Response-2/15
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.
2/15 Response
The history of New York was quite interesting to read; its development and metamorphosis into a culturally rich and diverse city is much more complex than I had known.
Although initially the only religion that was permitted to be practiced publicly was Calvinisim, we can all attest to the religious freedom and opportunities present in New York. Time after time, a new ethnic/religious group arrived in New Amsterdam hoping to freely express their beliefs, and time and time again, the Dutch East India Company were tolerant, believing that it would lead to commercial prosperity. Their lenient attitude set the foundation for what would be the most populated city in the United States.
Africans were an essential element of the New Netherland population- they performed much of the labor, forming the infrastructure of the colony, building roads, working on farms to produce food to feed the colony’s inhabitants, etc. They were the overwhelming majority of the labor force. True, much of the growth and progress of New York is credited to the slaves, but I don’t think that they were necessarily the primary reason why New York is here today. Say slavery had been abolished, perhaps the Native Americans would have been put to work, or maybe the Africans would have been paid workers instead of slaves. Essentially, it was the masters who directed the working, and the end result should be credited to their instruction as well.
I noticed that the battle between the masters and slaves seemed sort of like a cycle- where the slaves began with a given amount of rights, gradually decreasing every time they fought for their freedom. For instance, at first, a few of the Africans were given half freedom, which applied to the man and wife, but not towards the children. However, when the indentured servants completed their indentured period, they immediately got total freedom and land—and their children weren’t automatically indentured servants. Of course, the Africans desired to be of equal status, which resulted into much tension, and then more restrictions, fewer privileges. Later, a law was instituted that converting slaves to Christianity would not make them free. “The teaching that every soul was equal in the sight of G-d could lead some to claim racial equality on earth.” (Harris) This shows that they were willing to go completely against the tenets of their faith to rationalize their inhumane behavior. Unfortunately, the tolerance that served as the incentive for people to travel to New York did not extend to the African Americans.
2/15- Response to Spark
Before reading the assigned articles, I always thought of slavery as mainly popular in the South. However, as it evolved over a couple of centuries, I was in shock as to how much slavery changed when the British took over New York. I was also surprised to read that New York was a popular slave port during this time as well and not just the Southern region.
I never knew much about Dutch control of New York in the 1600s. In high school, I mainly had to know that they were overtaken by the British later on in the mid 1600s; so I was really surprised to see how much of an impact the Dutch made during their control of the New York colony. The Dutch West India Company were pretty lenient in their policies of the colony; they were mainly concerned with monetary policy and income, so they welcomed different nationalities because occupancy of their land provided more wealth. If it was not for those they left in charge such as Peter Stuyvesant, who ruled with tough and sometimes discriminating policies, these groups would of had a life that was pretty much independent. Yet, even at times of tough policies, the company would still intervene to make sure these different groups were left with many opportunities in the new land.
Since the company was pretty lenient, that explains why slavery and slave masters were not as brutal to their slaves. In fact, there was even opportunity for slaves to have freedom for being Christian, but what struck me later on was how these policies drastically changed once the Dutch lost control. I remember how one of the articles basically stated that it was at this point where slaves were just property. They were transported in bulk numbers and when they were on the shore, they came in shackles as if they were some animal. In addition, one of the authors quoted another reading that discussed how the British no longer allowed Christianity as a means for freedom for them because they believed that they did not really comprehend the religion. It was sad to see how the British just thought that Africans were intellectually inferior and only good for work basically. Another example was the trial of Africans for the fires that occurred in the 1700s; slaves were just condemned for their inability to speak as well which was interpreted as a code for cheating.
Although all of this happened to slaves in history, I wonder how our society would be if slavery did not exist. Would we really not be as developed as a city? It is hard to say but it is definitely a question I will wonder for a long time.
Response – February 15th
Although i agree with Marinna that slaves were crucial to the development of New York and a lot of America, I find it such a shame that this was so. As I was reading all of the articles, I found myself forgetting that the slaves were actually real human beings. The way in which the authors simply described the laborers as “slaves” made it easier to imagine them as a piece of property which could be bought and sold. This is disturbing to me, because this was the mindset of most early Americans.
So even though America might not be what it is today if it weren’t for slaves, it also wouldn’t have attached all of the negative connotations associated with “black”. As the last reading stated, even after slavery was abolished, blacks still had to fight to be seen as one of the Americans or New Yorkers. People associated the color of their skin with derogatory terms and evil doings. They would compare someone who had committed a lot of sins as having “skin as black as a Negro”. I couldn’t help but feel sorry for those just trying to fit in.
Before reading these articles, I had always thought that New York was one of the colonies least associated with the slave trade, so I was very shocked to find out that it was in fact one of the largest ports for it! Although we were one of the earliest colonies to abolish slavery, nothing can justify our means in putting all of the innocent people to work and giving them such cruel punishments for disobeying silly rules.
Response (2/15/11)
Like, Ashley, I agree that there were many parallels that could be drawn between Colonial New York, and Modern New York. Like now, New York then also had a general air of diversity and tolerance, or at least relatively. It was extremely interesting to read about the aspects of colonial New York, especially Dutch-controlled New Amsterdam! I find it quite humorous that we didn’t learn about the “bigot” side of Peter Stuyvesant in grade school. Also, it is quite hard to imagine the island of Manhattan as a rural collection of log cabins and mills: I felt that the articles really helped me get a feel of what it was like to actually live there in the 18th century! I really got a sense of the social tensions and the runnings of daily life going on in colonial New York.
I find it so ironic that we view the north as such anti-slavery, and so inherently tolerant. We all talk about the diversity we are blessed with here in New York, and especially Queens. However, as Marinna described, according to these articles, slavery actually started out just as crucial to the north, if not more crucial, than to the south! Many of slavery’s uniquely American traits actually originated, and snowballed here in New York! The articles showed the gradual change between the lenience afforded to slaves under Dutch rule, to the slow removal of rights under British and then American rule. Marinna showed examples of how every time an argument was made against slavery, the base concept of slavery, rules of slavery, as well as the general viewpoint of the African American community was shifted and molded around that argument. It shows such hypocrisy, and such shameless desperate acts that can be taken to save a failing economy.
Spark- Feb. 15
I found it interesting to see that, in some aspects, Colonial New York is not much different from the New York we know today. It was ethnically diverse starting when European explorers first came to New York Harbor. The Dutch West India Company wanted to increase the population on Manhattan Island by asking people to immigrate from Europe. In the chapter “Slavery in Colonial New York,” observers noticed that half the population was non-Dutch and that eighteen different languages were spoken, and this was during the 1600s. There was also a sense of maintaing heritage, especially from the French living on Staten Island. Colonial New York was also a religiously diverse area. According to Binder and Reimers, since different religious practices weren’t tolerated in Europe, the settlers came here to have this opportunity, although it was limited because many had to worship privately. The Dutch were considered very tolerant people, which probably attributes to why many people came here. These ideas were prominent more than a century before the United States of America was formed.
However, slavery was also a big deal in Colonial New York. The Dutch brought slaves to New York to help support the economy and asisst the settlers, but as time went on, they were considered inferior and the colonists attempted to justify it. At first, the slaves had half-freedom, where they were allowed to defend themsleves in court and own property. Their freedoms, however, became limited especially after the conspiracy of 1741-42, when many different forts and buildings were being burned down. At first, the fires were treated as isolated cases, but as more occurred, arson was suspected. No one had an idea of who were behind the fire, but slaves were a suspected group. Many officials became afraid that the African slaves and white servants working together could become a great problem. In July 1827, after much debate, the slaves were given freedom, which happened quite some time before the rest of the country.
To a certain extent, New York was ahead of itself in tolerance, freedom, and the abolishment of slavery, although it still had a way to go.
Spark – feb 15th
It seems to me that the image of slavery has been portrayed in a few different ways throughout history. It was interesting to learn that not all Whites who owned slaves treated them brutally or completely unequal. In many cases, slaves were given liberties by their owners, which were not granted to all slaves. Oftentimes, slaves’ lives would be spared by their owners, in exchange for only a severe punishment after they had comitted a crime or other wrongdoing.
In the very beginning, settlers came to America looking for economic opportunity, religious freedom, and social security. After time, however, the colonies hit a sort of stand-still concerning growth. The last years under Dutch rule, there was an advancement in the growth and population of New Amsterdam. In order to continue their flourishing growth-spurt, labor needed a boost. Many of the settlers were either unwilling or just too unconcerned to pick up the slack, and instead began to use slaves as a labor source. This source never ran out or was weakened, because the slaves would mate and bring new slave babies into the picture (of course these babies didn’t start work right away).
There was much ironing out to do with this source of labor. In the beginning, there were many loopholes and not many laws ensuring the slave status of the Africans imported to the colonies. As time went on, curfews were implemented, laws were passed, and slavery became more solidified. Originally, the law that no Christian could be used for forced labor, included all Black Christians. But once the Whites realized their slaves were escaping slavery this way, a new law was soon passed, stating that the religion of Africans didn’t matter. Slaves were given basic rights, like the right to own property and the right to petition against their owners, until this too began to be used against slaveowners.
When New England and New Amsterdam joined together to create New York, slavery continued, and New York was one of the largest areas to use slavery and one of the highest black-populated areas. However, as the Binders and Reimers article points out, when the Northeastern areas created the Dominion of New England, New York City became merely an outlying city, and was no longer a main port for slave entry.
In The Shadow of Slavery, it is outlined the way that slave labor was necessary for America to grow and prosper the way it did. Without slavery, the economy of the Northeast would have fallen apart centuries ago. In Manhattan alone, 40% of all households had at least one slave. Slaves constituted the majority of New York City’s working class.
Eventually in 1827, however, slavery was finally completely abolished. But the long-lived existance of slavery is very telling of it’s influence in America’s growth and development. Without slavery in colonial times, we would, right now, still be in the midst of an undeveloped nation, living in New York City, which would still also be undeveloped, unaccepting of other cultures and religions, and unadvanced in all the ways we currently are.
