Sugar In The Blood: Andrea Stuart’s Barbadian Legacy

Andrea Stuart (Photo: Julia Hember)

Andrea Stuart (Photo: Julia Hember)

As Andrea Stuart writes in the current issue of Granta magazine, her Barbadian heritage is a complicated one. Stuart was born and raised on the Caribbean island, but in 1976, when she was a teenager, her family moved to England. She says her new home wasn’t especially welcoming to newcomers from the Caribbean — even well-educated, affluent ones like the Stuarts.

In a sense, the Stuarts weren’t newcomers at all. More than three centuries earlier, some of her ancestors had made the reverse journey, travelling from England to settle in Barbados. Over time, those British ancestors mixed with Stuart’s other forebears — Africans who were forcibly taken to Barbados to work as slaves in the island’s lucrative sugar trade.

Stuart writes about her family’s history in Barbados, beginning with her earliest known ancestor, George Ashby, who made the journey to the New World from England in the 1630s. She talks with Marco Werman about the complexities of untangling her family tree, and of coming to terms with the idea of being descended from both slave owners and slaves.

Stuart’s Granta article is excerpted from her book, Sugar in the Blood, which will be published in the United States next January.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: Here’s another writer in their own words. Andrea Stuart was born in Barbados. In 1976, when she was a teenager, her family moved to England. She says her new home wasn’t especially welcoming to newcomers from the Caribbean, even well-educated, affluent ones like the Stuarts. Although, in a sense, the Stuarts weren’t newcomers at all. Three and a half centuries earlier, some of her ancestors had gone from England to settle in Barbados. Over time, British ancestors mixed with Stuart’s other forebears – Africans who were forcibly taken to Barbados to work as slaves in the island’s lucrative sugar trade. Stuart writes about her family history in the current issue of Granta magazine. She begins with the story of her earliest known ancestor, George Ashby, who went to Barbados in the 1630s.

Andrea Stuart: I knew nothing about him. I didn’t even know he existed and I had no idea that I would be able to trace my family back that far. I first managed to get back to the eighteenth century and then, through luck and effort, we managed to go back to the seventeenth century. So there he was, this Englishman who moved, along with millions of other Englishmen, to the new world, and all the same time. Which is interesting because I think the American story of the American settlers has been much talked about in America and very much explored, while the British have kind of forgotten that settlers just didn’t go to mainland America. They went all the way up through South America, through the Caribbean, and up to Canada, and so there’s a wide stretch of people who have this story that I have . . .

Werman: Right.

Stuart: . . . of an Englishman or another European going over to make the new world and creating their families that are disparate racially, socially and so on.

Werman: Did you know in Barbados that you came from a mixed background – white and black?

Stuart: Yes, I did know that. I would say that that is probably the common denominator for many people.

Werman: What’s interesting in your case, Andrea, is that you’re the offspring of slave owners as well as those who were enslaved. I mean I guess that’s more . . .

Stuart: Yes.

Werman: . . . common than we realize, but has it been a tough one for you to reconcile? I mean you’ve found out about this recently, since doing this research.

Stuart: Yes, it’s been very interesting, realizing that you have, on the same plantation, both my slave owner ancestor and the slave from whom I’m evolved. It was an extraordinary sensation to feel that my planter forefather owned my other planter forefather and that they lived together through entire parts of their lives. So it’s an extraordinary kind of conundrum.

Werman: Right.

Stuart: I don’t know that I’ve really fully come to terms with that. How do you come to terms that your forefather owned your forefather? You know what I mean? It’s a very strange sensation because I have to be able to relate to both groups and understand how this extraordinary, dark scenario played out.

Werman: What a situation.

Stuart: Yeah, it is interesting.

Werman: Now, the main reason slaves were brought to Barbados was to work sugar plantations. Today, how prevalent is sugar in people’s lives in Barbados? Has it defined the fortunes, both great and nonexistent, of Barbadians, and even class?

Stuart: Well, I think traditionally sugar was the crop that made Barbados work as a colony because at the point where the colonists discovered sugar, they realized that they had finally found a crop that was lucrative. Before that, there was thought of abandoning it as a kind of failed experiment. And so sugar the island. Today, of course, sugar has been eclipsed by tourism and cane sugar has been eclipsed by the production of sugar beet in Europe, so it’s no longer the white gold, as it was described in the past. But I think when you go there you realize how much sugar kind of haunts the island and for the majority of inhabitants of the island who were slaves, I would say that they probably suffered a great deal for sugar. It was a bitter pill in many ways rather than a sweet one.

Werman: So with that personal baggage, the descendant both of slave owner and of slaves, coming from an island which furnished the sugar which enriched many British businessmen, your family moves to England in 1976. Many Brits, you write, considered you a foreigner. Did you find yourself getting defensive ever, having to tell people that, in fact, your British roots went back hundreds of years?

Stuart: Well, I think, at the time, I kind of bought the story that was prevalent in Britain which was that the AfriCaribbean, African colonial people in the country were sort of newcomers and that we were sort of there of sufferance and it was a sort of kind of act of kindness on the part of the British government. So there was that sense of feeling not quite worthy and not quite belonging. I think the wonderful thing about having written the book and explored this whole complex web of sugar slavery and settlement, I feel much more certain about my place in Britain because I can actually trace my English ancestors back much further than any Caucasian people can.

Werman: Right.

Stuart: And also because I realize how profoundly my slave ancestors suffered and worked in order to enrich the country that I now live in. So it has given me a much stronger, more solid base to live in this country and to negotiate it.

Werman: How is the history of slavery in the British Empire dealt with generally in England today?

Stuart: It’s interesting. I think that in Britain there’s still a degree of denial or an unwillingness to really confront the back story of British slavery and so on. So there’s a sense of it being something that happened sometime a long time ago in some far away place, rather than realizing that the British colonies were, at that point, Britain, that they were British territories and the connection between the colonies and Britain is incredibly intimate. Not something that happened far away and a long time ago, but something that happened in Britain in the world of British life and something that still has repercussion today, and I think that’s the thing that, as a culture, Britain hasn’t quite come to terms with.

Werman: Andrea, you write that in Britain your color enters the room before you do, but you also point out that it’s not color, but shade as well, shade of color . . .

Stuart: Yes.

Werman: . . . that is something that people in Britain, as well as Barbados, pay attention to. Talk about that and how for you that’s affected your life.

Stuart: Well, I think in the context of Britain, the shade issue is probably less of interest because in Britain one is either black or white and there’s very little sense of understanding about the shades and so on. That is more of an interest or discussion in the context of the Caribbean where people like me who are slightly lighter skinned, they’re clearly linked to a white ancestor and that therefore connects me to a past, rather tragically in fact, that is considered more privileged because what happened during slavery was the mixed race people had certain privileges associated with their white forebears and a lot of of that lingers in the Caribbean. So that sort of that thing matters there. And I think in Britain what happens is a different feeling which is that there’s an assumption in Britain about what all black people’s back story is, vis-Ã -vis class and social privilege and so on, and they assume a back story for me that has very little to do with my real experience.

Werman: Finally, as to Barbados, you say you visit home every year or so, but you put the word “home” in quote marks. What does Barbados mean to you now?

Stuart: I think my relationship to Barbados and the Caribbean generally is a sort of a curious love affair. I have a very sensual and very passionate attachment to the Caribbean, particularly Barbados, where where ever we’ve lived, we’ve always returned to this place where I have relatives and so on. It’s hard to think of it as home entirely because I haven’t lived there for a very long time and I am, to a very large degree, anglicized and I get teased by my cousins about my accents and the things that I say and do. So I know I’m aware of myself as a foreigner there, but it is also, simultaneously, the place that I feel most happy and at peace. So I suppose it’s the closest that I have come to as the place to call home. I just know that I am sort of, like so many people, displaced.

Werman: Andrea Stuart’s article “Sugar in the Blood” is in the current issue of Granta magazine. It’s an excerpt from her forthcoming book which will be out in January. She joined us from London. Andrea, thank you so much.

Stuart: Thank you, Marco. That was lovely.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Discussion

2 comments for “Sugar In The Blood: Andrea Stuart’s Barbadian Legacy”

  • Dmactds

    The other thing you might be interested in is that many Scots, Irish and others from the “Empire” of England were sent to the Barbados as slaves, many long before Africans were slaves.  The white slaves were tried out and when that didn’t work, Native Americans were tried and finally the idea of Africans as slaves was borrowed from the Islamic societies at the time which had a brisk traffic in black slaves for many centuries prior to the Europeans stepping on the African continent.  Look it up, do the research.  It’s all in the records.

  • http://www.facebook.com/robbin.bailey Robbin Bailey

    A friend sent me the article Sugar in the Blood, and thought I should submit my comments to the website.  After much thought, I felt compelled to do so.
    Slavery is a common part of most cultures.  However, the slavery of Africans is the cruelest in the history of man.  It continues to affect the perspective most people have of Africans, and continues to be the driving force behind bigotry.  Werman (interviewer) said that she found Stuart’s (the author) history as the offspring of both slave and slave owner “interesting”; which surprised me because the dynamic is common, especially in American history, and I am sure it is equally as common in English history. 
    Stuart admitted to succumbing to the hype that she and ancestors were lesser beings and that they were rescued from their homeland, and allowed to live under the rule of their often ruthless captors, and therefore, should have appreciated their predicament because by some odd strech of the imagination, being ruled by mean spirited slave owners was better for them, also they should not have expected to be entitled to the same privileges and/or treatment as their white counterparts.  She also mentioned that they were made to feel as though they did not belong; as though they were uninvited guests.
    “…African colonial people… were sort of newcomers and that we were sort of there as a matter of sufferance and it was a sort of kind of act of kindness on the part of the British government…there was that sense of feeling not quite worthy and not quite belonging…”
    One cannot fail to see the irony: especially since they know that Africans were stolen from their native land, and forced to stay to fulfill the industrial needs of their captives, which provided the labor which made many English and Americans wealthy and elite for generations.  The psychology of blaming the victim seems to be a common theme, on a global level at that! I can never get over the nerve of people who make up stories to make them feel better about their brutal and greedy ancestor’s participation in slavery.  The very fact that such stories were made up is proof that they knew, and still know, that what was done was inherently wrong and evil! Taking responsibility and atoning is a far more dignified posture; it might even be cause for forgiving; or at least it would surely be reasons to forgive. By making the abuse the fault of the victims, assuming it turned the owners’ role as abusers to saviors, is not only impossible but unethical. That attitude continues today; It is almost like committing the act all over again. How can the healing begin when the act is still not recognized for what it was by the offspring of the guilty  After Stuart stated “…the wonderful thing about having written the book and explored this whole complex web…” she should have included that it is why it is so important for people to know their history; it either removes or properly puts the stain of one’s heritage in place.   
    Stuart speaks of the modern day Brit not coming to terms with their involvement with the enslavement of the Caribbean; most people of European descent, in general, haven’t come to terms with their fore parents’ role in slavery.  Somehow, they conveniently act as though slavery was something that happened a long time ago, and has nothing to do with them (because it is such an ugly issue) yet they continue to act as thought black people are runaway slaves who are in need of constant reminding that they (Europeans and their offspring) still refuses to see them as equals; and they still see black people as slaves beneath them and their reign of terror (which has been expressed in various physical and psychological ways throughout history.)  Their socio-schizophrenic perception of themselves is diminished by their true agenda. 
    One could almost excuse or forgive those who continue to act out their prejudices as a result of generational training, a sickness forced upon them (social schizophrenia) if not for the fact that it conveniently serves their many purposes, which include world domination.  Yet deep inside, they know that they did not, and still don’t have any rights to the God given lands, resources and people which they have stolen, hoarded, used and abused. 
    There are few, if any, cultures which don’t have a faith based practice.  Such practices can make them strong and vulnerable at the same time.  Today, some people work hard to manipulate or get rid of the concept of God; even the of the God of their own understanding, even though he is conveniently shaped in their own image(s) because “God” is a being of conscience, and blocks their efforts of convincing the world of their superiority; which would make them naturally and rightfully the privileged over all other human beings
    What I find interesting is that the attitudes about race, color and background is a global concoction of psychological and social toxins developed to wage social warfare and is used by all parties.  The only difference is in how each party uses the toxic venom often identified as “isms.” While many Africans descendants, especially those born and raised in societies heavily influenced by Europeans, view skin color as either a good or bad thing, I imagine the European views it as proof that he cannot deny: he has played a huge part in histories of many black and brown cultures.  There are no pure races; and perhaps there never was.  I am reminded when I read the Holy Bible that after the Earth was flooded, the seed of Noah populated the planet, making us all natural relatives.  The skin barriers used to separate us from each other is mostly political, which in essence is also financially motivated.  Because some Europeans want to justify their belief that the European race should have it all; they created a method of resetting the human mind globally; a mass hypnosis, if you will, developed by one brother to cheat the other.  It’s all motivated by greed; when it is all said and done, it just boils down to simple greed.  Because selfishness is a basic human trait, we all feed into it, which is why the process continues to fester in the minds of those whom are tricked into believing that race, background or even shade of skin has something to do with birth rites.  As a human being, my birth rite is the same as any other’s; the way that I am carried in the womb is no different from any other creature God has created, including the Brit, Anglo, or any other member of the human “race.”
    If people would stop feeding into the skin games, they would be able to see the mind games people play to keep each other as close to or far from the gifts God gave us all when he created man in his image.  And since we know that the birth of man began in Africa, if there was an argument it would be that all mankind originated in the darker continent; and that the migration of man is the only thing that separates one man from another.   Our true beginning is indisputable, especially since the discovery of DNA.  Every since we started listening to that snake in the Garden, we have allowed the ugly side of man and his kind to develop whiles the evolution of man continues to escape us all.
    RDB, Boston, MA