marginalizing them, so that they would became cultural receptacles rather than donors" (152).Mintz and Price have argued the slave trade had the effect of " permanently breaking numerous social bonds that had tied Africans together" (153). Another element of the "no connections" argument claims that Africans did not receive enough associational time with each other or with those of similar ethnic backgrounds to ensure survival of cultural practices. Drawing largely upon the study of Anthropology, Thornton attempts to outline conditions for cultural survival and transformation. He contends these arguments stating that opportunities existed for viable communities to be formed, that there were prospects for passing on "changing cultural heritage to a new generation through training of offspring" and that there existed opportunities for Africans to associate with themselves (153). Thornton finds much more evidence for cultural transformation than cultural "transplantation." He notes the tendency of researchers to focus on specific "Africanisms" rather than the cultural totality and stresses the fact that "cultures change through constant interaction with other cultures" (209, 207).I agree with Thornton's analysis. As stated in a passage from our paper:It would be nave to think that after being enslaved and transported across the sea to a foreign continent African slaves were able to physically transplant their cultures in this new environment. It would be equally nave to believe no elements of African culture made their way to this region Africans were interacting with Europeans and other Africans of different ethnic groups, adapting to the realities of their new environments and transforming elements of both old and new into their own African-American culture. (Bright & Broderick 10).Evidence exists that shows Africans were allowed enough associational time to form viable communities, that they maintained strong family structures and that...
