In a few weeks, on August 1, Guyanese in general and African-Guyanese in particular will be celebrating Emancipation Day, in observance of the abolition of slavery in 1834, or for some, in 1838. Regardless of the difference in dates, most of the Caribbean, and actually most of the New World, will follow suit like Guyanese, since the African emancipation experience resonates across the New World.
In anticipation of this yearly event, I will provide a series on the African-Guyanese experience in the upcoming weeks. Any analysis of the African experience in Guyana and the New World, I argue, starts with two fundamental provocative thoughts: Were Africans the first people to come to the Americas? And did slavery lead to racism, or did racism lead to slavery? The former thought — that Africans arrived in the New World before any ethnic group — was interestingly put forward by a Guyanese named Ivan Van Sertima. The gist of Sertima’s argument is that the huge African-looking Olmec head found in Central Mexico is an indication that Africans were in the New World before any other ethnic group. Sertima’s theory received some currency in the African-American community as being sound, but it was virtually ignored by academics, especially by Cultural Anthropologists, as being rubbish.
Sertima’s theory, however, has challenged the established historical narrative that Amerindians were the first people of the New World. The theory has remained a one-man show, but has been copied by various African sensationalists and separatists, like some in Guyana, to claim rights to land.
The second thought — on whether slavery did lead to racism, or the other way around — is really a question I often ask students in my Caribbean History class when I analyze the African experience. In some ways, it is difficult to separate the two questions, since they could potentially occur at the same time. We know that slavery occurred in Africa before the arrival of Europeans in the region, although the style of slavery was very different from plantation slavery. The main difference is that slavery in Africa was less dehumanizing. We know also that as soon as Europeans, slave traders in particular, arrived in Africa, the scale of slavery intensified, as the Europeans pit one African group against another to obtain slaves.
There is also a school of thought that suggests racism was the single factor that led to African slavery, because Europeans saw Africans as anthropophagi (inferior people) and treated them as such. This thought is convincing, because we know from readings on the literature of the “Other”, the noble savage, that Europeans had limited knowledge of the world beyond themselves. To grapple with this deficiency, or more so deviancy, they applied fanciful and fanatical labels, but made very little attempt to go beyond their myopic views to understand people different from themselves.
I am not sure how much of this has changed, even in the age of globalization. Social and biological Darwinism might be gone, but mental Darwinism is surely still around.
There is also a thought that European interest in Africa was driven by economic greed and creed, and that slavery and racism were imminent consequences. What is absolutely sure is that, when Europeans made contact with Africa for slaves for the New World, slavery took on a new dimension, which is still with us today.
When two different races come in contact with each other, with one having a sordid and sinister intention to exploit the other, as in the case of European (white) and African (black), slavery and racism is not only harsher, but irreparable.
I challenge anyone to challenge this view. Do you really think Africans will ever forget that they were enslaved by Europeans? To do so would mean to rewrite the history of the New World. It is possible to forgive, but impossible to forget.
What the two provocative thoughts suggest is that we are still trying to have, or trying to understand, the starting point of African-Guyanese and African New World experience. Certainly, if Africans had taken the Mayflower to the New World, their initial history would not have been so obscure. To accept that Africans were not merely pushed out of Africa through devious methods and pulled to the Caribbean to provide slave labour to European overlords would be a misnomer. The process and the purpose of Africans being in Guyana is more complex and multifaceted. What is absolutely sure is that the arrival of Africans led to the transformation of Africans — as well as Guyana and other communities in the New World – on a scale hardly seen since. What emerged were: cultural retention and continuity; a rigid master/slave relationship; racism; resistance and accommodation; revolutionary trends; ecological changes; and, of course, the further development of various “isms”, like capitalism, imperialism, colonialism and multi-culturalism. To be continued. ([email protected]).
