Arguing Efik Law in England

        I found the most convincing and interesting part of the Two Princes of Calabar to be the part about the way in which the Robin Johns argued that they had never been slaves in the first place since they had "not done anything to forfeit [their] liberty" (101).  I felt like this really drove home one of the arguments that Sparks was making, which was to show the reader that there was a great deal of ethnic diversity among enslaved Africans.  While I had some difficulty buying into Sparks's arguments as to why the Robin Johns chose to adopt Christianity I felt like this book really accomplished one of the goals that it set out to do.  As Sparks says in the beginning of the book, it's often difficult to get a grasp on the slave trade when one is reading about it in terms of the number of people moved from place to place.  Also, I liked how he set the Robin Johns' story in terms of their impact on the slave trade in England, and in so doing shifted the focus away from their role just as men who brought missionaries to Africa.  While there were at times in the book where it seemed like the focus moved away from the brothers' story, the way Sparks connected their story to the abolition of the slave trade was, in my opinion, a great example of what a microhistory can accomplish.  Finally, I especially liked the part about Williamsburg, since that is where I'm from.