In the region of the Chesapeake colonies, where Bacon’s Rebellion took place, there were there races involved. The first of these was made up of three distinct First American tribes, the Susquehannocks, Doegs, and Pamunkeys. Iroquaian Susquehannocks - settled along the northern Chesapeake region, their territory stretched far east and west - were foreign to the colony, as were Doeg Natives - whom lived upstream of Chesapeake Bay’s Potomac River - but the Pamunkeys were a peaceful tribe with close ties to the settlement (1, 2). Along with the aborigines were approximately twenty Africans who were, as many historians infer, slavers (2, 3). The imported persons were useful, and prevalent, to the colonist's due to the labor-intensive cash crop - tobacco - harvested by the colonists. European settlers of the region were English. Colonists, themselves, were divided only by the class statuses of indentured servants (those repaying immigration debt through labor), freemen (those with their own land with no debts), and the elite (wealthy planters whom controlled the government) (2). Considering the aspects of warfare, Bacon's Rebellion was crafted from a minutely diverse variety of races.
Polarization of hate was then made easier by the small number of diversity within the warring parties. With but two other peoples to lay blame on, it became easier for one to draw conclusion and point fingers. It became that logic was outweighed by bias, and the blame soon shifted from natural causes to the other ethnic groups. Such as, instead of the settlers blaming the dry season for their wilting crops, they would probably accuse the slaves of their inability to adequately work the land. Thus, each race would become an aphorism to which all accusations of the other races would be on. There was no greater power to differentiate them as much as their culture and skin.
As with these cultures and skins, English settlers thought themselves superior to the other inhabitants of the region. Upon first encounter with the natives, their view of them was peaceable, even honorable. The red-tinted skin of the aborigines was referred to as the "sun's livery," (2) and even certain aspects, such as their "calm dignity and poise... tender lover... for family... and their simply, independent way of life..."(2) were granted adoration from the colonists. Despite the European's praise, though, the First American's culture and beliefs led the colonists to believe them as lesser, to the point of the English indulging themselves in the belief of superiority. As one English man cruelly described, the natives had "little humanite but shape" being "wild and unmanly," "ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion; more brutish than the beasts they hunt" (2). With these drastically "un-English" manners, the native's were christened as "savages" (2). Africans, too, were the subjects of the colonist's discrimination. Yet, it was not so much their "[un-English] ways...[that] struck the colonists most forcefully, but their un-English skin color" (2). Dubbed as "black", in accordance with the Africans dark skin, in the European mindset, they were the personification of all objects lesser than humanity. In the era, most definitions of black were generally worded the about this phrase, "deeply stained with dirt; soiled, dirty, foul" and, for all intents and purposes, evil (2). Moreover, when compared to the "purity" and "beauty" Europeans attributed to their own peach-tinted skin, those defined as black were easily ascribed as the focal point for all blame and hatred (2). Thus, English settlers thought themselves as grander, more civilized, and all-around exceptional in comparison to the Chesapeake and their slaves from Africa.
Each races wants to be able to attribute superiority to themselves. Throughout history, the European’s views have been the strongest and most pronounced of all these, allowing more inference and dominance in modern minds, as theirs remain the only written word of the era. Distinctions by culture have been prevalent during all of Europe’s history, exemplified by the Christians and Jews. Thus, it was not uncommon to completely disregard all admiration for a people at the barest hint of a relatively obscure culture. Clearly, this shows the misconceptions and insecurities of the English society. They believed the native’s lesser because those peoples had stronger willpower, bonds of kinship, and deeper faith in the both physical and spiritual than the Europeans. Essentially, the settlers were envious of the traits creating a race stronger than they were. They grew angry at the power the foreign culture wielded within themselves, and their jealousy turned the colonists greed into sheer hatred and loathing. Moreover, the First American’s culture was simply too foreign and complex for the Europeans to understand, and the peoples were written off as “savages” purely because of their alien nature, their threat to the colony’s society. In regards to the Africans, the Europeans saw simply a shroud of darkness, the embodiment of sin. Misguided religious beliefs, ultimately God’s word, led to discrimination against this race. Those of modern ages can simply advocate that good and evil, such well-worn paths, could not – and cannot – be so easily dubbed as “black” and “white.” Yet, those of the 1670s, and centuries after, were too religious to look past the color of individual’s skins. It was such the English’s fear of the Devil, sin, and Hell threatened society, life, and preservation. They believed the Africans were the quintessence of that which would overthrow their civilization in the new world, and needed the to subject the daemonic powers to those of goodness and light. Sensibly, then, these peoples were enslaved and under the control of whites. Sensibly, it can be known that each race saw threats of dominance from the others, and found ways to label them in ways so as to make them subservient to one’s “natural” supremacy.
As with this feeling of supremacy, colonists’ final incentive to revolt was brought by First American’s activities. In early 1670s, Susquehannock and Doeg raiding parties appeared on the Virginia frontier. Both frightened at these native's arrival and angered at the government’s minimalistic efforts of protecting settlers, Bacon rallied fellow frontiersmen against the raiding parties, claiming the "unauthorized campaign against the encroaching Indians... would provide] release for the colonists' frustrations" while Governor William Berkley feared the peaceful Pamunkeys's reaction to the violence against their kin. Moreover, the government had just recently settled into a tenuous amity with that same near-by tribe, allowing the native’s all lands on the frontier except that which had already been settled by colonists (1, 2). Twenty years prior of this demand, on another campaign for the settlement, the Queen of the Pamunkeys lost both her husband and over a third of her tribesmen, and in negotiations pertaining to the aborigine's contribution of defense, Queen Pamunkey, obstinate at first, was worn down by the Englishmen's pleas, eventually giving a small number of her men to the settlement’s defense (1). Bacon, though, saw these efforts of the government as both worthless and traitorous, accusing the elite in alliance with the First Americans against the poorer classes, which lead to an attack on the peaceful Pamunkeys, despite the obvious facts that the tribe had "never at any time betraye'd of injuryed the English," nor even raised weapons in defense as they were killed and pillaged, the natives became a target for the colonists" hate (1). Even though the trends of a revolt were brewing beneath the surface of the Chesapeake colony, it was only when the native's raiding parties arrived was there true basis behind their complaint.
This complaint was liable only because of the "lesser breed" of human that the natives themselves were known as. Take the Pamunkeys, friendly and peaceful even after sacrificing their kinsmen and leader to the wills of the colonist's. These settlers, true to their stature as "superior," let their perpetuating loathing and anger of all First Americans disregard the immense sacrifice granted the tribe had made for the colony. They went so far as to claim the minor numbers of aid given to the colony were insignificant when compared to the threat of the foreign native’s on the frontier, when the tribe was still slowly recovering from its losses. Anger was heightened by the presence of the raiding parties, added to the already tense atmosphere of land strains, the settlers soon equally blamed all tribes. In the mind of the English, all those of a similar, inferior ethnicity were a sort of gestalt, a being that came together in uniform to plot against them, turning whites against one another in perverse ways. Accusations of treason by the elite’s were probably compelled by beliefs of bribery and blackmail, forcing the whites to give in, to be deluded by the aborigine’s desires. Aphorisms Europeans placed upon the First Americans resulted in the natives’ quickened destruction in wars of prejudice.
Despite discrimination placed upon African, far different from those of First Americans, a small number of them actually participated in the revolt. Their contribution “demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause” (3). In response, the elite planter class feared that, combined, the poor whites and poor black would be able to overthrow the rich in government and quickly “hastened the transition into racial slavery” (3). These factions of poor joined together against a common enemy in order to reclaim a sort of dominance in their society, actively showing that the contempt the two races had for each other could be temporarily veiled in order to rid themselves of such a threat. The rich wanted continued dominion over the government; and, they feared the freemen, with the added strength of Africans, would conquer them and thus needed a way to keep the blacks under total control. Though their numbers were indeed few, Africans were active contributors of the rebellion.
Their participation was a major factor leading to the reliance of racial hierarchy in the slave labor system – rather than the temporary services of indentured servants – after the rebellion. Discrimination against Africans grew more common in the English colonies as more were imported, experiencing a drastic increase from the once small slave population present in the Chesapeake region (2, 4). Enslavement of these peoples was made vastly easier by the intense contrast of cultures and the shock of removal from their homes as individuals were abducted and imported across the world (4). Rather than working toward freedom and having political power upon attaining freedom, as would indentured servants, slaves’ lifelong labor provided many planter’s with immense wealth and the presence of slaves lessened the tensions between the freemen and elite, allowing them a feeling of white supremacy (2). Yet, this self-denoted preeminence cold not keep slave-owners from fearing a revolt, going so far as to place and enforces rules to limit their slaves’ interaction (and thus knowledge) with each other (2). African labor, racial discrimination, and the slave labor system replaced the servant labor system and eased tension it had brought on.
With this practice now in place, dominance was clear. The wealth imposed their supremacy by way of their wealth. Their riches were able to purchase people who would serve them until decided otherwise, treating Africans as less than human and more in the manner of objects, possessions that did not deserve the same treatment as white men. In this smothering of African’s culture through forcing them into colonial society, it practically assured the white’s supremacy in the colony over all other races. Yet, the insecurities of whether or not their white dominance over the settlement would be tenuous were obvious in the several restrictions the slave-owners put on their purchased humans. They broke contact between slave families and friends, assuring no information, no matter its insignificance, to permeate their relations and unity, keeping them oscillated from the truth. Race now defined dominance in the Chesapeake colony, no longer wealth or position.
As now, though attempted to be lessened, racism still assures dominance and strife in the American society today. The most prominent example of this would be the government. True, on every level a multitude of ethnic groups participate, but think of the executive position. Never, in all the time of the United States, was there a president who was not a white man. It must be, thus, that as a nation the people assume that other races cannot run the country as well as white men. Perhaps they believe what those of colonial days though – that only a certain race had a sense well enough to run the government and people. Thus, the belief is born from the roots of Europe and has been a unifying factor in the dominant race of America – the whites. Even now, as it was then, numerous whites fear their weakening grasp on the federal government will finally come to and end. New challenges face this generation and racial hierarchy must be disputed amongst them.
Yet, even if that system was defeated on the federal level, it will not be able to permeate domestic beliefs of dominance. Take the “sting” operation at Todd Beamer High School in 2007, focused solely on drugs on campus. Undercover police focused their attentions on those of colored skin, instead of the whites whom clearly committed crimes including drugs on campus. These two officers, both fairer skinned, viewed the drug world with bias instead of logic. Rather than looking beyond their preconceptions, the officers clung to them and them as a guide. They plainly showed the view of many whites, believing countless of those in their race would be exempt from doing drugs. In a sense, they viewed whites as above the influence and those of every other ethnic group lesser enough to be susceptible and idiotic enough to perform the duties in a federally funded establishment. Thus, domestic views of racial hierarchy would be nigh unbreakable.
The horror of being inferior and lesser to another race drives the discriminatory conflict between ethnicities. Bacon’s Rebellion remains a prime example of this, though it encompassed only First Americans, Africans, and Englishmen. European’s in the region of the revolt thought themselves better than the other races, and went so far as to declare the First Americans as the cause of their riot. Africans participation in the revolt garnered the elite’s fear of losing dominance in society and caused the imposition of a racially hierarchal slave labor system to replace the servant labor system. In even modern times, people still claim white superiority both politically and domestically. After all these generations, humanity should have been able to overcome this fear.
Puglisi, Micheal J.
1:
"Whether They Be Friends or Foes: the Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts." International Social Science Review 70 (1995): 76-87. Academic Search Complete. Highline, Federal Way. 24 Oct. 2007. Keyword: Bacon's Rebellion and race.
The site itself is credible due to the course of its use as a scholarly search engine that provides a multitude of links and results that are, conclusively, legitimate. The author, Michael J. Puglisi, is associate dean at Marian College and has written a few books, one of which was focused on the Virginia frontier. His point is to show how little diversity was accepted in the colonial period and prejudice was strong against African Americans and Native Americans. The article itself speaks of the Native American tribe that lived in peace with the colonists and the foreign tribes that raided the Virginia frontier, which then resulted in the abuse of the friendly tribes by Nathaniel Bacon and the forced coercion of the same tribe to aid the colonial government to rid the colonists of the raiding parties.
2:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general backgrounds of the events leading up to Bacon's Rebellion. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University,the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Bacon's Rebellion, during, and after.
3:
"Bacon's Rebellion." PBS. 24 Oct. 2007
Pbs.org is the site of the public broadcasting system and has valid links to their current works and their further concentrated links (such as for teachers and children). Found in the teacher's section of the site, the article is a short, concise summary of Bacon's rebellion and reveals certain aspects that most other articles fail to mention.
4:
Zinn, Howard. "Drawing the Color Line." Drawing the Color Line. 24 Oct. 2007
Historyisaweapon.org is a credible sight due to the various links to documents that are historical, written by contemporary authors, and can allow for motivation of the peoples to action. The author, Howard Zinn, has written many controversial philosophical books and is an anti-war activist. In itself, the article gives history and in-depth fact of the slavery of African Americans, giving information regarding the causes for the truckle of Africans to Europeans and select conditions throughout hundreds of years that was the African slavery.
No comments:
Post a Comment