User:Joydn

=THE "COLOR LINE" IN CHOCÓ, COLOMBIA=

Introduction
Las Siete Partidas of Alfonso X of Spain declared that “slavery is the most evil and the most despicable thing which can be found among men, because man, who is the most noble, and free creature, among all the creatures that God made, is placed in the power of another….” Counterintuitively then, this same document, with the same force of impact, made provisions for slavery’s continuance, going on to codify Castilian slave law and customs for a 13th Century world and, later, lending heavily to the Spanish slave code adapted to the New World. Here is a contradiction of position reflective of the competing selfish and higher impulses of human nature: The slave must be, because he or she adds to ease and wealth in society, although slavery is terrible and human beings should be treated well—according to their nobility and freedom. Could it be that the above rationalization was normal for Europeans of the modern period, and generally reflective of the balance of morals and economic “necessity” and human rights standards of the time? Perhaps. Yet, there is a glaring discrepancy, namely the comparatively cruel slavery of the pre-Civil War United States. While throughout Latin America slaves were afforded the right by law and sometimes encouraged by colonists to have families that were safeguarded from separation by sale, had access to the courts, and were even allowed to purchase their freedom, contrastingly, in the United States, slave marriages were not acknowledged, the slave family was always at risk of being torn apart by the owner’s decision to sell some family members and not others, and “[f]requent public floggings reminded every slave of the penalty for inefficient labor, disorderly conduct, or refusal to accept the authority of a superior.” This contrast in culture of slavery is heavily linked to a contrast in definition of the slave’s status in society. Expressly, as Tannenbaum puts it, “the moral personality of the slave” was emphasized under the Spanish Crown, more so than in the United States, where “[l]egally [a slave] was a chattel under the law, and in practice an animal to be bred for market.” This difference, in turn, directly influenced the differences in the subsequent development of the color line in South and North America. Specifically, it bred the relative harshness and strict racial groupings of the United States color line, evident, for example, in Jim Crow laws of segregation in Southern states, compared to that of Latin America, which, although not immune to racial inequality, has lacked a deliberate, legal approach to segregation and racial discrimination. Then, how could this be? What variable elements made the difference? While a variety of factors rooted in colonial history were mitigating to the development of Latin America’s color line—among them the high level of miscegenation between Native Indians, African slaves and Spanish colonists, Iberian exposure to racial diversity prior to colonization, centuries-old Roman and Muslim slave law on which to build, and even seemingly inherent segregation due to regional patterns of slavery—each of these elements has had limited pervasiveness, either in terms of uniformity throughout Latin America (as with race-mixing, which, in Chocó, Colombia—the region that is to be the focal of analysis of this paper—for example, is not so prevalent as to detract from the majority Afro-Latino population of the region) or in terms of force of impact (as with the factor of prior Iberian exposure to racial diversity, which, as will be noted in detail later, did not completely overcome bias and implicit racial rankings). Rather than these, it was largely the moral influence and evangelistic aims of the powerful, universally pervasive Catholic Church on the Spanish Crown that caused a softer strain of slavery to develop throughout Latin America. As Stanley Elkins concludes in his historical analysis Slavery, absent the restraining influence of the Church in the United States, personal gain and profit were sought after without a buffer and slave law thus developed to give the slaveholder maximum power over the slave. The Chocó region of Colombia is an important example of the Church’s colonial role in the development of a relatively diminished color line in Latin America. During the 1700s, it became the hub of production for the gold market, yielding more than $75,000,000 silver pesos ($375,000 pounds) worth of gold by the end of the colonial period, and this because of the mining work of black slaves, who mined up to 90% of the metal extracted. In confluence with supporting factors like the inherent geographical segregation between races that grew out of the tailored regional demands of mining, the Chocó-Colombian color line developed to be less severe than that of the United States because of the more humane culture of slavery there, which the Catholic Church powerfully influenced.

A Note on (the Lack of) Race-Mixing and Historical Segregation
Miscegenation in Latin America is linked to intermarriage among blacks, Spaniards, and Native Indians. It is not assumed in this paper that the relatively unmixed blackness of Chocó is reflective of a pattern of racial segmentation throughout Latin America. In fact, the comparatively blurred color line in Spanish-speaking countries is highly correlative with the racially blurred population produced by historically acceptable miscegenation. Given regions like Chocó, however, which are less mixed and predominantly Afro-Latino yet where the color line is not harsher than more racially ambiguous regions, miscegenation as the primary force behind the difference in the North and South American color line is made questionable. Furthermore, although miscegenation was less extensive in the colonial U.S. than in South America, U.S. mulattos were generally subject to the same civil limitations (i.e. the inability to vote) as unmixed blacks. In fact, certain state statutes, such as Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, codified the so-called “one-drop rule,” whereby hypodescent was made the strict norm and miscegenation was stemmed by a ban on interracial marriage. As will be evidenced, the unique influence of the Catholic Church in Spanish colonies is a more powerful, universal reason for South and Central America’s tamed color line. Finally, Chocó and other Native- or black-racially-dominant regions of Latin America, such as Cali, Colombia and Esmeraldas and the Chota Valley in Ecuador, raise the question of the role of geographic isolation in disrupting the impetus for a color line in the first place. Why should the ruling class institute laws of segregation and economic oppression, when these might occur as a matter of course based on historical factors of geography? In areas of high black population in Colombia like Chocó and Cali, for example, blacks tend to be concentrated in urban centers, are generally poorer than their white counterparts, and claim to experience some level of discrimination—more than any other divisible segment of society.

This consideration has its place, but is also limited, given the natural ability of blacks to migrate to non-traditional areas of Colombia—a process that has begun in some regions—thereby defeating the safeguard of continued geographic segregation. Other factors like historical exposure to black Africans and to centuries-old slave codes carry even more weight.

Experiencing Other Ethnicities
Between 711 and 1492, Muslims were in power in much of the Iberian Peninsula, and it was in the eighth century that the invading Muslim armies sparked the initial contact between Europeans and darker people, namely African Moors and Arabs. This contact with a darker-skinned ruling class—later furthered by occasional visits from African nobles — and subsequent contact with black slaves in the 15th and 16th Centuries is thought to have helped push against harsh views of European superiority, as harbored by the less well-exposed English. The Portuguese and Spanish encountered blacks of skill, and appreciated them as such—to a point. Their vocal musical ability was especially valued. Certain slaves of the Chocó were highly priced because of their unique skill sets, including handling canoes (canoero), curing snake bites (curandero de viboras), or leading other slaves (capitanejos). It is the effects of this exposure that may have led to racial de-emphasis in Latin America, whereby, for example, some slaves in Colombia were valued and preferred over others because of esteemed character qualities—their “excellence and loyalty,” as one slave trader of Chocó described.

While this approach to analysis of the effects of historical Iberian contact with Arabs and Africans is logical and well-supported, it does not provide a complete picture of the racial-attitudinal impact of the contact. To understand its limitations, one must go deeper. By the 800s, Muslims had distinguished between black and white slaves, as demonstrated in the different names used for the two kinds of slave: ‘abd for a black slave, and mamluk for a white slave. A mamluk was considered a more precious investment than a black ‘abd, although ‘abds typically worked the toughest jobs in the worst conditions (white slaves tended to be household servants). Eventually ‘abd came to be the general term for a black man, whether free or enslaved. Even freed ‘abds were subject to a glass ceiling in society, whereby they were subjugated to only the most menial occupations. The implied racist attitude of the latter dynamic is confirmed by a continuous stream of accounts of Muslim contempt for black Africans, including that of Ibn Khaldun, a historian of the 15th Century, who went as far as to say that “the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little that is [essentially] human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals.” Furthermore, the Muslim view that slavery was best suited to blacks was thought to be solidified by the Hamitic curse pronounced in Genesis 9:26, which was interpreted as applying literally to black Africans. Speaking of this, 10th Century historian Tabari stated explicitly, “Noah put a curse on Ham, according to which the hair of his descendants would not extend over their ears and they would be enslaved wherever they were encountered.”

Although Christians and Muslims regarded each other as heathen, they found commonality in similar inferior views of black Africans. By the 13th Century, Latin texts had adopted specific words to distinguish light-skinned from dark-skinned Muslim slaves, and documents describing slaves to be sold defined white from black Moors. Black Africans, in fact, assumed the lowest rung on what might be termed an infidel ladder, being regarded as the “heathen’s heathen, doubly cursed.” Iberian Christians, much like Muslims, have recorded some scathing accounts of black Africans, among them that of Botlan, who, in “Art of Making Good Purchases of Slaves,” said, “At the markets negresses were much in evidence; the darker the uglier and the more pointed their teeth. They are not up to much. They are fickle and careless. Dancing and beating time are engrained in their nature.” An unflattering, some might say racist, assessment, indeed. Ultimately, “skin color…became a marker used by the Christians to identify—and vilify—the Infidel.”

While a history of interaction with diverse ethnic groups had some positive impact on Iberian views of blacks, the potential fullness of this impact was compromised by the corrupting influence of the Muslim slant toward racism, which, while it fell short of producing an entire ideology of race, ultimately lent to Iberia’s attribution of less worth to people of color. Prior exposure to black Africans, then, is only a tributary factor in the development of the relatively lenient Latin American color line, hence, in the development of the relative mildness of the Chocó-Colombian color line.

The Catholic Role and Influence in the New World
In 1790, Doña María Gertrudis Gonzáles de Trespalacios almost lost her Chocó-Colombian gold mine because of its declared failure, which was a surprise to her, considering her yearly receipt of money from the mine’s administrator since her husband’s death in 1779. A discovery process revealed that since 1779, the mine had been mismanaged and was especially not viable because the African slaves of her cuadrilla were largely gone if they were útil —of prime working condition—having bought their freedom. The remaining slaves were largely too young or old to be productive —this likely being partially attributable to the high percentage of slaves married with children on 18th Century Colombian mines. Ultimately, after a following decade of government supervision by the lieutenant governor of the city of Quibdó, the mine again became profitable.

One must wonder critically about the competing values demonstrated by the subtext of this account. How is it that excellent workers were permitted to opt out of slavery in purchasing freedom, when the Spanish Crown’s colonial demand for gold required labor in mines? And by what means might a slave make such an expensive purchase? And how is it that slave family units would be so common as to produce a population of children outnumbering prime workers? The record reveals that uncharacteristic economic motivations answer in part: By the end of the 1700’s, slavery had become less profitable due to overinvestment in slaves during the middle of the century combined with a drop in buillon production and a concomitant increase in maintenance costs because of the care of more slaves. In an effort to trim their cuadrillas, mineowners welcomed more self-purchase. Slaves could be charged a maximum amount of $500 for freedom, or something like 250% of their initial purchase price, according to official guidelines in Protocolos XVII (Notaria del Chocó) of 1788-1792. Furthermore, to safeguard against rebellion and urge at least moderate contentment in slaves, family life was allowed. Afterall, the Spanish were well-acquainted with the pitfalls of resistant subjects. When colonists first attempted to settle the Chocó in the early 1500s, Native Indians met them with defensive hostility, such that it was not until later—in the early 17th Century—due to a confluence of mitigating factors, that colonists were able to form sound establishments there. According to their economic interest in the slave-driven mining society of Chocó, contented slaves were priority. Although sound, this economic-perspectives analysis is tinged with superficiality. Indeed, there is a deeper, more permanent cause here. One must look to the reason why the structure of this humane slavery (although such a description is arguably paradoxical) existed in the first place, to be tapped in dynamic economic strategy. The driving force here is the same force that had the traditional role in Catholic Europe, especially Spain, as prime authority in the social and intellectual life of society and the blesser and legalizer of fundamental human relationships. It is the Catholic Church, which, with its high authority and influence on the Spanish Crown (having, for instance, provided powerful, catalyzing sanctions between the 13th and 15th Centuries for the conquering and enslavement of infidel peoples on the basis of the “Order of Christ,”  including two papal bulls in 1452 and 1456 ) was primarily concerned with the social rights of the slave. The Church posited that slaves were contractually obligated to give their time and labor to their masters, but that as humans, they retained the right to “life, limb, body and reputation.” Although it did not oppose the institution of slavery, it asserted that slaves, including black Africans, were part of their growing world church, and took up their moral, religious and even social guardianship (interfering with the master-slave relationship), hence the uncanny allowances of slave life throughout Latin America.

The Catholic Approach in Chocó
As described in analyzing the story of Doña María, black slaves in Chocó, who were the primary source of slave labor there, were afforded many antithetical liberties. The Church often had overt influence, as in persuading mine owners to build chapels and secure priests—by means of a fee of usually three pesos per slave per baptism, burial or marriage done—for the Christian instruction of slaves and to give sacraments. When owners could not pay, the Church assigned priests anyway. Slaves were required to attend Sunday mass and do certain prayers following work in the mines at least four times per week. Owners and mine administrators admonished each other to offer “due example of Christianity and religions in order that the rest [of the slaves] might follow the same path.” The Church also encouraged the manumission, or freeing, of slaves, eventually allowing masters to manumit a slave by mere declaration in a church before a priest. This practice was common enough, in fact, that on special holidays or to commemorate a special event like a marriage, masters would sometimes manumit a slave. Even enslaved blacks had the personal liberty of earning money in gold: on their free days, slaves were allowed to keep the gold they obtained by mining.

As Leyes de Indias provided, slaves in Chocó were adequately taken care of and not generally abused. If abuse ever did arise (or for any other variety of reasons, including the protection of personal property, the changing of masters, overwork or reunion with separated family) slaves were afforded the right to use of the court system—even being given legal counsel in the person of a Protector of the Poor, who was necessarily appointed by municipal governments for the provision of legal counsel for slaves and the impoverished. As well-illustrated by the 1809 case of Ramón Chacón, Colombian courts viewed freedom claims favorably: This slave requested that the courts compel his master to accept his fair price of freedom, which he was prepared to pay and which the master had rejected, and the court sided with him, saying, “…no master can reasonably deny liberty to the slave that offers the fair price for that natural liberty to which all men are at first born….” Other cases like this compelled masters to sell children to their parents instead of to some distant province away from them, and to buy or sell spouses together.

It is out of this culture of respect for slaves—black slaves in this case—that the less oppressive color line in Colombia respecting the Chocó develop. The Church’s influence was pervasive and invaluable in this; contrastingly, in the United States, the influence of the Anglican Church was weaker, and thus fell short of the same moral push, and slavery—subsequently the color line—assumed a harsher posture.

Conclusion
In Choco, racial divisions, although physiologically apparent, have been mitigated in terms of a "color line" by a blend of historical exposure, natural racial segmentation, and the pervasive historical influence of the Catholic Church.

