Minister, lecturer clash over slavery

Were slaves as helpless as often portrayed? This point was hotly debated during a symposium on Emancipation on Thursday at La Joya Complex, jointly hosted by ASJA, the Islamic Resource Society and the Trinidad Muslim League. The protaganists were Minister of Social Development Mustapha Abdul-Hamid and University of the West Indies (UWI) historian, Prof Fitz Baptiste. Even as each advanced his own views of slavery, Abdul-Hamid injected some humour by disclosing he was once the pupil of Baptiste before whom he previously had to defend his case. The duo differed in their beliefs as to how African families had fared under slavery. Speaking in place of an absent Prime Minister Patrick Manning, Abdul-Hamid said slavery destroyed African families.

“The worst aspect of slavery was the deliberate destruction of the institution of the family by the State using all its resources and power. Indentureship didn’t do to East Indians what slavery did to the Africans.” He said centuries later parts of Trinidad and Tobago still suffered the decimation of the family.” Baptiste had a different view, however. “Slavery didn’t destroy the African family to the extent history tells us, but because of this myth, people are ‘acting out.’ We maintained the family.” Baptiste added that under slavery, some slaves found creative ways to earn money, and were hence sometimes even able to buy their own freedom. Baptiste also noted that despite being regarded by their European masters as mere chattel and being suppressed by slave laws, the enslaved Africans came from advanced societies.

“These societies had religion, economy, art and asthetics. They knew of the tiniest star — Sirius — long before the Europeans.” Baptiste remarked on the importance of the Haitian Revolution of 1804. “San Domingue (Haiti) touched off slave revolts in almost every other colony in the western hemisphere. My theory is that it was the high cost of suppressing San Domingue and others that made Europeans put Emancipation on the agenda, not humanitarianism, nor, with apologies to Dr Williams, was it “Capitalism and Slavery.” Speaking again, Abdul-Hamid retorted that people had differing views of history. He remarked that in his view the labelling of slaves as chattel plus their selective breeding by the masters would have damaged their family structure.