{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03311867525298988, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025758969641214352, 'mean_word_length': 5.112359550561798, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Emancipation in Brazil

on page 131 does the author begin the analysis of Lima slaves’ everyday resistance. Some of the general information given in the first hundred pages could have been summarized, and the main argument clarified. Arrelucea distinguishes “archaic” slavery from “relative” slavery (103-13), a distinction that remains unclear. Moreover, her argument on the “slow relativization of slavery in Lima” (38) as a result of enslaved Africans’ and Afro-descendants’ agency is not fully convincing. Certainly, she has given many varied instances of slaves’ resourcefulness and perseverance in asserting what they considered their rights. But it is less evident that their actions progressively weakened slavery as an institution. For instance, the author illustrates her analysis with a myriad of cases that occurred over a 50-year period (from the 1760s to the early 1800s), without documenting a process of change over time. She also omits the fact that slavery remained strong (and even led to new slave imports) between 1820 and 1854, when Peru finally declared abolition.