The word Nigger, extremely offensive to some, but to others a word of power and lifestyle. We all know that words can have a negative effect on individuals as well as a society as a whole. ‘Nigger’ is no different. A racist word that should not be used by the black community.

So many times I have heard this used by the black community as a way of greeting, in conversation and in songs when black people refer to the black males. I have always seen this as a racist word and accepted that it was only okay for black people to use. Never has it occurred to me the negative connotations it holds and never have I questioned the use of it. Until now.

African-American slavery was a violent, race based system, controlled by white people. Looking at books written at the time of the slave trade and also when the discrimination was incredibly powerful, the words ‘nigger’ and ‘negro’ are used over and over again. There is nothing positive about this word at all. Yet we see it used so much in conversion and in music!

Rap artists are responsible for this in my opinion and the word ‘nigger’ is key in the glorification of the ‘thug life’ and gangs. It is used so much that I feel that even the black community do not understand the true meaning of the word and that no one has stopped and argued against it. We all continue to listen to the music and do not question the use of the words. But its time to get rid of it.
This gangster or thug lifestyle has been glorified by various black artists and passed down the generations. The lifestyle is associated with the ghettos, drugs and portrayed education as uninteresting and negative thing.

Artists have a responsibility to have a positive effect on people lives and yet they promote something so negative that they should not be seen as such positive role models. It is incredibly selfish of them that they are so absorbed with the money that they feel the only way they can continue to make money is if they promote the ‘thug’ lifestyle. Yet some rappers blame society for their negative start in life. Why? And isn’t it strange that even when they reach this level of fame they do nothing to get rid of the source of their negative upbringing and make sure that it is no longer a factor to stop the forthcoming generations.

Individuals such as Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, fought for the freedom of the black people in a society dominated by white racists. If they were to see rappers and young children using Nigger as a positive thing, would they be proud? I highly doubt it.

In 1963, Martin Luther King said in his famous speech, “one hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination.” What has changed from the day this speech was made? Yes there are now equal rights and the first black president of the United States, but the attitude within has not.

The slave trade should never be forgotten and should be used as a factor in order to unite people, not to create even more of a divide within society. The children that grow up in today’s society shouldn’t have this fear of being an outsider, because they want an education, or think that when they grow up there is only one path for them.

Some of you may be reading this and thinking I’m an idealist and that I’m a typical student trying to ‘save the world’, but that’s not the case at all. It is most likely that the word nigger will never stop being used, but we as a modern and equally society should try our best and at least think more about what we stand for.

I don’t feel comfortable with the thought of the generations that will follow to be sucked into this negativity and continue with this vicious cycle of events just because of one word that people use without thinking and base their imagine around and I’m sure that none of you do either.

Gagan Bajwa

With all of the coverage of the presidential race in America recently, it got me thinking how Abraham Lincoln would react to seeing a black president being re-elected into office. After the struggles Lincoln faced during the 19th Century it could be argued that if he could see Barack Obama in office now he would view it as a positive change in America.

Throughout Abraham Lincoln’s life he witnessed racism towards the black population. He grew up in Kentucky surrounded by slave holding and was often privy to seeing slaves being exploited by men in the south. Lincoln was one of the first voices for the abdication of slavery in America after observing the south and the state of affairs that took place there.
It seemed though that Lincoln was fighting an uphill battle concerning the abolition of slavery and the recognition of the black population. The case of Dred Scott V Sandford in 1857 provides us with an insight into the attitudes of the people in America. The case was a landmark decision by the Chief Justice Roger B Taney stating that “Blacks were not citizens, and derived no right from the constitution.” Taney went on to condemn the black population further, “blacks were beings of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race.” So, having lived in a society that viewed the blacks as a race to be dominated and kept away from obtaining citizenship, how would Lincoln view America now, with a Black man as President?

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, to an American mother and a Kenyan father. He is the first African American to hold office in American. In May 2012 Obama publically supported the legalisation of same sex marriages, and implemented the awarding of citizenship to foreign people if they have been educated in the American schooling system. It may be thought that America has come on leaps and bounds since the presidency of Lincoln, not only is slavery non- existent, black people and foreigners are now able to obtain citizenship and positions of power in America.
However, has America really changed all that much?
Recent newspaper coverage in the Daily Mail reported on racist slurred being tweeted after the re-election of Barack Obama. These tweets saying “it’s called the white house for a reason” and using derogatory terms when referring to Obama have been seen to be localised mainly in the southern areas of America. Mississippi and Alabama were recorded as having the highest proportion of racially offensive tweets following the election, shortly followed by Georgia, Louisiana and Tennessee. The measurement of these tweets is collective, so it could be one individual posting a lot of tweets rather than a lot of people. Nevertheless the tweets are originating from southern states, most of which voted for Romney, showing a lack of growth in the racial opinions of the south since Lincoln’s time.
The Democratic Party have changed their political ideals in the 200 years since Lincoln was President, for it was the democrats that Lincoln was fighting against for the abolition. Now the political roles have completely switched with the Republican states having racist attitudes and the democrats electing an African American into office.

Overall I believe today, as in the 19th Century, the south seem to still be possessing highly racist and anti-black feelings. There may not be the same degree of active slavery in the 21st century but the underlying factors of slavery were racism and that is ever present in today’s society as it was in Lincoln’s time. Therefore, would Abraham Lincoln see 2012 America as a transformed country, or would he just see the same racism in the south, and the same fights against the black population?

By Jenny Carlin

I ended my last blog entry by suggesting that perhaps female concubines in Ancient Rome felt a sense of obligation towards their masters due to the paternalistic nature of slaves, which in turn got me thinking about how far paternalism was accepted in the minds of slaves and slave masters alike.

 

This semester our course has been based on slavery in both Ancient Rome and the American South and as a class we have made comparisons and contrasts, discussed primary sources, the impact of slaves on society as a whole and the scale of slavery in both eras, just to name a few topics! For my Research project I decided to argue that Paternalism was the predominant underlying ideology towards slaves in the Roman familia and in the Southern household. I’m going to use this blog as an opportunity to further develop the comparison points I made in my essay.

 

Although I accept the concept of paternalism I am very aware that there were significant differences in the notion of paternalism in the minds of the slaves owners. In both societies paternalism allowed slave owners to justify slavery. They argued that slaves needed ‘taking care of’. In this instance paternalism also embraces the parent/child model of paternalism. In the eyes of the owners the slaves were seen to lack the relative knowledge, or sense of responsibility to look after themselves and it was the duty of the slave owner to behave towards their slaves as guardians. The slave owner is the parent and the slave is perceived as being the child, or childlike thus slave owners believed it was in the slaves’ best interests. Essentially this argument is presenting the idea that slaves lacked the ability to run their own lives and thus they were better off in the system of slavery where their lives were run by others. It is necessary to point out however that the slaveholders were creating the situation that made their alleged paternalism necessary. Accepting that there was a conscious paternalistic ideal in the mind of the slave owners does not suggest that slavery in both societies was just and reasonable, instead it seeks to demonstrate the how slave holders justified their actions.

 

A stark difference in the way paternalism was administered over slaves in the Roman familia and in the Southern household can be found in the simple fact that in the American South slaves were determined by the colour of their skin. Southern slave owners believed that black people as a race were ignorant and uneducated therefore it fell on slave owners to ‘take care’ of the slaves in their household. In America in many ways paternalism was essentially the rationalization of white supremacy, and by accepting the parent/child model of paternalism we find that these two theories could be mutually reinforcing. In Ancient society paternalism was based on a class relationship. Slaves were not solely seen to require authority due to the colour of their skin or their ethnicity, but due to their low class status. Ancient Rome was a very rigid hierarchical society with slaves at the bottom of the tier. It is important at this point however, to remind ourselves that slavery was a very fluid state which anybody could fall into.

 

In most instance slaves embraced the paternalistic ideal. Within Ancient Rome the slave/master relationship could potentially be very similar to relationships based on patronage. A relationship that was based on mutual ties and obligations. Slaves were often very dedicated and formed strong emotional bonds with their masters, I do not seek to claim that these emotions were always reciprocated but it does demonstrate that slaves were susceptible to paternalism. Furthermore, the notion of reciprocity in paternalism allowed slaves to manipulate the ideal of paternalism to their advantage. Slaves knew that good and loyal behaviour would be rewarded. The link between paternalism and reciprocity is clear; essentially the use of reciprocity is but an extension of the paternalistic ideology underlying Ancient Roman slavery. Similarly in the American south slave owners argued that the slave would happily do what the master asked, and in return the master provided security and protection. We can see this in the notion of the ‘sambo’ personality. The existence of reciprocity allows us to determine that slaves acknowledged their inferior position, thus solidifying social cohesion. By accepting paternalism of this kind slaves themselves in Southern America and Ancient Rome legitimised this form of class and race rule.

 

Amrit Kaur

When looking back at my essay on the economy of female slaves I found myself thinking about the relationship between a master and his female slave, and what better forum to discuss my thoughts than our class blog?

 

It’s no secret that this relationship was based on total authority and servility. Roman society placed slaves, more so female slaves, at the bottom of their rigid hierarchical social structure. Slaves had no legal status and were perceived as objects of possible economic worth rather than seen as people in their own right. Female slaves were very much at the mercy of their masters, which led to sexual exploitation within the home. In other instances a master would hire out his female slave to a leno who would then exploit numerous female slaves in the arena of prostitution. For the Romans, the prostitute was a ‘good’ rather than a ‘worker’. This point is demonstrated by Mcginn who sees Roman prostitution as being aimed at “maximum exploitation and therefore maximum profits”. The prostitution of female slaves was seen simply as another means of economic gain. An economic gain, which was based on a patriarchal relationship, and in this way prostitution reflected women’s participation in the economy as a whole.

 

On the other hand, there are numerous sources that inform us of relationships which were based on sentimental links between slave and owner, for example the affectionate relationship between a child and his nurse. There are varying mentions of nurses, who upon old age, were gifted with land. Pliny writes of Gaius Plinius who awarded his nurse a small estate. Similarly, despite Augustus introduction of legislations that prevented senators from marrying their slaves or freedwomen it did not prevent their continuing relationships. These irregular unions seem to have occurred in Roman society chiefly because people were unable to marry because it was deemed more socially acceptable for them to have a concubinage relationship. (A concubine was a free woman who was cohabiting with a man, without being his wife) More than often these relationships produced no children thus it possible to deduce that they simply shared companionship.

 

And this brings me to my point; is it really possible for masters and freed female slaves to have relationships based on mutual affection? It is normal to find that a concubine would often have a modest claim to her partners property and Pomperoy even tells us of female members of the imperial household who managed to attain positions of influence as the freedwoman concubines of emperors. Furthermore, It’s likely that a female slave had been sexually exploited by her master, therefore was it actually possible that relationships between masters and freed female slaves were genuine and honest? On the other hand, did these women simply realise that their lives would be easier; that they would be wealthier and have a sense of social standing, by committing themselves to these powerful, high status men? Even more cynically perhaps, freedwomen felt a sense of obligation towards their masters due to the paternalistic nature of the slave/master relationship.

 

Kaur Amrit

In order to gain a better insight on what life was like for slaves living in the American Antebellum South, I bought the book ‘Unchained Memories: Readings from the Slave Narratives’ compiled by Henry Louis Gates Jr, Spencer Crew and Cynthia Goodman. The book comprises of extracts from interviews of former slaves conducted in the early 20th century by WPA interviewers, which would later form the Slave Narrative Collection of the Federal Writers Project, now housed in the Library of Congress. Each chapter is based around a different theme, such as punishment, slave auctions, work, living conditions and abuse. Not only do the words of those former slaves themselves evoke real emotion from the reader, in many instances the interviewer photographed them and these images are included next to their quotes. The editors of this book have cleverly written the quotes in a phonetic fashion, with words spelled just as the person said them, complete with regional accents clear to see. This further makes their accounts palpable, and brings their lives as slaves to life as it were, and reinforces the horrors that these people were treated worse than animals by many of their masters. In contrast, it is fascinating to read complimentary accounts from former slaves of their masters, and to see what qualities they believed made a good, benevolent master. Rosa Maddox from Texas, for instance, thought her masters, the Andrews family were good to her because they gave them good cabins and plenty of food. She remarked that passersby would say “There goes Oat Andrews’ free niggers” due to their relatively comfortable existences. Not only does this book bring these stories to life, it provides an hitherto unknown account of what slavery was actually like for those who lived under it’s shadow. I cannot recommend it any higher, it was a fascinating read that provides a real emotional rollercoaster, as the reader gets to know these former slaves and share many of their experiences with them, for better or for worse. In addition to the book, HBO made a documentary of the same name, using voices of famous African-Americans such as Morgan Freeman, Oprah Winfrey and Will Smith to tell the tales of these people who once were slaves. Both the book and the televised documentary are thought provoking, insightful and emotional, and really capture the essence of what it must have been like to be a slave in the American Antebellum South.

R. Kelleher Walton

The final session of our seminar has now approached and this makes me to rethink our comparative seminar. I have never enjoyed anything like that, but I must admit that this particular teaching structure as a way to learn about slavery was very effective indeed. As a future teacher I will certainly make use of this method because of highly valuable advantages, which will be outlined in the following.

It is one thing to know about slavery in the Roman World and in America, but it is another thing to be able pick out themes and use the knowledge of both slavery systems to describe the theme in question. Automatically, differences can be made out. But here, the comparison should not end. Once the differences have been identified, the next step is crucial as well: analysis. This analysis comprises questions about the reasons why the examined aspect of slavery was different in the two societies. An exemplary question makes this clear: why were there few obstacles to manumission in the Roman Empire and in the antebellum South so many? Furthermore, questions connected to it will arise: Who profited from the respective regulations and when and why were they implemented? This example makes it obvious that a lot more knowledge than only about the aspect of slavery in both societies is necessary, but knowledge about the society and its genesis as well. Therefore, I see this as the benefit of the comparative approach to slavery: not only knowledge about slavery can be gained, but also about the society itself. Power structures, ideologies and underlying passed on concepts can be detected and this only as a result of questioning the reasons for the differences. Moreover, it is a result of the student’s questioning. This further advantage justifies the comparative approach to slavery as a didactic method because the lately often acclaimed concept of historical thinking and its associated skills are needed and incorporated.

I am fully aware that this method of comparative history is not applicable and useful in a lot of other attempts to reconstruct the past. Here, chronological teaching is essential to pupils in order to give them a framework in which historical events can be located. Slavery, however, which is a very old system and observable throughout the past, can be most effectively taught by a comparison of two slave societies in order to highlight continuities and differences in the justification of slavery. Preferentially, it should be a comparison between the Roman Empire and the antebellum South because two very different concepts of slavery can be explored and explained: unlike in the Roman World, the slavery in the antebellum South was based upon race and therefore justified in the presumption of the inferiority of their black slaves.

The comparative approach to teaching slavery increases the understanding not of one, but of two slave societies. However, what is most important, it double highlights the fact that slavery was and is a cruel system exploiting people against their will for the benefit of others. History is there to learn from the past in order to ameliorate the present conditions and the future. If there is one thing the pupils should learn then it would be that slavery is not just an old phenomenon. The cruel system has been maintained until today and active resistance is needed – from everyone.

Veronika Parzinger

Does your genetics account for your sporting ability?
Since the 2012 Olympics has just passed and it proved to be such a success and momentous occasion for Britain, during the Olympics many controversial issues were being discussed and I have chosen to discuss the comment made by Michael Johnston on this idea that genetic make-up accounted for the success of many Afro Caribbean athletes. Aside from that, I also intend to look into the rise of status of many African Americans and Afro Caribbean’s from indentured slave labourers to prominent positions within society.
It has been over a hundred years since the emancipation of slavery in the United States of America and since this momentous occasion this has seen a long walk to freedom for many ethnic minorities, particularly those of the African American race. The antebellum south saw the welcoming of many slaves from African continent who were made to work on the plantations and suffer the brutality of their masters as result of the racial inferiority, genetic deficiencies, primal instinct that was instilled into American society it managed to convince society that it was acceptable to treat African Americans as property. Throughout, the century, there have been several movements in attempts to try and win political rights for black people and as result of this, it resulted in more prominent figures arising within history. From Thurgood Marshall to Barack Obama to Muhammad Ali to Oprah Winfrey the maltreatment of our ancestors has given rise to such figures today and even the best sporting elite.
In recent discoveries, Michael Johnson, the athlete who won gold in the 200m and 400m 1996 Olympics has explored the possibility that selection process of the slaves has suggested that athletes descend from slaves. In this documentary, he explored how the “brutality of slavery determined the genetic make-up of elite black athletes.” Furthermore, throughout his research and travels Johnson found though speaking to scientist that “during the Atlantic crossings, which had a mortality rate of between 50 and 96 per cent, those with higher testosterone, thicker skin and better muscles were more likely to endure six months of beatings, low oxygen levels and lying in bodily fluids.” It was found that due to the genetic changes over this period and the sustaining of such harsh treatment that slaves endured meant that many African American and Afro Caribbean have dominated the athletic scene. As Johnson stated “I believe there is a superior athletic gene in us.”
However, in retaliation to this comment, commentators have stated that that it not because of the genetic structure but ones determination. In additions, critics go onto say why are some black people fast runners and some not? The only answer is through “hard work and determination, this is the only way.”
Throughout the course of history, African Americans and Afro Caribbean people have succeeded further in life than most would have thought a century ago. From sitting at the back of the bus and working in plantations to becoming head of state and the fastest man on earth, black people have managed to progress onwards, something which was a far distant dream in the 1800s. Furthermore, in relation to Johnson’s idea of that the brutality of slavery is the reasons for the fastest people in the world. Although, research show that at the 2008 Olympics, every man in the 100 m final was a descendant of the slave trade, this does not equate for everyone, therefore, it is very hard to determine whether this statement was right or wrong.
Sources

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9379780/Michael-Johnson-Survival-of-the-Fastest-C4-review.html

Rhondda Ramdin

The main area of study that I was looking forward to learning more about was slave revolts, but sadly, the first of these seminars was cancelled due to illness. The reason why I am so fascinated by this aspect of History is because large-scale revolts were very rare, which on first consideration is surprising. I think it is the fact that I would like to think slave revolts occurred more frequently, purely on the basis of how they were treated and how hard they had to work. If I were a slave, I would definitely deliberate either running away or plot to kill my master, as the life of a slave would be overshadowed by the rest of the living as they did not matter. The question posed in a seminar a couple of weeks back asked whether I would rather be a slave in Ancient Rome or America. Without hesitation it would be Rome; it was easier to become free in the Roman world, there was a more extensive variety of jobs a slave could do, and most importantly, you were treated as part of a ‘familia’ as opposed to just a worker. Undoubtedly, as I am a woman I would have probably been the sexual object of my owner in both scenarios, but I have resigned myself to the fact that there would have been no way out of this, after all, I would be there to do exactly what my master wanted me to do, whenever he wanted me. I understand that men were more likely to revolt, or at least be in charge of a rebellion, but many more female slaves must have wanted to flee, particularly if they were raped and beaten.

Slave revolts would have been an unpleasant ordeal for their owner, and would have often had an unpleasant outcome for the slaves. The most renowned rebellion in South America was headed by Nat Turner, and resulted in the death of over 50 white men, however, still ended with the execution of around 200 blacks, with Turner included. The Third Servile War, known as the ‘War of Spartacus’ by Plutarch, lasted for two years; and though they did manage to defeat some Roman legions, they did not gain support from provinces and were eventually crushed at the Battle of the Siler River. This is the key element as to why slave revolts on the whole did not succeed; they failed to persuade allies outside of the slave community to join their cause. This would have been because slavery was considered part of everyday life in the American South and Roman antiquity. For American History in particular, the fear of slaves revolting that would have been created in the minds of slave owners would have certainly been the equivalent of the anger and possibly hatred the slaves expressed towards their owners. I do as a result of this feel a little sympathy for some of the slave owners, as they probably suffered from paranoia and anxiety, not as much as the slaves, but near the torment that slaves were under. This therefore is why I named my blog ‘slavery is revolting’. Not only was it a disgusting practise that began over a thousand years ago, it turned people who should have been equal against each other. It also makes me hate the fact that I am part of a world where this existed, and to an extent, still exists.

Nicola Dexter

I’ve decided to base my piece on a discussion in class about whether we would prefer to be a slave in Roman or American society. Since this is a short piece, I will focus just on female slaves.

First, the issue of sexual exploitation. Roman female slaves were constantly used sexually by masters and male slaves; they had no protection from this abuse and could not object. Similar sexual relationships could be found in the American south, and it was especially rife on rural plantations far from society. Therefore, it seems the problem could be found in both periods. However, in Rome not only did favoured mistresses often receive gifts, but there was a chance of concubinage, a mutual sexual relationship where the female slave was well-treated, respected, and often ended up freed. On the other hand, any reciprocal relationship between an American slave owner and his female slave had to be well hidden, due to the disgust it evoked, quite different to the well-known concubinage relationships in Rome.

Next is the idea of freedom or, as it was referred to in Roman society, manumission. Here it seems to be that Roman society certainly trumps America. There were numerous ways to be manumitted in Ancient Roman society, including freedom to marry the master, being bought out of slavery to marry a free or freedman, and manumission after providing a certain number of slave children, through wills or just on the master’s whim. Female slaves in Rome might also have been more likely to be manumitted than male slaves, since the former’s value decreased with age (their looks disappeared), while the male slave’s value increased (their skills and experience grew). In America, the chances of freedom were much slimmer. It might have been possible in city work, or in the kinder northern states, but in southern plantations slavery was often a lifetime of misery.

This links to another idea, the issue of racism. American slaves might be freed, but would rarely be able to become accepted in society due to the overwhelming racism against them. Even those who thought slaves should be freed often stated that they should then be returned to their country of origin because they would never be able to integrate properly into American society. On the contrary, there was a distinct lack of racism in the Roman Empire, and slaves could be of any race. Whatever the problems of Ancient Roman slavery, former slaves rarely had issues in integrating into free society.

Finally, we come to the actual employment female slaves were involved in, which seems to have been more varied in Ancient Rome. Granted, the work female slaves did there was overwhelmingly domestic, but there were opportunities to learn skills that could be useful later in life, and the chance at some skilled work, such as midwifery. Since female slaves could do business on the same level as male slaves, there are also records of female slaves helping to run businesses and overseeing various other slaves.

The answer from our class was overwhelmingly in favour of Roman slavery, but there are both good and bad points for each period. Still, in the end I stick by my decision that I would likely prefer Roman slavery, due to a lack of racism, more job opportunities and a higher chance of freedom.

Grace Brooks

I have been sat pondering for a while over what I want to write about and a thought occurred to me; why not talk about History and social media? These are two things that I not only enjoy and have a keen interest in, but also have key roles within my life and education.

Social media is the general name given for the vast amount of social software that is designed to enhance and mediate human communication. In modern western society most people will have access to at least one form of social media and there are plenty to choose from; magazines, internet forums, social blogs, podcasts and the one perhaps most known, social networking sites. Social networking sites in particular have grown to an extent the creators could never have dreamed. Facebook in particular has over one billion users worldwide, it is astounding to think that one in seven people throughout the world is a member of this particular social networking site. When putting this into context if Facebook was a country, in terms of population it would be the third largest country in the world thus making it larger than the United States of America. Similarly Twitter has over five hundred million uses and generates over three hundred and forty million tweets a day!

Social networking sites are most often used for communicating with friends or family, however they are not solely associated with this. They can in fact be used to enhance knowledge and further educational studies. Professors, teachers, authors and scholars from all over the world, specialising in a variety of subjects, have joined social networking sites to discuss and share their knowledge. By tweeting their ideas, or linking us to blogs and websites that they find useful or interesting, it introduces us to a new style of learning and gaining information. Social networking sites, such as twitter, are giving us the ability to directly interact and communicate with the specialists within individual fields of study. University students, in particular, may find social networking sites useful in order for them to interact and communicate with their lecturers and also their classroom peers. Social networking sites are of paramount importance as you can find specialists in any given field with the click of a button. In addition to these, by finding one historian for example, you can scroll through their lists and find yourself many other historians that you may be interested in, that you hadn’t heard of before, thus creating a web of knowledge and contacts that without the internet and social networking sites would be more harder to attain.

Although many secondary schools within the UK are quick to put firewalls up to block Facebook and Twitter, what they don’t realise is that they are blocking an incredibly useful teaching tool. With technology being updated and new inventions created on such a frequent basis, it is important that education keeps up with the changes in society, Twitter and Facebook are ways in which one can find out information readily and easily. Social networking has given a new dimension to teaching and learning.

Jade Davies