The British West-Indies were primary producers of sugar, the highest import by Britain, therefore sugar was identified as coexisting with slavery. Slavery became synonymous with sugar; the British “seeing slavery only where they saw sugar”. Anti-slavery advocates determined “commerce was the great emancipator”; to end slavery sugar production in the West Indies must end. The boycott of sugar from the West Indies became the primary form of resistance by upper class individuals in Britain...
The sugar boycotts were spearheaded by bourgeois women due to their involvement in the consumption of sugar both symbolically and literally. Women were at the forefront of the boycott due to their consumer and cultural power. Women’s roles as domestic servants, entertainers and housewives gave them the ability to control sugar consumption.
Abolitionists targeted women because of their purchasing power over sugar in items like tea and pastries. Gender roles also assumed women to be barer of empathy and virtue. Women were more easily understood to empathize with the experiences’ of others and therefore they were held responsible for sugar boycotts. Similarly, women were understood to be proponents of virtue and were expected to be involved in humanitarian causes.
A pamphlet circulated claiming that by “refusing to use any articles which have been cultivated by Slaves, woman, feeble as she is, may do more for the suppression of the inhuman Slave Trade, than all the ships of war that have ever ranged the coast of Africa.” Women’s political power was confined to domestic actions such as purchasing power within the home (Sussman). The idea that a united sugar boycott could stop the slave trade became empowering for women who were not involved in politics.
Symbolically, sweet was associated with women. Women were makers of sugary delicacies, hostesses of tea parties and producers of breast milk (the origins of sweetness)....
For most British, imaging the African slave’s agricultural experience in the West Indies was too removed from their lived experience. The abolitionist movement employed the metaphor of the physicality of the slave with the consumption of sugar. The consumption of sugar was understood to be synonymous with the consumption of the slave’s blood, sweat and tears.
By boycotting they were able to demonstrate their dissatisfaction directly to the slave owners. This was effective because it was a tactic used by ordinary women who had no control in the public sphere.
They were not in a position to have political influence or make any public displays but in the home they were in charge of buying and cooking food so by boycotting products that had been grown, picked or made by slaves they could have a direct impact on sales and therefore encourage change. For example over 300,000 people stopped buying and using sugar that had been grown by slaves on plantations. Such a large number demonstrates that the issue was extremely popular with women and throughout society.
Anyway, mobs of wine moms can change the world...
No comments:
Post a Comment