594: L'Espérance of
La Rochelle becomes the first French ship positively identified as
participating in the slave trade. However, French merchants may have been
involved in small scale slave trading since the 1540s.
1595
·
1595: in a pattern that was
to be adhered to for several decades, Philip II of Spain grants Pedro Gomes
Reinal, a Portuguese merchant, a near monopoly in the slave trade. Reinal
agrees to provide Spanish America with 4250 African slaves annually, with a
further 1000 slaves being provided by other merchants.
1596
·
11 July 1596: Queen
Elizabeth I of England sends a letter complaining that 'there are of late
divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are
allready here to manie ... Her Majesty's pleasure therefore ys that those kinde
of people should be sent forth of the lande". Accordingly, a group of
slaves were rounded up and given to a German slave trader, Caspar van Senden,
in 'payment' for duties he had performed.
1597
·
1597: Francis Bacon writes On
Plantations which becomes an important early text of British colonial
discourse.
1600
|
1600
·
1600: Pedro Gomes Reinal
dies. The Spanish slave-trading monopoly is passed to Jaão Rodrigues Coutinho,
Governor of Angola.
·
1600: King Philip III of
Spain outlaws the use of Native American slaves in Spanish colonies.
---------------------
A brief history of
slavery
Slavery existed in ancient Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Sumeria, and other ancient societies of the Middle East; it is even mentioned in the Bible. It was also practiced in ancient China, India, and among the blacks of Africa and the Indians of America. Slavery in ancient times reached its height in Greece and the Roman Empire. The major source of slaves in ancient civilizations were prisoners of war. Other slaves were criminals or people who could not pay their debts.[15]
Julius Caesar enslaved as many as one million Whites from Gaul, and the British were regarded as a race of slaves. From the eighth to the eleventh century France was a major transfer point for White slaves to the Muslim world, with Rouen being the center for the selling of Irish and Flemish slaves. At the same time Venetians were selling slaves and timber across the Mediterranean. The slaves were usually Slavs brought across the Alps.[16]
After the Roman Empire broke up in the 400s, international trade fell sharply. The loss of markets for goods that slaves might have produced led to a decline in the need for slaves. In Europe, slavery slowly changed into serfdom. However, slavery continued in the areas around the Mediterranean Sea. During the 600s and early 700s, Arab Muslims conquered the Middle East, North Africa, and almost all of Spain. During the Crusades, which began in the 1000s, the Christians attempted to recapture Jerusalem and other areas of the Holy Land from the Muslims, and both groups enslaved their prisoners. Following the fall of Acre and the last Christian strongholds on the mainland of Syria in 1291, Christian captives from Acre glutted the local slave markets.[17]
The Crusaders discovered sugar in the Holy Land, and when they returned home a widespread demand was created for sugar in Europe. As a result, Italian merchants established sugar plantations on several Mediterranean islands. The production of sugar required large numbers of laborers, and so slaves were imported from Russia and other parts of Europe.[18]
Even the Church owned slaves.
"Had the Church been
against slavery it would have branded it as a wrong, and have set the example
of liberating its own slaves. It did neither. Its conscience was only shocked
when a Jewish or Heathen master owned Christian slaves. Nay, the Church not
only held slaves itself, not only protected others who held slaves, but it
thundered against all who should despoil its property by selling or liberating
slaves belonging to the Church. The Council of Agatho, 506, considered it
unfair to enfranchise the slaves of monasteries, seeing that the monks
themselves laboured. The Council of Toledo, 597, stigmatised as robbers those
who set free the slaves of the Church without giving an equivalent. The Council
of Epaona, 517, prohibited abbots from emancipating the slaves of their
monasteries. Slaves were bequeathed to the Church by will, or given as an act
of piety, and never was the gift refused. The Church, too, held its slaves to
the end. In France, in his day, Voltaire [1694 - 1778] estimated that the
Church held between 50,000 and 60,000 slaves."[19]
The word "slave" itself comes
from "Slav" (the name of the largest ethnic group in Eastern
European). Many slaves in Europe were sourced from Russia and other Slavic
areas. The Vikings often supplied slaves from Russia. However, during the
mid-1500s, the expanding Ottoman Empire cut off the supply of slaves from
Eastern Europe. By that time, however, the Portuguese were increasing their
trade with Africa, exchanging cloth and weapons for gold, salt, and slaves.[20]
By the 1300s, a few African blacks had begun to replace Russian slaves on Italian plantations. These Africans were bought or captured from North African Arabs, who had enslaved them for years. During the 1400s, Portuguese sailors started to explore the coast of West Africa and to ship Africans to Europe as slaves; also enslaving Africans on sugar plantations that they established on islands off the coast of West Africa. In 1481, El Mina, the first European trading post for slaves was created on Africa's Gold Coast by the Portuguese who began slave trading from their new fort. The Spanish wanted to use black slaves to take over from the Indian populations in the colonies and to cover labour shortages in Brazil. Portuguese traders filled their ships with African slaves from the Congo and Angola.[21]
Enslaved Africans were taken to the Americas at the beginning of the 1500s. In 1502 the governor of Hispaniola in the West Indies arrived with a dozen African slaves. By 1510 traders were shipping a few hundred African people to the Americas every year. In 1517 Spain issued its first Asiento Treaty, a contract to supply 4000 slaves over the following eight years. More than 100,000 slaves were imported into the Spanish possessions in the Americas. The Portuguese slave traders had special licence from the Spanish government to supply slaves to its colonies until Holland took over after the Dutch West India Company was formed in 1621. Holland then captured all the trading posts established by the Portuguese on the African Gold Coast, and set up a number of posts of its own by 1681. The Dutch held the Spanish contract for the supply of slaves from 1640-1700. By 1623 Holland had taken 15,430 slaves to Brazil. In 1646 the first black slaves were landed in the earliest Dutch settlement in America, New Amsterdam, on the tip of Manhattan. New Amsterdam became New York when the settlement was captured by the English.[22]
The demand for slaves to work on sugar and tobacco plantations increased during the 1600s when France, England, and the Netherlands established colonies in the West Indies, and along the East Coast of North America. In those areas, the local natives were not found to be adequate as a labour force.[23]
Howard Dodson, of National Geographic, wrote that Black slavery was wanted in order to replace the slavery of Whites and Indians.
By the 1300s, a few African blacks had begun to replace Russian slaves on Italian plantations. These Africans were bought or captured from North African Arabs, who had enslaved them for years. During the 1400s, Portuguese sailors started to explore the coast of West Africa and to ship Africans to Europe as slaves; also enslaving Africans on sugar plantations that they established on islands off the coast of West Africa. In 1481, El Mina, the first European trading post for slaves was created on Africa's Gold Coast by the Portuguese who began slave trading from their new fort. The Spanish wanted to use black slaves to take over from the Indian populations in the colonies and to cover labour shortages in Brazil. Portuguese traders filled their ships with African slaves from the Congo and Angola.[21]
Enslaved Africans were taken to the Americas at the beginning of the 1500s. In 1502 the governor of Hispaniola in the West Indies arrived with a dozen African slaves. By 1510 traders were shipping a few hundred African people to the Americas every year. In 1517 Spain issued its first Asiento Treaty, a contract to supply 4000 slaves over the following eight years. More than 100,000 slaves were imported into the Spanish possessions in the Americas. The Portuguese slave traders had special licence from the Spanish government to supply slaves to its colonies until Holland took over after the Dutch West India Company was formed in 1621. Holland then captured all the trading posts established by the Portuguese on the African Gold Coast, and set up a number of posts of its own by 1681. The Dutch held the Spanish contract for the supply of slaves from 1640-1700. By 1623 Holland had taken 15,430 slaves to Brazil. In 1646 the first black slaves were landed in the earliest Dutch settlement in America, New Amsterdam, on the tip of Manhattan. New Amsterdam became New York when the settlement was captured by the English.[22]
The demand for slaves to work on sugar and tobacco plantations increased during the 1600s when France, England, and the Netherlands established colonies in the West Indies, and along the East Coast of North America. In those areas, the local natives were not found to be adequate as a labour force.[23]
Howard Dodson, of National Geographic, wrote that Black slavery was wanted in order to replace the slavery of Whites and Indians.
"According to European
colonial officials, the abundant land they had "discovered" in the
Americas was useless without sufficient labor to exploit it. Slavery systems of
labor exploitation were preferred, but neither European nor Native American
sources proved adequate to the task." [24]
-----------------
1501- 1995 SLAVERY IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA
---------------------
Black
Lives Matter and the 'Irish slave' myth
Are memes calling the Irish "the first slaves" an
attempt to derail conversations about slavery and modern-day racism?/profile/norma-costello.html
This year, as acting Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny meets
Barack Obama at the annual St Patrick's Day dinner, talk of slavery will be far
from the agenda.
Yet, as the Irish diaspora celebrate their culture, many
are falling prey to a myth sweeping the internet that the Irish were themselves
slaves in the US.
It has given rise to a plethora of racist memes, and is
gaining traction among some white Americans despite the objections of
historians.
These "Irish slave" memes are frequently used to
derail conversations about slavery and racism.
When they proclaim that "Irish slaves were treated
worse than any other race in the US", they attempt to diminish the history
of the slave trade, the popular Black Lives Matter movement and calls for
reparations for slavery in the US and the Caribbean.
So
where is this coming from?
The most popular online article that falsely equates
indentured servitude or penal slavery with racialised slavery is hosted by the
Global Research website. It has been shared nearly one million
times. The online diaspora website, Irish Central, published an article based solely
on this source, which has, in turn, been shared more than 149,000 times.
Irish historian Liam Hogan is at the forefront of efforts
to debunk the "Irish slave" myth. He says the position of the unfree
Irish in the New World was one of "indentured servitude" and
describes articles like that on Irish Central as "ahistorical".
More needs to be done to stop the spread of this inaccurate mythology, Hogan suggests.
More needs to be done to stop the spread of this inaccurate mythology, Hogan suggests.
"These articles have created an Irish slave trade
timeline, ostensibly a fantasy, which runs from 1612 to 1839," he
explained. "This is to make it appear that there was a concurrent transatlantic
slave trade of Irish slaves that historians have covered up because of liberal
bias.
"Historically, the majority of Irish prisoners of war,
vagrants and other victims of kidnapping and deception - thought to have
numbered around 10,000 people - were forcibly sent to the West Indies in the
1650s. Those that survived were pardoned by Charles II in 1660.
"In contrast, the transatlantic slave trade lasted for
four centuries, was the largest forced migration in world history, involving
tens of millions of Africans who were completely dehumanised, and its poisonous
legacy remains in the form of anti-black racism. So this neo-Nazi propaganda is
false equivalency on an outrageous scale," he said.
In fact, it is well documented that there were Irish involved in the slave trade and that some
were even slave owners - not only in Irish-dominated
Montserrat but also in all the slaveholding states in the US, Jamaica, Barbados,
British Guiana, Haiti, Trinidad, Antigua, Haiti, Martinique, the Danish
West Indies and Cuba.
The plight of the indentured Irish, however painful, was
not racialised and their status was sometimes voluntary, with a migrant working
for free for a period of time to pay off the cost of their trip across the
Atlantic.
Indentured servitude was a widespread practice at the time, so it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of Irish affected by it. But in his book, The Irish Diaspora, Andy Bielenberg estimates that between 1630 and 1775, 165,000 Irish migrated from Ireland to the British colonies in the Americas and the Caribbean. Of course, not all of these would have been indentured.
Indentured servitude was a widespread practice at the time, so it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of Irish affected by it. But in his book, The Irish Diaspora, Andy Bielenberg estimates that between 1630 and 1775, 165,000 Irish migrated from Ireland to the British colonies in the Americas and the Caribbean. Of course, not all of these would have been indentured.
Matthew Reilly is an archaeologist at Brown University who
has researched slavery in Barbados. He says the idea of Irish slaves has no
historical foundation.
"The Irish slave myth is not supported by the historical
evidence. Thousands of Irish were sent to colonies like Barbados against their
will, never to return.
"Upon their arrival, however, they were socially and legally distinct from the enslaved Africans with whom they often laboured.
"While not denying the vast hardships endured by indentured servants, it is necessary to recognise the differences between forms of labour in order to understand the depths of the inhumane system of chattel slavery that endured in the region for several centuries, as well as the legacies of race-based slavery in our own times," Reilly said.
Police brutality
"Upon their arrival, however, they were socially and legally distinct from the enslaved Africans with whom they often laboured.
"While not denying the vast hardships endured by indentured servants, it is necessary to recognise the differences between forms of labour in order to understand the depths of the inhumane system of chattel slavery that endured in the region for several centuries, as well as the legacies of race-based slavery in our own times," Reilly said.
Police brutality
Many of the memes circulating online justify police
brutality against black Americans, which has raised concern considering the
high percentage of Irish Americans in the US police force. The powerful NYPD
Emerald Society - whose goal is "to help foster Irish heritage and
tradition within the department - is more than 60 years old and is just one
example of the Irish diaspora's influence on US policing.
There is even an "Irish Lives Matter" meme
featuring the tags "Irish Power" and "Irish were the first
slaves", while the white supremacist media outlet Stormfront features
links to books and articles published on the topic.
Facebook groups have sprung up propagating the myth, which
has also been widely circulated on Twitter, most recently in response to the
singer Beyonce's Super Bowl appearance, with its nod to the police shooting of
Michael Brown in Ferguson and the Black Lives Matter campaign.
Aidan McQuade, the director of Anti-Slavery International, says he feels that the memes actually diminish Ireland's painful history.
"While indentured servitude would be regarded by contemporary standards as slavery, it was less violent than the transatlantic slave trade out of Africa. The Irish, because of the colour of their skin, had preferential treatment and pathways out unavailable to black slaves," he explained.
"Unfortunately, the Irish slave idea seems to be coming from a point of division and not from one of empathy. These memes actually diminish the Irish experience of indentured servitude in the Americas by turning a sad history into a token of race oppression."
Aidan McQuade, the director of Anti-Slavery International, says he feels that the memes actually diminish Ireland's painful history.
"While indentured servitude would be regarded by contemporary standards as slavery, it was less violent than the transatlantic slave trade out of Africa. The Irish, because of the colour of their skin, had preferential treatment and pathways out unavailable to black slaves," he explained.
"Unfortunately, the Irish slave idea seems to be coming from a point of division and not from one of empathy. These memes actually diminish the Irish experience of indentured servitude in the Americas by turning a sad history into a token of race oppression."
Source: Al Jazeera
-----------------
