5/1 Thoughts



Opening image of Orr's Empire on the English Stage: Charles II dressed in Persian robes. The point is not that he styles himself as and identifies with "oriental" cultures, but that he wears them because they are exotic, they are "other", and so he is performing/affirming his identity as different from "exotic" cultures. There is a way to use this. (It's similar to Charles II dressing in drag in "Stage Beauties"--he can do it because he's not a woman.)


OK: I'm reading this material trying to understand how the people (English people) were fashioning their cultural identities as white people, if they were. They are writing, performing, watching Dryden, Behn, and others (later I'll get to the fact that the Iroquois are watching them do this while performing their own cultural identities). But if the point is to explore how we Americans came by our identity as white people, then why am I looking at what people were doing in London in 1680s-1710s? There were already plenty of colonists from England in the Americas, and they (if I can generalize) already seemed to perceive themselves as different from the Londoners. And the Londoners certainly perceived them as different--and as inferior. If you take Behn's colonists seriously in The Widdow Ranter (and we're not meant to, at least not the Council members), the colonists perceived themselves as quite superior (see the drunken party scene where they discuss "matters of state"). So does that mean that important elements of the white American identity are already developing separately from white English identity? It would seem so. But does that mean that the identity taking form in London is negligible? Not necessarily.

So what should I be looking at? How are the colonists (Virginia, New England, and elsewhere) performing their own cultural identities? Where's the evidence?

Am I searching for the roots of Anglo-American white identity as it is performed in the whole circum-Atlantic theatre (Roach)? Or am I looking for something more specific?

What was happening in the "northern" colonies in 1710? I come back to the idea that King Philip's War was crucial...

Also Bacon's Rebellion: see this PBS website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p274.html Good for lots of over-simplified information, such as:
"Bacon's Rebellion demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause. This was a great fear of the ruling class -- what would prevent the poor from uniting to fight them? This fear hastened the transition to racial slavery. " http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p274.html

And this:

"The status of blacks in Virginia slowly changed over the last half of the 17th century. The black indentured servant, with his hope of freedom, was increasingly being replaced by the black slave.
"In 1705, the Virginia General Assembly removed any lingering uncertainty about this terrible transformation; it made a declaration that would seal the fate of African Americans for generations to come...
"All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians in their native Country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resist his master...correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened."
The code, which would also serve as a model for other colonies, went even further. The law imposed harsh physical punishments, since enslaved persons who did not own property could not be required to pay fines. It stated that slaves needed written permission to leave their plantation, that slaves found guilty of murder or rape would be hanged, that for robbing or any other major offence, the slave would receive sixty lashes and be placed in stocks, where his or her ears would be cut off, and that for minor offences, such as associating with whites, slaves would be whipped, branded, or maimed.
"For the 17th century slave in Virginia, disputes with a master could be brought before a court for judgement. With the slave codes of 1705, this no longer was the case. A slave owner who sought to break the most rebellious of slaves could now do so, knowing any punishment he inflicted, including death, would not result in even the slightest reprimand. "

And this:
Royal African Company established
1672
"Long before the establishment of Jamestown, English captains had made occasional profits in the rising trans-Atlantic slave trade. Bur during the early years of the 17th century, the English generally viewed the trading of human lives with a certain degree of contempt. By 1640, however, with the growth of sugar plantations in the Caribbean and the corresponding need for labor, the views of the English had changed. They, too, would become regular participants in the trade.
"In 1660, the English government chartered a company called the "Company of Royal Adventurers Trading to Africa." At first the company was mismanaged, but in 1663 it was reorganized. A new objective clearly stated that the company would engage in the slave trade. To the great dissatisfaction of England's merchants, only the Company of Royal Adventurers could now engage in the trade.
'The Company did not fare well, due mainly to the war with Holland, and in 1667, it collapsed. But out of its ashes emerged a new company: The Royal African Company. Founded in 1672, the Royal African Company was granted a similar monopoly in the slave trade. Between 1680 and 1686, the Company transported an average of 5,000 slaves a year. Between 1680 and 1688, it sponsored 249 voyages to Africa.
"Still, rival English merchants were not amused. In 1698, Parliament yielded to their demands and opened the slave trade to all. With the end of the monopoly, the number of slaves transported on English ships would increase dramatically -- to an average of over 20,000 a year.
"By the end of the 17th century, England led the world in the trafficking of slaves."

Bacon's Rebellion, effects of (excerpt from Wikipedia):
Historian Helen Hill Miller has pointed out that one of the most important reforms made during Bacon's government was the recognition of the right to bear arms, so that the common man could defend himself from hostile Indians, but also so that he may oppose a despotic regime. After Berkeley's resumption of power, this right was one of the first he repealed. She suggests it was Bacon's Rebellion that may have served as one of the major motivations for later colonists' intense appreciation of the right to bear arms.
Because it was the poor, white farmers, many of whom were formerly indentured servants, who attacked, a new social hierarchy with controlled persons devalued even more than the poor whites was needed. Thus, many easterners saw slavery as a viable option for minimizing the number of future rebels and satisfying these rebels by making them not the lowest people in society. Thus was born a racially defined, permanent form of slavery.
On the surface, Bacon's Rebellion was a power struggle between two diametrically opposed personalities that almost destroyed Jamestown. An historical analysis of the uprising in the context of New World colonization reveals the beginnings of America's quest for independence.