Historians face many challenges throughout their carrier, and one of the most important tasks involves the reevaluation of scholarly work. This process brings to light previous errors, and new ideas to produce a more accurate understanding of a particular subject. Thomas Flory’s essay, “Fugitive Slaves and Free Society: The Case of Brazil,” successfully attempted to reshape the concepts surrounding quilombos. He rejected the outdated theories of Gilberto Freyre, and tried to distance himself from the “orthodox polarities” of contemporary ideas involving resistance and accommodation. Flory attempted to answer the questions, “[w]here were quilombos formed, by whom, and with what motivation” by analyzing their economic circumstances in Brazilian society. In the process he highlighted the fallacies of previous assumptions, and de-emphasized the roles of race and culture in the quilombos of colonial Brazil.
The first issue that Flory tackled involved the location of quilombos, specifically their distance from white settlements. There was no consensus on this topic. Works from R. K. Kent and Edison Carneiro claimed that fugitive slave societies formed as far away as possible from other settlements illustrating a cultural rejection of European society. Stuart Schwartz gave a contradicting theory, stating that most quilombos were created near white communities. The close proximity was to facilitate the parasitic activities of raiding, theft, and extortion. Flory suggested that the distance of quilombos from white society was largely dependent on the economic situation of the runaways. In an era of mining and agriculture, fugitive slave societies located deep within the hinterland were probably settled because of the discovery of new sources of wealth free from European control. Conversely, quilombos dependent on trade would not be located too far from a commercial market. Many farm based economies produced surpluses that could have been sold abroad. Even if these agricultural settlements were all self-sufficient, and refused to trade, mining quilombos existed on the assumption that there were markets for the minerals produced. Criminal activities did occur, but not to the extent that Schwartz implied. This conjecture, however, was understandable. Illegal activities received more attention than everyday market transactions from government officials, which made up the majority of primary sources on this subject. A closer analysis indicated that the distance of a quilombo from a European settlement was dependent on the economic opportunities of the runaway slaves.
The modern definition of a quilombo, as a runaway slave community, leads to the assumption that these societies consisted only of fugitive slaves. Flory indicated that this was not the case. A homogenous quilombo would only have formed if the runaways came from a single source, but even slaves that fled in mass often segregated into smaller groups. Contact with other individuals outside of European settlements would occur, and this lead to the development of a society based on a variety of people. When quilombos were raided government officials often noted a number of Indians, free blacks, military deserters, and criminals. These free blacks may have been slaves. In a society were manumission was common, and without their master’s presence to identify their legal status upon arrest, a slave could emancipate themselves by running away. The lack of primary sources, unfortunately, made it difficult to accurately distinguish between the free blacks and runaway slaves in a quilombo. Contemporary definitions lead to further confusion about a quilombo’s population. An official from Bahia regarded unsupervised blacks as quilombos, and the foreigner John Luccock in Rio de Janeiro vaguely described them as a bunch of hooligans. Even if the modern definition regarded quilombos as runaway slave societies, it was important for Flory to note these historical exceptions in order to produce a more accurate representation of the past.
The answer to the question of why quilombos formed seemed rather obvious. Individuals generally disliked bondage and forced labor, and presumably would try to escape these conditions. Some historians, as mentioned above, believed that quilombos attempted to recreate the tribal societies of Africa. This simplistic explanation, however, failed to denote the complexities of this situation. Slavery existed throughout the known world, and many Africans were probably familiar with the concept before arriving to the Americas. This may have resulted in a general understanding of their slave status as suggested by certain historical events. The sugar mill Engenho of Santana, for example, experienced two massive slave revolts one in 1789 and the other in 1821. In 1789 the slaves did not simply runaway and form their own society. Their actions represented an attempt to gain leverage, and express grievances in regards to the labor assignments and the amount of leisure time allowed. They accepted their position as slaves, but wanted to improve their working environment. They seemed to have had no desire to retreat into the wilderness and form a tribal society. By the time of 1821, the slaves appeared to have realized that their labor negotiations were futile, and decided to create their own plantation. They occupied the sugar mill for three years, and although it was unknown if sugar production continued the mill was operational in 1824 when the legitimate owner took over. The slaves, however, did not return to work at this time. Instead they formed their own plantation to grow manioc. This event indicated that quilombos were more likely to duplicate European settlements than create tribal societies.
By placing an economic emphasis on quilombos, Thomas Flory illustrated compelling theories and questioned old ideals. He rejected the notion that Africans in colonial Brazil tried to create a tribal society totally separated from European settlements. Quilombos represent a more complex community that had direct economic ties to white society. They grew crops and/or mined precious minerals for trading purposes, and to a varying degree mimicked the people they were running away from. Flory also highlighted modern and historical uses of the word quilombo, which denoted possible issues with primary sources and previous arguments. Collectively these findings produced a more historically correct interpretation of quilombos in colonial Brazil.
No comments:
Post a Comment