After reading Slave and Citizen I feel more
confident about my knowledge of slavery. Tannenbaum enlightened me with his
vivid descriptions of the differences between Latin America and United States.
Although we talked about many of Tannebaum’s major claims one particular idea
really stood out. “ The Emancipation may have legally freed the Negro, but it
failed morally to free the white man” (Tannenbaum 42). African Americans were
free according to the law but white Americans continued to associate people of color
with slavery. They were unable to accept that African Americans were now free
people and part of society. When I first
read this passage it provoked many unsettling questions about White America and
their attitude to manumission.
After we discussed this excerpt in class I
gained even more insight on this idea.
Not only were white men unable to process that African Americans were
now free but also that they were responsible for such torture. We discussed the
theory that the white man could not accept all the inhumane conditions they had
inflicted. The realization of the magnitude of suffering they caused may have
traumatized them. This caused enough trauma to the mind of white Americans to
the point that it might be the reason behind so many sociopaths. Although
I have not done enough research on this
theory just the implication that 99% of all serial killers are White Americans because
of the trauma of slavery is mind blowing. Tannenbaum states"the shadow of slavery is still cast ahead of us" which sheds some insight on this possible theory.
Meanwhile in Latin America the idea of manumission was widely accepted and even encouraged. The process was rather easy in this region. Once they were free they automatically offered opportunities that were unheard of in America. In essence this major difference in approach of manumission supports Tannenbaum's major claim about the slave system in these regions. I agree with him about the divergence between Latin America and United States. However I also think just because conditions were less harsh in Latin America it does not absolve them of the initial middle passage and the practice of slavery in general.
Meanwhile in Latin America the idea of manumission was widely accepted and even encouraged. The process was rather easy in this region. Once they were free they automatically offered opportunities that were unheard of in America. In essence this major difference in approach of manumission supports Tannenbaum's major claim about the slave system in these regions. I agree with him about the divergence between Latin America and United States. However I also think just because conditions were less harsh in Latin America it does not absolve them of the initial middle passage and the practice of slavery in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment