Sunday, September 29, 2013
Week 5: Slavery in the Caribbean and South America
In this week's readings, Davis focused on the growth of sugar plantations in South America, and he explained how they epitomized what slavery looked like in the New World; therefore, he addresses the origin of slavery. In the second reading Burnard uses Thomas Thistlewood's journal to get a perspective of what the average white male experienced while being a slaveholder. Davis shows how the ideas and racism behind slavery existed hundreds of years before New World slavery, and he also addresses the similarities difference of the master-slave relationships between the Caribbean and South America and the New World.
One aspect that I found interesting about the Davis reading was how he explicitly said that slavery was based on economics because in past readings he had only focused on the religious motivations. Davis says, "owners were economically motivated to maximize the productivity of workers who could not simply be fired or have their wages lowered"(104). Davis also argues that people used the idea of slavery as an "institution necessitated by the need to Christianize and civilize a 'savage people' from Africa"(106) as an excuse or disguise for there economic motivations. These readings made me wonder if it was purely economic for slavery from the 1500s to slavery in the New world or did the want to civilize a 'savage people' influence the growth of slavery. Which do you guys think had a greater influence on slavery and the treatment of slaves?
Burbard’s text offers in inside look at the life a white male living in Westmoreland. He reveals the barbaric approaches slaveholders took, and also describes how they were the norm for that time and place. It was interesting to see the transition from Thistlewood learning about medicines and cultures from the slaves to the violent treatment he had of them because that is what people believed what necessary. Burnard shows how the English-Americans went in order to civilize the Africans but in the end they were the ones committing barbaric acts.
The two texts works off of and support each other very well, so I have a couple questions that I think could be interesting to discuss. First, Davis states that historians often argue whether is the master-slave relationship is semifeudal, seigneurial, or paternalistic, so which do you think it is? And second, how did improvements in technology affect the treatment of slaves?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Regarding your question about the master-slave relationship, I would tend to disagree about paternalistic, especially in light of the reading on Thomas Thistlewood. To me, paternalistic implies that there was an aspect of fake and overstated generosity on the part of the masters to demonstrate to both the slaves and the community that they were doing a good service by owning slaves. However, in British Jamaica, the opposite effect was seen.
ReplyDeleteInstead of being viewed as a positive and civilizing force, the brutal mistreatment of slaves by English planters in Jamaica was seen as a corrupting influence on society and ultimately un-British. The disapproval of the citizens about slavery is slightly ironic, especially considering the huge profit that the Jamaican plantation system was producing for the British.
I think to really examine the relationship between slaves and their masters, we have to address the question about whether or not the idea of civilizing a “savage people” was really a measure for the promotion of slavery. I think it’s important to realize that there were likely people, especially towards the beginning of the New World slavery timeline, who fully believed that taking in the non-ruling class and enslaving them was, indeed, a way to civilize them. However, I believe it’s important to reflect on the fact that it seems, both from prior knowledge and the readings, that the slave owners in more recent times were fully aware that their slaves were human, and deserved to be treated as such, but instead fell back on the first idea and said that that was their cause while not really believing such. It seems to me that the realization of slaves’ humanity grew more as generations went on, evolving with the technology and people. Therefore, I think the relationship between slaves and masters was never one single definition (such as paternal or semifeudal) but instead something that varied based on the time period, and the slaves and masters themselves.
ReplyDeleteI believe that slavery was often paternal (at least in the mind of the slave holder) they viewed themselves as saving the slave from something worse (i.e. hunger, disease, war) and used that mindset to justify the atrocities they were committing. Even given this slave owners knew that they had to make sure they squelched any rebellion that might manifest. This scenario was especially prevalent in places where the black population vastly outnumbered the white population, as was the case in Jamaica. Many settlers felt that this kind of treatment was necessary to reach a greater end a “more civilized” society. Although the relationship isn’t what we today would consider paternalistic, I believe that in the minds of the slave holders they were truly doing something for the betterment of the slaves themselves which can be considered paternalistic.
ReplyDeleteSilvia, in regards to your comment of Davis’ text, up to this point, “only focus[ing] on the religious motivations” of slavery, I found this slightly inaccurate. A large portion of the reading from Davis last week focused on the economic structure of slavery, namely, the selling of slaves by powerful African rulers in exchange for precious commodities such as metal goods, tobacco, and personal ornaments. On the other hand, I do agree with you that the two readings complimented each other quite well. More specifically, Julia touches on the subject of how blacks vastly outnumbering the white population, which whites used as justification for the brutal treatment of slaves. Both Burnard and Davis discuss the need to control the blacks who “outnumbered whites by as much as nine to one” (Davis) in order prevent slave insurrections (123). The danger that blacks posed on whites further distinguished the “racial solidarity” (Burnard) and the creation of new, rich African-Caribbean cultures.
ReplyDeleteOn a separate note, one major takeaway I got from Davis’ reading this week was his point on how quickly the Brazilian slave trade became “the largest slave-importing region in the New World… bringing Portugal even greater profits than the fabled Asian spice trade” (109). In contrast to Kayla’s description the changing relationship between master and slave, the need of sugar-cane slaves was perpetual. Davis reinforces this idea by including points such as of the necessity of sugar in Europe (to both aristocratic and middle class), the perishability of sugar-cane therefore needing many laboring hands, and the harsh working conditions of sugar-cane slaves which resulted in high mortality and low fertility rates from Portuguese Brazilian slaves (unlike the slaves in America).
In response to Silvia’s question about how to describe the slave and master relationship, I have found the relationship to closely mirror the archetypal paternalistic relationship because of, as Trevor mentioned, the odd dynamic of the master acting as if he gave something to the slaves that was superficial. I did, however, find that this relationship also had feudal ideology in it. This was mainly fueled by the idea that the slaves were dependent on the masters in the same way that the masters depended on their slaves. Similar to the feudal system, there seemed to be this sentiment, which likely was falsely invented by the masters, that the slaves wouldn’t leave as a result of what the masters provided for them, and that in reality both parties were doing a favor to the other. I find this complexity the most interesting, and as a result of this multifaceted situation, there is no straight forward answer to the question of which type of relationship is there, because it is truly a new type of its own.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Silvia’s question regarding the advancement of technology, I find that this affected the treatment of the slaves horribly because they became more dispensable and because the work process no longer depended one hundred percent on the manual labor of the slaves, they would be able to work longer hours in the field. Additionally, the technology was viewed as making the work “easier,” which created an expectation of a higher yield so, again, slaves were worked harder.
I thought the insight Burnard offered in regards to the life of a white man living in Jamaica was very intriguing. It is perplexing to think that in the time of Thomas Thistlewood slaves and free Africans in Jamaica outnumbered the white slave-driving class almost ten to one, yet the master class remained in power for decades. Burnard also gives us an idea of the physical and sexual abuse white males put their slaves through. It was through this cruelty that the British controlled the slave class, putting heads on stakes to display as a warning, as well as whipping and beating over half of their slaves. So, in regards to Silvia's question, I think slavery in this region was neither semifeudal, seigneurial, nor paternalistic, since all of those concepts have some sort of dignity attached to them. Slavery in Jamaica made the British "self-indulgent, indolent, and full of overbearing pride." Therefore I think slavery in the Caribbean could be more accurately described as barbaric.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me like the relationship between slaves and slave masters was almost entirely based off of economic gain. Although it does seem possible that some slaveholders had a paternalistic motivation in their slave-holding, it seems like if one were to generalize the intentions of all slaveholders, they would be strongly related to profit. In this weeks reading, Davis says, “planters sought to counteract or disguise the purely economic connotations of racial slavery” (104). To me, this quote seems to show how the paternalistic motivations of slaveholders were probably artificial in order to make their slaveholding seem less about purely exploitative gain.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the other point about the relationship between slave conditions and technology, I found it very surprising that innovations could make slavery so much more dangerous. For example, I was especially surprised in the Davis reading when he talked about how slave women in Brazil would frequently have a missing arm from working with dangerous machinery in subpar conditions. So to answer that question, I think that improvements in technology severely increased the danger of a slave’s life in a much more tangible way, such as losing a limb.
Although Matt does make a good point that paternalistic relations with slaves cannot dictate an entire reasoning for enslavement, his argument is slightly flawed. Yes, the entire reasoning that slaveholders’ felt they were helping slaves cannot dictate an entire motivation for slavery, but it is a large factor in justifying the “morals” of slavery. While the economy very obviously contributes a large amount to the motives for slavery, we find that slaveholders justified the cruelty of slavery through the “growing consensus that defined slave labor as ‘backward’” (106). So yes, as Matt said, paternal views upon slavery aren’t major driving factors for slavery, they do add to the growth and “popularity” of enslavement altogether.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found interesting was in the Davis reading (107-108) was the mention of how hard, dangerous, and costly the sugar business was. Ranging from heavy manual labor to training slaves, the sugar business was difficult to maintain, making sugar a luxury at the time. My question in regard to this is, why were African slaves more “useful” than the original native slaves?
Assuming my understanding of semineurial is correct, this master-slave relationship is primarily economic in that it is using the slave as a way to gain profit in assorted business ventures. This is the relationship I found to be most compelling. I think in the past weeks we have spent a lot of time discussing, which came first-the desire to control people-specifically Africans, or the desire for wealth, and I think based on our discussions and the different readings we have had, I find that the desire for wealth is prerequisite to the desire to enslave and control people. However, I tend to agree with Jacob G. that although economic motives were the primary motives-the paternalistic relationship is also a very large player-not as a defining motivation, but a reason that the motivation for money was able to continue.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your final question Silvia, I think the improvements of technology worsened the lives of the slaves because that solidified slavery as a major component of an industrial industry. On pg. 108 of IB, Davis first describes the lives of slaves pre-technology, which was bad, and then describes them post-technology, which was even worse. Davis describes the increased risks of danger due to the machinery, having to keep a hatchet on hand in case a limb needed to be severed, and so on and so forth. I also think due to the machinery and technological innovation, the freedom of the slaves went down and their work became more locked into a constant shift working night and day on terrible diets. The slaves were now forced to all work together constantly otherwise the machine would fail, meaning they were more locked into their work.
In regards to the slave-master relationship, I agree with Julia that in only the master's eyes could it be paternal due to the fact that slave masters justified slavery by saying that they were saving the slaves from something worse. The relationship is semifeudal in some aspects because in the Feudal system there was immobility in socioeconomic status and the slaves were confined to being at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The relationship itself seems more feudal than paternalistic.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I think it is interesting when Davis says that racial slavery was “the labor system most conducive to the elevation of the intellect. With Thimblewood, he is obviously a man who has studied Latin and received an education. Both texts compliment each other because with slavery there seems to be an elite that receives more education and it keeps the slaves without access to educate themselves and in comparison the education becomes esoteric to the slave masters.