It all started on April 17, 1524. From the very beginning, when Captain Giovanni da Verrazano docked the Dauphine, we were already people filled with discriminatory tendencies and intolerance. The irony of it all is that in All Nations Under Heaven by Frederick Binder and David Reimers, the area, which became known as New Netherland, was seen as “tolerant of religious refugees, ethnic and linguistic minorities, or political exiles.” There were Protestant refugees, French-speaking Walloons and Dutch-speaking Flemings! Their proof of this ethnic diversity is that in a tax assessment of Amsterdam in 1631, “of the 685 wealthiest individuals no less than 160 were Flemish or Walloon, 30 were German, and numerous Italian, English, and Scandinavian names.” Admittedly, one must take into account that other ethnicities and cultures had not yet planted roots in the area, but seeing as this diversity was such a huge accomplishment, one could already predict the problems New York would have in the future.
When groups of people started to move to Manhattan, there was overwhelming ethnic diversity among the townspeople. Upon journeying to New Amsterdam, a Jesuit missionary, Father Isaac Jogues, noted that there were about eighteen languages spoken among the approximate one thousand residents. Even more, he said, that even though only Calvinism was publicly exercised, there were Catholics, English Puritans, Lutherans, and Anabaptists in the colony! Worse, this did not impress him. He saw this religious diversity and multi-lingual way of life as arrogant and ignorant. As time passed, more groups experienced trouble in the colony such as Lutherans, Quakers, and Jews. The intolerance among these groups debatably lasted a short amount of time—especially in comparison to the discrimination and intolerance towards African Americans.
In 1626, the first eleven African slaves were imported and owned by the Dutch West India Company. The colonies were lacking in labor and desperately turned to slaves and indentured servants for help. Interestingly enough, they preferred white slaves/servants, but upon finding them unavailable, they turned to Africans. And sooner than later, as noted by Leslie Harris in chapter one of In the Shadow of Slavery, “African slaves became the most stable element of the New Netherland working class and population.” The horrible treatment infamously given to Africans was largely, and sadly, due to economic reasons. Christians also used their religion to justify the cause. They thought that they had to enslave Africans in order to convert them. But many did convert (whether they whole-heartedly did or not), and freedom was still not available to them. In Black and White Manhattan, Thelma Wills Foote writes about the constant “threat of conspiracy” that many settlers felt from the slaves, and when the Slave Revolt of 1712 occurred, many laws were put in place to limit African Americans. New York, as well as the rest of the country, took years to get rid of these disturbing laws.
It is mind-boggling to track the colonies’ and then New York’s journey through tolerance of ethnic and religious diversity. It is safe to say that we have come a long way, but the truth is that our actions, as people, are inexplicable. Here are some questions to consider:
How much did religion and economics play a role in the colonists’ reason for slavery and discrimination?
Why did slavery and discrimination continue even after many African Americans converted to Christianity (an apparent reason for slavery)?
Why did colonists fear slave insurrection so much?
As Northerners, often we are quick to shake our heads in disgust at the debased slaveholding history of the South, however, it is always wise to remember that “by the end of the seventeenth century, New York City had a larger black population than any other North American city” – and, of course we know that this population did not travel here for fun, neither did they arrive on their own volition. As New York was adding to the diversity of its population, one of the biggest Western hypocrisies was developing at a staggering rate. Thus, how did such a wicked institution as slavery withstand for so long in a land as ours?
According to psychologists, cognitive dissonance is a uneasiness felt as a result of experiencing two conflicting beliefs. Simply put, as humans, we tend to rationalize our beliefs to avoid feeling hypocritical. The same occurred with slavery. The economic dependence, religious rationalizations, and illogical assumptions of the African needed to be justified in order for slavery to be vindicated. The Manichean symbolism of darkness and light was used to justify the moral impurity of a darker population. Furthermore, if slaves could be thought of by society as less human, then inhumane practices would be OK. Religion served as another method to subdue the conscious, as many felt compelled to convert slaves. Even a 1706 law needed to be enacted to ensure that “converting slaves to Christianity would not lead to freedom.” I laugh at this, for why attempt to “free” the soul if the body would remain in bondage?
Slavery was clearly incited by greed, and sustained by perversion of Christian principles. Racism was fueled by the need to subdue rebellious slaves and sever ties between the two races. These are two different sides to the same coin, but the former abomination “only” affected the bodies of millions for a few past centuries, while the latter is still embedded in the minds of even more today, with new races being continuously added to a hypocritical list.
I think that slavery was purely economic. In some ways, it started as a religious idea. The whites of America felt they had to enslave the Africans to teach them the ways of Christianity. Once they saw the light, they would be free to go live as good Christian citizens. However, as is human nature, once they got used to the idea of owning slaves, they changed their minds. Suddenly, Blacks could not be Christians. They refused to baptize any or believe that they were truly converting. This led to slaves never being let free.
It isn’t strange that they changed their ideals: there was quite a bit of money involved. The cost of wages for one year of a white laborer could buy you a slave for life. This did affect the white work force though. Suddenly, no one was interested in hiring white laborers. This is why they also had to declare that Blacks were simply not as smart and could not be taught skilled work. This obviously wasn’t true as they had been doing these jobs up till that point, but the colonists had to protect themselves.
At least while the Dutch ruled, slaves were treated somewhat decently. They had families, were able to go to court, and sometimes even granted half-freedom. Once the English took over, it went downhill. Eventually, slaves weren’t allowed to congregate or even talk to freed slaves. This was mostly due to the aforementioned fear of insurrection. I think this fear was entirely rational. They knew how poorly they were treating their slaves. There were a lot of slaves. They were strong from doing manual labor all day. They were lonely and upset and probably weren’t too afraid to die. It was only reasonable to be afraid of an uprising.
As much as we look at our past and try to be ashamed of it, it is because of the past that we are at the point we are at right now. I do not think we should be pointing fingers and laughing at Binder and Reimers for relishing in what they thought was “tolerant of religious refugees, ethnic and linguistic minorities, or political exiles.” At that point in history, those were steps taken forward. It was only a dream to have a land free of persecution (although limited relative to modern days) and the cites mixed with people of different cultures and backgrounds. Anything outside of the standard white man In control would be considered a radical idea. We can see a more modern example when we compare the dress code of today compared to that of 60-plus years ago. If a woman back then would be found wearing pants, she would be considered to have been some extremist radical feminist without any moral standings. Today, a woman wearing suit pants is usually a sign of professionalism. Every step, no matter how small, helped lead out country into what it is today. Although, not perfect, we as people are always working on ourselves in order to create a better future. If we didn’t have this small ethnic and culture diversity back then, then where could our country have started? Lets remember that America was not built in a day.
It was interesting to learn from In the Shadow of Slavery of the evolution of slavery. It wasn’t actually the one shot deal that my 6th grade teacher said it was. It seemed that slavery was not made into our country from the start, but rather it was a slow methodical integration so that it didn’t scare the people as much as it should. At first it seemed slaves almost had rights. Then slowly they were stripped of whatever little they had. Then, when it seemed that the slaves had nothing to worry about in New Netherlands, the worst laws were slammed down. It seemed as if slavery was brought about in a way that it seemed like the norm, rather than something cruel. Yes, the economy did play in a big factor for the need of slaves, but the was it was ultimately implemented seems to have almost been planned. The slaves were broken down to a point where fighting back was thought of for only few.
This idea of breakin down the slaves (and their kids) mentally can then be incorporated with Foote’s “threat of conspiracy”. I think it was only because of this mental break down that by the end of the Slave Revolt of 1712 stricter laws were abled to be implemented. By that point slavery has become part of the standards of life.
We should not be proud of the steps that we took as a nation in order to arrive where we are today. But it is because of the past that we were that we are who we are
Since America is considered to be a relatively new nation, one may be shocked at how prominent slavery, a very old and backwards institution, was during its founding days. The first slaves were brought to America in the 17th Century by the Dutch West India Company. It was these slaves that helped the first European settlers survive. Thus, slavery started as a way to help people settle in a new land, for people to make money; it seemed to be more of an economic reason than a religious reason. In fact, according to Harris, “colonial governments were less concerned with defining racial difference under the law than ensuring the presence of a steady labor force.” The African slaves also had many rights, which included the right to testify in court, own property, and work for wages. The discrimination against slaves only developed as a result from the free skilled Europeans fearing competition from the African slaves. Thus, African slaves were largely unskilled, which led many to think they were not fit to learn trade. It was then that religion played a role in slavery. Since African slaves were mostly non-Christian, it gave the Europeans the right to enslave them. After enslaving them, the Europeans were expected to teach them Christianity and to practice it for the rest of their lives. When the British took control of New York, they created the first slave laws, and it became solely an economic purpose to enslave Africans.
Although Europeans used religion as an excuse for enslaving Africans, it no longer played a factor as times went on. Most became dependent upon their labor, and the main reason to keep them was for economic purposes, rather than winning over Christian converts. Actually, the Dutch church stopped baptizing slaves towards the middle of the 17th Century. Furthermore, the Africans provided cheap labor, when compared to the white indentured servants and skilled workers. Under the British rule, the Africans were barred from ever becoming Christians since they believed they were inferior to them.
The Europeans knew that enslaving people was morally wrong, but the need for labor overcame the moral decisions. Compared to the later slavery systems of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the slavery system of the Dutch were relatively less strict. The slaves did have rights, and many wondered if they would want more rights. For example, slaves could sue Europeans for wages due. They also tried to use religion to win their rights: if they became Christians, the Dutch really had no excuse to enslave them anymore. However, to prevent slave labor from disappearing, the Dutch stopped baptisms for slaves in 1655. Like the Dutch, the British did not allow African slaves to become involved with Christianity. Some of the major reasons was because they were afraid Christianity would “distract slaves from their work at worst, encourage rebelliousness.” Thus, in order to prevent slave rebellions, the British tried to enforce stricter rules.
Much of the history of early America is based on the fact that the Europeans needed to convert the “savages.” While some settlers may have come to America with this in mind (Ex: Bartolome De Las Casas who wrote to the crown to stop the inhumane treatment of the natives), it is unreasonable to say that that was the only motivation. It’s just as unreasonable to say that the settlers enslaved the natives with the sole purpose of conversion to say that they enslaved the Africans with that intent.
I agree with Nikki when she says that the motivation is based on economics. The settlers didn’t want to work the land, they came to the new world for a better life, not a mirror of their life in Europe. But I also think that a large aspect of slavery in America is fear. Much of this fear DID relate to religion, but is not a sufficient motive for such actions. For this reason, I believe that even those who converted to Christianity would still have been been discriminated against. They would still have been feared because they were different. A townsperson in Foote’s reading is quoted saying that there were “too great a number of that Unchristian and barbaric people being imported.” This statement shows that while religion may have been a concern, the inherent fear of the differences in ethnicity and culture (shown by his calling those arriving “barbaric”) is also evident.
This fear made it inevitable that the Africans became a scapegoat. As stated in the reading by Foote, whenever a local fire would start, it was always believed to have been because of the blacks. When Caesar and Philipse were accused of burglary, it seemed to make sense to also accuse them of starting the fires. This one example provides a glimpse as to why the colonists may have feared a slave insurrection. The colonists knew that they were treating the slaves poorly. They knew that they were using them as a scapegoat. And they knew that if the slaves ever decided to uprise like they did in the Slave Revolt of 1912 that the slaves take vengeance for this mistreatment.
I think insurrection was quite a valid fear. Imagine how discontent the slaves must have been. Nothing they did, including converting to christianity alleviated their plight. In fact, some blacks, like the spanish blacks that Harris mentions were free men in Spain. Especially after America gained independence from Britain, and slogans like “live free or die” were constantly thrown around, slaves were still subjugated. I would have been first in line to join a rebellion against the slave owners. The likelihood of other desperate slaves joining a rebellion was enough to make the owners quite frightened of insurrection; even on a small scale, like the arson of 1712 slave rebellion wreaked havoc on the community. Imagine if these rebellions were amplified to encompass the entire state of New York,the population of which consisted 20% of blacks in the 18th century. The layout of towns made fire too convenient and devastating a tool to underestimate.
(My previous comment posted before I was done commenting, and Eportfolios doesn’t let me edit it.) cont.
The role of religion in inequality in colonial America is apparent in both the Foote and the Harris texts. For slave owners, conversion to Christianity was the facade of legitimacy for slavery at that point. That was a convenient excuse until blacks wanted the equality that becoming a christian is supposed to afford. The dominant group in America were W.A.S.P.’s who used both color and religion to claim superiority over other groups. I don’t think that this is a particularly novel theme in history either. The text by Binder & Reimer illustrate how the diversity of New York City existed practically since its founding. Unfortunately, this diversity led to strife and enslavement, and wasn’t celebrated like it is today until far into the 20th century.