Focused principally on the 20th and 21st centuries, this course will study the legacies and implications of the massive migration, forced and otherwise, from the African continent to the Caribbean, Latin America, and North America. Topics will range from the creation of racial categories in the contexts of slavery and colonialism to the making of transnational and transracial families to the recent cultural politics of “blackness” with emphasis on the ways that different kinds of archives produce multiple and often conflicting narratives. Students will produce as well as consume history. In addition to scholarly monographs and articles, course material will include film, sound, and fiction.
I’m very excited to be teaching this course, and looking forward to working with you all semester. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the website and read the syllabus. We will use this site extensively for announcements, postings, and virtual conversations. You should feel free to treat it as your own, and post links, images, videos, or anything else of interest to the class.
Follow
It is difficult for me to imagine that a revolution as impactful as the Haitian Revolution has been so effectively silenced by the dominant historical narratives. Before I began reading, it was impossible for me to imagine accurately the scope of a revolution I had scarcely heard of outside of a footnote attached to a segment about a “more important” revolution. Reading about the Haitian Revolution indicated to me, even further than my education already has, that as students we have been primarily educated within the realm of the dominant narratives; the key texts in our education have come from writers within the dominant history. It makes it even more important to be exposed to a revolution that has been silenced and neglected when discussing the Age of Revolution, the birth of freedom and equality, and abolition movements.
It is interesting to note how even the texts we have read that are contrary to dominant narratives took little notice of the Haitian Revolution. The West, Martin, and Wilkins text point out that Gilroy’s black Atlantic wholly neglects the topic of the Haitian Revolution, despite being a crucial text in other respects. They indicate that the Haitian Revolution could have been easily integrated into Gilroy’s text: how do you think this would fit, if it would fit at all, with the focus of the Black Atlantic? Is this criticism of Gilroy’s text fair, or does it take away from the differential goal that Gilroy is trying to accomplish?
Given that the Black Atlantic is so heavily focussed on the movement of peoples and goods, perhaps it is fair for Gilroy to overlook the Haitian Revolution, as it is not directly related to the interaction between how people, particularly slaves, moved between Africa, Europe, and the Americas. However, its effects are far-reaching. For instance, questions of how the Haitian Revolution impacted the movement of enslaved peoples is critical. Haiti was the gem of France’s colonial empire, and as such the impact the Revolution had on the movement of peoples and goods would have been profound. Were these enslaved people being shipped to the colonies redirected or were the overall numbers of trafficked slaved decreased? How did the Revolution affect the ability of goods and people to move within the Atlantic region?
In a broader sense, the relationship of the Atlantic was fundamentally altered by the Haitian Revolution. Haiti was refused recognition as an independent nation, it temporary allied with the Spanish and British, then the French, then resulting in being entirely isolated from the international system. Furthermore, it altered the relationship between the “New World” and the “Old World” in that it shocked colonial powers into action surrounding the slave trade and slavery itself, forcing changes (both progressive and regressive).
But what do you folks think? Is this a bit of a stretch to try to fit the Haitian Revolution into Gilroy’s Black Atlantic? Is it important for Gilroy’s Black Atlantic to accommodate something like the Haitian Revolution, or is there another place for this discourse?
(In case you cannot tell, I am quite fascinated how most of the texts in this course are either deferential to, critical of, or otherwise interacting with the Black Atlantic as a concept!)
Hi Saheli (and the rest of the class)-
I really agree with your first paragraph about dominant narratives in history. This weeks readings really crafted a deeper and more representative history of the Haitian Revolution and sought to uncover why others histories and narratives of the Haitian Revolution have been lost, erased, or simplified to the point of banality.
You asked if the Haitian Revolution would fit into Gilroy’s Black Atlantic analysis and I think it does. As discussed in class, most Haitian slaves had very recently arrived from Africa and many had been engaged in warfare. Gilroy focuses a lot of his article on identity and the idea of double consciousness in nation and ethnicity. Recently arrived slaves to Haiti have a unique perspective on nation as former warriors for nation (or groups) and now slaves to another. I see see the Haitian Revolution fitting into Gilroy’s analysis because I think that the identities, time, and place of slaves transported across the Black Atlantic play a significant role in the history of slave movement and passage.
Additionally, I think that the Haitian Revolution fits into Gilroy’s Black Atlantic because I think transportation among New World colonies was important. After the Haitian Revolution the “freedom principle” described in Ada Ferrer’s article “Haiti, Free Soil, and Anti-Slavery in the Revolutionary Atlantic” shows how Haitian leaders wanted to create radical antislavery policy in-spite of being surrounded by a sea of slave endorsing colonies (pun totally intended). She describes how upon their arrival to Haiti, slave owner James McKowen’s seven slaves were free and Haitian upon their arrival and disembarkation to Haiti. As a free soil nation among slave endorsing colonies in a part of the world where you needed to take a ship to get from one place to the other. Oceanic transportation along the eastern seaboard was key for slave passage and movement and the Haitian Revolution and the radical antislavery policy that followed disrupted that seamless system.
I’m not sure if this discourse needs to be included in Gilroy’s analysis because this articles in the context of previous readings (like the Black Atlantic chapter) does help create and representative history of a typically erased and trivialized topic.
Trouillet’s argument proposed that the Haitian Revolution was silenced and downplayed by scholars. Through examining the context in which the revolution took place, Trouillet suggested that it was impossible to challenge the views on slavery during the 19th century because of the framework in which Europeans based their beliefs.
Trouillet’s argument about the “Formulas of Erasure” and “Formulas of Banalization” resonated with me. I agree very, very much with what he has to say, and I am captivated by his argument mainly because it was something that I had never thought much about. Are different points of view on an event in history silenced solely because of national interests? It reminded me a lot about something my parents used to tell me about Nanking Massacre that took place in China during WWII — about how it was largely forgotten after the war, and never formally acknowledged by Japan. This isn’t very different than the situation between Haiti and France. It took decades for America and France to fully admit that Haiti was independent, and Trouillet even hinted that many scholars avoided speaking of the Revolution.
My question is: what do you think was the biggest reason that stopped scholars (after the Revolution) from addressing slavery, the colonial question, and racism? Do you have any other examples of how silencing still exists today, and do you know of any reasons as to why this silencing still exists?
I completely agree that Trouillot’s argument is captivating and makes a lot if sense. To address your question, based on the reading I think the main obstacle that stopped scholars from addressing slavery, the colonial question, and racism has to do with the unthinkable element that Trouillot describes. Trouillot engages with an epistemological argument that is in many ways relevant to the way that we address current issues, especially those of race. He argues that the Haitian Revolution was an “unthinkable” event because of the “Framework of Western thought,” (p. 38). I think that scholars, even after the revolution, may not have engaged with the issues you raise because such issues or perspectives were not conscious realities to scholars. It seems that scholars attempted to put the revolution into terms that they could understand and explain, but the realities of the revolution demanded that there be a change in the way that people fundamentally thought about slavery and race.
Epistemology addresses the limits the knowledge. It poses questions about why we think the way we think and why we think what we think. Taking the epistemological route that Trouillot goes, I think it could be that scholars at the time did not recognize that their way of explaining what happened in Haiti may be flawed and that there were alternative and truly more accurate ways of understanding race and slaves as self-determining beings, which were perspectives that could better explain the reality of the revolution.
I found Trouillot’s argument to be valuable, especially his observation about categorizing events as singular exceptions. Trouillot questions the limits of knowledge and why knowledge was limited before, during, and far after the revolution. He argues that western ways of thinking did not acknowledge the events as a revolution, rather they were explained in part by “outside agitators” and single events of rogue violence or escape (p. 42-44). The legal system of Canada is based on a structure of singular wins and because of this it inadequately addresses systemic problems and in your words, I think that it can “silence people” in a similar way (But to a lesser extent) that viewing the revolution through singular exceptions silenced people. By taking things on a case-by-case basis it can be difficult to address patterns of systemic injustice. The Canadian legal system is effective in many ways, but the law’s capacity to combat systemic oppression is lacking.
Here is an article (You can download it from this page) about the Canadian legal system and why it cannot adequately combat systemic oppression:
– http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol35/iss3/14/
Also this website it super cool for uncovering our own implicit biases and generates epistemological questions, like why do I act the way I act? Is it based on implicit biases that influence my way of thinking?
– https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/canada/takeatest.html
Hey Jasmine, I’ll try to respond to your post by saying that, the exclusion of the slaves as an active part taker from the whole system of slavery was the biggest reason scholars and the authorities had hard time recognizing the revolution as a legitimate event. But at the same time, the shame that derived from being over taken by those who they thought was so harmless and uncivilized must have taken a part in their silence. As one of the eyewitnesses had commented, the whites still believed that the revolution was a temporary event because of the ascendancy that whites had over blacks. The power relation between the europeans and the blacks back then, seems like it was a common sense that no one questioned before, therefore those who were involved in the discourse never had a chance or opportunity to think otherwise. Also historically, it was easier to imagine one religious group uprising against another because of the strong solidarity and the united power that one common point (religion) can have on a community, but not for the entire race, or a class as it did in this context. I think it is a good example of how predisposed knowledge or belief can blind even the scholars and the future generations, and shows the importance of strong objectivity. If anyone had seen the slavery from the point of view of the blacks, the slaves, it was completely understandable that they would form a revolution sooner or later, but the lack of such strong objectivity led to the ignorance of the whites, and also the prolonged suffering of the blacks.
I think Misheel has brought up a really great point. The idea that the West was unable to conceptualize (or perhaps just unwilling to recognize that) the revolution as a legitimate event is extremely interesting, and definitely ties into Michael O. West and William G. Martin’s argument in “Haiti, I’m Sorry.’ The fact that the idea of black resistance causing a revolution was so unimaginable that it couldn’t fit within the trajectory of the current Eurocentric narrative is a topic of conversation in this text. I think this also fits in with what Misheel is saying, in terms of how this is an “example of how predisposed knowledge or belief” can inhibit the interrogation of certain historical events. Moreover, this ties into Trouillet’s “An Unthinkable History,” as he examines the ideas and erasure. I found his exploration of these “global silences” particularly interesting, as it also relates with a quote from earlier on in his article, which reads “we could have shared stories not yet in the archives.” Perhaps one of my biggest takeaways from this piece, then, was wondering how we are to uncover these silences, what ways do scholars currently (re)perpetuate them, and how do we go about addressing them?
The Haitian Revolution was not only a successful slave revolt but also led to the creation of the independent nation of Haiti. With the new independent state came a new constitution. What I found most interesting in these readings this week was the dispute over the seven enslaved men from Jamaica who “commandeered the vessel on which they were serving and sailed to southern Haiti, where they found—as they had expected to—legal protection, freedom from slavery, and access to Haitian citizenship.” (Ferrer, 42-3) This was of course all made possible by Article 44 of the Haitian constitution of 1816, which stated that:
“All Africans and Indians, and the descendants of their blood, born in the colonies or in foreign countries, who come to reside in the Republic will be recognized as Haitians, but will enjoy the right of citizenship only after one year of residence.” (Ferrer, 43)
From everything I ever learned about the Haitian Revolution, that it gave hope to other enslaved men/women to attain and uphold freedom, I never knew that Haiti had instated such laws. Not only was did this largely affect how other countries viewed freedom and slavery, but Haiti proved to be “a symbol of liberty, but literally as free soil, a place in which freedom, enshrined in the law, could be real for black persons in their own lifetimes.” (Ferrer, 64) And what is even more remarkable is that even though there was a lot of backlash and unacceptance of what the Haitian government was doing, especially with allowing the Jamaican sailors to stay, they refused to return the enslaved men. They upheld their laws and envisions of an antislavery nation state.
Hi Jasmine (and class), thank you for your questions. I want to use Trouillet’s idea of the “failure of categories” to hopefully answer your questions. I contend that the Haitian Revolution itself is unique of its own in the 19th century, thus historians and the world itself could not conceptualize the severity and the impact of the revolution. However, I believe that the very unique positionality of the Haitian Revolution is so different that it unsettles the very foundation of colonialism and racism. With a lack of categorization and structure, the revolution may appear as trivial or Trouillet’s argument “formulas of banalization.” In other words, the very notion of colonialism is built on the foundation of the oppressed and oppressor, the marked and the unmarked individual. The Haitian revolution violates the dichotomy which colonialism is built upon, thus creates a threat to Western philosophy, history, and ideals. I found it really interesting when Trouillot mentions, “the sudden outburst of interests as in the United States in the early 1970s, none of these themes has ever become a central concern of the historiographical tradition in a Western country” (1995, pg. 46). I contend that this sudden emergence of “awareness” may have to do with the West seeing this issue as worthy of “issue emergence,” when before this revolution was seen as trivial and unimportant.
I also agree with our classmate Isabella- after reading Ferrer’s article, I was surprised at how influential the Haitian independence and emancipation was globally, but was often silenced from history. In addition, Article 44 goes contrary to the Western (even current) understanding of sovereignty and boundaries, thus I argue creates further uncertainty about Haiti’s history. Ferrer’s says “Haiti’s role [internationally] struggles to define the boundaries of slavery and freedom, citizenship and rights” (2012, 43).
After reading Michel-Rophy Trouillot’s article, I recalled my high school textbook trying to find if any chapter was associated with the Haitian Revolution. It was horrible when I realized that it did not mention the event of the Haiti Revolution. The textbook only contained a chapter called “the Latin America Revolts”, which in general talks about the enslaved people’s revolt for emancipation and freedom. The Haitian Revolution was happened between 1791-1804. Whereas, the Latin America’s revolution mainly occurred in 1820-30, which was much later than the Haitian Revolution. This earlier event has sufficient reasons to be well analysed. The disappearance of the Haitian Revolution in the text book corroborates Michel-Rophy Trouillot’s argument: The Haitian Revolution was silenced and underestimated. This overlook also illustrates that the difference between what happened and that which is said to have happened. The Haitian Revolution is tragic for the dominating power control the narration of this era of history. By overlooking eliminating and trivializing, most people did not know the Haitian Revolution and their understanding of the Haitian Revolution was reshaped. For the dominating power, they were reluctant to admit the Haitian Revolution. Instead, they called it as a pathological case. They were not willing to accept that it was some mental sentiments motivated enslave people. Instead, they categorized motivations as a way of trivialization: enslaved people fought for huger, food; they resisted to avoid their owners’ whipping; however, the significance of the Haitian Revolution on racial equality was ignored. The Haitian constitution of 1816 provides the right of citizenship to all Africans and Indians, which is not attached in the French Revolution and the America Revolution. The Haitian Revolution acted as a litmus test for the black race.
The Haitian Revolution entered history with characteristic of being unthinkable. “Unthinkable” means that western people were incapability of getting out of inherent framework of Western thoughts/systems to think about the Haitian Revolution. To acknowledge revolution is to acknowledge the possibility that something is wrong with the system (p.39). I am surprised by their reaction and their way treating this unthinkable event. The approach of overlook, elimination and trivialization of manifestation of the enslave peopled revolt as a refusal to admit their faulty conceptual frame.