Did the level of involvement of the enslavers directly correlate to the diversification of ethnolinguistic identities of captive people? The Luanda elites, for example, were said to be “far more directly involved in the very processes that generated captives for export” (72), and the captives typically fell under the categories of “Anglos,” “Congos,” or “Enchicos” (25).
How do the descriptions of enslaved people across documents vary depending on their differing “purposes” in said society? (an example being the need for settlement and population increase vs. labor reasons)
I appreciate how David Wheat brings historical visibility of several African and African descent women as vecinas, nharas, horras or libres in the formation of Spanish Caribbean society, further suggesting their agency and importance in the Luso-Brazilian case. By analyzing the circumstances of settlement among labor forces and settlers proves to be a complex work, particularly when ethnonyms, at times derogative, were used to identify status and race, contributing to a fragmented identity formation still visible when for instance we consider the term Latino that comes from ladino or even names that carry the preposition “de” for many Hispanic families, can this be ever reestablished/changed in new narratives?
Moving pass interpretations where women are kept at the margins of historical accounts such as prostitutes looking to improve their living conditions or gaining freedom, how can we scholars recount their stories considering that some records are not available or are fragmented while not distorting and make assumptions following hierarchical narratives stablished by male settlers?
Wheat highlights the dynamic economy of the Caribbean, commerce, livestock, and agricultural activities provided Spanish Caribbean with a certain degree of autonomy or flexibility. Did this economic autonomy correspond to a certain degree of political autonomy? How was the commercial and political relationship between Spanish Caribbean and Spanish metropolis?
Wheat highlights the case of free people of color (formerly enslaved) as rural property owners; in some cases, the City Council recognized free black property owners as “vecinos” (p. 210) What political implications can the identification of free blacks as “Vecinos” have? In addition to economic resources, did they possess any degree of political influence?
Although a familiar word choice (and misconception by default even Wheat admits in “Editorial Note”), why doesn’t Wheat use other terms i.e. The Crown of Castile/Castilian society to dismantle myths of a homogenous Spain that ruled over an Empire? Basically what is his target audience and wouldn’t it be more appropriate to introduce a preceding “Spain” to readers unfamiliar with Spanish colonial history?
Wheat speculates possible reasons why free or enslaved Black folk demonstrated loyalty to the Catholic Church/The Spanish/Castilian Crown but what was their identity to the Spanish empire? Did they identified as Spanish subjects, or simply worked around their best interest (e.g. Spanish Caribbean rule offered more benefits/familiarity to other Europeans)?
David Wheat mentions a shift in on pg 255, the shift from “societies with enslaved” to “enslaved societies”. How does this shift challenge our understanding of Spanish colonization in the New World, but also the Caribbean?
What are some of the different roles among free and enslaved African men and women in the Spanish Caribbean? Why does he stress these differences?
Where does David Wheat’s book fall in the history of Spanish colonization?
Did the level of involvement of the enslavers directly correlate to the diversification of ethnolinguistic identities of captive people? The Luanda elites, for example, were said to be “far more directly involved in the very processes that generated captives for export” (72), and the captives typically fell under the categories of “Anglos,” “Congos,” or “Enchicos” (25).
How do the descriptions of enslaved people across documents vary depending on their differing “purposes” in said society? (an example being the need for settlement and population increase vs. labor reasons)
I appreciate how David Wheat brings historical visibility of several African and African descent women as vecinas, nharas, horras or libres in the formation of Spanish Caribbean society, further suggesting their agency and importance in the Luso-Brazilian case. By analyzing the circumstances of settlement among labor forces and settlers proves to be a complex work, particularly when ethnonyms, at times derogative, were used to identify status and race, contributing to a fragmented identity formation still visible when for instance we consider the term Latino that comes from ladino or even names that carry the preposition “de” for many Hispanic families, can this be ever reestablished/changed in new narratives?
Moving pass interpretations where women are kept at the margins of historical accounts such as prostitutes looking to improve their living conditions or gaining freedom, how can we scholars recount their stories considering that some records are not available or are fragmented while not distorting and make assumptions following hierarchical narratives stablished by male settlers?
Wheat highlights the dynamic economy of the Caribbean, commerce, livestock, and agricultural activities provided Spanish Caribbean with a certain degree of autonomy or flexibility. Did this economic autonomy correspond to a certain degree of political autonomy? How was the commercial and political relationship between Spanish Caribbean and Spanish metropolis?
Wheat highlights the case of free people of color (formerly enslaved) as rural property owners; in some cases, the City Council recognized free black property owners as “vecinos” (p. 210) What political implications can the identification of free blacks as “Vecinos” have? In addition to economic resources, did they possess any degree of political influence?
Although a familiar word choice (and misconception by default even Wheat admits in “Editorial Note”), why doesn’t Wheat use other terms i.e. The Crown of Castile/Castilian society to dismantle myths of a homogenous Spain that ruled over an Empire? Basically what is his target audience and wouldn’t it be more appropriate to introduce a preceding “Spain” to readers unfamiliar with Spanish colonial history?
Wheat speculates possible reasons why free or enslaved Black folk demonstrated loyalty to the Catholic Church/The Spanish/Castilian Crown but what was their identity to the Spanish empire? Did they identified as Spanish subjects, or simply worked around their best interest (e.g. Spanish Caribbean rule offered more benefits/familiarity to other Europeans)?
David Wheat mentions a shift in on pg 255, the shift from “societies with enslaved” to “enslaved societies”. How does this shift challenge our understanding of Spanish colonization in the New World, but also the Caribbean?
What are some of the different roles among free and enslaved African men and women in the Spanish Caribbean? Why does he stress these differences?
Where does David Wheat’s book fall in the history of Spanish colonization?