(1) Muiderkerk / 17-8-2011, “De slavenopstand van 1795 op Curacao”; * 1795 was de strijd van een volk: anti-koloniaal, anti-racistisch en humanistisch. (zoals iedere revolutie en iedere staking, tot in de huidige tijd)
———————-
(2) David Hurst Thomas, “Skull wars”, Basic Books 2000; “Although Isabela forbade slave taking among Indians friendly to the Crown in 1503, she specifically excluded ‘barbarc people – enemies of the Christian, those wo refuse conversion, and those who eat human flesh’. If those bloodthirsty Caribs were really decimating and devouring the Queen’s gentle Arawaks, then the Spanish had the necesssary justification for taking Indian captives. Thus the Caribs – whom the archaelogic William Keegan calls the ‘great villains of West Indian prehistory’ – became fair game. As cannibals, they were beyond Christina redemption, and by long standing European practice, anybody captured in a ‘just war’ cold be enslaved. This is why Spanish explorers welcomed news of mayhem and rebellion in the Indies. Conqueistadors from this point forward carefully distinguished the fierce, cannibalistic Caribs from the peaceful Arawak villagers. The notary public became a key member of every exploring party, reday to record wheter or not the Indians encountered in the tropical Caribbean were indeed eaters of human flesh. If so, they wer subject to merciless attack and enslavement. /
(3) Passim: This was all a matter of Euroamerican necesity. Columbus and hissuccessorts needed the Noble Arawwak/bloodthirsty Carib fictions to rationalize slave taking to the Spanisch Crown. Queen Isabelea and King Ferdinand needed to maintain the same fiction to ensure that their missionaires could proceed in good fait, even in the face of hostile pagans. The Carib-Arawak dichotomy served the self-interest of an exanding Spanish empire – making up, to some degree, for Columbus’ disappointingly meager discoveries of gold and other precious metals. For Morison, the premier Columbus biographer, detestable Carib cannibals justified the inhuman treatment of native people by his heroic Admiral of the Ocean Sea. For Michener, the division into Good Indian and Bad Indians pitted contaminated against uncontaminated, the pristine against the corrupt, the high-minded against the debased, and Bloodthirsty Savage became a tool by which generationsof Euroamericans would define and control Indian people. From the time of Columbus onward the stereotypes created by newcomers led to a ner-universal failuyre to appreciate the intricacies and textures of actual Native American life.”
————————
(4) Theodore W. Allen, “The invention of the wite race – I Racial oppression and social control”, Verso ?; “A few years before Arthur Young recorded the Protestant landlord’s boasts of their sexual privileges with regard to women of ‘their’ cottier families, the Maryland provincial Court proclaimed similar white-male privileges as constitutional Anglo-American law. Lifetime hereditatry bond-laborers ‘are incapable of marraige’. The court sides; therefore, it continued, ‘we do not consider them as objects of such laws as realite to the commerce between the sexes. A slave [has no legal recourse], against the violator of his bed.’ As far as the law was concerned, the most intimate and sacred attachments could be unceremoniously broken at any time by any of a member of forms of intrusion by the ‘white race’, including separation by purchase and asle. As for the normal course fo everyday life: ‘The slave woman was First a full-time worker for her owner … she was not usually nurse to her husband or childeren during illness … children soon learned that their parent were … [not] the seat of authority … The husband was not the head of the family.’
(5) Passim: Even free African-Americans were restricted in regard to the civil right of marriage. in 1691, Virginia law for the first time instituted penalties for marriages between European-Americans on the one hand and African-Americans and Indians, bond or free. The pattern became general: free African-Aerricans might marry, but only if the spouse was not a European-Amerian. In Ireland the bar to the intermarriage of English and Irish had precedent as far back as the fourteeth centrury. The Anglo-Irish parliament, as I have noted, re-enacted that principle in law as pa part of the penal laws in 1697. In Virginia the cry was ‘abomnable mixture’; in Irland it was ‘corruption and perversion’ and ‘dishonour to almighty God.’/ Mentaion has been made earlier in this work of th United States indian Again in the Dakotas who forcefully removed Sioux women and children in order to ‘wipe out’ that tribe. In the general effort made by the United States government to break up Indian tribal sociey, the program of individuation of Indian land ownership involved a conscious challenge to the Indian famliy. Just as the anglo-irish penal zlaws presented the irony of resort to ‘gavelkond’ in order to reduce the size of Catholic Irish landholdings, so the United states attempted to make use of empowerment of the husband as the ‘haed of the family’ as a part of the destruction of the power of the tribe. The process of expropriating the Indian land did not, however, depend upon this legal fiction. As late as 1905, the United States supreme Court decided a case in favor of an Indian women , ‘the head of a family, consising of herself, her husban, and children’, even when [as in this parricualr case] her husband was a ‘white’ man. /
(6) Passim: The difference of these two American cases is not that the Indians were not less the object of racial oppression, but that the form of the Indian family was not a decisive obstabcle to the expropriation of their lands and the exerpation of their people, while the African-Amierican family preresented a fundamentl barrier to the system of chattel bondage. A Maryland provindincal decision made the point in 1667; No one had ever imagined that the property of the master can be affeted by the contract of a slave, wheter of marriage, or any other occasion, utility being the parent of right and justice.”
—————-
(7) Conferentie IISG, “A global history of Primitive accumullation”, 10-5-2019 – Noeleen McIlvenna [Wright State University], “Setter Colonialism, white supremacy, and primitive accumulation”; * De overgang van intendured servants naar slavernij is in het laatstekwart van de 17e eeuw versterkt door een aantalopstanden van intendured servants.
Marx Caesar Asimov 