 Gullah's Radiant Light
VOLUME 19, NUMBER 3, WINTER 2004-05 PDF
Version
Coastal Heritage
is a quarterly publication of the S.C. Sea Grant Consortium—a university-based
network supporting research, education, and outreach to conserve coastal
resources and enhance economic opportunity for the people of South Carolina. To subscribe, email your name and address to Annette Dunmeyer.
Executive
Director: M. Richard DeVoe
Director of Communications: Linda
Blackwell
Editor: John
H. Tibbetts
Art Director: Patty
Snow
Contributing Writer: Susan
Ferris
Gullah's Radiant Light
By John
H. Tibbetts
Gullah history
is revealed in lowcountry land held by families for generations.
On a starlit August evening,
trucks and cars rumble down Highway 41, which slices through Phillips,
a predominately African-American community (pop. 400) in unincorporated
Charleston County. “It used to be a lot quieter out here before
all this development,” says Richard Habersham, president of the
Phillips Community Association.
Habersham’s family has
lived in Phillips since the Civil War-era. Most of the families there
date back to the freedmen who purchased land in 10-acre parcels along
Horlbeck Creek in 1870 and in subsequent years.
Until air-conditioning became
inexpensive a few decades ago, Phillips Community was considered low-lying
marginal land, mosquito-ridden, with poor well water and unhealthy drainage.
Today Phillips is just a few
miles from bustling Mount Pleasant Towne Centre and within commuting distance
of downtown Charleston. Some wooded parcels on Phillips’ west side,
formerly farmland, have beautiful marsh-and-creek views. Water and sewer
lines have been extended into the community. Upscale planned developments—Park
West, Dunes West, Rivertowne, and others—surround Phillips, a doughnut
hole in East Cooper’s relentless, high-toned sprawl.
Indeed “sprawl
and taxes,” says Habersham, threaten the historic settlement. “When
they build those high-dollar houses, the value of our property goes up
too, and it affects our taxes. When taxes get too high, some residents
might have to sell and move away.”
Phillips residents worry that
developers are waiting for the moment to pounce. Habersham and his neighbors
fight every project threatening their peace: a proposed road widening,
say, or a potential commercial development at the community’s edge.
“It seems there’s always something coming up,” he says.
“A little battle here, a little battle there.”
“People tell us we can
just sell out and go somewhere else,” says Phillips resident Jonathan
Ford. “For the people in Rivertowne and Dunes West, mainly northern
people, property is an investment. For us, property is home. You live,
you grow up, you die, and you pass it on. We’re just trying to preserve
what was passed on to us. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers had
to work and buy property that they handed down to us.”
In 2000, after residents established
the Phillips Community Association, Michael Allen, an education specialist
with the National Park Service Fort Sumter National Monument, encouraged
them to document their own history. Historic and archeological assets
in Phillips could provide a bulwark against sprawl’s encroachment,
Allen told them. “That’s a card they needed to play. When
I step into any community, I’m looking at what options they may
have for preservation.” There are several historic black communities
in the East Cooper area that face similar pressures, including Hamlin,
Scanlonville, Six Mile, Snowden, Whitehall Terrace, and Ten Mile.
Phillips residents have been
surprised by what they learned about their history. The community’s
current boundaries, for example, nearly match that of the original freedmen
settlement in 1870. And many of today’s 10-acre parcels are identical
to the original lots purchased for $63 apiece after the Civil War.
Dr. John Rutledge, the first
physician in the East Cooper area, was the first owner of Phillips Plantation;
his brick tomb is located in a wooded patch next to Highway 41. Rutledge’s
politically influential sons were born on Phillips Plantation: John, a
signer of the U.S. Constitution, and Edward, the youngest signer of the
Declaration of Independence.
“It makes you feel proud
of the history,” says Habersham, “that a little place like
this had such an effect on the state and the nation.”
Not long ago, many black South
Carolinians resisted thinking about the past. “My grandfather would
say something about white people under his breath,” Ford recalls,
“and my grandmother would say, ‘You can’t tell the children
that.’ She said you couldn’t grow up hating people. So they
repressed a lot.”
Today, Habersham and Ford look
back in admiration at freedmen ancestors who struggled and saved to acquire
their own lands, and further to the captive men and women hauled as slaves
from West Africa to cultivate lowcountry plantation crops—particularly
rice. Rice was the driving force of the South Carolina coast’s slave-based
economy for more than 150 years.
Rice cultivation began in Carolina
within two decades after English settlement in 1670, and slaves must have
been the first people to grow it in North America, according to a 2001
book by Judith A. Carney, a geographer at the University of California,
Los Angeles. Africans formed one-fourth of the colony’s population
by 1672, and food supplies were often short, so slaves grew rice as a
subsistence crop. Euro-peans later adapted it to a commercial crop for
export.
Slaveholders of northern European
origin—mostly English, Scottish, and Irish—could not have
had much experience growing rice before they arrived in the lowcountry,
Carney points out. Rice cultivation is a crop traditionally grown in tropical
and subtropical regions. West Africans brought to Carolina, by contrast,
belonged to ethnic groups that had grown rice for many centuries across
hundreds of square miles.
Africans instructed European
settlers in their early efforts to cultivate rice, which later became
an immensely profitable enterprise. By the Revolutionary War, in fact,
South Carolina’s coastal economy relied almost exclusively on exporting
rice to Europe.
Super-wealthy and
politically connected rice planters became known as the builders of the
greatest agricultural dynasties of their era anywhere in the world. Rice
planters constructed the mansions of Charleston, Beaufort, and Georgetown.
For generations until the Civil War, rice planters were among the most
powerful men in South Carolina, seen as brilliant innovators who had taken
an unruly land and transformed it into riches.
But planters could
not have created this wealth without the technical skills and cultural
knowledge of Africans who had grown rice in their own native lands.
Slaves on the American
“rice coast” had belonged to various African ethnic groups
and cultures such as the Ashanti, Fante, Fula, Ibo, Mandingo, Yoruba,
and Bakongo. Because they did not speak the same languages, Africans used
pidgin English to communicate with one another. Slaveholders required
Africans to understand pidgin so they could follow orders in the fields.
Over time, this pidgin eventually flourished into a new creole language
known in the Carolinas as Gullah and as Geechee in Georgia and northern
Florida.
In the early nineteenth century,
many newly imported slaves in South Carolina were from Angola, commonly
known as “N’Gulla.” “Gullah” could have
originally referred to Angolans. But the Gullah people were not just Angolans;
they were a mix of African groups.
After the Civil War, the Gullah/Geechee
people continued to live in lowcountry settlements from Wilmington, North
Carolina, to Jacksonville, Florida. This fertile swath of pinelands, sea
islands, salt marshes, swamps, and creeks is known in historic-preservation
circles as the Gullah/Geechee Coast.
Forged in hardship, Gullah/Geechee
culture—food, religion, crafts, stories, songs, and language—is
a fusion of European and African influences. Gullah is the only lasting
English-based creole language in North America. Yet its grammar is African,
as are numerous words. In the 1940s, the linguist Lorenzo Dow Turner found
251 African words used by Gullah speakers. The Gullah people, in fact,
have retained more of their Africanisms than any other black group in
the United States.
Gullah culture, however, is
indigenous to this country, created under conditions particular to a narrow
stretch of coastline in the American South.
Until the mid-1990s,
South Carolina museums, plantation tours, and other historical attractions
ignored Gullah influences on lowcountry life. Informal history lessons
in coastal South Carolina focused on Revolutionary war heroes, antebellum
mansions, wealthy planters, and Confederate valor. Slavery seemed a taboo
subject, although about 25 percent of all Africans legally carried into
bondage in the United States passed through Sullivan’s Island near
Charleston.
Some Phillips residents
still shrug at the notion that they are part of the Gullah culture. “It’s
good that it brings awareness,” says Jonathan Ford, “but I
think of Gullah mostly as a tourist draw. You’ve had whites here
in Phillips, and they lived in the culture just like blacks.”
It’s common
for lowcountry African-American families to have forgotten or suppressed
their Gullah heritage, because for generations it was seen as backward.
Many Gullah instead wanted to become mainstream Americans.
Yet many traditions
in the Phillips Community reflect Gullah culture. One such tradition is
“heirs’ property,” or collective land ownership. After
the Civil War, freedmen who purchased land parcels shared them among family
members and following generations. As families expanded, many parcels
remained in collective ownership. That is, several family members jointly
inherit a parcel that lacks an up-to-date title. The original purchaser
from the nineteenth century is usually still named as owner. About half
of Phillips parcels are heirs’ property, says Habersham.
The problem with heirs’
property is that any heir can go before a judge to gain the value of his
property. And often the only way to get that value is to sell the entire
parcel. Sometimes land speculators buy an interest from an heir and ask
a judge to auction the entire parcel.
Heirs’ property, therefore,
is a problem for traditional African-American communities, says Allen.
“They don’t want to put the land in one person’s name
because that person could go and sell it overnight. They think they’re
safer with heirs’ property. But I think they should have their name
on the title and not someone who died in 1890.”
Even so, Daniel Pennick, a
Charleston County planner, says that heirs’ property may have protected
many Gullah communities from development. “Developers don’t
want to deal with an unclear title.”
Gullah people view family land
as “sacred,” says Pennick. It’s a place of refuge, a
place to rest after they’ve seen the world, after serving in the
military or working for decades in the North. For others, it’s the
place to raise children and grow up knowing aunts and uncles and cousins,
the place to spend long summers with grandparents. “Everybody’s
your cousin here,” says Habersham.
“We consider land as
family,” says Marquetta Goodwine, an activist, author, and musician
also known as Queen Quet, chieftess of the Gullah/Geechee Nation. Goodwine
lives on St. Helena Island, but she could be talking about the Phillips
Community as well: “The reason we’ve been able to survive
and stay here is that we look after each other.”
GULLAH
COUNTRY
The antebellum lowcountry,
in many respects, was Gullah country. Before the Civil War, slaves often
knew the land and waterways better than their masters. Slaves hunted in
woods for meat that sustained the plantations, and black watermen dominated
local maritime trades, running slave-operated canoes and cargo vessels
between town and country. Gullah people worked productive plots of land
in their free time and traded goods along the riverbanks, the major highways
of their time.
By 1800, about one
in four slaves in the lowcountry were skilled tradesmen—blacksmiths,
machinists, and carpenters—rented out for work.
But slaves, of course,
did not own their skills; slaveholders did. Bondsmen also did not own
the land they knew so well, and it was ownership that separated prosperous
from poor in antebellum South Carolina. Americans—white and black—understood
that holding property was the route to independence, self-determination,
and dignity.
So when African-Americans
gained freedom in the wake of the Civil War, many were determined to acquire
land near where they were born, and they looked to Union leaders for help.
In January 1865,
after completing his march across Georgia to the sea, Major-General William
Tecumseh Sherman was alarmed about the tens of thousands of freed slaves—men,
women, and children—who desperately followed his army. In a January
12 letter to a fellow Union general, Sherman complained that just one
of his columns of 30,000 soldiers was now responsible for the care of
17,000 freed slaves. With “a large proportion of them babies and
small children,” Sherman wrote from Savannah, “had I encountered
an enemy of respectable strength defeat would have been certain.”
That same day, Sherman
and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton met 20 freedmen—ministers and
church officers—in Savannah to discuss how the freedmen could help
the Union and themselves during and after the war. Their spokesman was
an ordained Baptist minister named Garrison Frazier, 67 years old. Frazier
had been a slave until he was 59, when he bought himself and his wife
for a thousand dollars in gold and silver.
“The way we
can best take care of ourselves,” Frazier told Sherman, “is
to have land, and turn it and till it by our own labor—that is,
by the labor of the women, and children, and old men—and we can
soon maintain ourselves and have something to spare; and to assist the
Government the young men should enlist in the service of the Government,
and serve in such manner as they be wanted.”
Frazier’s words
impressed Sherman, who issued Special Field Order No. 15, which handed
over abandoned rice plantations and the sea islands of South Carolina,
Georgia, and northern Florida to the freedmen.
The order also provided
each family with a land parcel of not more than 40 acres to cultivate.
Later, Sherman called for distribution of excess Army mules to freedmen.
These orders gave rise to the slogan “Forty acres and a mule.”
By June 1865, more
than 40,000 freedmen had begun tilling more than 400,000 acres of land
in the region. Former slaves believed that it was their land to keep,
that they had already earned it with their uncompensated labor. Soon after
the war, Radical Republicans in Congress argued that lowcountry plantations
must be broken up to destroy the power of the slaveholding class that
had driven the country to war.
President Andrew
Johnson, however, stopped the redistribution experiment by pardoning many
former rebels and returning plantations to the former owners.
In October 1865,
U.S. Army General Oliver O. Howard informed a gathering of Gullah people
that land given to them by Sherman was no longer theirs. In a speech to
two thousand freedmen on Edisto Island, General Howard asked them to “lay
aside their bitter feelings, and to become reconciled to their old masters.”
A freedman called
out, “Why General Howard, why do you take away our lands? . . .
You give them to our all-time enemies. This is not right!”
Since some lands
remained abandoned, Gullah people did manage to hold them via the Special
Field Order. Others received land in reward for their service in the Union
army. Many freedmen, however, worked for years to save enough money to
purchase land.
Marquetta Goodwine,
who owns several acres with her family on St. Helena Island, points out
that after the Civil War, her great-great-grandfathers on each side “bought
the very land where they were enslaved.”
Small settlements,
often as extended-family compounds, were built on the newly acquired properties.
Working subsistence farms, hunting, and fishing, the Gullah people survived
the intense poverty in the years following the Civil War.
Lowcountry rice plantations,
meanwhile, began a long decline. Federal armies had damaged many estates.
Preferring to work their own land or hold other jobs, freedmen resisted
returning to the rice fields.
Through desperate
times, many Gullah families managed to hold onto their property. Landownership
kept them free of the sharecropping system that whites used during and
after Reconstruction to regain economic power over rural southern blacks.
ISOLATION
TO LOSS
For generations, the Gullah
people lived in isolation. Rivers cut off the sea islands from the mainland.
Forests and poor roads separated Gullah mainland communities from larger
towns and cities. Until the advent of
air-conditioning, brutal summer heat and humidity, plus prolific mosquitoes
and hurricanes, discouraged many whites from living near marshes and sea
islands of the South Carolina coast.
“The only people who
wanted the land were Gullah,” says Emory S. Campbell, president
of Gullah Heritage Consulting Services, who grew up on Hilton Head Island
in the era before a bridge connected it to the mainland. “That’s
when the Gullah really gelled in terms of culture.”
Campbell retired in 2003 as
executive director of the Penn Center, an outgrowth of the famous Penn
School, established by missionaries in 1862. The Penn School educated
local blacks until the early 1980s, when it became a community-development
center, offering youth programs on Gullah culture and housing local history
exhibits and demonstration projects.
“I spoke Gullah all my
life and I wanted to go to the Penn School,” says Campbell. “My
brothers and sisters went to Penn School, and they stayed for six months,
and when they returned home they no longer spoke Gullah. The Penn School
was a place that transformed people from slavery to freedom. It transformed
African to mainstream American.”
Campbell sought this transformation
because the Gullah people were objects of ridicule. Mainstream American
blacks considered the Gullah language as “broken” English.
“Everybody would laugh at me” for speaking Gullah, says Campbell.
Now scholars recognize Gullah as a fully mature creole language.
Because the culture is so rich
in African influences, Gullah fascinated anthropologists, linguists, and
folklorists. It is probably the most thoroughly researched black culture
in the United States.
Yet Gullah traditions faded
after developers began building resorts on the South Carolina sea islands
in the 1960s, and tourists and retirees poured over the new bridges. Suburban
development sprawled nearer mainland settlements in the quiet nooks and
crannies of the coast. Racial integration, the civil-rights movement,
and economic opportunities diluted the Gullah’s isolation.
Today some elders still speak
Gullah, but their grandchildren often regard it as old-fashioned, as the
quaint speech of a passing generation.
Still, a few Gullah strongholds,
particularly on the sea islands, are thriving. Much of St. Helena Island
is still owned by Gullah people, whose culture is celebrated each year
in a festival located at the Penn Center there.
THE
INHERITANCE
From the early 1950s
until his death in 1994, essayist and novelist Ralph Ellison gained renown
as a chronicler of African-American culture, which he described as steeped
in tradition and complexity. Black culture, he argued, touches every aspect
of American society, stimulating and redefining music, language, sports,
food, literature, clothing styles, and the nation’s civic morality
and ideals, particularly through the anti-slavery and civil-rights movements.
But until the 1980s, Ellison’s views were at odds with many intellectuals—black
and white—who viewed African-American culture as virtually destroyed
by slavery and segregation.
Ellison, however,
warned against looking to Africa for the most important roots of black
American culture. Blacks and whites for centuries have been entangled
in their American experience, which remains closer-at-hand than their
African or European heritages. Blacks, Ellison said, should celebrate
their contributions to and borrowings from white culture, and should emphasize
the American aspect of being “Negro-American.”
In an interview in
1971, Ellison said: “You get Negro-Americans walking around top-heavy
from trying to Africanize themselves when that which is authentically
African in them has come down to us through more subtle ways, and we are
not the only inheritors of it. I’m afraid white southerners inherit
a hell of a lot of it too.”
Others have argued
that African sources of American black culture deserve far greater attention
and study than they’ve received.
In a 1999 book, Charles
Joyner, a Coastal Carolina University historian, holds both views in balance.
After describing the “Africanity” of American slave heritage,
he points out that slaves and their descendants helped form a unique culture
in the New World. “Africans,” he wrote, “were creative
in Africa; they did not cease to be creative when they became involuntary
settlers in America.”
African-American
history, however, was largely denied in the lowcountry until a decade
ago, some experts say. “When I came here in 1994, the plantations
were still talking about ‘servants,’ and the ‘servant
quarters,’ not about the slaves,” says W. Marvin Dulaney,
a College of Charleston historian and director of the Avery Research Center
for African American History and Culture. “The plantations were
painting this crazy image that there were no slaves here. There’s
a great difference between a servant and a slave. In Charleston, there
was almost no African presence in the city in terms of how (history) was
interpreted. I talked to (the plantation directors) and told them they
needed to do a better job of recognizing the African-American presence,
and they seemed to respond.” Now some historic plantations have
tours that describe antebellum Gullah life.
During the past decade,
Dulaney and Avery Center staff have created exhibitions on slavery and
the African-American experience in the lowcountry. Dulaney has also pushed
for reopening of the old Slave Mart Museum.
The U.S. Park Service,
especially through the efforts of Michael Allen, has also sought to bring
African-American contributions to the forefront.
At the request of
U.S. Representative James E. Clyburn, the National Parks Service has completed
a major study of the Gullah/Geechee coast and potential for historical
tourism, economic development, and educational projects there. The Park
Service study recommends establishing Gullah/Geechee interpretive sites
on U.S. Highway 17 near Mount Pleasant, at the Penn Center, and in McIntosh
County, Georgia.
In May 2004, the
Washington, D.C.-based National Trust for Historic Preservation named
the Gullah/Geechee Coast as one of America’s 11 Most Endangered
Historic Places. This designation also brings national recognition to
Gullah culture, says Allen.
Clyburn subsequently
introduced the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act (H.R. 4683), which
would implement the Park Service’s suggestions. The act would establish
a Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor and create a commission to
help federal, state, and local authorities manage the corridor and its
assets. The legislation would authorize $1 million in annual funding over
10 years, calling for one or more interpretive centers at appropriate
locations within the Heritage Corridor. “We hope that this could
be really significant in increasing heritage tourism,” says Clyburn.
The Park Service’s
study and Clyburn’s bill “acknowledge the invisible people
of the area,” says Dulaney. “It could bring money and help
the Park Service protect some specific places along the coast dealing
with African-American history. And it will provide an impetus for some
of the other organizations—plantations, museums—to do more
in that respect.”
Now, Phillips Community
leaders hope to gain acknowledgement from state and federal agencies as
a historic site, though they are not relying on government help. “Every
(rural African-American) community I’ve talked to has some kind
of preservation effort underway,” says Cynthia Porcher, principal
researcher on the Park Service’s study. “They are not sitting
back waiting for something to happen, but they don’t have access
to big bucks.”
“There’s
a strong sense of pride,” Allen says. “People say, ‘Our
great-granddaddy purchased the property that we’re still living
on. That’s because of the sacrifice of someone a hundred years ago.
There may have been bad crops or he might have almost lost the land due
to taxes or the Klan might have tried to run him off, whatever. So we’re
still living on great-granddaddy’s land, and we’re still paying
the taxes.’ ”
At first glance,
an African-American rural community resembles a random scattering of modest
houses. Rural lowcountry blacks were not wealthy; they did not leave monuments
or grand homes.
Yet a deeper investigation
tells a story of sacrifices and accomplishments across generations. History
is revealed in family and community traditions, in land use, stories,
food, and language. To see these places for what they are, “you
must look,” says Allen, “at history with new eyes.”
__________
Sidebars:
GULLAH SPIRITUALS–PROVIDED
ROOTS OF AMERICAN GOSPEL SONGS
Some of the most
beloved American spirituals emerged from the talents of the Gullah people
of coastal South Carolina. Slave songs such as “Michael, Row the
Boat Ashore,” “Roll, Jordan, Roll,” “Nobody Knows
the Trouble I’ve Had,” and “Blow Your Trumpet, Gabriel”
were first written down in the Port Royal area or Charleston during the
Civil War but later transformed and popularized worldwide.
In 1862, an educational
mission of concerned northern whites and blacks was sent to Port Royal
and nearby islands after the area had fallen to Union troops. These missions
were designed to aid newly freed slaves. At this time, few northerners—or
inland southerners—had encountered antebellum Gullah language and
culture.
Working on St. Helena
Island, a pair of young northern teachers, one white and one black, contributed
to a historic book, Slave Songs of the United States, published in 1867,
which codified the lyrics and melodies.
The person most responsible
for bringing Gullah music to national attention was Thomas Wentworth Higginson,
a white abolitionist who served as a colonel in the United States’
first regiment of African-Americans, the First South Carolina Volunteers.
In an Atlantic Monthly
article in June 1867, Higginson described returning to army camp at night
on horseback and hearing groups of freedmen “chanting, often harshly,
but always in the most perfect time.” He wrote down the words and
melodies, hoping to capture the varied songs. “Almost all their
songs were thoroughly religious in their tone. Nothing but patience for
this life—nothing but triumph in the next.”
Later, a group of
young black singers from Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, known
as the Fisk Jubilee Singers, brought many of these spirituals to the attention
of the American public and eventually to Europe.
But the spirituals
popularized by the Fisk Jubilee Singers are different from those that
the Gullah people have sung for generations, says Marquetta L. Goodwine,
an activist, author, and performer also known as Queen Quet, chieftess
of the Gullah/Geechee Nation.
Northerners who documented
Gullah spirituals misunderstood some of the lyrics and the spontaneous
nature of the songs, says Goodwine. While slave songs were religious,
they also served as ways for slaves to communicate plans to escape and
the level of danger that escapees would face at any particular time. The
songs could be both warning signals and outlets to express the horrors
of slavery.
The rhythms and musical
structure of Gullah spirituals are also different from the popularized
versions. “Go Down, Moses,” is almost always sung in a grand,
stern legato in the Americanized version. But in the Gullah tradition,
songs often change during the performance to reflect the changing mood
or meaning of the piece. A somber, dirge-like melody can be transformed
in mid-song, building into rapid meter, accompanied by “sea-island
claps” and foot stomping as the sing-shouting turns ecstatic and
percussive.
AFRICAN CONTRIBUTIONS
TO RICE PLANTING
In the early decades
of the twentieth century, some elderly former rice planters and their
descendants wrote memoirs of the antebellum era. As supporters of the
southern Lost Cause, the memoirists viewed rice planters as heroic and
ingenious. Slaves, by contrast, were usually seen in these accounts as
rough implements or simple brutes used to grow rice, the crop that stimulated
the lowcountry’s wealth and power before the Civil War.
Memoirist David Doar,
in 1936, described the “insuperable difficulties by every-day planters
who had as tools only the axe, the spade, and the hoe, in the hands of
intractable negro men and women, but lately brought from the jungles of
Africa.”
Starting in the mid-1970s,
however, historian Peter H. Wood, author of Black Majority, paved the
way for the current understanding that slaves provided much of the knowledge
that made initial rice cultivation successful in North America.
In a 2001 book, Judith
Carney, a geographer at the University of California, Los Angeles, takes
this argument further, illustrating that virtually all of the crucial
early innovations and techniques of antebellum rice culture had antecedents
or inspiration in West Africa.
“There is a
very strong probability that the early technology of rice growing in this
country should be attributed to Africans who brought over knowledge from
the rice-growing areas,” says Richard Porcher, a botanist at The
Citadel and a collaborator with Carney. “Africans had grown rice
in all kinds of environments.”
There were three
major stages in the history of lowcountry rice cultivation. Before 1700,
South Carolinians began growing rice on dry upland soil, using rainfall
to water their crop.
Next, planters found
that growing rice in irrigated inland swamps would yield larger crops
and greater profits. With slaves’ expertise and backbreaking labor,
planters built earthen dams to contain water from rainfall or natural
springs in inland swamps, creating reservoirs. Within the dam walls, planters
installed wooden structures called “trunks,” which could be
opened or closed to manipulate water flow. The first trunks used in Carolina
were hollow logs with plugs.
To create rice fields
in adjacent wetlands, slaves cut down massive cypress-gum forests, drained
off the water, and also enclosed them with dikes.
Thus were formed
side-by-side broad, shallow earthen bowls: the reservoir and the rice
fields. Water flows were manipulated via trunks among the earthen bowls.
By the 1720s, profitable rice plantations were using this form of inland
cultivation.
Slaves would begin
sowing in April or May, pressing seeds coated with clay into the mud with
their heels. When the field was flooded, clay-coated seeds were heavier
and would not float to the surface, thus allowing the seeds to germinate.
In June, slaves drained the fields to hoe or pick weeds. From reservoirs,
slaves later flooded the fields again to provide moisture for the rice
plants.
At harvest, slaves
processed the grain, carefully pounding rice with mortar and pestle, which
required a refined touch because grains were easily broken and ruined.
Using coiled baskets, slaves would winnow the chaff from the rice.
The techniques and
tools used to cultivate and process rice in the lowcountry, writes Carney,
were identical or very similar to those employed in West Africa long before
Portuguese explorers arrived in the mid-15th century.
Before European contact,
West Africans already knew how to grow rice in dry upland areas; how to
grow it in irrigated wetlands; how to plug hollow tree trunks as flood-control
devices; how to coat rice seeds with clay; how to winnow rice from the
chaff with baskets; and on and on.
Only the third major
stage of rice production—building rice fields irrigated by tidal
rivers beginning in the 1750s—was an innovation that blended European
and African technical expertise, says Carney. Yet Europeans may have been
imitating African engineering techniques in this case as well. “Even
the tidal system was widely used by Africans in mangrove (coastal) areas
of West Africa,” says Carney.
INTERNATIONAL
MUSEUM
Fund-raising has begun for a proposed $60 million International African
American Museum, which is expected to open in 2007 on a site in downtown
Charleston near the South Carolina Aquarium.
Congressman James E. Clyburn
chairs a 36-member steering committee partnering with the city of Charleston
to create the museum. “We’re doing well with the fund-raising.”
The museum would emphasize
Charleston’s significance as a major port of arrival for Africans
in North America and illustrate evidence of African influences in the
historical landscape of South Carolina. It would also describe the Caribbean
connection with the lowcountry.
The International African American
Museum would be part of a new wave of heritage buildings celebrating black
American history. At least 25 African-American cultural buildings are
being planned across the nation. These include the National Museum of
African American History and Culture, authorized by Congress last year
and expected to cost $300 million, to be built in Washington, D.C.; the
Museum of the African Diaspora in San Francisco; and the Martin Luther
King, Jr., National Memorial, also in Washington, D.C.
“We’re telling
a challenging story,” says Michael Allen, an education specialist
with the National Park Service Fort Sumter National Monument and member
of the steering committee. “This is an opportunity to look at healing,
understanding, and developing relationships. This potential location near
the water provides a great venue to talk about the international perspective
of Charleston, the African-American experience of Charleston, and how
those two help to shape and form and affect the lowcountry, the South,
and the nation.”
__________________________
Reading
and Web sites:
Allen, William Francis,
Charles Pickard Ware and Lucy McKim Garrison. Slave Songs of the United
States. New York: Peter Smith, 1951.
Avery Research Center.
www.cofc.edu/avery/
Carney, Judith. Black
Rice: The African Origins of Rice Cultivation in the Americas. Cambridge:
Harvard University, 2001.
Graham, Maryemma
and Amritjit Singh, Eds. Conversations with Ralph Ellison. Jackson:
University of Mississippi Press, 1995.
Gullah/Geechee Sea
Island Coalition. users.aol.com/queenmut/GullGeeCo.html
Higginson, Thomas
Wentworth. “Negro Spirituals.” Atlantic Monthly,
June 1867.
Joyner, Charles.
Shared Traditions: Southern History and Folk Culture. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1999.
National Park Service.
Low Country Gullah Geechee Culture Special Resource Study Draft.
www.nps.gov/sero/ggsrs/
The Penn Center.
www.penncenter.com/index.html
Pollitzer, William
S. The Gullah People and Their Heritage. Athens: University of
Georgia Press, 1999.
|