Stated in the readings and the website, were information pertaining to slavery, covering who the slaves were, how they were treated and their reaction to their treatment. Homberger shares with us the ones who were brought into the City of New York, which were the African Americans, and tells us the roles they played. They were given jobs as domestic workers and also worked and lived as slaves under horrible conditions. These conditions got worse in time due to the fact that there were signs of slaves rebelling or disobeying instructions – they revolted, therefore steps were taken to tighten the control of slaves. It was also stated that slaves were accused of robberies and seemingly spontaneous fires which then resulted in numerous deaths.On the other hand, whereas the Homberger focuses on one aspect of slavery, where African Americans were brutally used as domestic workers, the website goes in somewhat of a detail aspects of different areas of the slavery. For example, they begin with data on the Atlantic Slave Trade, then it goes on to expound on the slaves’ move to build their own Amsterdam: to protect themselves against native peoples and rival English colonies which contributed to their “half freedom”. The website then gives and overview on each step to the slaves’ full freedom ,which depicts their fight for liberation.
The sources were designed in different ways to be beneficial to different readers. The writer’s aim of their readings was to make the reader fully cognizant of their main focus on slavery, hence, focusing on specific areas, while the website summarizes each aspect of the whole slavery era. Therefore, the readings are more specific as they focus on a particular aspect while the website covers slavery in general, but gives just an overview of each aspect that lead to the slaves’ consequent freedom.
I agree with your analysis that the texts and the website give different aspects of the life as a slave. And indeed, they do help the readers to understand the differences. However, I feel as if the texts and the website need to sound a little less pro-slavery.
I thought that the website gave a more in depth view of what slavery was like rather than a summary since the website gave specific examples ad well as stuggles of specific historical characters.
I felt Horton was rather anti-slavery. The website content was adequate and didn’t really sound pro-slavery because of the portrayal of the slaves hardships and how they describe ‘moral outrage’.
Most of the texts were anti-slavery but i guess they tried to present it in a less biased viewpoint that’s why you might have thought they needed to be a little less pro-slavery. The arguments were all very interesting, especially Horton’s and gave many different perspective on the lives of slaves and how they adapted to changes.
i feel this was a great analysis of slavery and this reading worked well with the topic in the current book reading. Slavery was a huge problem back in the day and she discussed it perfectly.
I think that slavery should definitly be a part of the midterm, because it is such an important point in the history of New york