Elisabeth McMahon. Slavery and Emancipation in Islamic East Africa: From Honor to Respectability.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The abolition of slavery on the island of Pemba in 1897 freed half the population from bondage, unlike in the neighboring island Unguja, that is, the largest of the islands known as Zanzibar, with whom Pemba shared economic and social similarities. The trajectory of change on the two islands was different. Elisabeth McMahon asks why the patterns of change were unique to each island, as revealed in the response to the revolution on Zanzibar of 1964 that overthrew the Omani sultan and introduced radical reform. She found the answer in the different ways in which each island responded to the introduction and consolidation of colonial rule. McMahon explores how the emancipation of slaves in Pemba resulted in the redefinition of codes of honor, as former slaves tried to reduce the extent to which they were vulnerable to economic and social exclusion and how former masters struggled to maintain levels of respectability in the face of their lost influence as slave owners. In part the contrast between the islands of Pemba and Zanzibar arises from demography; whereas former Arab masters on the island of Unguja were relatively isolated from former African slaves by living in Zanzibar Town and enclaves elsewhere, on Pemba there was no such division of residence and the incidence of intermarriage was greater. McMahon concludes, however, that demography only partly explains the difference. She argues that colonial policy reshaped power relationships and notions of honor and led to the emergence of a common identity across class and racial lines on Pemba.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".