Thanks for bearing with me last week when I wasn't feeling well. You guys have been participating well consistently, and I really appreciate that.
This is a really light week for readings for you guys - you have LITERALLY only four pages of primary sources, so it shouldn't be hard to prep for section. The readings are Captain William Dampier (p. 141) and Jahangir (p. 158). We'll also discuss your papers & my general feedback.
Also, I've had to revise paper pick-up times for Wednesday because I have a meeting with a professor. You can pick up your paper from me in my office, Dulles 009, between 8am and 9:55am or between 1pm and 2:45pm, or you can just wait until section on Thursday.
THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR SECTION:
1) According to Damphier, what was slavery like for slaves in Achin? What was the relationship like between master and slave? How does it compare to Atlantic slavery?
2) Jahangir and his father were Islamic rulers of the Mughal Empire. How did they view the place of other religions in the empire? What made religious practices acceptable or unacceptable?
ACTIVITY - due by 11:59pm on Wednesday, 9/19 if you chose to complete this week's activity
This week's readings describe religion and slavery in East Asia & India, while the past two weeks' readings discussed the same things in the Americas. How did the practice of religion or slavery (pick one) differ between the two regions? Make specific references to the readings. Then, give me a one sentence explanation of why YOU think the practices developed differently.
See you all on Thursday!
This is a really light week for readings for you guys - you have LITERALLY only four pages of primary sources, so it shouldn't be hard to prep for section. The readings are Captain William Dampier (p. 141) and Jahangir (p. 158). We'll also discuss your papers & my general feedback.
Also, I've had to revise paper pick-up times for Wednesday because I have a meeting with a professor. You can pick up your paper from me in my office, Dulles 009, between 8am and 9:55am or between 1pm and 2:45pm, or you can just wait until section on Thursday.
THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR SECTION:
1) According to Damphier, what was slavery like for slaves in Achin? What was the relationship like between master and slave? How does it compare to Atlantic slavery?
2) Jahangir and his father were Islamic rulers of the Mughal Empire. How did they view the place of other religions in the empire? What made religious practices acceptable or unacceptable?
ACTIVITY - due by 11:59pm on Wednesday, 9/19 if you chose to complete this week's activity
This week's readings describe religion and slavery in East Asia & India, while the past two weeks' readings discussed the same things in the Americas. How did the practice of religion or slavery (pick one) differ between the two regions? Make specific references to the readings. Then, give me a one sentence explanation of why YOU think the practices developed differently.
See you all on Thursday!
Atlantic slavery provided zero freedom for the people enslaved. They were treated poorly, fed poorly, forced to sleep in terrible conditions, and had to endure back breaking work. Atlantic Slaves did not make any money and were very low in the social and economic classes. However, Achin slaves had much better lives. Some Achin slaves were "...topping Merchants, and had many Slaves under them." In addition, the primary source states that Masters often lend them money to start a trade or business. The Achin slaves also had houses to themselves in other parts of the city, away from their Masters, like free people. So essentially, the slavery in Achin was a lot less strict and torturous.These slaves had much more independence. I think the practices developed differently because the Masters in Achin may have realized that slaves will produce and work better if they are happy and treated fairly.
ReplyDeleteAchin slaves had many more freedoms than Atlantic slaves. They could have their own businesses, had their own money, and controlled other slaves. They even had “habitations or houses to themselves in several parts of the City, far from their Masters Houses, as if they were free people.” In contrast, Atlantic slaves were subjected to beatings, intense labor, and poor conditions. They had no control over anything, not even their own person. I believe the practices are different because masters could reap rewards that just did not consist of labor, but could receive shares of any money the slaves are able to accumulate, which made helping them start businesses a wise investment
ReplyDeleteAccording to Damphier's description, the slaves in Achin could live a life with dignity. The dignity of the slaves were embodied in several aspects. "Neither can a stranger easily know who is a Slave and who not among them: for they are all in a manner..."said Damphier. He actually provided two clues: first Slaves were not differentiated from normal people and this indicates that they were probably equally dressed and trained to obey same manners. Second, the word 'Slave' had a capitalized initial, which probably explicates that the class 'Slaves' existed as one of the important social components of Achin hierarchy. Another point indicating the dignity of slaves is that they were enabled by the masters to strive for their freedom. "His Master is Heir to what he leaves; and his Children, if he has any, become his Slaves also: unless the Father out of his own clear gains has in his life time had wherewithal to purchase their Freedom." stated Damphier in order to clarify his point on relationship between slaves and their masters in Achin. Also, as he said earlier, slaves could also borrow money from their masters to run business and I understand this move as the charity of the masters offering the slaves chances of being free. While in Atlantic slavery, slaves would never touch the lineament of freedom. They slept in darkness and odor as well as crowd, and were fed badly while doing merciless work.
ReplyDeleteIn Jahangir's passage, he demonstrated the requirement of being religions inclusive both implicitly and explicitly. Initially, he expressed his disdain for Hindu beliefs straightforwardly. As far as I am concerned, being frank to express one's feeling of another religion would be the first step of accepting it. Moreover, his father propounded that they should not interfere with other's religions in their country because the God in his belief treated every creature on earth graciously without distinctions. Further Jahangir's father believed that the only way to prevent other religions was slaughtering, which definitely went against God's willingness. However, he also propounded that without any practice killing people, the disciples deserved respect toward what they believe.
As I read through the paragraphs, there was one question obsessing in my mind: How did these countries like Achin and Mughal contribute to an unshackled and equal world in the history?
I saw huge differences in the slave trade between East Asia & India and the Americas. The Atlantic Slave Trade was brutal, African people were enslaved against their will and shipped to the Americas on a crowded boat. They were treated poorly, fed poorly and developed disease easily. Most of them died before they reached the Americas. The few that did make it overseas were forced into strenuous work for their owners benefit. The slaves were of the lowest class and received no freedom or equal treatment whatsoever. In East Asia & India, slaves were treated much differently. Slaves had much more freedom in this area of the world. There are slaves of different rank and most of them would not be considered as slaves in the Americas at all. Dampier states that "There is nothing of rigour used by the Master to his Slave." Masters encourage their slaves to make their own lives and profits. The reason I believe that this happened in East Asia and India is because when a slave died, all of their accomplishments and profits are left to the owner. Masters were nicer and more encouraging to slaves because the more the slave profited, the more the owner did as well.
ReplyDeleteThe practice of religion in east Asia and India differed greatly with the practice in the west. The colonies and western Europe, dominated by Christianity only accepted Christianity as the correct religion, and more importantly only the Roman Catholic part of Christianity. They sent missionaries to Africa and the "New World". As in many of the readings in class, they converted Native Americans and African Slaves to Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition arose in Spain around the time where they drove out and/or tortured all non Christians who didn't convert. This set up a very non-tolerant religious societies and in that way they went on to press their religion everywhere in the Atlantic.
ReplyDeleteIn India however, the Islamic Mughal empire provided tolerance to all its peoples of different cultures and beliefs. They saw that this was better than subjugating people that will in tern resent them. Their ruler, believed that all people were God's creation and he did not want to oppress them so he let them practice their own religions.
These practices developed differently because of European greed. They enslaved and colonized for their own selfish greed but used religion as an excuse. While in the east the religions were more peaceful and there was no newly emerged scramble for colonies and wealth. Therefore people slowly integrated while in the west the shock on new cultures and peoples gave Europeans the ok to dominate.
Slavery in East Asia and India differed in many ways compared to slavery in the Americas. Slavery in the Americas seemed to really have one tier of power. The white plantation owners ruled over the black slaves. In East Asia and India, however, there were many tiers of power. Captain William Dampier notes that queen has 12 "Oronkeys", which have officers underneath them. These men had slaves under them and those slaves even had other slaves under them. He says that an outsider could not tell the difference between who was a slave and who was not a slave. This differs greatly from slavery in the Americas, because it was very obvious who was a slave and who was not a slave. The slaves in East Asia and India had their own home lives in different parts of the city away from their masters as if they were free people. In the Americas, slaves lived directly under their masters and really had no life except for their slavery. I believe that the practices developed differently because slavery in East Asia and India was more just like their division of labor in their city with everyone working together to make the city work, while slavery in the Americas was one people exploiting the work of another people to make money and become wealthy.
ReplyDeleteShane Walter 11:30
Slavery as Captain Dampier describes it is incredibly different than how it is depicted as being in the Americas. In the Americas, there was no confusion over who was a slave and who was not. Slaves in the Americas were treated cruelly, as though they were less than human. Their rights were completely taken from them, and they were forced to do the bidding of their masters. Furthermore, these slaves were of African descent. Captain Dampier does not address the race or national origin of the slaves in Achin, but his lack of comment leads me to believe that at the very least, it was considered to be insignificant. They did not seem to define their slaves as those who belong to a particular race, as we did in the America's - preventing a future of racial prejudice and discrimination, as we have experienced in our country. The slaves that Dampier discusses were also treated much better - they were given their own homes, were allowed to keep slaves of their own, and were overall granted much more freedom. They were even allowed to start their own businesses, to make a profit of their own. I think that this all might have something to do with the mindset of the conquistadors in the America's. Many of them were conquering lands and establishing plantations for European nations that did not have any already. They were desperate to claim their territory and bring a profit back to their homelands. The people in Achin did not have to keep such a competitive mindset, because they were already established. The racial differences in the America's may also have had an impact - it was easier for them to fool themselves into thinking they could treat the African slaves poorly because they looked differently than themselves. They could pretend more easily that the Africans were not human and they were thus not violating their natural rights.
ReplyDeleteSlavery as Dampier describes it is so different than it was in the Americas. Dampier described slavery in Achin as something that everyone did. It was not the same type of slavery though. Owners in the Americas treated their slaves as if they really did own them and there were no social rules. They were treated not as people but as machines to produce work and were therefore treated cruelly. On the other hand in Achin slaves were not treated this way. They were both allowed to live in their own houses and own their own slaves. He even said that some slaves were considered wealthy merchants. In the Americas, there was a master and there were slaves. In India and East Asia, it seems that there were many levels, there were slaves that owned their own slaves and so on. These slaves were not treated as cruelly and it is depicted that they were merely workers as opposed to indentured servants.
ReplyDeleteI think that the difference is so obvious is because the slaves here were there own people and geographically so close. In the Americas they were Africans shipped over on a boat and so it was easier to treat them as they did.
The Slaves in the Achin were hardly treated like slaves at all. The fact that Dampier uses the capital "S" in their name gives them humanity. The Slaves were fishermen, money changers, and merchants. They had a Master but this Master acted more like a boss to them. Dampier claims that at times one could not tell if someone was a Slave or not. Slaves in the Achin was more of a "social category." Slaves here could have their own Slaves who could also have Slaves. These people in the Achin lived pretty well comparatively. The slaves in the Atlantic Slave trade were not as lucky. They were treated more like property than humans. They were forced into long hard manual labor. They only received minimal amounts of food and water and had terrible sleeping conditions. There was not any discrepancy as to who the slave was and who the Master was in the Americas.
ReplyDeleteI think that this has a lot to do with displacement. The Slaves in Achin seem to be from there. Where as the slaves in the Americas were shipped across the ocean from a place most of the Masters had never been to. This distance made it easier for the masters to treat their slaves as property and less like people.
There were a few obvious differences between the practice of slavery in the Atlantic and Achin. In the Atlantic, chattel slavery was practiced which led to slaves being treated as property and forced into labor. Many were often abused and constantly overworked. Slavery in Achin was much less violent than the slavery in the Atlantic. Achin had a set hierarchy system in which the slaves had several roles. The slaves were hardly ever mistreated and many of them were actually lent money. Captain Dampier points out: "Yet tho' all these are Slaves, they have habitations or houses to themselves in several parts of the City, far from their Masters Houses, as if they were free people" (p. 142). I believe these practices developed differently due where the slaves came from. In the Atlantic slave trade, the slaves were shipped from Africa. They were racially unique and could not speak the Europeans' languages and therefore were looked down upon by the Europeans. This gave the sense that they were property rather than human beings.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the Achin slaves and the Atlantic slaves was that the Achin had more freedom. They were almost like normal people. They earned their own money by having businesses. They were more independent. On the other hand, The Atlantic slaves were treated like property and not like human beings. They were beaten by their masters and worked all day. Both Achin and the Atlantic Masters are different because in Achin, masters treats the slaves well which means that the slaves will work better according to Damphier.
ReplyDeleteTran Nguyen
11:30
Slavery in East Asia and India was very different than slavery in the Americas. By reading the pst few sources, we are able to see very clearly that the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade were treated very harsh. They were not given many rights, they were not fed appropriately, and their living conditions was extremely poor. That was just when they faced their journey to the Americas, that didn't even include the harsh labor that they had to face on a daily basis once they arrived. The slaves of East Asia and India on the other hand were treated very differntly. They were not seen just as slaves. They had their freedoms and was able to live a life. Slaves were not just labor workers here, some were seen as "topping Merchants." Slaves were able to have slaves work for them. I think the practices differed because of the power the land owners had and how much power they thought they had was 2 different things. American slave owners abused their power and took it for granted, while East Asia and India slave owners understood that their slaves were humans too and worked them to a reasonable ammount.
ReplyDeleteThe Achin slaves were treated much differently than the American slaves. The Achin slaves were "topping merchants and had many slaves under them". These slaves were allowed to have other slaves underneath them, and not all were poor and mistreated as was the case in the Americas. Slaves in Achin were even allowed to own houses. Dampier says "they have habitations or houses to themselves in several parts of the City, far from their Masters Houses, as if they were free people." The slaves were treated as free men and with dignity, unlike in the Americas. In the Americas, slaves were beaten and families were torn apart. They weren't given their own houses. Richard Ligon states "their lodging at night a board, with nothing under, nor anything a top of them." I think the two systems developed independently and differently from each other because of the difference in where the slaves came from. The American slaves came from Africa and looked much differently than their masters while the Achin slaves presumably looked just like their masters, so their wasn't an inferiority in race between the masters and slaves in Achin.
ReplyDeleteMichael Constans
11:30
Dampier depicts a very different kind of slavery than that in the Atlantic world. here slaves are seen through many social classes rather than only representing a single class in itself. in the Atlantic system a master owns a slave, much like property, and so keeps them under his watch and housing (land). In Achin it is common for anyone to own slaves. that is, slaves own slaves who can in turn own slaves and so on. what is also notable is the degree of freedom which the slaves here are given. they may make business ventures or seek other ways to increase their income, sometimes even with the fiscal investment of the master. slaves also own their own homes away from their masters and have defined (traditional) families. another difference is that slaves are citizens, native people with ownership of each other, where as in the Atlantic system slaves are foreign people, bought, sold, and traded. in the Achin system slaves do not tend to change ownership, rather families own families. from Dampier's description, slaves here appear to be (crudely) more like modern servants like butlers.
ReplyDeleteLogan Rasnick
Slavery in the Americas differed greatly from slavery in Achin. It was unpleasant for the slaves to travel to the Americas in overcrowded ships. The slaves struggled with lack of food, water, and space to move. They were all shackled and chained to one another in unbearable heat. More than a million slaves died on the transport to Europe and the Americas due to diseases and poor living conditions. For those who survived the trip, the poor treatment didn't stop. Slaves dealt with more food deprivation, poor living conditions, rigorous work, and no freedom. The slaves in Anchin were almost the exact opposite. Though they were slaves, they were allowed to have their own slaves and their own houses. Some of these Anchin slaves were considered to be Merchants. Their Masters were even willing to help them out by lending them money to start a trade or business.
ReplyDeleteI think the practices were developed differently because of ideologies. The Europeans were interested in maximizing their profits by using slaves to do all of the heavy lifting along with giving them the bare minimum to survive. The East Asians and Indians were interested in helping their slaves because of a utilitarian mindset. Not to mention, if anything were to happen to the Masters' slaves, they would inherit everything. They believed that good treatment towards their slaves would create good labor output in return.
Although Achin people used to coined term "slavery", it was very different compared to Atlantic slavery. In the Atlantic area, the slaves were treated as nothing but property. They suffered from beatings from their owners as well as lack of food, water & other necessities. In Achin, however, the slaves had different social classes. All slaves could have their own slaves. As far as the differences in the relationships between slaves and their masters, it was quite different. In the Atlantic area, as stated before, the slaves had a rough way to go. They were solely workers and considered as one class of slaves. In Achin, the slaves were in different social classes and their wasn't as much of a negative connotation on the word "slave". In the text it says " neither can a stranger easily know who is a Slave and who not among them: for they are all, in a manner, Slaves to one another". I think this shows that it's more of a community, not just individual people working under one ruler. I think they developed differently because of how the slaves were established. The Americans tried to conquer the slaves from Africa, whereas, in Achin although they were slaves, they were still treated as people and could live their lives with some degree of freedom. Then the Americans just abused their power, causing more harm than good, where the people of Achin just saw this as a way of coexisting.
ReplyDeleteEmily Schultz
Captain William Dampier, describes slavery in Ache, with regards to rank. At the very top of the hierarchy is the queen and below her 12 lords, and below them some inferior officers. Other than those listed the bulk of the civilization is made up of slaves, only some are slightly better off slaves, being able to have slaves of their own, some of which whom also have slaves of their own. It is not distinguishable who is a slave, and who is not by physical means. Slavery appears to be more of a way to rank power in Ache, than oppress others in the Atlantic. The source even states that slaves were encouraged to find a trade by their masters. This is very different from slaves in the Atlantic Trade System. Slaves in the Atlantic were looked at as property, not human beings. They were not given the opportunity to learn a trade, earn money, or pay for their freedom. They were simply used for labor and disposed of when they failed to work properly.
ReplyDeleteI think the practices developed differently here because slaves were not necessarily used/treated as property to just perform cheap labor, but they were given a chance to live as humans, just at a lower rank than those they worked for.
According to Jahangir's passage he and his father were accepting of other religions within the Mughal Empire. They did not interfere with any other religion. They were very tolerant of other religions even though it was not what they believed in. Jahangir went on to explain how his father considered it unnecessary to 'molest' any other religion or persons belief while he was at peace himself. Although the passage started off with a rant on his dilike for the Hindu, I agree with Kang in that it's a step closer to acceptance. Jahangir is entitled to his opinion and I thought it was good for him to get it out in the open and then continue on with his talk of tolerance and acceptance of other religions and what they practiced. The assage also dove into details explaining that it was unacceptable to sacrifice women with children. I found tat quiet interesting and understand it from my stand point today, however why did it matter whether or not woman, mother wanted to be sacrificed back then for her religion but was not allowed to? Was this rule not a way of interfering with another religion or did it not count?
ReplyDeleteHow did they view the place of other religions in the empire? What made religious practices acceptable or unacceptable?
Slavery in the Atlantic differed from slavery in Achin. In the Atlantic, slavery was much more divided according to master and slaves. However, in Achin, they were all "slaves to one another." Dampier even described that foreigners would not be able to distinguish between who was a slave and who was not. In Achin, the enslaved people also lived independently from one another, but in the Atlantic, slaves were forced to stay on their master's plantation in often bad living conditions. These slavery practices developed differently because in the Atlantic, the masters and the slaves were from two separate cultures and backgrounds, but everyone from Achin had close to the same culture. I think that the slave owners in the Atlantic felt that their slaves were inferior to them because of their ethnic differences.
ReplyDelete