Through the articles, it
is quite apparent there were restrictions concerning religious freedom in the
Atlantic World – such as the forced removal of Jews from the Iberian Peninsula
or the forced baptism of newly arrived slaves in the New World. Even though Christianity was forced upon
various peoples in the Atlantic, many still retained their traditional beliefs
secretly while adhering to a public Christian appearance. Due to the demanding economy of the Atlantic
and the lack of state church power in the New World, there were various
religious leniencies within the Christian faith – such as African Christianity
and the port Jews in Brazil. As a result, an outward Christian identity proved paramount, while what the individual practiced privately was of less importance.
Sultana Afroz attempts to make the argument that the Baptist
Rebellion of 1831-1832 in Jamaica was actually a jihad influenced by slaves who
practiced Islam secretly. As noted by
Afroz, 56.8% of Jamaican slaves came from Muslim areas (Afroz, 228). Even though the slaves were members of
Christian churches, many retained their Islamic faith. Jamaican slaves that adopted Christianity
done so to, “avoid confrontation and punishments from the plantation owners and
the church (Afroz, 231). Thus, African
slaves often adopted Christianity from their masters in order to assimilate,
avoid punishment, and fit into their new environment. In essence, the Atlantic World proved to
offer no alternatives to a Christian identity publicly.
John K. Thornton discusses the advent of African
Christianity in the New World and in Africa, which blended African and
Christian religious themes. Various
papal bulls demanded slaves to be instructed in Christianity after their
purchase (Thornton, 269). African
Christianity typically paired African gods with Christian saints –an effort
that missionaries eventually adopted so that Christianity appeared less foreign
to their future converts. Once the
Atlantic slave trade increased, African Christians – not the clergy - taught
African slaves how to retain their traditional beliefs, but to also exhibit the
identity of a Christian. Even though African
Christianity was far from orthodox, it was accepted in Africa, the New World,
and by the Church (Thornton, 266). In
the New World, African slaves that partook in acts that were deemed
“fetishisms” were often punished such as nocturnal dancing (Thornton, 277). Thus, even though variants of Christianity
such as African Christianity were accepted in the New World, outward acts
considered foreign such as nocturnal dancing were not tolerated.
Finally, Wim Klooster discusses Jews who began to create
their own communities along the ports of the Atlantic, so that their trading
networks allowed economic and religious benefits. Jews were forced to leave the Iberian
Peninsula and its colonies or to convert to Christianity after the Alhambra
Decree. Some Jews took a Christian identity to retain their homes and
businesses, but secretly continued to adhere to Judaism. Jews who fled to Amsterdam retained a strong
religious and economic relationship with the crypto-Jews of the New World
colonies. Once the Jews in the New World
proved to be successful economically, the Spanish and Portuguese became
suspicious of the special relationship between Brazil and Amsterdam. In response, the Dutch invaded Brazil and
overall allowed religious toleration of the Jews because they proved to be,
“indispensable to the colony” economically (Klooster, 137). This is evidence of religious toleration in
the Atlantic where the rules of the state church were not enforced as
vigorously in the colonies as they were in the Old World.
In all, there were religious restrictions in the Atlantic such as the forced baptism of slaves, but there was also toleration in the New World as exhibited by the port Jews - at least in comparison to the Old World where state churches were very powerful. The lack of state church power in the American colonies allowed individuals to adopt a Christian public identity in order to assimilate or fit into their new environment, but to still practice their traditional religion secretly.
Even though Sultana Afroz's article was clearly biased, I found her argument that the Baptist Rebellion could be termed a jihad quite compelling. What I have noticed in my reading in this period is a real tendency in the writings of the dominant ckass; planters, ship owners, governmental officials - to downplay and minimize African rebellion as something other than a revolution posing a real threat to that class of people. Thus revolts by Africans are termed slave rebellions as opposed to civil war; ships "captured by escaping slaves" are called by that tendentious phrase instead of using the term "piracy", numbers of Africans opposing the system are minimized and where leaders are concerned, there is a tendency to emphasize the white in slaves who successfully defy the institution of slavery by use of terms such as mulatto, quadroon, griffe etc.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see your conclusions fall into both the camps of tolerant and intolerant. It is true that many cultures at the time were clashing and to a degree, individuals kept their true religious beliefs secret so as to not clash with their surrounding majorities. I think what is most important to take away from this time period is that even the mistakes of intolerance that many societies make served as learning experiences for America’s founding fathers. If not for the clashes that took place and the grievances that people had suffered due to a lack of religious tolerance, the founding fathers might not have so carefully crafted the Constitution, and its tenets of religious freedom, as clearly, concisely, and wisely as they did.
ReplyDeleteIt is typical of a higher class of people to dispel a rebellion as something less then it really is. It is situations such as the Bapstist Rebellion that would have influenced the basic outline of the Bill of Rights as much as other past situations of intolerance.
ReplyDelete