I find what Ashley said to be very interesting. Colonial New York is very similar to modern day New York, especially in terms of diversity. All these different ethnic groups migrated to New York for religious and economic reasons during Colonial times, and it is also for the same reasons why many immigrants come to New York today as well. And because of the ethnic and religious diversity, there was not a lot of pressure in Colonial New York to assimilate into “Dutch” culture at first. That is somewhat similar to today’s religious freedom and decreased pressure to assimilate. But somehow, I feel like from that point, Colonial New York went downhill in terms of tolerance, especially when the British took over for the second time.
And even though that the second article points out that the fact that slaves fared better under the Dutch does not undermine the fact that slavery is essentially wrong, I still find it sort of amazing that the Dutch were accepting enough to give the slaves at that time so many rights at that time. But when the reasons for this are taken into account, such as economic reasons and political reasons, it makes a little more sense. Then again, the whole slave labor system was used and maintained mainly for economic reasons, so I guess it can go either way.
It was interesting to see how the minute details regarding freedom for the slaves changed over time. There was freedom, and half-freedom, and the fact that some of them will never be free. Then there is the matter of passing that freedom on to the children, and how even though that is not allowed, the parents can still somewhat control what their children do. And there is, of course, the whole enslavement of Christians, and how that changed when the need for slave labor increased. What I didn’t realize was that the notion of African heritage and slavery was something that happened gradually. The enslavement of free Spanish men just because of their skin color was a proof of that.
