美洲殖民地性暴力的历史关怀与(再)书写

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Marisa J. Fuentes
{"title":"美洲殖民地性暴力的历史关怀与(再)书写","authors":"Marisa J. Fuentes","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historical Care and the (Re)Writing of Sexual Violence in the Colonial Americas Marisa J. Fuentes (bio) HISTORIAN Sharon Block revisits, revises, and rethinks the lasting impacts of sexual violence experienced by a young white woman named Rachel Davis in late eighteenth-century Pennsylvania. Returning to her first published book with meticulous research and the benefits of new digital technologies, Block reconsiders the nature and legality of sexual violence in colonial America and the ethical enterprise of writing on vulnerable historical subjects. Equally important, Block centers \"historical justice\" in this rewriting of Rachel's life and what that might mean to people in our present. New archival evidence that she culls through traditional, digital, and genealogical research enables Block to offer a deeper and more contextualized long view of Rachel's life beyond the singular court case that sent her attacker to prison. Block places Rachel in the context of her community and settler colonial violence against Indigenous people and follows her archival traces through family relationships, marriage, and contemporary descendants. This new work enables Block to rewrite Rachel's narrative of sexual violence as one incident in a long life and raises important questions about historical production. In the essay, Block recognizes that the recovery of Rachel's archive and detailed life circumstances exemplified Rachel's subject position in this colonial past. Her mother's death and her father's destitution left her contract-laboring for relatives. Her age and employment made her vulnerable to the power of white men in this context. Still, Block offers a critical clarification that makes plain the different archival, narrative, and methodological possibilities for specific early modern women: \"The archival traces left about Euro-colonial women such as [End Page 693] Rachel Davis are in no way comparable to the archival absences common to enslaved, Black, and Indigenous women.\"1 Here I want to think about how ethical and methodological stakes change depending on the historical subjects we research and engage. Block gestures toward this when briefly discussing the case of Phillis, an enslaved woman who \"was pregnant with her enslaver's child.\" Block explains how \"focusing on the production of history requires fuller and more just narratives that actively theorize the unrecoverable lived experiences of enslaved and Black women while attending to the violence too often inherent in the slim archival recordings of their existence.\"2 I am concerned about ethical historical writing and the troubling narrative practices that do not seriously contend with the methodological cautions Black feminist historians have made plain in their work on slavery. My essay cites work on both sides of the ethical divide to signal the epistemic consequences of writing without particular care for the historically subjugated. In this essay I will lean significantly on Saidiya Hartman's and my own work to clarify our arguments that may be misunderstood and/or misapplied. There is an archive of slavery that is fraught and violent. Though the voices of the enslaved are mitigated or silenced by colonial officiality, there is still much that can be said about the condition and context of enslavement and how the production of historical subjects affects or hampers narrative possibilities. Our work exemplifies different modes of historical narration and an ethical investment in the present.3 I will also ruminate on Block's concepts of \"historical justice\" and \"doing justice\" to clarify their meaning and discuss what it means to embark on a project of (historical) redress.4 Ultimately, Block frames critical historiographical and methodological questions pertinent to writing about the distant past and subjects who experienced intimate and other kinds of routine violence. [End Page 694] ________ In the past two decades, scholars of gender and slavery have written about the challenges of fully representing the intimate worlds of enslaved people, particularly women, in the traditional archive.5 The methodological work Sharon Block deploys in this essay deserves a close reading to distill her central intentions in revising her account of the life events of a young white indentured servant named Rachel Davis. In the reconsideration of her original essay, Block reflects on the layers of vulnerability and power in Rachel's life. Rachel was bound as a servant to...","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Historical Care and the (Re)Writing of Sexual Violence in the Colonial Americas\",\"authors\":\"Marisa J. Fuentes\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Historical Care and the (Re)Writing of Sexual Violence in the Colonial Americas Marisa J. Fuentes (bio) HISTORIAN Sharon Block revisits, revises, and rethinks the lasting impacts of sexual violence experienced by a young white woman named Rachel Davis in late eighteenth-century Pennsylvania. Returning to her first published book with meticulous research and the benefits of new digital technologies, Block reconsiders the nature and legality of sexual violence in colonial America and the ethical enterprise of writing on vulnerable historical subjects. Equally important, Block centers \\\"historical justice\\\" in this rewriting of Rachel's life and what that might mean to people in our present. New archival evidence that she culls through traditional, digital, and genealogical research enables Block to offer a deeper and more contextualized long view of Rachel's life beyond the singular court case that sent her attacker to prison. Block places Rachel in the context of her community and settler colonial violence against Indigenous people and follows her archival traces through family relationships, marriage, and contemporary descendants. This new work enables Block to rewrite Rachel's narrative of sexual violence as one incident in a long life and raises important questions about historical production. In the essay, Block recognizes that the recovery of Rachel's archive and detailed life circumstances exemplified Rachel's subject position in this colonial past. Her mother's death and her father's destitution left her contract-laboring for relatives. Her age and employment made her vulnerable to the power of white men in this context. Still, Block offers a critical clarification that makes plain the different archival, narrative, and methodological possibilities for specific early modern women: \\\"The archival traces left about Euro-colonial women such as [End Page 693] Rachel Davis are in no way comparable to the archival absences common to enslaved, Black, and Indigenous women.\\\"1 Here I want to think about how ethical and methodological stakes change depending on the historical subjects we research and engage. Block gestures toward this when briefly discussing the case of Phillis, an enslaved woman who \\\"was pregnant with her enslaver's child.\\\" Block explains how \\\"focusing on the production of history requires fuller and more just narratives that actively theorize the unrecoverable lived experiences of enslaved and Black women while attending to the violence too often inherent in the slim archival recordings of their existence.\\\"2 I am concerned about ethical historical writing and the troubling narrative practices that do not seriously contend with the methodological cautions Black feminist historians have made plain in their work on slavery. My essay cites work on both sides of the ethical divide to signal the epistemic consequences of writing without particular care for the historically subjugated. In this essay I will lean significantly on Saidiya Hartman's and my own work to clarify our arguments that may be misunderstood and/or misapplied. There is an archive of slavery that is fraught and violent. Though the voices of the enslaved are mitigated or silenced by colonial officiality, there is still much that can be said about the condition and context of enslavement and how the production of historical subjects affects or hampers narrative possibilities. Our work exemplifies different modes of historical narration and an ethical investment in the present.3 I will also ruminate on Block's concepts of \\\"historical justice\\\" and \\\"doing justice\\\" to clarify their meaning and discuss what it means to embark on a project of (historical) redress.4 Ultimately, Block frames critical historiographical and methodological questions pertinent to writing about the distant past and subjects who experienced intimate and other kinds of routine violence. [End Page 694] ________ In the past two decades, scholars of gender and slavery have written about the challenges of fully representing the intimate worlds of enslaved people, particularly women, in the traditional archive.5 The methodological work Sharon Block deploys in this essay deserves a close reading to distill her central intentions in revising her account of the life events of a young white indentured servant named Rachel Davis. In the reconsideration of her original essay, Block reflects on the layers of vulnerability and power in Rachel's life. Rachel was bound as a servant to...\",\"PeriodicalId\":51566,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910398\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910398","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

玛丽莎·j·富恩特斯(生物)历史学家莎伦·布洛克重新审视,修改,并重新思考了十八世纪晚期宾夕法尼亚州一位名叫雷切尔·戴维斯的年轻白人妇女所经历的性暴力的持久影响。通过细致的研究和新数字技术的好处,布洛克重新审视了殖民时期美国性暴力的性质和合法性,以及在脆弱的历史主题上写作的伦理事业。同样重要的是,布洛克将“历史正义”放在了对瑞秋生活的重写中,以及这对我们现在的人可能意味着什么。她通过传统、数字和家谱研究筛选的新档案证据使布洛克能够提供一个更深入、更有背景的长期视角,以了解蕾切尔的生活,而不是将她的攻击者送进监狱的单一法庭案件。布洛克将雷切尔置于她的社区和殖民者对土著人民的殖民暴力的背景下,并通过家庭关系、婚姻和当代后代追踪她的档案痕迹。这部新作品使布洛克将瑞秋对性暴力的叙述改写为她漫长一生中的一个事件,并提出了关于历史生产的重要问题。在这篇文章中,布洛克认识到,蕾切尔的档案和详细的生活环境的恢复说明了蕾切尔在这段殖民历史中的主体地位。她母亲去世,父亲穷困潦倒,她不得不为亲戚承包劳动。在这种情况下,她的年龄和职业使她容易受到白人男性权力的影响。尽管如此,布洛克还是提供了一个关键的澄清,明确了不同的档案,叙述和方法的可能性,为特定的早期现代女性:“关于欧洲殖民时期女性的档案痕迹,如雷切尔·戴维斯(Rachel Davis),无法与被奴役妇女,黑人妇女和土著妇女的档案缺失相提并论。”在这里,我想思考伦理和方法上的利害关系如何根据我们研究和参与的历史主题而变化。布洛克在简要讨论菲利斯(philis)的案例时就暗示了这一点,菲利斯是一名被奴役的妇女,“怀了她的奴隶的孩子”。布洛克解释说,“关注历史的生产需要更全面、更公正的叙述,积极地将被奴役妇女和黑人妇女不可恢复的生活经历理论化,同时关注她们存在的薄档案记录中往往固有的暴力。”我关心的是伦理历史写作和令人不安的叙事实践,它们没有认真地与黑人女权主义历史学家在他们关于奴隶制的工作中明确提出的方法论警告相抗衡。我的文章引用了伦理分歧双方的作品,以表明在没有特别关注历史上被征服的情况下写作的认识论后果。在这篇文章中,我将主要依靠Saidiya Hartman和我自己的工作来澄清我们的论点可能被误解和/或误用。有一份关于奴隶制的档案,充满了忧虑和暴力。虽然被奴役者的声音被殖民官方缓和或压制,但关于奴役的条件和背景,以及历史主题的产生如何影响或阻碍叙事的可能性,仍然有很多可说的。我们的作品体现了不同的历史叙事模式和对当下的伦理投资我还将反思布洛克的“历史正义”和“做正义”的概念,以澄清它们的含义,并讨论着手(历史)补救计划意味着什么最终,布洛克构建了批判性的史学和方法论问题,这些问题与描写遥远的过去和经历过亲密暴力和其他常规暴力的主题有关。[End Page 694] ________在过去的二十年里,研究性别和奴隶制的学者们写了关于在传统档案中充分表现被奴役者,特别是妇女的亲密世界所面临的挑战莎朗·布洛克在这篇文章中运用的方法论值得仔细阅读,以提炼出她在修改一个名叫蕾切尔·戴维斯的年轻白人契约仆人的生活事件时的核心意图。在重新审视她最初的文章时,布洛克反思了蕾切尔生活中的脆弱和力量。瑞秋作为仆人被束缚在……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Historical Care and the (Re)Writing of Sexual Violence in the Colonial Americas
Historical Care and the (Re)Writing of Sexual Violence in the Colonial Americas Marisa J. Fuentes (bio) HISTORIAN Sharon Block revisits, revises, and rethinks the lasting impacts of sexual violence experienced by a young white woman named Rachel Davis in late eighteenth-century Pennsylvania. Returning to her first published book with meticulous research and the benefits of new digital technologies, Block reconsiders the nature and legality of sexual violence in colonial America and the ethical enterprise of writing on vulnerable historical subjects. Equally important, Block centers "historical justice" in this rewriting of Rachel's life and what that might mean to people in our present. New archival evidence that she culls through traditional, digital, and genealogical research enables Block to offer a deeper and more contextualized long view of Rachel's life beyond the singular court case that sent her attacker to prison. Block places Rachel in the context of her community and settler colonial violence against Indigenous people and follows her archival traces through family relationships, marriage, and contemporary descendants. This new work enables Block to rewrite Rachel's narrative of sexual violence as one incident in a long life and raises important questions about historical production. In the essay, Block recognizes that the recovery of Rachel's archive and detailed life circumstances exemplified Rachel's subject position in this colonial past. Her mother's death and her father's destitution left her contract-laboring for relatives. Her age and employment made her vulnerable to the power of white men in this context. Still, Block offers a critical clarification that makes plain the different archival, narrative, and methodological possibilities for specific early modern women: "The archival traces left about Euro-colonial women such as [End Page 693] Rachel Davis are in no way comparable to the archival absences common to enslaved, Black, and Indigenous women."1 Here I want to think about how ethical and methodological stakes change depending on the historical subjects we research and engage. Block gestures toward this when briefly discussing the case of Phillis, an enslaved woman who "was pregnant with her enslaver's child." Block explains how "focusing on the production of history requires fuller and more just narratives that actively theorize the unrecoverable lived experiences of enslaved and Black women while attending to the violence too often inherent in the slim archival recordings of their existence."2 I am concerned about ethical historical writing and the troubling narrative practices that do not seriously contend with the methodological cautions Black feminist historians have made plain in their work on slavery. My essay cites work on both sides of the ethical divide to signal the epistemic consequences of writing without particular care for the historically subjugated. In this essay I will lean significantly on Saidiya Hartman's and my own work to clarify our arguments that may be misunderstood and/or misapplied. There is an archive of slavery that is fraught and violent. Though the voices of the enslaved are mitigated or silenced by colonial officiality, there is still much that can be said about the condition and context of enslavement and how the production of historical subjects affects or hampers narrative possibilities. Our work exemplifies different modes of historical narration and an ethical investment in the present.3 I will also ruminate on Block's concepts of "historical justice" and "doing justice" to clarify their meaning and discuss what it means to embark on a project of (historical) redress.4 Ultimately, Block frames critical historiographical and methodological questions pertinent to writing about the distant past and subjects who experienced intimate and other kinds of routine violence. [End Page 694] ________ In the past two decades, scholars of gender and slavery have written about the challenges of fully representing the intimate worlds of enslaved people, particularly women, in the traditional archive.5 The methodological work Sharon Block deploys in this essay deserves a close reading to distill her central intentions in revising her account of the life events of a young white indentured servant named Rachel Davis. In the reconsideration of her original essay, Block reflects on the layers of vulnerability and power in Rachel's life. Rachel was bound as a servant to...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
52
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信