« I've Got Your Stimulus Package Right Here | Main | Heads Up: Honduras in political crisis after apparent coup »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00df3520d496883301157164ec6d970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rhode Island Had Plantations?:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
The world's smallest plantations.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 26, 2009 at 05:19 PM
It was also one of the key markets in the international slave trade, my man. The Jews were at fault, of course.
Posted by: ari | June 26, 2009 at 09:37 PM
Interesting, though, that the plantations in the name were owned by a man who worked to cease slavery, Williams.
Posted by: Crissa | June 29, 2009 at 01:50 AM
Plantation in this context has nothing to do with slavery, or Newport traders' roles in the slave trade.
There are 36 plantations today in Maine, a rather common name for a minor civil division, and there's Plimoth Plantation, the recreated 1622 Pilgrim settlement in Plymoth, MA.
In Elizabethan English, a plantation is a colony, plain and simple. The more familiar use is later.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | June 29, 2009 at 02:31 AM
Thanks for the historical clarifications, Crissa and Davis X. Machina. From a modern perspective, it was an amusingly jarring anachronism to stumble on.
Posted by: ballgame | June 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I'm not sure, and I know the neutral connotation of the word, but hadn't "plantation" already gotten ugly overtones in Ireland?
Posted by: Gene O'Grady | June 29, 2009 at 11:42 PM
sigh.
r.i., by whatever name, is a beautiful little place, as i had the opportunity to confirm this past week.
Posted by: big bad wolf | June 29, 2009 at 11:48 PM
An interesting opinion piece on the potential name change:
http://onthebutton.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/rhode-island-renaming/
Posted by: jake | July 03, 2009 at 06:58 PM