As promised last week, I want to say a little bit
about teaching Edmund Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom while
in Hungary this past semester. Professor Morgan passed away recently, and
this got me to thinking about that book of his in particular.
Have you heard of this
book, dear reader? Professor Morgan usually wrote about New England
Puritans in colonial North America, and ASAF is, therefore, an
aberration. It is about colonial Virginia, and aims at figuring out this
paradox: how did harsh, race slavery and greater democracy develop in the same
place at the same time? One such place was Virginia in the 1600s and
early 1700s. How could both the shame and the pride of American history
develop together?
Morgan answers the
question by telling a long but engaging story. The simple version is that
before 1660, poor English and poor African servants were in many ways more
alike than different. Rich English planters perceived them as similar,
and these poor English and Africans worked, forged relationships, and ran away
together. By 1705, however, that had changed. By then, a clear and
harsh racial hierarchy was more evident, in which even poor Englishmen had
rights - to guns, to participation in government - that Africans did not.
What changed? An obvious answer is Bacon's Rebellion, in 1676, in which a
rebel army of poor English and African men was first victorious and then crushed
by the army of the English hierarchy in Virginia. After that, Morgan
suggests, one can see the ideology of race growing alongside the political
participation of formerly rebellious poor Englishmen. The paradox becomes
an explanation. The raising of poor Englishmen's fortunes was
accomplished in part by stripping rights from Africans. Do you see the
elegance of this explanation?
Of course I have not done
this 387-page book justice, but I hope you see part of the book's appeal
here. I found it utterly persuasive when I first read this book in my
first year of graduate school. This despite one mentor of mine calling ASAF
the least good of all of Morgan's works, and another mentor of mine finding
the book compelling, oh-so-well-written, but not quite believable. I
believed it then, and I still believe it, more or less. I've read a
number of things that have helped me add to or qualify Morgan's
interpretation. But I still find it really persuasive.
Did my Hungarian students
find it so?
First off, let me say that
I found Hungarian students to be VERY interested in the history of race in
America, and also in African-American history and Native American
history. These topics were quite popular. Thus, my seminar on class
and race in America had far more students than my seminar on political parties
in the U.S.A. Where I sometimes get the feeling in Oshkosh that students
feel they've talked about race enough already, students in Pécs wanted more,
more, more. I think Pécs English majors actually talk about race and
ethnicity quite a bit in their literature classes, but they did not feel they
had exhausted the subject.
Curiously, I found
Hungarian students quite reluctant to try to compare racial ideologies in
Hungary and in the U.S.A. While I did not suggest this to students, I
quietly thought that popular ideas about the Roma and Jewish minorities in
Hungary both in the past and the present could fairly be called racial
ideologies, Hungarian students did not really make this connection
themselves. On the rare occasions this comparison did come up, my
students generally saw these situations as quite unrelated, and saw the
situation of Hungarian Roma, especially, as sui generis.
That said, my students
tended to follow me in my enthusiasm for Morgan's explanation of racism in
America. This was especially so after stars appeared in my eyes and I
explained that part of the idea's early appeal to me was this: if racism could
be made in the seventeenth century, why then couldn't it be unmade in the
twentieth and twenty-first? Stars appeared in the eyes of my young,
enthusiastic students as well. After a few verses of Kumbaya, we went
home. I kid about the Kumbaya, but not the starry eyes.
I must confess that
students did not read the original ASAF, but read a good historiographical
account of the debate over early American race and slavery aimed at
undergraduates and then listened to me wax eloquent about Morgan’s version of
this story. Still, this digested version
proved very popular.
At the
end of the race and class course, students had many questions, mostly about
race in the U.S.A. today. As I write
this, the issue of race in the U.S.A. is particularly momentous, as attention
has turned again to the case of Trayvon
Martin and George Zimmerman. For
our part, my Pécs students and I spent our last class talking informally about
race in present-day America. While I am
an opinionated guy, I become quite tentative talking about the present while
still wearing my history professor hat.
I am not tentative at all, though, about race in seventeenth
century. Although a serious student must read a number of sources for a more complete picture, I think Professor Morgan still
has one of the best all-around explanations out there.
No comments:
Post a Comment