Zinn on Columbus; Equiano Revisited

Despite how terrible discrimination was for Africans like Equiano, it did happen to bring about an identity change.  This was a change that did, at least on a subconscious level, involve some degree of personal choice.  In the end, Equiano must decide who he wants to be.  Still, as the previous post discussed, this personal choice was influenced heavily by events far outside the realm of Equiano’s control.  After all, Equiano was involved in a trade that ultimately sealed the rift between two vastly different worlds, Old and New.  A similar amalgamation between choice and fate is seen in Columbus and the Spaniards’ interaction with native peoples.  Howard Zinn, in his account of these early encounters (A People’s History of the United States), pulls an interesting pair of quotes from two different sources.  The first of these is from Samuel Eliot Morison, who describes Columbus as possessing a “superb faith in God” and a “mission as the Christ-bearer to lands beyond the seas” (8).  While the accuracy of the first part of this quote is highly disputable, the latter half does describe the fact that the surface intentions of the king and queen of Spain were to spread religion.  Of course, this mission deviates wildly from the actual actions of Columbus and his men, which is expressed in Zinn’s quote of Bartolomé de las Casas: “our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy” (6).  While it is easy to attribute such works to religion, especially since some sailors claimed to perform these actions in the name of God, it is important that the fruits of human choice are separated from the roots of fate.  This brings about a certain question: was religion destined to spread, and if so, was the massacre of natives necessary for this to occur?

Identity and its Development

A person's identity is an integral part of that particular person.  Identity encapsulates many aspects of a person, including culture, religion, and nationality.  Yet, a property so intrinsic to a person can become changed so dramatically over the course of a lifetime.  The reasons for changes such as these vary greatly; history has provided us with a wide array of examples.  For instance, the Declaration of Independence is a document that marks a huge identity change for the Patriots.  While this change developed over time, the Declaration is the statement that officiated the identity change.  The reason for this identity change stems from political matters.  The Americans wanted liberty, but a specific kind of liberty: governmental liberty.  The Patriots felt they could make economic decisions not only by themselves, but even better and more equally than the British.  Politics is not the only thing that can change an identity, though.  The narrative of Olaudah Equiano provides a good look at the transformation of a young slave boy from an African to a European.  While it can be disputed which culture Equiano actually identifies with more strongly at the end of the narrative, it is clear that Equiano identifies himself as European to some extent.  These changes are brought about largely due to the decisions of other people in the slave trade.  Equiano didn't choose to leave Africa, but over time, he begins to diffuse within the Europeans, even making friends with a few.  Equiano's skin makes him stand out, of course, but does that matter, as long as Equiano identifies himself as European?  Does heredity matter at all in determining personal identity?  Is there anything so biologically ingrained in a person that can never be altered?  History may say there is not.

Discrimination in the Colonial Americas

It is interesting to contrast the forms of discrimination evident within the early history of the Americas.  On one hand, there is Mary Rowlandson's War and Captivity, which details her encounters with Native Americans.  On the other hand sits Thomas Jefferson and his Notes on the State of Virginia.  While these texts refer to two completely different races, Native Americans and African Americans, respectively, they both exhibit to an extent some form of racism, or at least stereotypes based on race.  However, the methods each writer employs in order to justify his or her discrimination are completely different.  Mary Rowlandson, coming from a strong Puritan background, uses religion to back up her ideas.  Many times, Rowlandson refers to the Indians as animals and hell-like creatures.  The Puritans in general attributed the Native Americans' behavior to the times of Eden, before civilization.  The idea of this uncivilized state gave the Puritans justification to taking over the Native American lands.  Thomas Jefferson, who came later in history than Mary Rowlandson, branches off of these religious ideas into science.  Jefferson makes an early attempt at scientific racism, as he uses his observations to explain why he thinks African Americans are inferior to Caucasians.  Despite the rift between religion and science, the ideas of both of these authors stem from discrimination.  Clearly, the idea of judgment based on race or geographic origin carried over from Puritan belief into Yankee thought, but what of religion?  Thomas Jefferson employs only science in order to prove what are essentially the same points as the Puritans' points, and the final product looks just as, if not more, ridiculous.