REBELLION OF OPPRESSED GROUPS IN NEW WORLD.   Term Paper ID:27003 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines reasons why indentured servants, Native Americans & slaves did not unite & rebel in British colonies, while oppressed groups in Latin America did rebel.... More...

4 Pages / 900 Words 2 sources, 8 Citations, MLA Format $16.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines reasons why indentured servants, Native Americans & slaves did not unite & rebel in British colonies, while oppressed groups in Latin America did rebel. Paper Introduction: Indentured servants, Native Americans, and African slaves did not join together to overthrow the oligarchy that ruled over the thirteen British colonies in the seventeenth century even though there were large numbers of people in each group and they seemed to hold many goals in common. There were many reasons why such a large-scale revolt never took place: the three groups did not often have a language in common; the government of the colonies (and the government of Britain) were well-organized and armed; there was nowhere for people in revolt against the system to flee if they could not seize control; there was relatively little contact among the groups in many areas; and, if successful, these groups would have had to defend themselves against outside forces while engaged in the very difficult struggle to feed, house, and cloth themselves in an alien Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Works CitedCarew, Jan. The absence of significant cooperation among the oppressed groups inthe British colonies was not the case in Spain's Caribbean possessions. The Indians on themainland were also very prone to successful escapes since they were beingheld captive in familiar territory. This self-perpetuating form oflabor rapidly became the essential basis of the Southern economy. And in the seventeenth century African slaves wereimported to the Spanish colonies in much greater numbers than in Britain'sterritory. But,since their presence was voluntary and their terms of service were limited,the planters could not treat them too badly since they wished to continueto obtain this type of labor. Throughout "most of theseventeenth century" these indentured workers, whose status was legallyregulated and grew from the tradition of apprenticeship, "filled the bulkof the colonies' labor needs" (Kolchin 1 ). Servants could have their indentures extended or be punishedquite cruelly. By the late seventeenth century the legal statusof African slaves was being defined by the colonies on the basis of racesimply because European workers were, generally, governed by laws ofindenture while there was little legislation in any colony defining slaveowners' rights and slaves lack of rights. Therefore the two groups were in immediate, constant contactand the chances of cooperative action were far higher. But where some people's slavery ispermanent and some is temporary there are insufficient shared grounds torisk everything. And in the Virginia county of York the ratio ofservants to slaves "plummeted from 1.9 in 168 -84" to " . Indentured servants, Native Americans, and African slaves did notjoin together to overthrow the oligarchy that ruled over the thirteenBritish colonies in the seventeenth century even though there were largenumbers of people in each group and they seemed to hold many goals incommon. This was the case in Puerto Rico and Hispaniola and Blacks and Indianscooperated in rebellion and sabotage. The difference between thesituation of Caribbean and North American Indians was, however, that theformer peoples were generally absorbed more directly and far moresuccessfully into the system of slave labor than were the Indians of theBritish colonies. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993. Unfortunately, just as the need for labor surged in the second halfof the seventeenth century "a sharp decrease occurred in the number ofEnglish migrants arriving in America under indenture" as the monarchy wasreestablished and economic conditions improved rapidly (Kolchin 11). African slaves were first imported to the thirteen colonies by Dutchtraders in 1619. In the thirteen colonies, however, Native American slavery "neverreached very substantial proportions" because the Indians were highlyresistant to disciplined supervised work--which was completely foreign tothem--and because the men often simply refused to perform agriculturaltasks--which was women's work to them (Kolchin 8). With easier access to slaves, at lower prices (once the British tookover much of the trade), the colonists were quick to appreciate thedifference between indentured servants and slaves, who were slaves for lifeand whose children were slaves as well. Buteven when there was overlap the Indians' primary goal was to rid themselvesof settlers of all kinds. But slaves could simply be put to death and had absolutelyno recourse of any kind. Those who escaped would then conspireagainst the colonists and it eventually seemed preferable to the British tosimply kill the Indians who fought against them and drive the rest away. AsCarew notes, there were many instances throughout the sixteenth century ofthe "joining together of Blacks and Indians in a common struggle" in theSpanish colonies--such as the cimarron revolts in Puerto Rico andHispaniola (1 5). Such revolts and even more frequent acts of cooperativeresistance continued for over 2 years in these colonies. There were many reasons why such a large-scale revolt never tookplace: the three groups did not often have a language in common; thegovernment of the colonies (and the government of Britain) were well-organized and armed; there was nowhere for people in revolt against thesystem to flee if they could not seize control; there was relatively littlecontact among the groups in many areas; and, if successful, these groupswould have had to defend themselves against outside forces while engaged inthe very difficult struggle to feed, house, and cloth themselves in analien environment. Thisled to a rapid expansion in the trade in African slaves after 168 .Between 168 and 17 the number of Africans (almost entirely slaves) as apercentage of the population of the Southern colonies grew from 5.7% to21.1% (Kolchin 24 ). Joint Struggles of Native American and African American in the Columbian Era." Monthly Review, 44 (1992): 1 3.Kolchin, Peter. Resistance to those who oppress has to be based on shared oppression. But the principal reason why there was no majorseventeenth-century revolt was the differences in the dominant group'spolicies toward indentured Europeans, African slaves, and Native Americanswhich, in turn, produced different ideal goals among the people in thesecategories. Thus African slaves, Native American slaves, and indentured servantsdid not overlap to a considerable degree in the seventeenth century. But these workers were expensive (until the Dutch slavemonopoly was smashed in 1667) and they required "prolonged adjustment toalien conditions" which was never the case with English workers (Kolchin11). But behind thiscooperation was a "sense of community that was continually forged andreproduced in their everyday lives by virtue of the places they shared inthe system of exploitation" (Carew 1 6). 7 in 169 -94" sothat "within a decade, indentured servants had almost totally disappearedfrom the county" (Kolchin 11). "United We Stand! And indentured servants, who hoped toserve their terms and join colonial society to make their fortunes were,despite their poor treatment, unlikely to want to ally themselves withthose whose liberty would mean the destruction of whole economic system.In addition the risks for indentured servants and slaves were verydifferent. Servants who were uninterested in returning toEurope and slaves who were unable to return to Africa were, therefore, nota great deal better than those already in control of the colonies from theNative Americans' point of view. Their treatment was very pooras the landowners wanted to get as much work out of them as possible. Since Indian labor was not readily available and since politicalunrest led to extremely poor economic conditions in Britain the acquisitionof indentured servants--who earned their passages to America by agreeing towork for a set number of years--became the most popular means ofaccumulating more workers (and more land). American Slavery: 1619-1877. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.