A few thoughts after reading Mr. Adams's email:

> ... I would
> like to add, that it was the African tribal chieftans, war lords
> and Muslim
> victors of their African campaigins that so many of the 'kidanpped'
> people
> were sent out from Africa to be sold to originally the Spanish.


I imagine (or hope) that most folks on this list are aware of who was
involved in the slave trade. I'm just not sure how pointing out that
"African tribal chieftains, war lords and Muslim victors" were part
of the slave trade helps us figure out if the "20 and odd" were
brought to Jamestown and lived as slaves, indentured servants, or
something else. It might be good to ask, though: Were the "20 and
odd" the losers in a war, and given to the Portuguese by "Muslim
victors" or "tribal chieftains"? Or were they kidnapped by the
Portuguese and whisked away? If either answer is "yes", then Ms.
Steele point that "these people were brought here against their will"
is a valid one, even though her claim that folks on this list are
treating this as a "joke or lark" seems unwarranted. Maybe I read
something wrong?


> The traders at this time were the Portugese, Italians, Spanish,
> Dutch and
> English shippers. The only reason so many did this 'trade' was that
> it was
> so profitable. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes and there
> was a
> ready market in Central and South America as well as, after 1620 in
> the
> English colonies.


The slave trade was very profitable to most of the parties involved
(except, of course, the slaves themselves). If we're going to
approach the topic this way, then, the questions I would ask are:
Were the "20 and odd" profitable to someone, in some capacity? Did
someone gain wealth by selling them, trading them, or using their
labor? If so, how? If not, why not? The quote in the Post from John
Rolfe says that they were purchased by the Governor and Cape Marchant
"at the best and easiest rate they could." I'll have to go find this
source during my next break (has this source been put online
somewhere?), but I'm wondering what parties, if any, made a profit
from the arrival and presence of the 20 and odd, including the 20 and
odd themselves, if they were in fact not slaves and/or eventually
gained their freedom.


> I would like to also remind those from the NORTH, it was people
> like Captain
> Brown, of Brown university fame, that were the most aggressively
> involved in
> the 'trade'. You would have thought by the 1800's, that there would
> have
> been a slackening off of this abomnible business by those who were
> condemning the south for the continued use of slaves.
>


I think we should remind EVERYONE from EVERYWHERE that lots of
different people (not just Captain Brown, "of Brown university fame")
were "aggressively involved" in the 'trade'. It actually took MORE
THAN TWO to dance this tango. I still do not see, though, how
reminding "those from the NORTH" helps us understand more about the
"20 and odd." It certainly doesn't help us determine if they were
slaves, indentured servants, or otherwise.  I imagine that the folks
who were "condemning the south for the continued use of slaves"
weren't the same folks as those who were buying and selling slaves,
whether those folks were in northern colonies/states or southern.
Granted, lots of hypocrites existed that disliked slavery but owned
slaves (some might even have been President). But again, I'm not sure
which people Mr. Adams is referring to when he say "those who were
condemning the south." Was Captain Brown condemning the south?
Others? And in what ways do these people, in their time, relate to
the "20 and odd" that came before them nearly 150 years ago?

Also, how do we measure the aggressive involvement of those
participating in the trade, and what does that gets us? How were
Captain Brown and people like him (again, who exactly are these
people) MORE aggressive than others, and how is measuring
aggressiveness or involvement helpful to us in understanding WHO the
"20 and odd" were, what their roles were, and what their lives were
like?

I guess my point (and I think I have a point) is that broad
generalizations like this really don't help us understand much about
the history that took place, specifically with regard to the first
Africans in Jamestown.  Then again, maybe I've read this wrong, and
if so I apologize.

It seems to me that the topics at hand for this thread are 1) what
inaccuracies exist in the Post article; 2) What are the best
supported interpretations of the arrival of the "20 and odd", given
the evidence available. And, as the messages from Dr. Finkleman, Dr.
Deal, and Emily Rose (among others) have shown, there are lots of
interesting questions we can ask about these topics, the answers to
which we may never know for certain. I'm certainly intrigued enough
to compile a small bibliography of the literature on the subject,
thanks to others on the list. I also plan to review things I read
years ago, assigned to me by people who also subscribe to this list!
Who knows, maybe I'll answer some of my own questions, or find out
that I was asking the wrong questions!


Best,
Jeremy

--
Jeremy Boggs
Web/Multimedia Associate
Center for History and New Media
PhD student, Department of History and Art History
George Mason University
4400 University Drive, MSN 1E7
Fairfax, VA 22030

[log in to unmask]
703.993.9278
http://chnm.gmu.edu
--



To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html