Recent reading
Sep. 4th, 2023 06:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luzulaThink of England by K J Charles (2014)
This was (with one exception) so entirely up my alley! \o/ I love the setup with two main characters who are quite different and don't know if they can trust each other, but who are forced by circumstances to work together. And then strike sparks, obviously--this has some really great sexual tension and great character interactions. The one exception was the forceful noncon kissing at the end. I'm guessing this is a romance trope? I would have hated it in a het romance, but I don't much like it in an m/m romance either, especially as the character coded more masculine is doing it to the character coded more feminine. Like, if Daniel has objections to or fears about the relationship and what it entails, how does that go away because of some forceful noncon kissing? Use your words, arrrgh. I mean, I don’t mind characters being occasionally fucked up, but the narrative just bears Archie out that this is a reasonable thing to do, instead of it backfiring on him.
Toussaint Louverture: A Revolutionary Life by Philippe Girard (2016)
This had been on my ereader for years, probably bought on some ebook sale; I picked it up now because it's a part of the 18th century I knew little about. The only thing I knew beforehand was that Toussaint Louverture (which my dictation program picks up as "to some liberty", very fitting) led a successful revolt against slavery on Haiti around the time of the French Revolution. He seems to have been a complicated man!
It's interesting how the 18th century politics I already know about played out in Saint Domingue (which became Haiti). At first, it was the white colonizers who wanted independence from France (because they were afraid the French revolution would take their privileges away), and the enslaved black people fought as royalists! I guess this is not as surprising as you might think--people often seem to hate their immediate overlords the most (peasants their feudal landlord, enslaved people their slave drivers and owners) while the king appears as a far-off benevolent figure who would fix things if only he knew. And in fact the French king had enacted some legislation to try to reign in cruelties in slavery, under the pressure of abolitionists. But over time, Toussaint Louverture and other leaders shifted over to "rights of man" arguments, similar to the French revolutionaries, and he seems to have been fiercely resentful of racism.
I can't help but note some of the arguments of the plantation owners, because plus ca change: "Actually our slaves are perfectly happy and would never revolt if not for OUTSIDE AGITATORS!" "Actually WE are the slaves, because government wants to take our liberties [i e our property rights, i e our right to own people] away!"
It's also interesting how racism increased during the 17th and 18th centuries--at first, social station/class sometimes trumped race, such that people of color could be plantation owners, and poor white people were classed with poor free people of color. But at the end of the period, there was a crackdown on wealthier free people of color, who often owned enslaved people of their own or aspired to it, to keep them down economically and socially. Toussaint Louverture was born enslaved but was freed later on, so he was part of that class.
I can see why he was often called "the black Napoleon" at the time – he was a military leader in a revolutionary war, and after his side had won, he installed himself as military dictator for life. Also he became the richest man on the island, which does not surprise me, because getting private gain from public office is pretty much the standard for 18th century elites. He upheld the abolition of slavery, but he also ordered the former field slaves back to the same work on their previous estates and used the army to enforce his labor laws. At first, people could switch estates once a year, but after a while this was not allowed. The sale of small plots of land was forbidden, to prevent people from setting up small farms of their own. This is admittedly better than being enslaved (you can’t be bought and sold, and you’re at least supposed to get a wage) but the field workers revolted against these conditions, and Louverture had several thousand of them killed. (The book notes that white French abolitionists might have used a similar system, had they had control of the island—it’s not slavery, after all…)
So why did he do this? Obviously he stood to gain from it financially since he now owned many of these estates, but it seems he mainly wanted to prove that a country with black leadership could hold its own economically – the main export was sugar which apparently required large plantations and refineries. When Napoleon (temporarily) conquered the island back after a few years, his representative said "I will more or less follow Toussaint’s labor code, which is very good, and so strict, that I would never have dared to propose one like this on my own."
After reading the book, I read four reviews of it in peer-reviewed journals, since after all I don’t know this subject and don’t know if the book could be biased. The reviews all agree that the book is based on thorough archival research which has uncovered many new sources which were not known before, and they don’t disagree with any facts. Two of the reviews however don’t agree with the author about some of his interpretations of Louverture’s motivations, and don’t think he’s generous enough towards him. It doesn’t surprise me that interpretations vary – a figure like this is bound to be controversial.
This was (with one exception) so entirely up my alley! \o/ I love the setup with two main characters who are quite different and don't know if they can trust each other, but who are forced by circumstances to work together. And then strike sparks, obviously--this has some really great sexual tension and great character interactions. The one exception was the forceful noncon kissing at the end. I'm guessing this is a romance trope? I would have hated it in a het romance, but I don't much like it in an m/m romance either, especially as the character coded more masculine is doing it to the character coded more feminine. Like, if Daniel has objections to or fears about the relationship and what it entails, how does that go away because of some forceful noncon kissing? Use your words, arrrgh. I mean, I don’t mind characters being occasionally fucked up, but the narrative just bears Archie out that this is a reasonable thing to do, instead of it backfiring on him.
Toussaint Louverture: A Revolutionary Life by Philippe Girard (2016)
This had been on my ereader for years, probably bought on some ebook sale; I picked it up now because it's a part of the 18th century I knew little about. The only thing I knew beforehand was that Toussaint Louverture (which my dictation program picks up as "to some liberty", very fitting) led a successful revolt against slavery on Haiti around the time of the French Revolution. He seems to have been a complicated man!
It's interesting how the 18th century politics I already know about played out in Saint Domingue (which became Haiti). At first, it was the white colonizers who wanted independence from France (because they were afraid the French revolution would take their privileges away), and the enslaved black people fought as royalists! I guess this is not as surprising as you might think--people often seem to hate their immediate overlords the most (peasants their feudal landlord, enslaved people their slave drivers and owners) while the king appears as a far-off benevolent figure who would fix things if only he knew. And in fact the French king had enacted some legislation to try to reign in cruelties in slavery, under the pressure of abolitionists. But over time, Toussaint Louverture and other leaders shifted over to "rights of man" arguments, similar to the French revolutionaries, and he seems to have been fiercely resentful of racism.
I can't help but note some of the arguments of the plantation owners, because plus ca change: "Actually our slaves are perfectly happy and would never revolt if not for OUTSIDE AGITATORS!" "Actually WE are the slaves, because government wants to take our liberties [i e our property rights, i e our right to own people] away!"
It's also interesting how racism increased during the 17th and 18th centuries--at first, social station/class sometimes trumped race, such that people of color could be plantation owners, and poor white people were classed with poor free people of color. But at the end of the period, there was a crackdown on wealthier free people of color, who often owned enslaved people of their own or aspired to it, to keep them down economically and socially. Toussaint Louverture was born enslaved but was freed later on, so he was part of that class.
I can see why he was often called "the black Napoleon" at the time – he was a military leader in a revolutionary war, and after his side had won, he installed himself as military dictator for life. Also he became the richest man on the island, which does not surprise me, because getting private gain from public office is pretty much the standard for 18th century elites. He upheld the abolition of slavery, but he also ordered the former field slaves back to the same work on their previous estates and used the army to enforce his labor laws. At first, people could switch estates once a year, but after a while this was not allowed. The sale of small plots of land was forbidden, to prevent people from setting up small farms of their own. This is admittedly better than being enslaved (you can’t be bought and sold, and you’re at least supposed to get a wage) but the field workers revolted against these conditions, and Louverture had several thousand of them killed. (The book notes that white French abolitionists might have used a similar system, had they had control of the island—it’s not slavery, after all…)
So why did he do this? Obviously he stood to gain from it financially since he now owned many of these estates, but it seems he mainly wanted to prove that a country with black leadership could hold its own economically – the main export was sugar which apparently required large plantations and refineries. When Napoleon (temporarily) conquered the island back after a few years, his representative said "I will more or less follow Toussaint’s labor code, which is very good, and so strict, that I would never have dared to propose one like this on my own."
After reading the book, I read four reviews of it in peer-reviewed journals, since after all I don’t know this subject and don’t know if the book could be biased. The reviews all agree that the book is based on thorough archival research which has uncovered many new sources which were not known before, and they don’t disagree with any facts. Two of the reviews however don’t agree with the author about some of his interpretations of Louverture’s motivations, and don’t think he’s generous enough towards him. It doesn’t surprise me that interpretations vary – a figure like this is bound to be controversial.
(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-04 06:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-04 06:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-06 05:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-04 07:48 pm (UTC)KJ Charles is my favourite romance ever. Think of England is just delicious. I can't for the life of me remember the non-con kissing. I'll have to pay attention next time I re-read. Why is my memory so crap.
(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-06 07:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-04 09:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-06 05:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-06 07:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-05 05:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-06 07:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-06 05:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-09-06 07:54 pm (UTC)Yeah, I had gathered that some such thing was going on! Thanks for the input. : )