Search

This chapter analyzes the punitive relationships among slaves, slaveholders and colonial authorities from the perspective of paternalism. Focusing on the territory of the colonial Audiencia de Quito and the Republic of Ecuador between the early eighteenth century and the abolition of slavery in 1851, the chapter proceeds in three directions. The first section addresses the interactions between the State and the slaveholders through the lens of "protection." The second section turns to paternalism as a repertoire of both legitimation and contestation of punishment. The final section assesses the continuities and discontinuities in the impact of paternalism on the punishments of slaves across time, both during and beyond the colonial period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue explores how enslaved workers of African descent were punished in the Americas. It studies punishment inside and beyond the criminal justice system, investigating its legitimation and implementation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Collectively, the articles address three main themes: the relationship between the enslaved, the slaveholders, and the state; the shifts in modalities of governance across space and time; and the entanglement of modes of punishment across geographies. This perspective illustrates the broader implications of punishment for issues of labor supply and labor control, and helps us understand how slavery was produced and reproduced in different, yet connected, regions of the Americas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Response" is a response to the comments made by Marcela Echeverri Muñoz, Renzo Honores, Nikos Potamianos, and Christian G. De Vito on the article "Paternalistic Punishments." The author thanks the comments and addresses the criticisms made by Echeverri regarding the lack of contextualization and comparative analysis in their article. The author explains that their focus is centered on the role of paternalism as a mode of social control and analyzes power relations surrounding slavery. They also highlight the coexistence of different frameworks of legitimation and punishment practices over time. Additionally, they respond to Honores' comments about the importance of analyzing legal processes and legal cultures. Overall, the author defends their approach and argues that paternalism persisted and intertwined with liberalism and republicanism due to the social relationships between the enslaved, the slaveholders, and the state authorities. The article discusses the conceptualization of the intervention of subaltern subjects in social and historical processes, focusing on the role of enslaved individuals in the dynamics of paternalism and punishment. The concept of "agency" is questioned, and the use of the terms "moral punishment" and "tactics" is proposed to analyze the practices and experiences of slaves. The importance of examining specific lawsuits as starting points for understanding real social and political relationships is emphasized. Additionally, the possibility of expanding the analysis to other forms of domination and social control is raised. [Extracted from the article]

This chapter analyzes the punitive relationships among slaves, slaveholders and colonial authorities from the perspective of paternalism. Focusing on the territory of the colonial Audiencia de Quito and the Republic of Ecuador between the early eighteenth century and the abolition of slavery in 1851, the chapter proceeds in three directions. The first section addresses the interactions between the State and the slaveholders through the lens of "protection". The second section turns to paternalism as a repertoire of both legitimation and contestation of punishment. The final section assesses the continuities and discontinuities in the impact of paternalism on the punishments of slaves across time, both during and beyond the colonial period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]