During our study of the Age of Exploration, travels have taken us far and wide, both metaphorically and geographically. The final segment of this unit features one of the most important--if not the most important--continents in the world: Africa.
Obviously the transatlantic slave trade figures largely here, but it is not the sole facet of Africa during this period. And in an effort to (re)frame our narrative and understanding of the Age of Exploration we take the perspective that informs a recent book by Boston College historian David Northrup: Africa's discovery of Europe.
Prof. Northrup is a respected historian of Africa, and a leading figure in the field of world history. Not only is he a university professor, but he plays an integral role in the life of high school history teaching/teachers through service in the World History Association (WHA), among other activities. As you will see, Prof. Northrup also taught at a high school in Nigeria. For another sample of Prof. Northrup's writing, read a version of his 2004 WHA presidential address here. Check out his CV here.
The subject of our present discussion is Africa's Discovery of Europe. Even though you were assigned only ch. 4, it is helpful to read this and this.
Obviously the transatlantic slave trade figures largely here, but it is not the sole facet of Africa during this period. And in an effort to (re)frame our narrative and understanding of the Age of Exploration we take the perspective that informs a recent book by Boston College historian David Northrup: Africa's discovery of Europe.
Prof. Northrup is a respected historian of Africa, and a leading figure in the field of world history. Not only is he a university professor, but he plays an integral role in the life of high school history teaching/teachers through service in the World History Association (WHA), among other activities. As you will see, Prof. Northrup also taught at a high school in Nigeria. For another sample of Prof. Northrup's writing, read a version of his 2004 WHA presidential address here. Check out his CV here.
The subject of our present discussion is Africa's Discovery of Europe. Even though you were assigned only ch. 4, it is helpful to read this and this.
After you read ch. 4, answer questions 1-8 below and turn in on Tuesday. Also, there are questions below that require a response in the comments section.
************
1. Keep a log/list of all goods mentioned/traded and their country of origin (if applicable).
2. Describe the 3 observations Northrup makes about European/African economic interaction.
3. What does Northrup mean by “inland trade” and why is it important?
4. How did Africans respond to (or integrate) the European influx of textiles?
5. What were the “social meanings” attached to tobacco and alcohol in Africa (or other goods)?
6. What impact did guns and firearms have on African culture and life?
7. According to Northrup, what were the economic and social consequences of the flow of goods in and out of (West) Africa during the Age of Exploration?
8. List and describe 5 new things (or more) you learned about Africa from reading this chapter, and explain why each is important.
2. Describe the 3 observations Northrup makes about European/African economic interaction.
3. What does Northrup mean by “inland trade” and why is it important?
4. How did Africans respond to (or integrate) the European influx of textiles?
5. What were the “social meanings” attached to tobacco and alcohol in Africa (or other goods)?
6. What impact did guns and firearms have on African culture and life?
7. According to Northrup, what were the economic and social consequences of the flow of goods in and out of (West) Africa during the Age of Exploration?
8. List and describe 5 new things (or more) you learned about Africa from reading this chapter, and explain why each is important.
************
Given our conversations about the Cultural Readings exhibit and discussion about cultural representation, in what ways does Northrup's chapter help to spark new understanding of the Age of Exploration in general, and about Africa in particular? In what ways do the experiences and events you read about in Northrup's chapter (as well as from Equiano and Cugoano) compare and contrast to/with what we read in Matar's book? What do you think Equiano and/or Cugoano might say to or ask Fr. Illyas and/or al-Ghassani and vice versa?
Leave your thoughts in the comments section, as well as any general questions for Prof. Northrup.
UPDATE: Students, please post by Tuesday 10/23, 7:50am and compose questions for Prof. Northrup. He's agreed to join the conversation this week.
I look forward to the conversation.
[Photo credit here.]
Posts
16 comments:
Reading chapter four of Northrup's book showed a different angle of the age of exploration not seen before. it shows the view through the eyes of africa and what consequenses came from trade with europe. i think that Fr, Illyas and al-Ghassani would have found the accoutns of Equiano and Cugoano fascinating and another tale to add to their separate books. Neither Fr. Illyas nor al-Ghassani went into much detail about the slave trade except to see it in passing. They probably accepted slavery and the slave trade as a way of life neccessary for survival in their time. Fr. Illyas, who was supposed to be part of the church, recorded seeing a slave ship going from africa to the americas but made no comment other than that. the truth is that because of slaves and the slave trade Europe was able to sustain itself and fulfill goals of expansion for three G's (gold, god, and glory.
I really enjoyed reading the excerpt of Northrup’s book. Northrup shows that trade enables countries to better understand each other as well as incorporate another culture into their own. Because of the Atlantic trade Africa started to use European, American, and Asian goods. The trade with Africa gave the Africans objects such as guns and iron bars that they were unable to produce. Some societies are considered “guns-for-slaves”; however, not every African society was that way. Some African societies did not even buy guns and some that did purchase them did not even think they were worth the expense. The events in Northrup’s book compares with those events in Matar’s books in that both seem to believe that selling of slaves was common and to some extent necessary. Northrup talks about exploring from a trading perspective in contrast with Matar who speaks of exploring for the purpose of spreading religion or diplomatic activities. Fr. Ilyas saw on his journey an English ship full of slaves. Equiano might ask Fr. Ilyas how he particularly felt about the kidnapping and selling of slaves. Al-Ghassani might tell Equiano and Cuogoano that it is important to fight for your people. Prof. Northrup would say that the problems in Sudan as well as in other parts of Africa were maybe brought on by the Atlantic slave trade? –Meagan Smith
Northrup's chapter helps bring about a new perspective on the slave trade and Africa in general in that it wasn't completely a European institution. Futhermore, the parallels between Northrup's and Matar's books are quite impressive. You see the slave trade as well as government and/or church corruption. I think that Equiano would ask al-Ghassani what he thought about the captivity of Africans by Europeans.
Northrup's text highlights the Age of Exploration, but from a trading perspective versus from Matar's political and religious perspectives. His text also reveals that while most of the Europeans were trading with the Africans, the production of goods within Africa never ceased as most European writers imply. In fact, the Africans were trading simultaneously with the Europeans. In addition, the similarites between Northrup's writings and Matar's are that they are both written from a non-European point of view. The contrast is that everything from Matar's book focuses on exploration from cultural and geographical aspects. His writings reveal the customs that Fr. Illyas and al-Ghanssani encountrered. Instead, Northrup's writings deal mainly with the trade and the effects of trade on the African people. Futhermore, I think Equiano would ask Fr. Illyas why as a man of religion, he did not question the rights or lack of freedom of the slaves on the Enlgish ship he passed when crossing the Atlantic.
Just like Meagan, I too enjoyed the reading from Northrup's chapter. He wrote very clearly and it was enjoyable and informative. The reading helped me understand that the Age of Exploration did not just occur in Europe. Until reading this chapter, I had not even thought about how Africa was affected or involved. The reading really opened my eyes to Africa's participation. The readings from Northrup's chapter were less personal than the accounts from Matar's book. I felt I learned more with Northrup's chapter, and related more with Matar's writing. I think both are important to read in order to have a global look at the Age of Exploration. Equiano or Cugoano might have asked Fr. Illyas and or al-Ghassani why they were so concerned with religion. Because the times were dominated with a search for power, wealth, and discovery, Equiano and/or Cugoano might not have seen any importance in religion.
Northrup's chapter clearly explains the interaction between Europe and Africa as well as the interactions among the Africans. This chapter explains how Africans did not simply trade with the Europeans, but that there was a complex economy already in place in Africa.
Northrup's chapter states the facts with little personal 'fluff' that could cloud the interpretation of the writing. It is nice to read something and not have to decipher the true meaning of the writing. But in Fr. Illya's and al-Ghassani's writings, there are personal views which provide a new way of looking at the event or time period. By reading the personal interpretations, one's understanding of the Age of Exploration is not based off of just facts and numbers, but how those facts and numbers affected the individuals.
In studying history, it is necessary to read both types of writing, even if the bias is the same. With this, the differences are not the bias, but the way of persuasion. Will the reader be persuaded to my way of thinking by logic or by the affect on people?
Maybe I'm considering this all too abstractly. I tend to do that. Is it about these readings or is it about cultural represntation in general? I guess that's for the reader to analyze. It seems different for each one.
An author seldom knows what his readers think, so it was a pleasure to learn that my little book has been a help to you in understanding the complexities of the Atlantic world. Thank you for kind words. Also thank your teacher for devising such a wonderful learning exercise.
Prof. Northrup,
our recent studies and readings have brought some not-so-pleasant questions to my mind, and I was hoping you could help me understand these...
First off (a hypothetical question that may or may not have much educational value), do you believe that the European slave-traders would have been involved with the slave trading at this time had the practice of slavery not been in use by Africans already? In other words, was slavery and slave trading a cultural/economic practice that European and Asian explorers observed in Africa and more or less were inspired to take part? If so, what perspective can this hypothetical give us on our view of racism and slavery? I understand that African cultures were not the only cultures to practice slavery in History, but at the time of and immediately preceding the Age of Exploration/Atlantic Slave Trade, European culture did not practice slavery in this way. Europeans were not buying and selling other Europeans, nor were they buying and selling any human beings until African exploration, connection, and trading ties were created. It is hard for me to put these thoughts into questions, and even to understand these thoughts. But given your credentials, I thought you could be a wonderful help. thanks so much.
Professor Northrup,
Your writing was not only a pleasure to read and enjoyable to ponder, but also extremely enlightening in the sense that it portrayed subtle nuances of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I felt your comments concerning the relationship which the Africans had with Europeans helped to shed light on the complex interaction which the oppressed inevitably have with their oppressors. I would like to explore the European justifications for capturing other human beings and enslaving them for economic gain. It seems that colonists/ imperialists/ conquerors always espouse noble ambitions when trying to achieve a strategic or rational goal, and I would like to know how the educated classes of Europe dealt with the moral implications of slavery.
Daniel makes a very good point. To expand this thought further; would slavery ever have existed in the states without having been introduced to the concept of slavery by the Africans? Without the introduction of slavery to the Americas, what difference would there have been in the economic growth of the United States? Furthermore, what changes would there have been in the course of U.S. history without the existence of slavery?
Prof. Northrup, thank you so much for taking the time to visit and comment on our class blog. I found your work to be very interesting and refreshing and enjoyed reading about the Age of Exploration from an economic and trade-based perspective. In response to both Daniel and John's observations, I think history provides extensive support for the theory that European involvement in the Atlantic slave trade was fueled chiefly by economic and financial opportunity rather than an outpouring of their inherent racism. Examine the actual process in which Europeans acquired African slaves: African slaveowners willingly exchanged their own people for common commodities in a relatively simple transaction that benefited both parties. Having been accustomed to and raised on ideas of black inferiority and racial inequalities and now seeing these practices being so casually carried out by Africans themselves, Europeans did not require any additional justification or "noble ambitions" other than the gold/glory motivation that initially inspired their action. Also, the Europeans conducted all of their transactions with the African slaveowners on the coastal regions of the continent, never venturing into the central mainland areas out of fear of African resistance. Had racism truly been acting as the wind in their sails, the Europeans would have been unafraid to engage their opposition passionately and violently in order to succeed in their cause, as seen in all other historical attempts at racial or ethnic cleansing.
I think that Daniel and Kaylin both make good points. It is interesting to think that if maybe slavery had not been introduced to America or Europe some events in history might not have taken place. Professor Northrup do you think that racism existed before the slave trade or was racism a byproduct of the slave trade? –Meagan Smith
Let me try to respond to the several fine comments and questions.
On the origins of slavery: Europeans had no need of an external model for slavery, since there had been a significant revival of the institution in the Mediterranean in the lat middle ages. At first most slaves came from eastern Europe and the impact of this revival can be found in both northern and southern Europe in the fact that in most languages the common word for slave changed to a new word derived from Slav, the language family of most captives. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, most slaves in Italy and Iberia came from sub-Saharan Africa, initially via North Africans and then via the Atlantic. Interestingly the word for slave did not change when Africans became the majority. In the Americas the first to be enslaved were Amerindians, but their declining numbers were insufficient to meet the demand. There is no reason to think Europeans learned of slavery from Africans.
On the subject of racism, one needs to make three distinctions. The first is between attitudes in Europe and in the slave-holding colonies in the Americas. Slavery disappeared in southern Europe after 1600 and had been absent for many centuries in the northern lands, so people had little reason to have strong color prejudices, whereas in the colonies the subservient position of slaves came increasingly to foster self-justifying beliefs in black inferiority. As late as the mid-nineteenth century Frederick Douglass could write with amazement that he could walk done a street in the British Isles without anyone acting or saying anything that reflected racism--even when he was arm in arm with a white woman. Secondly, one needs to make a distinction between ethnocentrism (the normal preference for one's own people and culture) and racism. All people have ethnocentric reactions when they first meet other people (and they get over them for the most part after regular encounters). Racism, in contrast, is quite unnatural and persists (and may even grow stronger) despite regular contacts. Shakespeare wrote several sonnets about his black mistress in which he plays with English ethnocentric ideas of beauty. You might also want to look at the first chapter of my book in which I recount the ethnocentric reactions of Africans to their first encounters with Europeans. The third distinction involves the construction of large identities that define us/them. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all used religion to make this distinction and all forbad the enslavement of people of their own faith but permitted the enslavement of non-believers. In early seventeenth-century Virginia slaves (both Africans and Native Americans) were commonly called "heathens". Later in the century when most African slaves were Christians they came to be called black or African, which has been seen as a movement toward racial thinking. In early modern Europe, it has been argued by David Eltis, a leap of identity boundaries took place that resulted in Christian being superceded by European. As a result Europeans did not think of enslaving other Europeans (including European Jews), even though it would have been simpler and cheaper than buying Africans. This seems to have been a uniquely European development; before recent times there were no pan-African, pan-Asian, or pan-Amerindian identities. Thus, it is misleading to speak of Africans selling "their own people," since most of those they sold they regarded as of different nations from themselves,
Finally, a few words on economic motives: I don't find evidence that slave traders (and most owners) found any need to justify slavery on any other ground than its economic utility since they did not regard it as wrong. Only when abolitionists began to attack the legitimacy of slavery, did those involved in the institution feel a need to find a justification. One response was an argument based on the racial inferiority of Africans, that they were natural slaves. A very similar justification of enslaving Africans developed independently in the Islamic world. Until the late eighteenth century the most prosperous places in the Americas were those with large slave populations. If slavery had not existed, it is hard to imagine how the Americas could have prospered as much. In 1800 people of African ancestry were nearly as numerous as those of European ancestry in the Americas (and in many places Africans were several times as numerous). Some speak of the Americas as neo-Europes but at that time they were almost equally neo-Africas culturally and genetically.
Thanks for such good questions.
Let me try to respond to the several fine comments and questions.
On the origins of slavery: Europeans had no need of an external model for slavery, since there had been a significant revival of the institution in the Mediterranean in the lat middle ages. At first most slaves came from eastern Europe and the impact of this revival can be found in both northern and southern Europe in the fact that in most languages the common word for slave changed to a new word derived from Slav, the language family of most captives. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, most slaves in Italy and Iberia came from sub-Saharan Africa, initially via North Africans and then via the Atlantic. Interestingly the word for slave did not change when Africans became the majority. In the Americas the first to be enslaved were Amerindians, but their declining numbers were insufficient to meet the demand. There is no reason to think Europeans learned of slavery from Africans.
On the subject of racism, one needs to make three distinctions. The first is between attitudes in Europe and in the slave-holding colonies in the Americas. Slavery disappeared in southern Europe after 1600 and had been absent for many centuries in the northern lands, so people had little reason to have strong color prejudices, whereas in the colonies the subservient position of slaves came increasingly to foster self-justifying beliefs in black inferiority. As late as the mid-nineteenth century Frederick Douglass could write with amazement that he could walk done a street in the British Isles without anyone acting or saying anything that reflected racism--even when he was arm in arm with a white woman. Secondly, one needs to make a distinction between ethnocentrism (the normal preference for one's own people and culture) and racism. All people have ethnocentric reactions when they first meet other people (and they get over them for the most part after regular encounters). Racism, in contrast, is quite unnatural and persists (and may even grow stronger) despite regular contacts. Shakespeare wrote several sonnets about his black mistress in which he plays with English ethnocentric ideas of beauty. You might also want to look at the first chapter of my book in which I recount the ethnocentric reactions of Africans to their first encounters with Europeans. The third distinction involves the construction of large identities that define us/them. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all used religion to make this distinction and all forbad the enslavement of people of their own faith but permitted the enslavement of non-believers. In early seventeenth-century Virginia slaves (both Africans and Native Americans) were commonly called "heathens". Later in the century when most African slaves were Christians they came to be called black or African, which has been seen as a movement toward racial thinking. In early modern Europe, it has been argued by David Eltis, a leap of identity boundaries took place that resulted in Christian being superceded by European. As a result Europeans did not think of enslaving other Europeans (including European Jews), even though it would have been simpler and cheaper than buying Africans. This seems to have been a uniquely European development; before recent times there were no pan-African, pan-Asian, or pan-Amerindian identities. Thus, it is misleading to speak of Africans selling "their own people," since most of those they sold they regarded as of different nations from themselves,
Finally, a few words on economic motives: I don't find evidence that slave traders (and most owners) found any need to justify slavery on any other ground than its economic utility since they did not regard it as wrong. Only when abolitionists began to attack the legitimacy of slavery, did those involved in the institution feel a need to find a justification. One response was an argument based on the racial inferiority of Africans, that they were natural slaves. A very similar justification of enslaving Africans developed independently in the Islamic world. Until the late eighteenth century the most prosperous places in the Americas were those with large slave populations. If slavery had not existed, it is hard to imagine how the Americas could have prospered as much. In 1800 people of African ancestry were nearly as numerous as those of European ancestry in the Americas (and in many places Africans were several times as numerous). Some speak of the Americas as neo-Europes but at that time they were almost equally neo-Africas culturally and genetically.
Thanks for such good questions.
Thanks again Professor Northrup for taking time out of your busy schedule to answer our questions. –Meagan Smith
I think Professor Northrup's chapter was very interesting and helped me understand an entirely new aspect of this age of exploration. I had always understood the European dominance in their actions, but his discussion of the interaction helped me understand that the Africans also acted and were not simply acted upon by the European powers. The economy of Africa was well established by the time of European exploration, and this makes me believe that the slave trade was initially less racially motivated than it was motivated by a hunger for power and wealth. I believe that racism existed at the time, but it was not the only force propelling this trade and the trade would not have existed to such an extent if the Africans had not acted in it themselves. As stated, Northrup's writing is similar in scope to Matar's but much more objective, while Matar's is more personal. I believe Equiano might ask Fr. Illyas what he believed the religious implications of slavery were?
Post a Comment