In this week’s reading from Davis’s Inhumane Bondage, there was a thorough discussion of the origins of slavery, and most particularly, the different variations of slavery. Davis explored a selection of ancient societies and drew upon how slavery was run in each one. What quickly became apparent was the broad range of styles of slavery and how the dynamics were not necessarily as a product of the time period, but rather of the individual society. One of the most compelling topics Davis addressed was the connections of these ancient societies’ slavery and antebellum United States slavery. Davis draws on the close similarities between law of Rome and the law of Southern states to point out that there was a clear progression from Roman slavery to the slavery of modern Christian Europe and then eventually into the United States. Davis also points out that unlike Roman slavery, the slavery in the United States had a strong racial component that spilled out of the institution of slavery and into the social structure of the country. One question that arose is why did the United States have such a distinct racist aspect that in many ways still holds true to this day? The answer draws off of the range of societies that ancient slavery sprung from. Unlike other places where slavery came to be, the United States and most of Europe had gone from almost racially homogeneous to having a race brought to them for enslavement. The portrayal of these people as subordinate prior to their arrival had them set up for a ruthless enslavement soon after.
This pervasive racial element is an interesting dynamic especially given the origins of the transatlantic slave trade from the African perspective. In Philip Morgan’s “Africa and the Atlantic, c. 1450 to c. 1820,” he investigates the impact the transatlantic trade had on African society and authority. This piece is largely contrary to what one would imagine based on the brutal nature of American slavery. Morgan investigates how trade followed African dictates in nearly all aspects. This proved to be particularly compelling as one would believe that the Europeans were the driving force. Having read through his work, I am left wondering, why was there such a large shift in the institution of slavery from its original forms mentioned by Davis, and the dynamics of the slave trade in Africa, as mentioned by Morgan, to what is seen in the United States?
One interesting aspect of Davis’s "Inhuman Bondage" that Jacob pointed out was how the dynamic of slavery was very specific to individual societies. From my prior studies of slavery solely through United State’s history I was intrigued to learn about slavery in groups such as the Tupinamba, a Brazilian aboriginal tribe; the Tupinamba tribe exclusively kept slaves as a demonstration of the master’s power or status and also for a cannibalistic ritual. Although slaves were seen as a status symbol in American slavery, there was also an economic motive to owning slaves, which would be the increased productivity and revenue from a larger workforce. This contrasts greatly with the motives of the Tupinamba tribe who spared their captives from hard labor but treated them with an even more dehumanizing attitude than the evils of American slavery, especially when each slaves’ predetermined destiny was to be eaten in a cannibalistic sacrifice. However, Davis follows-up his anecdote of Tupinamban slavery with an equally “savage” recounting of American lynching’s where the crowd takes assorted body parts from the slaves who were hanged. As Davis points out, “it is important to remember that in most societies, even the most privileged slave… could be quickly sold, or stripped and whipped, or raped, or sometimes even killed at the whim of an owner” (37). This quote furthers Davis’s point that the vulnerability and dehumanization of a person truly distinguishes the essence of being a slave.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point that Davis brings up, which connects to Jacob’s discussion, is how different societies treated their slaves in varying ways and degrees of harshness, but it always seemed to tie into the notion of “human animals.” Davis discusses how a common theme in most slave societies was the relation of humans to domesticated animals and how there was a constant tug-of-war between the human and animal aspects of the slaves. As TJ said, Davis mentions, “the wealthy farm agent in Babylon, the Greek poet or teacher in Rome, the black driver, musician, blacksmith, or boat captain in Mississippi—could be quickly sold, or stripped and whipped, or raped, or even sometimes killed” (37). Along with TJ’s point about dehumanization in general, this quote also illuminates one of the main lines blurred in slavery: where does the work animal end and the human begin? How do race and racism respectively obscure this line further? And finally, how does this idea relate to how slavery evolved from that in Mesopotamia to the variety found in the United States?
ReplyDeleteOne part of the racial aspect of American slavery that goes more in depth than just racism is Davis' explanation about why sub-Saharan African people were "ideal" for enslaving. The Africans' skin color made them easily identifiable as a slavey, eliminating the need for other devices like collars and brands in order to identify a person as a slave. In addition, by using skin color and not a tangible object for slave identification, the slaves are to be permanently visually identified as a slave, unlike Roman slaves who could be emancipated and leave no trace of their slave life behind.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jacob's question about the shift in the institution of slavery, I think one main factor behind this was the realization by the Americans of the power, influence, and wealth they could gain in a slave-driven economy. This moved the trade from a mutual trading agreement in which both societies benefitted, economically at least.
While American slavery is associated with dehumanizing African people due to their dark skin color, Davis points out in "Inhumane Bondage" that Thracian actors sometimes wore red wings when playing slaves due to red hair being an identifying symbol. In Aesop's biography the slave is described as a "good-looking blond slave.". The Greeks enslaved their own people. Throughout history, people have enslaved various races. The continuous idea that appeared in all forms of slavery happened to be the dehumanization of slaves and the comparison to animals. Another theme that continued as a result of the degradation was superiority the masters felt and Davis compares this to the humiliation of one's sibling and the sense of superiority it brings. What upholds slavery: the ego or the economy?
ReplyDeleteAs Davis stated at the beginning of the chapter, the institution of slavery is usually bloomed in a society as an exercise of control over a conquered people. The function of slavery, he said, was to make societies "feel honored, superior, or almost godlike" (28). While there was a significant difference between American and ancient slavery, the fundamental principle still remained. In my opinion, the connections Davis pointed out were more interesting than the differences. Davis draws attention to that both ancient and American society lynched their slaves in equal brutality. While the Tupinamba ate their killed slaves, and the Americans did not, the act of killing enslaved people stemmed from the same desire: power. "All slaves," Davis projected, "are... [alike] in the sense that they provided a master class with resource for parasitic and psychological exploitation" (31). He means, no matter the power or wealth slaves of different societies owned and did not own, the psychological implications for the so-called "master class" still remained. However, this begs the question: Why did some societies decide to give more "privilege" to their slaves than others?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point Simone brings up. It did seem that Davis did focus more on the similarities than on the differences between ancient and American slavery. The Tupinamba interested me most, as they displayed an upmost violence and humiliation to their captives. The natives, as is for most citizens of modern-day countries, had an upmost respect for both their family name and their tribe’s reputation. By “denouncing and reviling their tribes of origin” (28), these slaves were not only dehumanized, but their very upbringing, family, and society was insulted while they could only sit and listen to such insults. While many may have found the way the Tupinamba clothed, fed, and even wedded their captives as a sign of mercy, I would disagree. Instead of a sign of mercy I believe this only further displayed that these captives had to depend upon their masters for their very survival. This act of forced helplessness further belittled the captives. My question that stems from Tupinamba’s practices is why do we see some of the most violent practices in a society with no use for captives or slaves in the first place?
ReplyDeleteDavis and Morgan both offered new ways of looking at slavery than what I had learned before. I found it interesting how Davis began by demonstrating the different forms and definitions of slavery because the transition from a slave being considered a wealthy property owner who might even marry to becoming the property of someone else is a drastic change. Morgan also addresses an unexpected fact, or at least something that I found surprising, when he talks about the Atlantic slave trade. While the popular belief is that the Eueopeans were completely dominate, the Africans "participated willingly and powerfully in the new commerce" (240).
ReplyDeleteIn response to the questions above, I think that part of what turned slavery into what it became was partially the demand that came from it because many people were making good money from it. In "Atlantic History: A Critical Appraisal," Morgan says that volume of slave exports tripled over the 17th century and doubled in the 18th century. This relates to the second question asked because making money off of slavery involves both an ego, because power is often what a slave owners or seller wants, and the and the economy because buying and selling slaves provided a good amount of money for some sellers and buyers.
In response to Simone's comment, I think one of the main factors that decided how societies gave "privilege" to their slaves was how the slaves were acquired and what they were used for. For example, the Tupinamba acquired slaves through war, and used them mainly as a status symbol and not as laborers. This would explain why socially and psychologically, the masters were relatively less harsh on the slaves (e.g. given clothes and sometimes wives); whereas physically, the masters were much more brutal (e.g. cannibalism). This differs greatly from American slavery that was mostly centered around labor and economic gain. In this scenario, slaves were acquired through Africans who acted as middle-men (as discussed in the Greene and Morgan reading). Because these slaves were not acquired through war, but rather from a purchase, it makes sense that these slaves were physically “far better off than most slaves… in history” (Davis 36). However, American slaves were subject to much more psychological and racial oppression, which may be attributed to the fact that slave owners needed relatively physically fit laborers, which resulted in the slaves being more psychologically abused.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that the treatment of the slaves and their society was not all that different from group to group. Even though some societies gave slaves more rule than others, the society could take away and punish the slaves as often as they pleased without ever being questioned, that never changed. And the slaves still had a brutal ending. I don’t think privilege was necessarily given to the slaves, but more that some societies just did things differently, but in every single society mentioned slaves were always the bottom of the totem pole and were treated terrible compared to others, they instead simply made owners “feel honored, superior, or almost god-like as they defined themselves as ‘non-slaves’” (28). Although the way slavery functioned was different in all of the different societies mentioned in Inhuman Bondage, Davis points out than on numerous occasions the way slaves existed in each society was very similar. For example, Davis points out that the Tupinamabas killed slaves “in ritualistic vengeance” (28), which he later points out is similar to the southern “enthusiasm for lynching former slaves” (28). Although the mobs did not eat the slaves, they still dismantled their bodies, which may not be an identical practice, but maintained some similarity.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that the dynamics of the slave trade didn't shift much but rather the economics of it grew, changing the public perception of it. Morgan talks about the fact that as the demand for slaves in Europe and the New World grew so did the price, i.e. traders would get four times as much for one slave as they would have previous years. Morgan makes it clear that no one was innocent in the perpetration of slavery, that it was driven not only by economics but also by fear of rebellion after taking many slaves during a war. In this way Morgan demonstrates how although the African slave traders controlled the logistics of the deal making them partly responsible, Europeans and Americans supplied the demand that made the trade possible in the first place.
ReplyDelete