I chose the book Captives as
Commodities by Lisa Lindsay which centers on the Transatlantic Slave Trade
and African slaves and presents the argument that in the slave trade commodity
web people, were the commodity. The book is a part of Prentice Hall’s
Connection: Key Themes in World History series and was written based on a class
on the slave trade that Lindsay teaches at UNC Chapel Hill. Lindsay likens the
slave trade to any other system of commerce and argues that in this system the primary
commodities were people and “this has implications…for how the trade was
initiated, conducted, conceptualized, and concluded, but also for how we make
sense of it in the present.”[1] I think
that people can be compared to the other commodities we have read about such as
foods, textiles, narcotics, etc because of the organization of the slave trade. Lindsay
argues that European traders viewed African slaves as commodities based on
their commercial inventories, shipping lists and tax records all of which kept
track of slaves on their way across the Atlantic. One of the most important questions
Lindsay asks as a way of supporting her view as slaves as people with commercial
value is whether the origin of this view is based on economics or racism.
Part of the answer is two-fold.
First, she argues that slavery has existed in various forms for thousands of
years prior to the origins of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Europeans were
left with a legacy of slavery from the Roman Empire and onwards and therefore
they did not or could not view slavery as an objectionable practice. This
mindset allowed slavery to expand on a “legal, political and ideological
foundation.” [2]
Second, with their advances in navigational technology and information they
developed the capabilities to trade in African slaves, which she sees as
important as their aims. “They began to deal in African slaves, obviously, only
after they could do so.”[3] I think
that the fact that Europeans had a basis for the mindset that slavery was
acceptable and the fact that they could afford to do so makes a strong basis
for her argument that slavery’s beginnings are more based on economics. Only
later in the trade does it become more racially based. European enterprises in
the Americas were very profitable. As we’ve seen from Mintz, Lane, Anderson and
Norton slavery was directly tied to the profitability of their respective
commodities. In the case of sugar, emeralds, mahogany and chocolate/tobacco,
slavery was a great source of labor for the production side of those commodity
webs.
I think Norton would agree with
Lindsay on whether it’s right to classify slaves as commodities. When she
discusses the use of slave labor in her book it’s always in conjunction with
other commodities. For example, “Portuguese merchants…were the first Europeans
to trade on the West Coast of Africa, where they procured gold, pepper, and,
later, slaves.”[4]
Lane also describes the use of slave labor in the same breath as his commodity,
emeralds, not only as miners to be used as labor for the production aspect, but
as tradable goods in order to procure emeralds. What I’ve read of Anderson so
far (our book for Wednesday) shows that slaves were an important factor in the
mahogany trade. The fact that more slaves who were sent to the New World ended
up on sugar plantations because that was the more lucrative trade made the
slave-based mahogany industry worth less as a commodity. Choosing the right
slaves to help with the labor-intense mahogany industry meant that buyers had
to request certain traits in the slaves, not unlike gem merchants looking for
good quality gems. However, I think that Anderson might be inclined to agree
with Mintz in how slaves fit into the commodity chain and whether they can be
considered commodities. Mintz wholeheartedly is against the idea of people as
commodities. In fact, he calls them “‘false commodities’ – a human being is not
an object, even when treated as one.”[5] However,
he provides, what I think is a valid argument for why slaves could be
considered commodities. The fact is “millions of human beings were treated like
commodities”[6]
by European traders. This ties in with Lindsay’s argument of Europeans record
keeping of slave trading and that it shows how Africans weren’t viewed as
people, but as numbers and commodities to be traded and sold for other precious
commodities. I think Europeans were determined to see slaves as another link
their commodity web (do webs have links?) and therefore accorded them that
status. I think this is another useful work on commodities that gives us a different perspective because this commodity is in a way linked to most of the other commodities we have read about and has repercussions to this day because it still exists in the form (maybe not extent) that it did when it was at it's heyday - for lack of a better word. I’d
like to end with a quote from Susan’s blog post in which she quotes the Lord of
the Fortunate Conjunction (Ben), where he says “I think that anything has the
potential to become a commodity if a particular culture makes that
determination.”
-Nadine
Captives as Commodities: The
Transatlantic Slave Trade
Lisa A. Lindsay, UNC-Chapel
Hill
ISBN-10: 0131942158 • ISBN-13: 9780131942158
©2008 • Pearson
• Paper, 208
pp (It's a short book guys! Another great reason to choose it.)
Published 10/17/2007 •
My vote.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Marie!
Delete