I found the strategic planning of the Nago slaves, for their attack on the city of Salvador in 1830, to be very impressive. They clearly had a system of informants who were able to give them information about low security shops to procure weapons from. More impressively they also got information about captive slaves and the exact location where they were being held. One would imagine that this information was not available to many people and thus shows the skill of their informants. They knew that if they could get access to weapons and then liberate the slaves they would be very likely to join their cause thereby increasing their numbers exponentially. They had clearly thought this through which is impressive but at the time it was only a plan. They were then able to execute their plan logically and efficiently. I would say that the only fault of their plan was that it was overambitious. They courageously attacked the Salvador police station and were eventually defeated but this episode shows that the enslaved people of West Africa in the America’s were very capable of designing and executing well-conceived military plans.
Mercedes Santa Cruz y Montalvo seems almost to be a symbol of the intertwined political and cultural relations between Cuba and Europe. On a more personal note, Lapuerta describes the determination, leadership qualities and strong sense of justice Mercedes exhibits even as a child. I look forward to seeing how Mercedes finds her place in the world as a woman, Cuban, and pioneer of her age. This being said, I found Part One of the biography greatly lacking in its acknowledgement of historical bias. While I understand that it is not an academic text in the same way Barcia’s book on the African Slave Revolt of 1812 is, I would have expected a more balanced picture, especially with regards to slavery and the relationship between the powerful elite and those who made such power and wealth possible. Much of the discussion of Mercedes’ childhood in Cuba is based on her own memoirs. A product of her times, Mercedes writes with decidedly romantic inclinations. Furthermore, her writing looks back into the past at an idealized childhood. Thus not only is her style romanticized, it is very possible that the very memories she writes of are also romanticized and potentially even wrong. At several points, I found slavery glamourized to an almost uncomfortable degree. While Lapuerta does acknowledge this bias at infrequent intervals in her biography, I found it to be more of an aside than genuine critical engagement with the life of the woman she is writing of. Reading the text caused me to ask myself where the balance between historical accuracy and vivid narrative should lie, and whether or not the historian has the right and/or responsibility to make a moral judgement on the events and lives of those in the past.
I appreciated the account given in Barcia Ch. 4 and 5, as it encompassed a greater span of perspectives of the telling of the 1825 slave revolt in Matanzas, including live anecdotes. A few of the points I found most interesting: 1) the possibility that the white persecutors were not able to understand the logic, underlying traditions, and strategies (brujerías) used by the Africans to engage in war. 2) the role of alcohol as a de-inhibitor, especially in respect to the expression of pent up rage that the slaves held against their white masters 3) the blatant overlooking of the CAUSE of the uprising, as summarized in the following quote:
“What will this country gain from hanging twenty negroes who murdered their owners if we do not uncover the real reasons that led this event to occur, ignoring the source of that same evil?”
I find it rather incredulous (and slightly depressing) that this point was overlooked. How can humans be so blind?!
I agree with Sasha in her surprise that the white slave owners would have been so culturally disengaged from their slaves, whose lives they controlled and lived adjacent to (or with!). Culture aside, when you consider the conditions of slave lives, i find it more surprising still that a slave revolt wasn’t an expected thing – they were “surprised by an event that they simply did not see coming” (Barcia, 103).
Maybe it was the cultural disengagement and the slave role itself that made the owners dehumanize their slaves into tools rather than people, without the impulses or spirit to fight back.
I’ll admit I had the same question as the Commission when they asked “why did the rebels lack places to retreat to and hide in case of defeat?” (Barcia, 127). I would speculate here by invoking culture – this was a slave war of passion based on oppression and kinship; not a colonial war of strategy and accumulation. If the slaves were willing to take their lives, then contingency plans and thoughts of defeat would not have been paramount. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
In this weeks reading a large theme that I picked up on was the spread of rumours and exaggerations in 1825 Cuba. From Barcia’s interpretation of events it made it seem as if there was a ton of misinformation being relayed throughout the island. What I found interesting was the motives behind individual’s exaggerations and the results of each. For example plantation owners experienced extreme paranoia to the point where a certain look from an enslaved person would convince them that a revolt was imminent. These complaints had to be investigated by Francisco Seidel and Francisco Lamadriz who sifted through what was paranoia and what were well found accusations. In other words, finding the discrepancy between what was being said and what was actually happening and thus correcting the record. Something that struck me while I was reading was how Barcia, as a historian is almost put into a similar position as Seidel and Lamadriz as he is forced to sift through historical records as well as historian’s interpretations and try to the best of his ability to “correct the record”. I think Barcia really displays this when asserting that the 1825 revolt was largely “an extension of West African warfare in the New world setting”. In this conclusion he is correcting the record of other historians who have classified the 1825 revolt as influenced by western ideologies and concepts, completely overlooking the influence of African traditions and military tactics on the events that took place. I think in doing this Barcia addresses the 1825 revolt in a way that acknowledges the greater depth of influences enslaved peoples had in making their decision and organization, influences that other historians as well as Seidel and Lamadriz were unable to see/ understand at the time. That being said I would have liked to see Barcia discuss the similarities between the West African military tactics and those prevalent in the revolt in greater depth as I found it was a little vague but extremely interesting.
I thought Barcia’s examination of the depositions and military accounts were especially interesting in these chapters as they made the whole process of historiography clearer and led to a deeper understanding of the thoughts of the time, not only by the slaves behind the revolt and the influences of African warfare, but also by the planation owners. This being said the ignorance of the owners toward the possibility of a revolt startled me. Did they consider the slaves to be so incapable of forming alliances across plantations and vast area, and only think of them as a means to an end, a strong object to be feared for its strength, but not their ingenuity? And why was the revolt so well thought out in the attack but not in what would come after? An additional aspect that jumped out at me in these chapters was the fact that the military lacked monetary compensation for the investigation of the revolt and counter-attack. This among other things really made me consider the effects the revolt had, not only on the obvious economic loss due to that of produce and the loss of life, but also the implications the revolt had of social values (slaves not owning property, plantation owners already in ruins and the subsequent change in forms of resistance to a much smaller scale).
In part one of La Belle Créole, we see Mercedes as a child. I think it is important to remember that she is just that, a child. Children often have an “I’m the center of the universe” mindset, which can blur the events around them. We see this with Mercedes; she is spoiled, undisciplined and listens to nobody. In the book we don’t really experience many of the tragedies that occurred when Mercedes was looking the other way. I think that is why I enjoyed reading someone else’s interpretation of her memoirs. Lapuerta brought us back to reality by pointing out the things that were likely happening around Mercedes when she was busy romanticizing different aspects of her life. I also like to look at the context a character is set in. Mercedes is portrayed, as this cute little wealthy girl who cares about slaves and who everyone loves. She may get into mischief sometimes but its not enough to make the readers dislike her. As a result the readers like her and find her entertaining. If at the same time as Mercedes’ story was being developed we were told the story of a little slave girl who was put through all these hardships we would feel very different about Mercedes. We would think of her as more spoiled and self-centered. Controlling the context can be a very important power to have; I think that is why Lapuerta chose to write about Mercedes’ memoirs. This way she could counter balance the effect of Mercedes’ romanticized world with concrete facts!
In the part one of the book- La Belle Creole, The author describes the lives of wealthy white families in Havana. Through the window of Mercedes Santa Cruz y Montalvo, she recalled her romantic childhood and talked a little about her attitude towards slavery. I agree with Kat’s idea. In deed, after reading chapter one, I admitted that it contained some historical biases in it. I will not judge whether they are right or not. In a view of white wealthy family in Havana, I still find something new about slavery, even human rights in this chapter. Firstly, it seems like a vivid picture of childhood for Mercedes. But in essence, it contains numerous inequities. Those slave owners were used to treating people differently. Both Mercedes and Catalina were young girls in similar age. However, Mercedes was spoiled like princess and Catalina was supposed to be her personal slaves and like a toy accompany and playing with her. The author did not mention too much punishment towards slaves. But this kind of inequality is another way of cruel. Combing these readings from this course and another course of human rights. I guess I understand that why during that period the idea of human rights came out. Compared with the punishment on body, the real cruel is the violation of their rights, their human rights.
A tragic end to the story of the 1825 slave revolt in Cuba. In the last 2 chapters and conclusion of his book, Barcia seems to be suggesting that it was the White elite’s chronic underestimation of their African slave’s abilities and unwillingness to treat them with any sort of dignity. For example, he emphasizes the fact that Suarez’s recommendation, that slaves who remained loyal during the uprising be rewarded generously, was never acted upon. Furthermore, the text makes it clear that the endless investigations (which more more often than not hoaxes) and enforcement of the Black Codes bankrupted the colony at least in the short run. However, if Cuban elite society was really as insular as La Belle Creole makes it seem, then it is not surprising that the Cuban government’s attitudes did not change quickly or often.
Just out of curiosity: Barcia keeps emphasizing the African’s experience in their wars at home as a reason for their initial success in 1825, but doesn’t go into much detail. What was war in West Africa at the time like? How did it give them an advantage when fighting the masters in Cuba?
While reading part one of Lapuerta’s book, La Belle Creole, I found the focus on Mercedes’ perspective incredibly interesting, especially given how her childhood seemed to be at odds with the expectations and norms for a girl growing up in Cuba at the time. However I disagree with Roza that childhood is an important factor in understanding Mercedes’ perspective. Not only did she write the memoirs that Lapuerta relies upon later in life, meaning her primary influence was no longer her “romantic” childhood, but by that point Mercedes may very well have had an agenda that led her to recount her childhood experiences with things like slavery in a more positive light. I think that Lapuerta actually fails to present the romanticized childhood along with concrete facts – although she acknowledges some of the uncomfortable romanticisms of slavery, such as the ability of a child to own a woman who raised her, she does not dwell on these facts long enough to critically engage with them. Instead, Lapuerta portrays the interactions with Mercedes’ Cardenas and Santa Cruz family members and particularly her difficult relationship with her paternal grandmother, as the defining features of Mercedes’ early life. Although Kat has already acknowledged that this is not an academic text in the same way that Barcia’s is, I am still skeptical that the heavy reliance on Mercedes’ memoirs was the best way to characterize her early life. To continue with the example of possible bias in the depiction of slavery, Lapuerta does not mention how Mercedes engaged with slavery in her later life. Did she profit from the increase in slavery in Cuba via her family’s sugar plantations? Or did her life in Europe bring her closer to the abolitionist movement and cause her to feel guilt over the treatment of slaves she saw during her childhood? These factors, among others, might have influenced how the older Mercedes chose to recount her childhood. Lapuerta does not seem to have considered the particular motivations and agendas of the source material in much detail, something that I would argue should be a historian’s responsibility in dealing with primary sources like this.
I thought what was interesting in the reading was the idea that the people of Cuba could not understand how Africans regarded warfare and society and how they struggled to grasp West African slaves patterns of behaviour, attitudes and manners. You would assume that if slaves were in their possession, you would try to understand them in case of the possibility of a rebellion to have more knowledge and understanding, or had they dehumanised them that they didn’t even recognise them as people. It is also interesting the idea that “plantation owners had given their slaves too much freedom” by permitting them to drum and dance on Sundays, which allowed them the freedom to voice their opinions with other slaves (& also to voice exaggerated or made up stories to persuade slaves to join them). It surprises me that this was allowed; surely this would have created fear and suspicion? Were they simply ignorant of the fact that slaves could be organising a rebellion?
While reading La Belle Creole, I couldn’t help but relate what I was reading about Cuba’s early history to that of Canada. First and foremost I think there was simply a lot more luxury, and opulence to Cuban society at this time. Perhaps it was the Canadian weather and natural surroundings, but for two colonies with a single, monopolized industry (sugar in Cuba and furs in Canada), owned by then-superpowers they definitely seem to be far off on how everyday life was. In La Belle Creole, though it is subtle and intermittent, the glimpses into Mercedes life seem almost royal, with slaves waving fans, beautiful homes and connections to the top of society. Whereas accounts of even the richest in the fur trading days of Canada tell bleak stories of the harshness of life, the plainness of homes and clothes and the incredible rural-ness of even ‘big’ cities like York. This leads me to ask then, is it just things like the weather or were there other factors that contributed to this difference? Perhaps there was just a lot more money in sugar than furs, or maybe there is just an inherent difference on how Spanish people see things compared to the British/French. Another thought that pops into my mind is that the lack of slavery in Canada compared to Cuba: it could be that with slaves doing all of the hard work people were generally happier. That may be a naïve question but with less people working themselves to the bone like settlers in early Canada, there may have been just a happer atmosphere amongst the people.
I’m always interested in how Canada’s history compares with other countries’ history, and what factors led to how things are here and what led to how things are there.
I have to say, what an ending to the 1825 slave uprising. It certainly did not end the way I expected and I was quite surprised that news of Cuba’s slave issues spread all across the globe. I agree with some of the points others have pointed out above, notably Wesley and Sophie’s points about the differences between the white slave owners and the slaves themselves and how this general cultural detachment between the two entities inevitably resulted in an uprising. What was interesting is Mercedes’ childhood, as written by Lapuerta. Born into the upper echelons of Cuban aristocratic society, Mercedes recounts living a prosperous, idyllic childhood in Cuba in which she lived happily alongside her family’s slaves. I found this to be an interesting contrast to the Cuban elite circles Barcia described, which always seemed to be on high alert and constantly fearing slaves would rise up against them. Bias on Lapuerta’s part? Mercedes’ part? What also surprised me was the way the colonial officials dealt with the slave crises. Why weren’t slave uprisings dealt with more efficiently? Were they actually that detached with their slaves that they didn’t know what to expect?
The first part of La Belle Créole depicts childhood of Mercedes in largely romanticized and somewhat fictive manners. Any author wants to make his/her protagonist attractive, so it is very understandable if Lapuerta overstates Mercedes’ generosity and kindness for the slaves. Though the overall description of Mercedes seems a little fictive to me, the author gives some very interesting information about the society in Havana. First of all, I was surprised by the importance and abundance of salves in the society of Havana in the late 1700s as the story of one person naturally involves many slaves. I felt books of this kind (fictionalized biography?) are a very good source of information about the structure of society since even though some details/actions can be fictionalized, the background of a person’s story is likely to reflect the then reality of social strata. For instance, the descriptions of Mercedes’ father Joaquín explain the economic situation of Cuban elites and their relationship with Spain quite well. This kind of information helped me a lot to understand the more general situation and bigger picture of the society though the details of those descriptions may not be perfectly accurate.
I found the strategic planning of the Nago slaves, for their attack on the city of Salvador in 1830, to be very impressive. They clearly had a system of informants who were able to give them information about low security shops to procure weapons from. More impressively they also got information about captive slaves and the exact location where they were being held. One would imagine that this information was not available to many people and thus shows the skill of their informants. They knew that if they could get access to weapons and then liberate the slaves they would be very likely to join their cause thereby increasing their numbers exponentially. They had clearly thought this through which is impressive but at the time it was only a plan. They were then able to execute their plan logically and efficiently. I would say that the only fault of their plan was that it was overambitious. They courageously attacked the Salvador police station and were eventually defeated but this episode shows that the enslaved people of West Africa in the America’s were very capable of designing and executing well-conceived military plans.
Mercedes Santa Cruz y Montalvo seems almost to be a symbol of the intertwined political and cultural relations between Cuba and Europe. On a more personal note, Lapuerta describes the determination, leadership qualities and strong sense of justice Mercedes exhibits even as a child. I look forward to seeing how Mercedes finds her place in the world as a woman, Cuban, and pioneer of her age. This being said, I found Part One of the biography greatly lacking in its acknowledgement of historical bias. While I understand that it is not an academic text in the same way Barcia’s book on the African Slave Revolt of 1812 is, I would have expected a more balanced picture, especially with regards to slavery and the relationship between the powerful elite and those who made such power and wealth possible. Much of the discussion of Mercedes’ childhood in Cuba is based on her own memoirs. A product of her times, Mercedes writes with decidedly romantic inclinations. Furthermore, her writing looks back into the past at an idealized childhood. Thus not only is her style romanticized, it is very possible that the very memories she writes of are also romanticized and potentially even wrong. At several points, I found slavery glamourized to an almost uncomfortable degree. While Lapuerta does acknowledge this bias at infrequent intervals in her biography, I found it to be more of an aside than genuine critical engagement with the life of the woman she is writing of. Reading the text caused me to ask myself where the balance between historical accuracy and vivid narrative should lie, and whether or not the historian has the right and/or responsibility to make a moral judgement on the events and lives of those in the past.
I appreciated the account given in Barcia Ch. 4 and 5, as it encompassed a greater span of perspectives of the telling of the 1825 slave revolt in Matanzas, including live anecdotes. A few of the points I found most interesting: 1) the possibility that the white persecutors were not able to understand the logic, underlying traditions, and strategies (brujerías) used by the Africans to engage in war. 2) the role of alcohol as a de-inhibitor, especially in respect to the expression of pent up rage that the slaves held against their white masters 3) the blatant overlooking of the CAUSE of the uprising, as summarized in the following quote:
“What will this country gain from hanging twenty negroes who murdered their owners if we do not uncover the real reasons that led this event to occur, ignoring the source of that same evil?”
I find it rather incredulous (and slightly depressing) that this point was overlooked. How can humans be so blind?!
I agree with Sasha in her surprise that the white slave owners would have been so culturally disengaged from their slaves, whose lives they controlled and lived adjacent to (or with!). Culture aside, when you consider the conditions of slave lives, i find it more surprising still that a slave revolt wasn’t an expected thing – they were “surprised by an event that they simply did not see coming” (Barcia, 103).
Maybe it was the cultural disengagement and the slave role itself that made the owners dehumanize their slaves into tools rather than people, without the impulses or spirit to fight back.
I’ll admit I had the same question as the Commission when they asked “why did the rebels lack places to retreat to and hide in case of defeat?” (Barcia, 127). I would speculate here by invoking culture – this was a slave war of passion based on oppression and kinship; not a colonial war of strategy and accumulation. If the slaves were willing to take their lives, then contingency plans and thoughts of defeat would not have been paramount. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
In this weeks reading a large theme that I picked up on was the spread of rumours and exaggerations in 1825 Cuba. From Barcia’s interpretation of events it made it seem as if there was a ton of misinformation being relayed throughout the island. What I found interesting was the motives behind individual’s exaggerations and the results of each. For example plantation owners experienced extreme paranoia to the point where a certain look from an enslaved person would convince them that a revolt was imminent. These complaints had to be investigated by Francisco Seidel and Francisco Lamadriz who sifted through what was paranoia and what were well found accusations. In other words, finding the discrepancy between what was being said and what was actually happening and thus correcting the record. Something that struck me while I was reading was how Barcia, as a historian is almost put into a similar position as Seidel and Lamadriz as he is forced to sift through historical records as well as historian’s interpretations and try to the best of his ability to “correct the record”. I think Barcia really displays this when asserting that the 1825 revolt was largely “an extension of West African warfare in the New world setting”. In this conclusion he is correcting the record of other historians who have classified the 1825 revolt as influenced by western ideologies and concepts, completely overlooking the influence of African traditions and military tactics on the events that took place. I think in doing this Barcia addresses the 1825 revolt in a way that acknowledges the greater depth of influences enslaved peoples had in making their decision and organization, influences that other historians as well as Seidel and Lamadriz were unable to see/ understand at the time. That being said I would have liked to see Barcia discuss the similarities between the West African military tactics and those prevalent in the revolt in greater depth as I found it was a little vague but extremely interesting.
I thought Barcia’s examination of the depositions and military accounts were especially interesting in these chapters as they made the whole process of historiography clearer and led to a deeper understanding of the thoughts of the time, not only by the slaves behind the revolt and the influences of African warfare, but also by the planation owners. This being said the ignorance of the owners toward the possibility of a revolt startled me. Did they consider the slaves to be so incapable of forming alliances across plantations and vast area, and only think of them as a means to an end, a strong object to be feared for its strength, but not their ingenuity? And why was the revolt so well thought out in the attack but not in what would come after? An additional aspect that jumped out at me in these chapters was the fact that the military lacked monetary compensation for the investigation of the revolt and counter-attack. This among other things really made me consider the effects the revolt had, not only on the obvious economic loss due to that of produce and the loss of life, but also the implications the revolt had of social values (slaves not owning property, plantation owners already in ruins and the subsequent change in forms of resistance to a much smaller scale).
In part one of La Belle Créole, we see Mercedes as a child. I think it is important to remember that she is just that, a child. Children often have an “I’m the center of the universe” mindset, which can blur the events around them. We see this with Mercedes; she is spoiled, undisciplined and listens to nobody. In the book we don’t really experience many of the tragedies that occurred when Mercedes was looking the other way. I think that is why I enjoyed reading someone else’s interpretation of her memoirs. Lapuerta brought us back to reality by pointing out the things that were likely happening around Mercedes when she was busy romanticizing different aspects of her life. I also like to look at the context a character is set in. Mercedes is portrayed, as this cute little wealthy girl who cares about slaves and who everyone loves. She may get into mischief sometimes but its not enough to make the readers dislike her. As a result the readers like her and find her entertaining. If at the same time as Mercedes’ story was being developed we were told the story of a little slave girl who was put through all these hardships we would feel very different about Mercedes. We would think of her as more spoiled and self-centered. Controlling the context can be a very important power to have; I think that is why Lapuerta chose to write about Mercedes’ memoirs. This way she could counter balance the effect of Mercedes’ romanticized world with concrete facts!
In the part one of the book- La Belle Creole, The author describes the lives of wealthy white families in Havana. Through the window of Mercedes Santa Cruz y Montalvo, she recalled her romantic childhood and talked a little about her attitude towards slavery. I agree with Kat’s idea. In deed, after reading chapter one, I admitted that it contained some historical biases in it. I will not judge whether they are right or not. In a view of white wealthy family in Havana, I still find something new about slavery, even human rights in this chapter. Firstly, it seems like a vivid picture of childhood for Mercedes. But in essence, it contains numerous inequities. Those slave owners were used to treating people differently. Both Mercedes and Catalina were young girls in similar age. However, Mercedes was spoiled like princess and Catalina was supposed to be her personal slaves and like a toy accompany and playing with her. The author did not mention too much punishment towards slaves. But this kind of inequality is another way of cruel. Combing these readings from this course and another course of human rights. I guess I understand that why during that period the idea of human rights came out. Compared with the punishment on body, the real cruel is the violation of their rights, their human rights.
A tragic end to the story of the 1825 slave revolt in Cuba. In the last 2 chapters and conclusion of his book, Barcia seems to be suggesting that it was the White elite’s chronic underestimation of their African slave’s abilities and unwillingness to treat them with any sort of dignity. For example, he emphasizes the fact that Suarez’s recommendation, that slaves who remained loyal during the uprising be rewarded generously, was never acted upon. Furthermore, the text makes it clear that the endless investigations (which more more often than not hoaxes) and enforcement of the Black Codes bankrupted the colony at least in the short run. However, if Cuban elite society was really as insular as La Belle Creole makes it seem, then it is not surprising that the Cuban government’s attitudes did not change quickly or often.
Just out of curiosity: Barcia keeps emphasizing the African’s experience in their wars at home as a reason for their initial success in 1825, but doesn’t go into much detail. What was war in West Africa at the time like? How did it give them an advantage when fighting the masters in Cuba?
While reading part one of Lapuerta’s book, La Belle Creole, I found the focus on Mercedes’ perspective incredibly interesting, especially given how her childhood seemed to be at odds with the expectations and norms for a girl growing up in Cuba at the time. However I disagree with Roza that childhood is an important factor in understanding Mercedes’ perspective. Not only did she write the memoirs that Lapuerta relies upon later in life, meaning her primary influence was no longer her “romantic” childhood, but by that point Mercedes may very well have had an agenda that led her to recount her childhood experiences with things like slavery in a more positive light. I think that Lapuerta actually fails to present the romanticized childhood along with concrete facts – although she acknowledges some of the uncomfortable romanticisms of slavery, such as the ability of a child to own a woman who raised her, she does not dwell on these facts long enough to critically engage with them. Instead, Lapuerta portrays the interactions with Mercedes’ Cardenas and Santa Cruz family members and particularly her difficult relationship with her paternal grandmother, as the defining features of Mercedes’ early life. Although Kat has already acknowledged that this is not an academic text in the same way that Barcia’s is, I am still skeptical that the heavy reliance on Mercedes’ memoirs was the best way to characterize her early life. To continue with the example of possible bias in the depiction of slavery, Lapuerta does not mention how Mercedes engaged with slavery in her later life. Did she profit from the increase in slavery in Cuba via her family’s sugar plantations? Or did her life in Europe bring her closer to the abolitionist movement and cause her to feel guilt over the treatment of slaves she saw during her childhood? These factors, among others, might have influenced how the older Mercedes chose to recount her childhood. Lapuerta does not seem to have considered the particular motivations and agendas of the source material in much detail, something that I would argue should be a historian’s responsibility in dealing with primary sources like this.
I thought what was interesting in the reading was the idea that the people of Cuba could not understand how Africans regarded warfare and society and how they struggled to grasp West African slaves patterns of behaviour, attitudes and manners. You would assume that if slaves were in their possession, you would try to understand them in case of the possibility of a rebellion to have more knowledge and understanding, or had they dehumanised them that they didn’t even recognise them as people. It is also interesting the idea that “plantation owners had given their slaves too much freedom” by permitting them to drum and dance on Sundays, which allowed them the freedom to voice their opinions with other slaves (& also to voice exaggerated or made up stories to persuade slaves to join them). It surprises me that this was allowed; surely this would have created fear and suspicion? Were they simply ignorant of the fact that slaves could be organising a rebellion?
While reading La Belle Creole, I couldn’t help but relate what I was reading about Cuba’s early history to that of Canada. First and foremost I think there was simply a lot more luxury, and opulence to Cuban society at this time. Perhaps it was the Canadian weather and natural surroundings, but for two colonies with a single, monopolized industry (sugar in Cuba and furs in Canada), owned by then-superpowers they definitely seem to be far off on how everyday life was. In La Belle Creole, though it is subtle and intermittent, the glimpses into Mercedes life seem almost royal, with slaves waving fans, beautiful homes and connections to the top of society. Whereas accounts of even the richest in the fur trading days of Canada tell bleak stories of the harshness of life, the plainness of homes and clothes and the incredible rural-ness of even ‘big’ cities like York. This leads me to ask then, is it just things like the weather or were there other factors that contributed to this difference? Perhaps there was just a lot more money in sugar than furs, or maybe there is just an inherent difference on how Spanish people see things compared to the British/French. Another thought that pops into my mind is that the lack of slavery in Canada compared to Cuba: it could be that with slaves doing all of the hard work people were generally happier. That may be a naïve question but with less people working themselves to the bone like settlers in early Canada, there may have been just a happer atmosphere amongst the people.
I’m always interested in how Canada’s history compares with other countries’ history, and what factors led to how things are here and what led to how things are there.
I have to say, what an ending to the 1825 slave uprising. It certainly did not end the way I expected and I was quite surprised that news of Cuba’s slave issues spread all across the globe. I agree with some of the points others have pointed out above, notably Wesley and Sophie’s points about the differences between the white slave owners and the slaves themselves and how this general cultural detachment between the two entities inevitably resulted in an uprising. What was interesting is Mercedes’ childhood, as written by Lapuerta. Born into the upper echelons of Cuban aristocratic society, Mercedes recounts living a prosperous, idyllic childhood in Cuba in which she lived happily alongside her family’s slaves. I found this to be an interesting contrast to the Cuban elite circles Barcia described, which always seemed to be on high alert and constantly fearing slaves would rise up against them. Bias on Lapuerta’s part? Mercedes’ part? What also surprised me was the way the colonial officials dealt with the slave crises. Why weren’t slave uprisings dealt with more efficiently? Were they actually that detached with their slaves that they didn’t know what to expect?
The first part of La Belle Créole depicts childhood of Mercedes in largely romanticized and somewhat fictive manners. Any author wants to make his/her protagonist attractive, so it is very understandable if Lapuerta overstates Mercedes’ generosity and kindness for the slaves. Though the overall description of Mercedes seems a little fictive to me, the author gives some very interesting information about the society in Havana. First of all, I was surprised by the importance and abundance of salves in the society of Havana in the late 1700s as the story of one person naturally involves many slaves. I felt books of this kind (fictionalized biography?) are a very good source of information about the structure of society since even though some details/actions can be fictionalized, the background of a person’s story is likely to reflect the then reality of social strata. For instance, the descriptions of Mercedes’ father Joaquín explain the economic situation of Cuban elites and their relationship with Spain quite well. This kind of information helped me a lot to understand the more general situation and bigger picture of the society though the details of those descriptions may not be perfectly accurate.