Slavery ≠ Racism?

Reading George Fitzhugh’s passage on slavery was, in a word, shocking. Here is a free white man writing an article that is not just for enslaving black people, but also white people. Did Fitzhugh believe if this enslaving of all people came to pass, he would be safe and secure with guaranteed freedom? Even Thomas Jefferson, who by no means supported enslaving white men, had a fear that the tables would turn: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events …” (Jefferson 52).

Enslaving any man is a horrible thing. But enslaving someone based on racist beliefs seems even worse. So then comes the problem with Fitzhugh’s argument. My immediate response is to be mortified by this man advocating enslaving humans, regardless of color. But then I have to consider the fact that at least Fitzhugh is not deeming one group of people as less than another, as most people in his day did. Despite that, I really struggled to understand even remotely how Fitzhugh could believe this was a good idea. How can you subject another human to slavery? And what’s more, how could you be so convinced that slavery was the way to go that you were willing to see your “neighbors,” fall to this fate? Because if you begin enslaving all people equally, even if you are lucky enough to escape that fate, it will still only be a matter of time before people you know become enslaved.

As I was struggling to get my mind around this, I recalled a debate my Modern Africa class had over whether racism or slavery came first. The United States was not the first country to enslave Africans. In fact, before Africans were captured and brought to the United States to be sold as slaves, many of them were already slaves in their own countries. During tribal wars, often captured prisoners were not killed, but rather were kept as slaves. So then here is an example of slavery that did not take race into account. And what about the ancient Greeks who kept slaves? Again, race was not a factor. So perhaps George Fitzhugh was not such a revolutionary thinker. Perhaps he was simply looking to history to direct our country’s next steps. But to me, the fact remains that enslaving any person is inhumane and unjust, so no matter what reasons Fitzhugh had for supporting slavery, his argument will never ring true.

The Generall Historie of Virginia ... also known as The General History of John Smith the Arrogant

Upon reading “The Generall Historie of Virginia” by John Smith, I was struck by two major things: first, the entire passage reads more like a cheap novel than a “general history,” and second, John Smith apparently seems to have some serious ego issues. Somehow, I do not think these were the responses John Smith intended.

The title gives a certain sense that this will be a boring account of the tediously dry details of when Virginia was founded, who founded it, and why it was founded. But instead, the passage is full of in-depth descriptions of the “devils” that captured John Smith, and how he amazingly was set free, narrowly escaping death.

Smith describes his captors is such a way as to make them sound less than human:
“… presently came skipping in a great grim fellow, all painted over with coale, mingled with oyle; and many Snakes and Wesels skins stuffed with mosse, and all their tayles tyed together, so as they met on the crowne of his head in a tassel; and round about the tassel was as a Coronet of feathers, the skins hanging round about his head, backe, and shoulders, and in a manner covered his face; with a hellish voyce and a rattle in his hand. With most strange gestures and passions he began his invocation …” (18).

The passage continues on to describe them as “devils,” “ugly,” and “barbarous.” These are by no means historical terms, but rather, dramatic descriptions of characters to be feared and despised in a novel.

Not only does Smith belittle his captors in such descriptions, making them seem as wild animals, but he also elevates himself to a level of such superiority, that he cannot even write the story in first person. No; instead, Smith writes of himself in the third person. It seems as though Smith found himself to be so heroic, that he had to write a tale to tell of all of his remarkable feats.

Overall, this passage left me seriously questioning the “heroic” notion of John Smith that I had gained from my history lessons supplied by the Disney version of Pocohontus and the more recent “The New World.” No where in this account did I find a loveable character. No where did I find a man in need of sympathy. No where did I find a man who I desired to turn a listening ear to, in order to gain an understanding of the history of Virginia. Rather, I found an arrogant man; a man in need of a good ego check. And who wants a history lesson from someone like that?