In the 19th century, the slave trade was conventional in the American continents. Human trafficking was a typical business activity in the region, where Africans were sold in large farms to provide labor in large plantations. The United States and other developing nations such Brazil have a similar history with the slave trade. The abolishment processes in these two countries were through the development of anti-slavery laws that aimed at denying dominant whites the rights to own slaves.
In the United States, the 13th Amendment was a pivotal point for the abolishment of human trafficking. A section of the American politician known as anti-slavery Republican Party sought to counter the expansion of slave trade and not suppress it entirely. As a result, the effectiveness of the American efforts to abolish slave business remains questionable. The scope of the regulations made may have played a significant part in promoting ethnic divisions in the US. Regarding Brazil, the foundation of the slave trade was quite extensive; hence, played a substantial role in preventing an active development of the anti-slavery movement.
During the 1700s and 1800s, many nations such as the British Empire, France, and North America were abolishing slave trade. However, Brazil had the number of slave imports accelerate at an average rate of 5.7% during this period. Similar to the U.S., the effectiveness of the laws used to control slave trade in Brazil is questionable. Thus, this essay aims at comparing the manner in which U.S. and Brazil handled the transition of former slaves to free citizens. The primary objective is to determine the reasons ethnic conflict reduced in one country than the other. Notably, this paper will use historical intuitionalism and cultural theories to compare the two countries. However, the exploration is limited to the explanation of significant differences that exist between US and Brazil in handling the transition from slavery to citizenship and the recent appearance of ethnic conflict in the two countries.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theories
3. Comparative Analysis
4. Assessment
Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this study is to analyze the historical transition from slavery to citizenship in the United States and Brazil, specifically investigating why ethnic conflict persisted more significantly in one nation than the other by applying historical institutionalism and cultural theories.
- Historical influence of anti-slavery laws on modern policy-making.
- Role of institutional frameworks in shaping contemporary social divisions.
- Cultural dynamics and the impact of perceived racial hierarchies on social integration.
- Comparative effectiveness of government interventions and civil rights movements in addressing racial segregation.
Excerpt from the Book
Comparative Analysis
Slave trade succeeded in promoting racial segregation and oppression of the blacks. As a result, American civil rights movement led the protest against racial segregation and discrimination, especially in the Southern parts of the federation. The efforts by the blacks to resist racial oppression formed the basis for the development of civil rights, which saw some African-American leaders channel their activism and develop activation movements. For instance, some movements such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) used the legal system to fight against racial segregation in 1909 (Avidit, Matthew, & Maya, 2016). Despite such efforts, racial separations continued to exist. For example, after the great migration between 1910 and 1920, the Blacks continued to face exclusion and discrimination in employment and segregation in schools. Other forms of isolation during this period included separation in public accommodation facilities. However, the case was extreme to the south.
Racial segregation in the Northern America was not as tremendous as in the Southern part. For instance, anti-racial laws protected the Northern black men from extreme racial exclusions; hence, they faced fewer barriers to voting. As their number increased, their vote became a significant factor in elections (Daron & James, 2008). However, the American leadership never allowed complete freedom and enjoyment of rights among the blacks. The efforts by President Franklin Roosevelt provided the best support to the African Americans. However, the legislation and policies that he developed allowed the existence of a considerable extent of discrimination. Therefore, the government significantly failed in establishing an adequate support to the blacks.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the historical context of the slave trade in the Americas and defines the scope of comparing the transition to citizenship in the U.S. and Brazil.
Theories: Outlines the theoretical framework, utilizing historical institutionalism and cultural theory to explain how past institutional rules and cultural dynamics influence modern social divisions.
Comparative Analysis: Examines the specific historical developments, racial segregation patterns, and reformist movements within both the United States and Brazil.
Assessment: Synthesizes the findings, concluding that past institutional practices continue to shape current racial attitudes and social inequalities in both nations.
Keywords
Slavery, Abolishment, Ethnic Conflict, United States, Brazil, Historical Institutionalism, Cultural Theory, Racial Segregation, Civil Rights, Citizenship, Social Division, Anti-slavery Laws, African-American, Inequality, Political Leadership.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the historical transition from slavery to citizenship in the United States and Brazil, focusing on how institutional and cultural factors have influenced modern-day ethnic relations.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include the impact of anti-slavery legislation, the persistence of racial segregation, the role of political leadership in civil rights, and the comparison of social integration strategies in both countries.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to determine why ethnic conflict reduced in one country compared to the other by analyzing the long-term impact of historical institutional choices.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The study utilizes historical institutionalism and cultural theory as conceptual lenses to evaluate the development of social schemes and institutional responses to slavery over time.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The body covers the history of slavery, the transition to citizenship, the analysis of civil rights movements, regional differences in segregation, and the lasting effects of these historical processes on modern society.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include slavery, ethnic conflict, institutionalism, cultural theory, racial segregation, civil rights, and citizenship.
How does the Golden Law in Brazil relate to the findings?
The Golden Law of 1888 is identified as the formal end of slavery in Brazil, though the study notes that it did not eliminate racial gaps or social inequality, similar to the American experience.
What role do 'quilombos' play in the analysis of Brazil?
Quilombos are discussed as historical and modern communities formed by escaped slaves, representing an attempt to maintain traditional social structures and pursue racial equality.
How does the concept of 'grid' and 'group' apply to the cultural theory used?
These terms are used within cultural theory to conceptualize how individuals establish social schemes to manage risk and exert authority, explaining the split between high and low cultures.
What is the conclusion regarding the government's role?
The paper concludes that in both nations, political leadership often failed to provide comprehensive support for the total eradication of racial discrimination, allowing historical prejudices to persist into the modern era.
- Quote paper
- Amos wesonga (Author), 2016, Ethnic conflicts and slave trade. Comparing the United States and Brazil, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/429316
