yr13_ia_2007_macphail_c

=Evaluation of Sources (250-400 words)=

Source 1
This source can be seen as valuable, as it displays the true horrors of the slave trade. It gives a broad picture of what was happening during that time. For example, in the source, the way in which slaves were thrown overboard is exemplified. Despite the fact that this did not occur onboard the Amistad, it is valuable as it aids Spielberg in his overall purpose – showing the horrors of the slave trade, and bringing to light values which we must use today. Spielberg obviously saw it as necessary to take creative liberties in order to the give the audience a truthful perspective on what the slave trade was like. After meeting an historian who authored a book on Amistad, Spielberg said, “I’m so happy to meet one of the historians who has had the courage to write about such a controversial subject in a matter that has enabled me to put the story on the screen.” It is clear here that Spielberg, despite finding it necessary to stretch some truths, thought that this would not have an effect on the overall purpose.

However, the source also has limitations. Historical records confirm that slaves onboard the Amistad were never actually thrown overboard, but rather, such events took place on board the Zong slave ship. Therefore, it could be said that Spielberg may have taken other liberties with the film, and truths may have been stretched to make the film more applicable for Hollywood. This could definitely be seen as a limitation as stretched truths have no value to the historian. Another limitation that should be considered is that Spielberg may have overdramatised events in the film, in order to generate more ticket sales and ultimately more notoriety for him.

Source 2
The following source is taken from Olaudah Equiano's autobiography of his time as a slave on board the slave ships. "I have seen some of these poor African prisoners most severely cut for attempting to do so, and hourly whipped for not eating. This indeed was often the case with myself. In a little time after, amongst the poor chained men, I found some of my own nation, which in a small degree gave ease to my mind. I inquired of these that was to be done with us. They gave me to understand we were to be carried to these white people's country to work for them. I was then a little revived, and thought if it were no worse than working my situation was not so desperate. But still I feared I should be put to death [...] for I had never seen among any people such instances of brutal cruelty [...] One white man in particular I saw, when we were permitted to be on deck, flogged [the slaves] so unmercifully with a large rope near the foremast that he died in consequence of it; and they tossed him over the side as they would have done a brute."[|[1]]

This source could be seen as valuable, as it is a first hand account of the conditions on a slave ship. It gives the reader an insight to the other side of the story. There are very few versions of the story of the Transatlantic slave trade, that were written by slaves. Most versions are written by historians studying the slave trade, who in turn, study documents written by American and British people involved in court battles such as the one in Amistad.

However, this source also has limitations. There has been some debate as to whether or not Olaudah Equiano, was actually a slave who endured the slave trade. Brycchan Carey stated that "if Carretta's evidence - Equiano's baptismal records, and a naval muster roll - is accurate, there is a possibility that Equiano never visited Africa. The early parts of his autobiography may reflect the oral history of other slaves, combined with information Equiano gleaned from books he had read about Africa." This would therefore mean, that he could have based his book on the experiences of other slaves. In the note featured at the beginning of his biography, it is stated that “most major dates in Olaudah Equiano’s life should be considered approximate; they vary from source to source.” It is therefore possible that Equiano was never actually a slave, but rather, could have been related to one, or simply heard stories, and written his own interpretation of what had happened. However, assuming that Equiano was a slave, would his language skills have been accurate enough to portray the events he saw? A limited use of language would have restricted his description of events that he saw. As well as this, although having been present at the time, it is possible that Equiano would never have known the full circumstances of the slave trade, and therefore his account would have been a single testimony, and not necessarily what the whole of the slave trade was like. It is most likely that the book was "ghost written" for him, following interviews.

[|[1]] The Life of Olaudah Equiano or Gustavs Vassa, the African, page 32