the enjambments really give an incessant feeling of breathlessness--overwhelming

There’s no right in this and every claim of appeal will be used as an excuse to exacerbate even more extraction from the indigenous population.

The way of depiction is almost helpless, as the ones doing wrong to people also get to judge the subjectivity of justice--"it would be a strange thing for poor unfortunate Indians to find justice in those courts of the pretended pious in those days, or even since." Has any of this changed today? It is quite Machiavellian in a way, where the strong always have determined who it is they abject and what it is they determine as the norm.

Even though the indignenous population had an agency, they did not carry it out, yet it gives no excuse to white people who took advantage of the natives and committed genocide knowing the words of the bible.

This resonates a lot of the previous points of abusing religion for personal gains--the fact that truth is not among the things even considered in the discussion but bloodshed and falsehood.

Perhaps Fuentes wants us to question the rule of how social conditions are manipulated especially because of the outnumbering of Afro-Barbadian women to men.

Tangent point but reminds me of when Tocqueville discussed criminal laws in his essays (Democracy in America) he mentioned it as firmly rooted in and from the old world, something that is inflexible and carries the mentality of oppression. Reading it together with this, it is as if that the mentality behind those code still persist beyond just colonial age to today when we consider criminality. What's the boundary between civil and criminal laws and how much of it, still are "structures built on racial and gendered subjugation and spectacles of terror." A question, I think, much lingered on even today.

Over-reproduction desensitizes.

Hartman reading illuminates on this

Fluentes constantly juxtaposes mainstream forms of history to the archival: one is humanized and the other remain on the other side that is most dehumanized at the expense.

What's missing between the archival words and numbers

Is it worth to think about them in relation to history at all if it doesn't fit into historical fictionalization? Counter-history seems like it's trying to answer fictions of history--and Hartman is trying to arrive at the point that that's why it's still marginalized

Instead of narrating from a place entirely of fiction or entirely of history, hightening the friction between experience of enslaved and history (what is indicated by the history).

The Turner painting really visualizes this

Looking at identity through what's present, but in this case, it's a negative knowledge that paints a lack of perspective. The void

became a common name for a man that escapes slavery in Jamaica around this time.

A weird combination of medical characterization of the sickened patient, the assertive and imposing "interrogation," as well as casting these sort of traditional medicinal practices as far away from the medical and scientific language. Ironic because the usage of sugar to cure cavities (described before) have no better supporting evidence.

Conception of something foreign as negative, oed defines usage of magic as "The use of ritual activities or observances which are intended to influence the course of events or to manipulate the natural world, usually involving the use of an occult or secret body of knowledge; sorcery, witchcraft." Think the emphasis here is on the witchcraft--all but reminders of disease in Europe and association of witchcraft and the devilish practice that gives rise to diseases. Much later he then describes the slaves as "loathsome.. wretched in mind,,, wicked." As if the earlier physical descriptions of the state of the slaves as physically apt was their only function--both as laborers to produce sugar and also sole purpose to promote sugar. Something economical and transactional about all the language and euphemism.

this part is so figurative to descriptive something so inhumane as if it's a natural process--but it is induced artificially by people managing this social order. And if the quaratined slaves lived--it is "in spite of the common law of nature." What is the law of nature here when there are also so many interpretations of it?

Why does the idea of quaratine seem ever so relevant (probably a resonance of the black plague for Europeans)--but especially jarring here because it only mentions jaw among the slave population in colonies.

bacterial infection

An absolute necessity--reminds me of reliance on fossil fuel.

Drug-like power.

Among the numerous commodities evident of Britain's overseas economic enterprise. Brought to England by the British East India Company in mid late 1600s from China.

Almost charactizes them as test subjects for this panacea and potion of some sort that renders them physically apt. Apt to do what?

Kind of bashing the commoners of Scotland and their understanding of sugar (he calls it a "story").

Interesting to see the medical misconception here. As the so-called "medical" purpose for sugar described earlier, it seems more psychological than actually medical.

Foreshadowing economic ramifications. Where would the supply and labor be fulfilled? A "scrutiny" or investigation already suggests possible alteration of existing norm.

"Ardent spirits (ethyl alcohol), in alchemy, are those liquors obtained after repeated distillations from fermented vegetables. They are thus called because they will take fire and burn. Examples include brandy, spirits of wine, etc." (Wikipedia...)

a more natural process

Reminds me that--diabetes became pretty common after sugar was popularized in England, especially among nobility who could afford it.

An almost sprouting image of usage of sugar--"disseminating," penetrating and widely used, perhaps suggestive of sugar beyond just the functions (medically and socially?) aforementioned by Arabian physicians?

More beneficial than honey for digestion as a commonality between the different observations

Byzantine physician

Why the sudden humanization? Complex chains of sociological organizations are boiled down to few sentences explained through "love" and "war."

To what and which standard?

"dirty color."

Why "destroy mightily"? Seemingly personified in a way to be more animalistic, beast-like, and brute than the description of other animals of native-European origin. Or am I just over reading this... There seems to be a need and want at times to dramaticize what happens to exoticize the imagery being painted?

Reminds me that at start of the book, extensive remarks were made about the abundance of sun and light that gives great produces that are not white and tender--it seems this standard carries over to visual aspects of judging produce in the new world, and in a way, materializes and transforms things into commodities and to be seen only as that, rather than their actual usefulness and relationship to the people living off of them.

This reminds me of what I read elsewhere about Saussure and structuralism in linguistics: that language and words often create the realities we share. In a way, the perspective and perception of the people that were annihilated by colonists now perceive the world like the colonists, yet are constantly forced out of that perception by that same category of language and perception of reality (Bentham's Principle of Utility breaks down here?). The more personal connections that were supposedly there before aren't present, or, extinct, in a way.