Black Bodies vs. Identities: My Identity Matters

Identity is a consistent theme that is always revealing itself when discussing African American history. There are a few ways that it was and can be interpreted. You have the identities of the Africans prior to being captured, which shifted to a new evolving identity when they were captured, and finally to the identity that was forced upon them when they were put out on the market for selling. The identity prior to capturing is based on the tribe one associated with and their customs/traditions. The evolving identity that I mentioned is focused on the new culture of African American identity that came out of the new sense of community that these people were placed in. The forced identity was the imaginative lives that the slave traders implanted upon their “stock”.

From the beginning of time white America has implanted an identity on the African American race. The enslaved were never considered people until it became convenient for the slave masters. Walter Johnson used the phrase, “shape people to reflect the market economy”. There is a back and forth notion during the enslavement period that blacks are property one day and another they are people one instance being in the construction of the constitution  The process of “making a slave” pampered the enslaved with all the luxuries of a person. So many times white America contradicted themselves in the specific noun that blacks were associated with. Were Africans people or not?? This instance of forced identity is still relevant today…

“If the world is still anything like what we live in today, my Prince will turn on the news and see things that will make him question his worth and royalty. And if he comes to you and asks you things like “Why do they hate us?” and “What do I do if they stop me?”, or says something like “I don’t want to be next.”

I need you to sit down with him and remind him of who he KNOWS he is, no matter who THEY try to tell him that he is. You are to let my Prince know that his lungs are filled with air for him to breathe in all that life has to offer, no matter how much people may try to take that life away.”

-Alexis Ditaway

This excerpt is from a friend of mine who discusses what she expects of her future husband to tell her future son, when it comes to being a black man in America. I sampled her blog post simply because it was just yesterday that a 10-year-old boy asked his mother “What am I supposed to do if a policeman stops me?”. Sadly, the boy’s mother had no words or advice to provide for her baby boy. What prompted the question was that yet another African American male was gunned down by law enforcement for no logical reason. Our people are constantly being defined by stereotypes and identified with such stereotypes which prompt these officers to feel as if they need to “defend themselves”. We have the identities of: criminality, violent oriented, hostile, gang affiliated, etc. implanted on our entire community to wrongfully justify self-defense. We see “Black Lives Matter” but I believe that it is more apparent to ask when will black identities matter and use that as an expression of protest. Oppressors are quick to judge a black body before noticing the identity within that black body. So the question arises again, what am I supposed to tell my little brother, what are mothers and fathers supposed to tell their sons when they ask why “they” hate us, or what do I do?

Who should justify slavery?

Something that has been intriguing to me for a reason unbeknown to me is this idea of justification of slavery. In class we discussed that it was natural, they were different, and the “Curse of Ham” were all justifications of slavery. I find all three of these justifications to each are interesting in their respective cases, but I really wanted to highlight the natural justification.

First off, the idea that it was a natural thing for the Africans to be born into slavery is debatable to say the least. Who is to decide who is born into what title other than God Almighty himself? I can guarantee it isn’t the Europeans who were anointed with that task (it was a little above their pay grade). Regardless of such, it was normal and the status quo of life that Africans were seen as slaves and property during these times. Therefore, the “justification of slavery” is fair and correct based on this fact. Although we, presently, may want to argue such point because it’s not right or it doesn’t seem fair to us; it is not our place to say since we did not live and experience such. This is where I wrestle with issues, especially in history courses. How are we to say what should have, could have, would have been done differently back then. It’s easy to look back and say yes they were wrong or no they were right, but if we were implanted into that society at that time I do not believe we would be able to change much or have much say. This is the case because what we know and believe would be changed because those two things are based off of lived experiences and familial backgrounds. If we are implanted into that situation who’s to argue that we would not be doing the same and be a part of that same affluent society.

The big business of that era was the slave trade; the big business of present day is oil and gas. American economy is driven by profits, as is any economy. Therefore, slaves provided a form of cheap and effective labor, which also made economic sense to have. I am by no means advocating slavery, but slavery had been around for so long previously that it was just as normal as walking almost. The normality of slavery in people’s minds made it justifiable and the profits of such also made it justifiable. Slavery did many great things for this country, but also brought an abundance of poor light on this country as well. Without slavery who knows what may have happened to our country, but since it did happen we were able to experience the likes of MLK, Malcolm X, and so on. Adversity brings about the best and worst in people and with the occurrence of slavery we were able to see the worst in some people, but also the best in people showed up both of color and white.

Austin Henyon

The African Paradox: Not So Brothers and Sisters

Our recent reading, “American Voices”, provided an immense amount of background for me that ultimately answered the question that I have long pondered over: Why did the Europeans have such an affinity for owning black bodies? It was unclear to me how Europeans had the ability to justify kidnapping, capturing, and exploiting African labor for capital gain. After reading “Major Problems in African American History,” it became clear to me that the Europeans depended on the Africans much more than the Africans depended on the Europeans. These black captives allowed for “the rise of liberty and equality” in America with an astounding work ethic and physical resilience that permitted the Englishmen’s newfound economic and political success (Holt, 105-108). It was unclear to me why the Africans did not use that same strength and ability to fight back against the white men who originally coined them as useless, lazy, and undeserving of freedom. Of course part of the answer to my frustration was the fact that they would most likely have been killed if they had attempted to resist or withhold their skills. The second half of that answer was that their fellow Africans at home were also part of the problem.

            I learned through “African Voices” that Africa’s lack of “large, strong, stable political units” inspired African rulers to sell other Africans for economic gain. Africans would also sell aliens, war captives, and criminals off to Europeans as a form of punishment (Mintz, 8-9). While reading this, all I could think was- whether for money or punishment- how could Africans sell their brothers and sisters to the ultimate enemy: the white man. What act could be so sinister as to subject one’s own to the most horrific existence ever known? I then connected American Voices back to our earlier reading, “Saltwater Slavery,” that highlighted the fact that Africans each came from separate and distinct communities, each tribe possessing their own unique cultures and customs. It was not until their forced union during the slave trade that Africans of all tribes united out of desperation and necessity that they started to share languages and intertwine tribe-specific roles, ideas, and practices amongst one another. Before that, community was a term limited to specific tribes, and only within those tribes did loyalty lie. After all, “Africans thought of themselves not as Africans, but members of separate nations” (Mintz 9). An African king or ruler was unconcerned with the downfall of another village if it meant the prosperity of his own. We saw this in Homegoing when Chief Akeebu agreed to help sell off members of his neighbor tribe, the Asantes, to the British for his own village’s economic benefit.

African rulers thought their act of punishing and selling off criminal or alien Africans was an easy, profitable way to rid themselves of burden and an opportunity for their villages to flourish. In the short term, the slave trade “enhanced the power prestige and wealth of particular West African rulers, merchants and states,” (Mintz 42) but contributed to economic stagnation and long-term political instability, social disintegration, and the spread of warfare. (Mintz 8). Not only did African rulers allow their tribe’s governments to fall victim to the European’s capitalist system, but allowed for their neighbors as well as themselves and their kin to be further subjected to three hundred plus years of exploitation and cruelty. While some African rulers contributed to what came to be known as the American paradox, they were simultaneously contributing to what I like to think of as the African paradox. While the American paradox of slavery and freedom worked together to magnify the rights of freedom for Englishmen at the expense of forced African labor, the African paradox was the Africans’ selling their own countrymen, allowing the institution of slavery to thrive at their own expense. Africans once regarded their communities as distinctive and divided, and this subsequently played a part in their later union during the darkest period in America’s history.