Part 1: SummaryGallay Alan’s book, The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670-1717 examines how Africans shaped their lives as well as their masters. The author argues that the desire to manage Indian labor was connected to the development of the plantations as well as the English empires. Alan supports his arguments by saying that the war in 1665 began the approach to using black slaves after the collapse of the Indian slave trade and European citizens as well as African existence were inextricably related to a blend of factors that could not be avoided by anybody in the South. Alan believes that slave trade had a significant impact on slaves and their masters as well.
Part 2: Article Critique
It is important to state that the arguments presented by the writer are significantly persuasive. In fact, he has used excellent examples to demonstrate how slave trade impacted the slaves and their masters. Additionally, he has compared the effects of slave-dealing in states that the trade was prevalent. The environment that the writer discusses sheds some light concerning their working conditions. The thesis statement is well supported by examples to show how the trade impacted the two. It is important to note that the author’s arguments are characterized by much strength. For example, he provides a vivid description of the events that were taking place as well as the date. Equally, he has critically criticized other historians who have done research earlier over the same issue, something that has formed the basis of his argument. He also argues that Indian histories need a focus on internal dynamics instead of individual relationships with forces outside. He has presented the variations that resulted from local histories and regional cultures combined to form diverse people and contends that if external forces are examined, the author argues that historian capture native past that is based on tribal. Besides, the author contends that individual state had unique histories regarding its recent activities, slave trade included. He has provided the example of South Carolina and Virginia, which he holds that they had distinctive violent colonial histories. One of the fundamental distinctions between the two states is that there were distinct diseases, warfare, and migration of the original inhabitants. There was domestic violence in Virginia, which were fueled by external threats. On the other hand, South Carolina was characterized by imperial competition. Some of the slaves in the Puritan elite developed a repressive society that monitored individual behavior, but the elites from Carolina did not interfere with personal activities in search for wealth. The writer has also explicitly indicated that although many historians have myths of America’s history that hold that Indian people as one who cannot adapt to the new environment, Native Americans encountered various challenges that were facilitated by the introduction of the modern technology, individuals, and new ideas. The comparison that he makes helps one to understand the experiences of slaves in different states. Indeed, the writer has provided useful information in a logical manner that every reader would like to examine.
Evidently, the results of the discussions lead to confusion that is caused by the justification of slave trade. For example, the issue of Carolinas being God fearing people and at the same time exploiting other individuals is disturbing. Another consequence of the argument is that people can understand the experience of people under colonial rule and the challenges that they faced under their masters. It is crucial to care about the argument because we may end up viewing slavery as justified acts and start exploiting other individuals. Moreover, we should care about the writer’s propositions because if we do not evaluate them appropriately, we may not receive the intended message. The questions that the text leads me include why did the colonialists mistreat people, yet, they played a critical role in helping them to develop? Second, did the leaders of the state see any value of making individuals their slaves and at the same time deny them their fundamental rights?