Essay 8

Throughout European history, racism against Africans was present. Sometimes this racism took on different forms, but the fact remains that it was still at hand. The early twentieth century was no different. During this era in Europe, some black people were treated a bit different. These Africans, known as Francophone Africans, were intellectual and experienced colonial assimilation. “These displaced intellectuals and activists often became disconnected from the living cultures, everyday struggles, and ordinary people in whose name they acted”’ (Wilder, 150).
Aime Cesaire, Leopold Sedar Senghor, and Leon-Gontran Damas were among the African intellectuals that made a name for themselves and for their Africa heritage. Although their childhoods were filled with racism and alienation, they were later considered racially elite in their specific colonies. French education was an important component in their early lives, and continued on to college educations. Senghor believed that, “The best way to prove the value of black culture was to steal the colonizers’ own weapons and be an even better student” (Wilder, 151). Bettering themselves was their way of getting even with the years and years of torment they have had to endure. Damas befriended many white artists and Antillean students who were interested in his origin and culture. In fact, several African-based courses were offered at Universities.
These African intellectuals did alter Western civilization in more ways than one. “The Great War brought thousands of Africans to France as conscripts, and some stayed there” (Miller, 10). According to Miller, 134,000 Africans fought while 30,000 were killed. Miller continues on to tell us another effect of the massive participation of Africans in the war, “la dette de sang, the moral debt that France owed Africans who had lent and sacrificed their lives” (Miller18). Blacks were still seen as a lesser race, and saw European civilization for them as nothing more than a joke. Even still, Miller tells us that 1932 was a crucial year where certain blacks took on “a new type of cultural identity” (Miller, 11).
Black intellectuals attempted to define themselves as Africans through their education, writings, speeches, and teachings. These blacks embraced, rejected, and altered the very Western civilization that was both offered and pushed upon them

Essay 7

“Images of black people in European popular culture at the end of the nineteenth century conformed to the perceptions of those who depicted them” (Archer-Straw, 22). Europeans began to portray Africans in a different light, yet it was not always positive. African culture was negatively depicted throughout European art, and their justification for doing so was largely based on religion. Christian whites believed that dark-skinned races were cursed and deserved to have a life of servitude. Whites saw themselves as enlightened and pure, while they associated blackness with sin and ignorance. Africans were the subordinate race, and even after slavery racism did not come to an end. Paintings depicted blacks as subservient, adoring servants. Because blacks had become threatening to the superior white race, as we learned in past readings, Europeans justified their actions of conquest by creating a non-threatening new depiction of black people.
The interest in Black culture did grow as the degrading portrayal of Africans grew into entertainment for the European theater-goer. Europeans told stories of adventure and danger. Posters showed scenes of Africans with spears and shields, portraying savagery while the white soldiers were victorious civilized gentlemen. Black culture was modern and fast-paced, and Europeans benefited greatly from it. They used black people to sell exotic products to market on their once feared African origin. Africans were transported in to reenact battles and other events. Throughout European culture, blacks were continuously portrayed as the inferior, submissive race. Along with economic and entertainment gains, Europeans also used black culture to indulge in certain fantasies. Boxing became quite popular in both black and white societies, and was a great way for both races to relive their aggressions. Many white Europeans began visiting all black establishments, and were encouraged to dance, sing, and sexually interact with blacks. Behind those doors races did not matter; all were welcome.
Although black culture was part of the new culture that Europe had created, the black race was still seen as different from them. Skin color was still the determining factor of superiority to whites. Black culture was used to justify past actions, and benefited the European in many ways.

Essay 6

It appears that from this week’s readings, Europeans seem to have had mixed opinions of Africans during the twentieth century. For example, in Tina Campt’s “Other Germans”, the French enlisted African soldiers seemingly to spite the Germans they were fighting. “As both Nelson and Pascal Grosse contend, another motivation for using Black troops in the occupation was France’s belief in the strategic psychological effect of these troops on their military adversaries” (Campt, 32). She continues on, describing the black troops as “subtle psychological warfare against the Germans” (ibid). Many of the French black soldiers fathered mixed-blood children, and those children were looked down upon. This was not just in Europe, however. Racially mixed children in Germany were also viewed in a negative manner. Germany put bans on mixed marriages, and the children of such unions were not considered Germans, they were considered natives.
Europeans during this century had several reasons for their actions. They saw themselves as civilized and pure, while many viewed Africans as uncivilized and barbaric. Any such union in their eyes was considered pollution to the white race, and threatened the balance of power. “The prospect of a racially mixed, Black German minority with equal status to a white, ‘racially pure’ German populace was certainly a cause for concern that motivated this change in colonial policy and culminated the Reichstag debates of 1912” (Campt, 45). Native women and their mixed-blood offspring and their children became German citizens. Male children would be subject to military service, able to hold public office, and given the right to vote.
As I mentioned earlier, I feel that views of European blacks seem extremely mixed. Our readings are based on French and Germans that opposed unions between colonists and natives. Bans were issued, laws were set. Phrases such as, “racial pollution”, “impaired civilization”, and “endangered power” are thrown around these articles. On the other hand, many Europeans married, or at least had children with these black soldiers. This had to have occurred quite often if it created such a problem for the rest of the continent. Also, laws were issued against the unions, yet the children of mixed-marriages became European citizens and were given certain rights. Many Europeans feared the threat of integration with Africans. There were, however, just as many were starting families with them.

Essay 5

The motivation behind the European conquest of African land was largely economical. Based on this week’s readings on European imperialism, I feel that Rodney’s explanation on the subject, which was planned and determined, is more likely the truth than the spontaneous argument that Robinson and Gallagher provide.
“Imperialism was not so popular in Europe that tax-payers, who were also voters, were ready to pay its bills” (Roberts, 26). European trade in Africa was dropping drastically by the time the 20th century arrose. During the war, it was obvious how dependent African imports Europe came to be. The nation saw conquest as a necessity for their economic survival. Whites did first plan to settle in certain areas throughout Africa, yet opposition in Africa made them change their plans.
In his essay, McKenzie asks the important question, “Why that, after several centuries of nibbling at the edges of Africa, Europeans suddenly rushed in to establish direct military and political control over almost the entire continent?” (McKenzie, p 11). As the writer continues to educate the reader that there is no answer, at least not a simple one, to this question. J.M. does, however, agree that the resources in Africa were an extremely important part of economic status during this time. “Africa was beginning to be important for the commodities it could supply directly to Europe” (McKenzie, p 13). European exploration had started, and it was a nation-wide struggle for power and possession.
Europe wished to restrict the participation that Africans could have. Germany, for example, may have believed in Africans having an education, yet the topic of citizenship and the right to vote was never brought up. Middle class blacks were eventually granted certain rights through European eyes, yet the policy still remained that civilization was the deciding issue of political rights, not race. All three essays use such terms as “Parliamentary approval”, “budgets”, “economic strategies”, and “grants in aid” throughout them.

Essay 4

“The eighteenth century, especially the period from the 1760’s to the 1790s, marked the first time that the status and place of Black people in English society became a question of extensive public debate and national concern” (Lorimer 58). This era marks a significant start to the fight of abolition. More and more slaves were fleeing from their masters to become free. To many African Americans, the term “freedom” was becoming more and more clear. Angered and shocked slave-owners were outraged that Black people were resisting slavery, even appalled at the fact that freed slaves were “stealing” jobs from English workers. Those opposed to the abolition movement even offered rewards for the return of their slaves in newspapers, describing them as property. Africans such as Olaudah Equiano, were fortunate to encounter a different breed of white people. Equiano was a slave, yet his owner treated him well. In fact, he seemed to treat all his slaves like employees, not animals. He fed them well, and in turn, the slaves provided a better service to him. If one of his slaves rebelled or acted out, the punishment was abandonment. He never beat or mistreated them for going against him, simply told them to leave and fend for themselves. “This made them afraid of disobliging him; and as he treated his slaves better than any other man on the island, so he was better and more faithfully served by them in return” (Equiano, 90). A slave-owner is still a slave-owner, but in my opinion, Equiano’s master really was looking out for his slaves the best way he knew how. There were many others that felt this way, some that even took it a step farther. Granville Sharp, for example, offered legal help to abused slaves fleeing from their masters. In short, this concept of freedom during the late eighteenth century ignited several relationships between Africans and Europeans. This era started many white Europeans to take a stand against slavery, which in turn set Europeans against each other in the fight for abolition. Those Europeans that resisted abolition fought as hard as they could to regain control of their slaves in the battle that they inevitably lost.

Short Essay #3

At first glance, “There are no Slaves in France” seems a bit hypocritical. Peabody states early in the essay that people of color were restricted in France, and gives several examples. “These lawsuits in turn spurred the king’s administrators to develop new legislation that would halt the flow of blacks to the nation’s capitol” (Peabody, 7). It seems strange to me that the same people that came up with such a noble “Freedom Principal” would put such limitations on the amount of free slaves in their country. Peabody notes on the hypocrisy, and explains that these issues were just beginning to be touched on during the late eighteenth century. Throughout her essay, Peabody tells us of France’s “Freedom Principal” is based on the fact that all people should be free. It is quite controversial however, when some argue that if all people are free, they should be free to own slaves. This idea, once again hypocritical, forces the issue of who is classified as “people’. In the first section, Peabody tells us that slavery was marked by the Parliament for nations other than France. Rules and boundaries were set to regulate relations between slaves and their owners, but nothing in these rules said anything about when slaves set foot on French soil. “In France, where the financial benefits of the institution were not immediately felt, the attitude toward slavery was quite different” (Peabody, 12). In many cases, when slaves arrived in France they were either set free or returned to the colonies. This became a problem, and the king did address this issue. To uphold the tradition of freedom, once a slave reached France, he was free. The slave trader or owner was compensated by the ship’s captain, for it was his fault that he was brought there. The motives behind the French to help free the Africans are just as controversial. After reading Peabody’s essay, I feel that the motives behind France’s “Freedom Principal” were purely beneficial for France and France only. I don’t believe that they wanted to help free slaves. I feel that they were looking out for their own nation. The French freed slaves and sent them back to the colonies, and made little to no effort to help free African slaves in other nations. In my opinion, this is why they created laws restricting people of color into France.

Short Essay #2

“The British were the pioneers of the campaign; first against the slave trade, then against slavery in their own colonies and finally against slavery worldwide” (Walvin, 158). During the 18th century, the strong abolition force of Britain started with the Anglicans and Quakers. Traditionally ‘right wing’, this group was socially conservative and saw slavery as religious hypocrisy. They fought for freedom, and viewed slavery as hypocritical of everything that freedom stood for. Anglicans took a religious and moral stand against slavery, but faced a strong opposition. According to Hudson, “slave-trading communities were separated politically, religiously, and culturally” (Hudson, 562). Many in Britain were enjoying slavery itself, and the slave-produced goods and they were not about to give these comforts up without a fight. “From small beginnings it rose to substantial levels in 1725-40, contracted and stabilized during the following 35 years, and finally, following a partial revival after American Independence, almost completely ended in the decade before British abolition in 1807” (Richardson, 37). ‘Left wing’ politics suggest ideas such as socially progressiveness, social liberalism, and among other things, support radical reform. “Should it surprise us that these socially conservative Anglicans, not radicals or dissenters, first led the charge against slavery” (Hudson, 560)? According to Nicholas Hudson, those opposed to slavery during this time were leaning more right than left. Even though it was a clear win for the ‘right wing’ groups fighting against slavery, terms generally used to describe ‘left wing’ politics, such as ‘reform’, ‘social revolution’, ’radical’, and ‘antiestablishment’ are used to describe the abolitionists. There were major changes for the British economy, and most areas were affected by the slave industry. ”Dozens of ports sustained the slave-trade, vast rural and urban hinterlands filled the ships with foodstuffs and manufactured goods, and most British consumers bad become addicted to the fruits of slave labours, most notably sugar” (Walvin, 162). Richardson tells us just how profitable the slave empire could be, and is directly linked to Bristol’s “golden age” in the 18th century. Almost half of their income came from the slave industry, and became the “metropolis of the west. Many profited from slavery even after its demise. Even though the abolition movement was a triumphant win for its ‘right wing’ supporters, many others profited largely from it. Merchants and big investors sat in comfort while the industry made them quite wealthy, and continued to do so until slavery’s end in Britain.