An ‘Odyssey’ or Incident of Slavery?

So right out of the gate I have a question, what was the focus of Randy Spark’s work? Fairly straightforward in the introduction and description, I quickly realized that I don’t think the Robin Johns were the focus of this work. They are briefly alluded to in the first half of the book and it isn’t until nearly 2/3rds of the way in (on page 84) that any part of what they experienced is noted, cited, and quoted. So I wonder then, what was Sparks trying to convey if not an accurate representation of a brothers odyssey? Beyond the intent of the work, which I find to be an illustration of how these cultures of (England and Africa) engaged one another, the legality and perceptions of slavery, and the greater slave culture, the focus differs from what Sparks claims it does.

I think this work was about several different things, some more than others. I think that the massacre and its relation to African and British relations/culture was the main focus of The Two Princes of Calabar. The massacre is brought up again and again and it the single most detailed account of the work. In fact, the amount of description giving to the Robin Johns experience is barely any more elaborated on in the main work as compared with the brief description allotted in the introduction. The massacre, however, is given nearly three times as much analysis, including the detailed recreation through Spark’s own research.

I believe that Sparks found an interesting source, the letters of the Robin Johns, and used that as a platform to launch an investigation into Old Calabar, British/African (Efik to be exact) relations, culture, and legal systems, as well as their respective religious integrations. It appears to me that either Sparks started off with some knowledge beforehand and utilized the letters as a tool to thread together his notions OR simply used the letters as a starting point that splintered into varying scholarships.  He cites the letters when necessary in his endnotes, however nearly the entire book is based off of other primary/secondary works.

Spark also has this tendency to waver with a sort of selective contextualization.  At times being (appropriately so) hyper specific with his analysis and making claims only of the Robin Johns, Old Calbar (New Town and Old Town) and specific English authorities. However, then he tends to make these broad sweeping claims that sweep up the entire Atlantic world without proper foundation. The first example is when talking about the exchange of culture (or rather cultural imperialism) between England and ‘Africa’. He tends to lose sight of the context of Old Calabar and make general claims encompassing all of Africa and all of the slave trade. It also tends to make the English seem like larger actors in the African slave trade by making such large analysis based off of the Old Calbar region alone. (p. 33) In addition, he makes the age old mistake of uniting all of Africa under one monolithic culture, one necessary in order to make large assertions. On page 132 he quotes “Still, ‘it seems clear that African thinking on the slave trade closely paralleled that of contemporary (pre-abolitionist) Europe”. I find this section to be somewhat convoluted. It seems as if he is citing an unpublished paper by Robin Law on West African Slave trade. This seems like a correctly utilized source, however he starts quoting in ways and talking in ways that begin to remove oneself from the mindset of Western Africa. Sparks begins talking about Africa as a singular culture and singular line of thinking. Most likely this was done to give gravitas to his conclusions, yet seemingly detracts from his analysis.