View the H-Africa Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Africa's July 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-Africa's July 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-Africa home page.
I do agree with Richard Bradshaw (with all due respect) that recent scholarship has celebrated the role of religion and religious impulses in the abolition movement, but this is not to say that it was the only factor calling for abolition. My response, "you left out that fact," did not discount the religious impulse, as Claire and Richard will like readers to think. During the recent conference in Britain to celebrate the 200th anniversary of abolition, where scholars had occasion to ACCESS MORAL PROGRESS IN HISTORY, the select group of scholars did not conclude that only religious factors were responsible for abolition, as Richard's quotation indicate, but went further to add that "surely other important factors were at play." To quote the conference, "Prominent abolitionists like William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, and Thomas Fowell Buxton used Christian arguments to combat [the] inhuman bondage, but surely other, material factors were in play." If Richard had move down the page he would have noticed, the distinguished historian David's conclusion that, "while it is important to appreciate the complex interplay of economic, political, and ideological factors, we must recognize the significance of a moral vision that could transcend narrow self-interest ...", we must recognize does not discount all other factors, it only appreciates and in a sense acknowledges the humanitarian impulse, to which I also ascribe. As to Claire Dehon's assertion that abolition had nothing to do with the economic, I am not too sure if I should respond. The above answers the question. Historical phenomenon is better explained not with a single factor but with varied perspectives. Though we historians sift through data to push through what we want people to read, (myself included) we should recognize the danger involved in quoting out of context, or leaving the essentials out when we quote sources. I am not among those who hesitate to accept, as Davis put it, that something as economically significant as the slave trade could be abolished on essentially humanitarian grounds, but then other material considerations, such as the ideological, political and economic were at play. I insist that we place comments in the right perspectives when we make references to them. Abdulai Iddrisu St Olaf College
|