Review of Conniff and Davis' "Africans in the Americas" (1994)
Michael L. Conniff and Thomas J. Davis, Africans in the Americas: A History of the Black Diaspora (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), pgs. 353.
See here.
Africans in the Americas: A History of the Black Diaspora (1994) is an edited volume edited by historians Michael Conniff (a historian of Latin America, b. 1942) and Thomas J. Davis (a historian of Constitutional and legal history) that tackles the six hundred year history of the Black Diaspora in the New World, with some chapters devoted to Africa as well. This volume, written by leading experts in the field, is meant to provide an introduction to what was new research and conclusions in the 1990s were on this topic. Coming out in an era where the idea of a Black Atlantic world was gaining steam in academic publishing, this book is simple and fast paced, keeping the language readable and accessible to those outside of the academy.
A quick note about some stylistic choices in this book. This volume, unlike other edited collections, does not list the writers of each essay at the start of the chapter. This was a bit confusing, simply as I would have preferred to see more clearly who was the author of the chapter was so as to view the training and biases that might have bled into the history. Each chapter also included a timeline emphasizing what the editors saw as significant for the Black Diaspora. This is a superb idea, particularly given the target audience of the book.
The volume was grouped into four “parts,” or chronological sections, each part covered a period of development of the Black Diaspora in the Atlantic world. Unlike many histories which focus on a narrower span of time, this ambitious volume reaches from pre-Columbian contact through the 1990s, arguing that there are connections that bind together the history of the Black Diaspora. The two most critical connections are the fight for equality and freedom and the role of oppression, either under slavery or through segregation, in shaping the entire Black Diaspora.
In Part I the authors’ argue that the beginning of the Black Diaspora comes from the Atlantic slave trade (thereby ignoring the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean Trades). Noting that slavery was already an old system in Africa, they argue that the expansion of the Slave Trade “revitalized” the entire system for the next several hundred years. I personally am less convinced by this argument, partially due to the evidence presented by historians showing that prior to European arrival slave trading was steadily growing and not in need of revitalization. (see here) The authors do not shy away from slavery in Africa and, unlike some historians, do not seek to downplay the role of violence in African slavery.
One idea that will likely not carry as much weight in some circles is the authors’ argument that “survival of the Middle Passage stripped the Africans of their identities and served as a prelude to lifelong exploitation.” (pg. 46). Most historians will agree that “bonds of common suffering” of the Middle Passage created shared identites among those enslaved, however, less would argue that the cultural, religious, political, and social views were wiped out by the specter of violence. In fact, frequently throughout the book this argument is contradicted by the emphasis on creolization and adaptation of African culture to the Americas.
One other note worthy aspect of this section include chapter 3 where discussions of the Middle Passage emphasize that slave ship voyages varied in distance and duration, something that is not emphasized enough in the literature that I have read.1
Part II focuses on the development of the slave system in North and South America, the authors emphasizing that international capitalism depended upon the smooth functioning of the slave system. The chapters in this section emphasize that though types of slavery greatly varied across cultural and regional boundaries, commonalities did exist between the various slave systems. I find this methodology far more reasonable and accurate than those that argue for completely similar situations between slaves in Massachusetts and Brazil (to use one example). The authors are clear that while slavery is always resisted by the enslaved, there are important distinctions between the types of slavery that contribute to long term impacts on slavery and racial divisions in the Americas.
One important argument the authors make (though this certainly is not the only one) in Part II is their explanation of why slave revolts in mainland North America were fewer and less powerful than those in the Caribbean or South America. They suggest that the higher concentration of whites made violent resistance suicidal. The authors instead point to an “individualized” resistance that was daily expressed as Black people fought to maintain their identities and humanity in the face of white efforts to turn them into mindless machines.
Another important distinction that the authors make is clearly showing that race and slavery were not hegemonic across Latin America. In Chapter VI the authors explore slavery across the various regions of South America, noting similarities and distinctions. I find that far too often, efforts to create grand narratives obscure the real differences between regions and local areas. I find that I am far more convinced by the narratives within this book that focus on the reality of regional variation within a larger culture (say the Spanish imperial culture). The authors are to be commended for the patience and time given to exploring each regional variation.
One area that was decidedly less persuasive was the how the Haitian Revolution was presented. Stripped of the complexity of a multiracial war, the Haitian Revolution was clearly framed as a heroic struggle that lacked the messiness of the post-victory era. The authors even went so far as to declare that though Toussaint Louverture “ruled with authority and even severity,” his goals were “honorable and attainable.” (pg. 86) This interpretation minimizes the historical reality that Haitian leaders sought to recreate the plantation system in order to fund a more powerful empire. It relegates the suffering of the poor to the the margins and creates myths that do little to explain the reality of the past. However, in fairness to the authors, this type of portrayal of the Haitian Revolution as triumphant and Black versus white is not unique to them, but is by and far a common narrative in general histories of the Caribbean and Atlantic world.
Part III explores the peaceful and violent deaths of slavery. The authors are clear that the end of slavery was led by a combination of white and Black participants. Black peoples’ resistance pushed imperial governments towards antislavery and helped win sympathizers among white people. Furthermore, the authors are emphatic that the ideological stew of the post American Revolution era was essential in creating a liberal force bent on eliminating slavery. Importantly, the authors note that the end of the slave trade came not from British enforcement (though they point to the fact that it was not for lack of British efforts) but instead from “internal efforts” within various European and American states that led to the death of the trade. Through it all, the authors are clear that they view the use of central power as critical to the death of slavery. Antislavery thus does not emanate from the vast majority of the white population but was instead produced by Black Americans and their white elite allies who secured the levers of power in imperial government.2
Part IV ends the books with an exploration of the Black Diaspora following the final emancipations in the New World. The authors suggest that resistance, in various forms, to oppression and segregation are a critical binding link between various Black peoples in the Americas. Furthermore, it is through migration, in conjunction with industrialization, that Black people are not only able to begin pushing racial boundaries but also be able to break the hold of segregationists. The authors end with an emphatic argument that Latin American polities have attempted to wipe out or completely “white wash” their histories, removing Black history from their founding narratives. In closing the authors point to the role which Pan-Africanism has continued to play in portraying Africa as an ideal and ancestral homeland, but one few would ever return to.
Overall this book was interesting and had a host of useful insights, however, at times it felt the book was at tension with itself. As the authors worked to emphasize the regional and local distinctions between various areas occupied by the Black Diaspora, they also worked to portray a common legacy. As a Latter-day Saint I believe each person is endowed with divine inclinations and an innate desire for freedom. However, I worry that when we as historians seek to compress generations and entire geographical regions (not only in the Americas, but also in Africa) into a singular model that we lose the ability to see the individual actors and their agency in constructing lives in the Atlantic world.
Another point that has continued to appear in studies of the Black Atlantic world is the lack of discussion of African views of the Black Atlantic. Africa after Part I is portrayed through the eyes of African Americans, rather than through the people of Africa. The lack of engagement with African history in the 19th century is one that ought to be remedied in future cross-Atlantic histories.
Though not fully convinced of the deep connections these authors find in the Black Diaspora and with reservations with some of their assertions about Africa in the earliest chapters, I recommend this book as one that overall was a pleasant and interesting read that provides a basic outline of early work on the Black Atlantic World.
Robert Swanson
Part of what makes this distinction important is that time certainly played a role in developing friendships and connections. I had not considered this prior to reading this chapter.
This is an argument that I disagree with, at least in the United States. It was popular resistance to slavery that made antislavery popular. Northern abolition only worked because of popular support. The Missouri Compromise banning slavery throughout much of Louisiana Territory worked because of popular support. Too often historians look backwards from 1865, rather than looking forward from the 18th century when slavery was at its strongest.