Short Essay 3

When one examines the contrast between the African-Latino identity of the Caribbean and South American Atlantic world and the African-American identity of the Colonial and North American Atlantic world, any point of reference must address the fundamental differences in the political systems that freedmen and slaves lived under in these two related, but distinct, spheres. The peoples of color living in the Caribbean and South American sphere were residents of colonies that were part of a wider imperial system governed by various competing monarchies. The peoples of color living in the Colonial and North American Sphere were residents of a republican system of government that was inherently hostile to the idea of the sort of paternalism so evident in monarchies. Simply put, patriotism to faraway European powers meant obedience and subservience, whereas patriotism to the fledgling United States meant direct engagement in civic life. It is these two differing templates that must form the starting point for understanding the different identities of the African-Latinos and the African Americans in the Atlantic World.

Bolster, speaking of the American Revolution, notes that “before the war, nearly every person of color throughout the British North American colonies was a slave; by the war’s end, almost 60,000 black Americans had their freedom” (153). Just as white colonists were recreating their identities as citizens of the republic, so too were many former slaves recreating their identities as freed men of color. Bolster asserts that this resulted in many former slaves expressing “a radical African-American patriotism, demanding black inclusion (not assimilation) in the United States” (5). What is both interesting and tragic about this adoption of a unique and novel American identity on the part of the people of color, is that because the new nation lacked the kind of entrenched social hierarchy and established and legitimate pathways for social advancement that the Caribbean and South American colonies possessed, black people in America would find themselves effectively shut out of the wider society of the United States in a way that their colonial brethren farther south did not experience. Thus, although African-Americans lived in a “freer” society, it was the African-Latinos who had greater social opportunity.

An illustration of this expanded social opportunity enjoyed by African-Latinos can be seen in the access to recourse through the Catholic Church as well as political recourse through legal petitions to the Crown found in the Iberian colonies in the Atlantic world. By having access of this kind, African-Latinos were able to legitimize many of their claims and institutions. For example, a will and related testimony dating from 1623 expresses that one Juan Roque wished to bequeath his home to the Catholic Zape Confraternity to which he belonged (McKnight and Garofalo , 95). When controversy arose regarding this will, the Zape Confraternity turned to the Spanish Authorities in Mexico City to solve the dispute. What makes this situation remarkable was that not all of the members of the Zape Confraternity were free men, some of them were slaves (McKnight and Garofalo, 99). Under this model, persons of color, both free and slave were allowed access to the Church, could form organizations, had recourse through the legal system, and could even testify in court on the behalf of another. It is hardly surprising then, that African-Latinos retained a distinctly European element to their collective identity, even as their northern counterparts, who enjoyed none of these social advantages, were attempting to create a new identity in a society that was, ironically enough, supposed to be freer and more egalitarian than the old monarchies.

Unfortunately, the free society of the United States would soon relegate the African-Americans to the lowest levels of that society and, without recourse to the Church or Crown, the African-Americans would discover that very little could be done to alleviate this disenfranchisement. It seems that whenever the African-American community found and economic niche to exploit, the wider society would act to eliminate such an opportunity. Bolster (172) notes that “in 1821, the U.S. attorney general, William Wirt, ruled that ‘free persons of color in Virginia are not citizens of the United States, within the intent and meaning of the acts regulating foreign and coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command vessels.’” Thus with one legal decision, many of the most prosperous black seamen were summarily denied their livelihoods. This is the sort of exclusion that served to inform the creation of a uniquely African-American identity, one that expressed great disappointment with the American experiment, while still striving to set the system right.

The contrasts between the African-Latino identity and the African-American identity are, to the author, clear. While the African-Latinos were relatively enfranchised in an established social system that, although it had clear boundaries, did contain stable paths for economic and social advancement, the African-Americans were part of a social system that was constantly in flux and worked to deny them any social and economic opportunities that they might find. Thus, it might be said that the African-Latino remained an insider while the African-American became an outsider.