In this week’s reading, Davis and Olaudah Equiano
demonstrate the ways in which slavery is not as restrictive as it is usually
perceived to be. Davis gives examples of slave doctors and slaves who employed
white workers. Equinano buys his way out of slavery and uses his experience to
write a novel to contradict the racial myths that Africans are not completely
human and push the abolitionist movement forward. There were cases similar to
Equinano’s and in Inhumane Bondage,
Davis points out that some slaves negotiated for their freedom or
“half-freedom”. Not all slaves were confined to working on a plantation. In
some cases, black slaves entered artisan trades such as carpenters,
wheelwrights, tanners, etc. Black slaves are usually seen as weak and helpless
and confined to only working on a plantation. What all forms of slavery include
is the idea that these human beings can be owned as property and sold to other
people. However, not all slaves are confined to one profession and in many
cases the Africans slaves are not helpless but educated and adept when handling
different cultures to break out of enslavement and negotiate with their
masters.
Davis describes the attempts towards the abolition of
slavery and its regression. Puritans became shocked after hearing that two
Africans had been seized by treachery and violence and agreed that they should
have been returned to their home country. In Rhode Island, a law condemned the
“practice of enslaving Negroes for life” but the ten-year limitation on slavery
was never enforced. In 1735, Georgia outlawed slavery but trustees asked for
the repeal of the law and many slaves had been smuggled. Unfortunately, the
attempts failed and the dependence on slavery and its integration in American
society was so great that it proved difficult to outlaw slavery.
While reading about Olaudah Equinano, it was interesting to
learn that he had been involved in the slave trade but does everything “to
comfort the poor creatures”. Due to the mindset of the 1770s, do you see his
actions as justifiable or hypocritical?
First of all, I like Mickey's point about slavery not always being totally restrictive. I think it goes to show just how much of the United States was built by African-Americans who worked not only in the fields but also as skilled artisans and professionals. Also, so many households in colonial America relied on the help of slaves to cook and clean. I really like the points Davis makes about how black people in the North "could be found working virtually every kind of job" (129). Davis accurately points out that because of this so many states simply could not afford to abolish slavery because they were so dependent on the free skilled labor enslaved Americans were able to provide. Equiano accurately makes this point as well as he illustrates the ways in which he worked professionally under the ownership of several different men. The thing I love about Equiano's narrative is how he gives a rare and precious perspective to the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which helped fuel his anti-slavery argument.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see how Davis and Equiano proved that although slavery in the new world is often only remembered for the treatment and the jobs of slaves in a Mississippi planation, there was more to it, and slaves were not always doing that style of work. In the last few weeks we have read about and looked at the origins of slavery and what it looked like in other countries, so it is interesting to move past that get a different perspective saying that some slaves did negotiate for their freedom and eventually became free from their owners and that some slaves worked almost every job including jobs inside the home.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to remember that although there were some slaves who worked other jobs and got their freedom, racism and the harsh treatment of slaves was still a major aspect in new world slavery. At the end of the Davis reading he says, “the system always involved brutal treatment and exploitation as well as continual testing of limits”(140). This is significant to keep in mind because the relationship between master and slave and the rights of slaves have been issues in previous readings and it is still significant in this weeks readings even if they show a more positive side of slaves’ lives.
I agree with Silvia; I was most compelled by the dynamic of what we know as the brutal life of the stereotypical slave, and that of he slave that would work for his freedom, and certainly had a less harsh time. Davis and Equiano both proved that while we may tend to only think of the slaves that were abused and worked day after day on the plantations in the South, the story was multidimensional and in fact there was this growing idea of slaves attaining there freedom.
ReplyDeleteAs a result of this, to answer Mickey’s question, I believe that he was justified and only slightly hypocritical because he seemed to be acting with the hope that he would be able to help in freeing the other slaves, or at least inciting hope in those still trapped. Similarly, I think that his actions have to be viewed at least slightly hypocritically because he seems to speak of the subject in a way that sets him so far above those still enslaved that it is hard to not accuse him of self infatuation because he acts in a way that implies he is superior.
I believe that saying that slavery was “less restrictive” just because a slave might not have worked on a plantation is a logical fallacy. Even if a slave did not work out in the fields they still had no semblance of humanity in the eyes of those that they served. I agree with Silvia in that institutionalized racism and the terrible treatment that that mindset engrained in society. There was not a less restrictive form of slavery because the realities of life as a slave followed you everywhere.
ReplyDeleteIn many cases when slaves were able to “negotiate” for their freedom they were really trapped in bargains that they could never hope to fulfill. The bargains they struck were often parallel to later phenomenon like tenant farming. Even if it appeared to be closer to a fair system it was still stuck in the same mindset. There was never a less harsh form of slavery because you can’t be “half-free”. Freedom is the ability to make your own choices and there is not a half way on that. The economics of the practice may have contributed to the longevity of the institution but it's not an excuse on any level and may just be an attempt to deflect the guilt that exists due to the horrors of the institution.
I agree with Julia in saying that the idea of a slave working outside of a plantation does not somehow make them drastically freer than another slave. I also agree, on a slightly different note, with Simone in saying that it was interesting to see Davis bring up how the work of Africans and African Americans was truly vital, in all of their professions, in America’s growth as a country. This week’s insight into the working lives of slaves drew a good parallel with the themes we’ve studied so far.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of your question, Mickey, I think in Olaudah Equinano’s case, it seems to be somewhat related to both hypocrisy and the fact that Equinano is a product of his time. As we learned, Equinano faced the horrors of the slave trade first hand, from being loaded on a slave ship, surviving the journey, and becoming a slave. This fact in mind, it seems extremely hypocritical for him to look at other slaves and refer to them as something like “poor creatures,” which could be seen as dehumanizing, considering the context. Still, I agree with Jacob in saying that perhaps Equinano held out some sort of hope for freeing the slaves after the horrors he had seen. Hence, both aspects seem to be factors.
Although I found the argument that some slaves had an easier life than others more compelling, I also have to agree with Julia that the restriction on the slaves stays fairly constant. I found that Davis' descriptions of how different slaves had different jobs such as being artisans in the form of carpenters, shoemakers, blacksmiths, even sometimes boat captains to be very interesting in that it shows that not everyone lived a lifestyle of plantation slavery. I also found it interesting that some of the slaves who were partially white or had fairer skin were favored over all of the others. I also found Davis' argument about restriction to be interesting. I don't think he was trying to argue that some slaves had less restive lives, I think he is simply stating that slave owners controlled their slaves in different ways. Although some slaves worked based on a quota system, they were still controlled %100 by their owners and they knew what the punishment would be like. So ultimately, they were no less restricted than slaves in a different system.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question, I found that Equiano was justified in his preachings because I think he was simply using his ability to try to comfort those in need and to try to abolish slavery. Just because he may or may not have had a better life doesn't make him a hypocrite, because he chose to use his literacy, money, and power to try to end slavery to the best of his ability as opposed to sit on the sidelines, thus making him totally justified.
I would argue that Equiano's actions were not hypocritical, especially considering the historical context in which he performed them. Equiano was not malicious in his behavior towards his slaves and treated them fairly and with respect, not like his contemporary white slaveowners.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, as Carey points out, in Equiano's time, the concept of abolitionism had not yet come about, so it would be unfair to call Equiano a hypocrite when neither him nor his contemporaries had even considered the idea.
Another interesting point that Equiano's behaviors bring to light is the lack of solidarity among blacks, once again emphasizing the economic aspect of slavery. Equiano had the human decency to treat his slaves fairly, but was neither stopped nor encouraged from enslaving them based on their color.
Trevor makes a good point emphasizing that Equiano was not in the least a hypocrite. It may immediately seem that Equiano was being hypocritical and unjust having experienced slavery as a slave himself. But as Trevor points out, owning slaves was never morally called into question. It was simply a societal norm without any other alternative. Abolition was not existent or at the very least not a well-known mindset, so pinning the blame upon Equiano for owning slaves is fairly unjust. Although the notion of abolishing slave trade, thoughts of abolishing the entirety of slavery was not brought up during Equiano’s time.
ReplyDeleteChanging to Davis’s chapter, I found it very interesting how Davis decided to focus on the lesser-known aspect of slavery when addressing the North. We have frequently heard of slavery in the South, especially on plantations, and after hearing so much about the South it almost makes you think slavery in the North was non-existent. The most interesting fact that Davis observes was on page 128, when he notes “Connecticut even contained a large slave plantation-like farm in New London County.” What’s so interesting about this is New London was, and still is, a very wealthy area. It is from this fact that two things come to mind: First, did some/most of New London’s wealth come from slavery? Also, how is it that such a wealthy area, with more educated people, would allow slavery into their community while other Northern areas, such as Boston, were so against slavery?
I disagree with Julia and a couple other classmates’ points that working in “society with slaves” such as the United States can distinguish a freer slave opposed to the West Indies and Brazilian “slave societies.” I believe this because as Davis points out “many of the slaves… were multilingual, familiar with Christian cultures, and adept at acquiring privileges and negotiating for their freedom or ‘half-freedom’ (128).” He later states how these slaves not only worked alongside white laborers but also were often leased out to others at the slave’s request to maximize profit for their owner, and for this reason I do believe that slaves could be “half-free,” because slaves did start to have some ability to shape their future, and they could have some impact on their destination of labor. Olaudah Equiano serves as an example of an intelligent slave that did have his own means of redefining his servitude and later freeing himself. Even after black slaves were freed they did share the same economic mindset that white had, and the most profitable business of the time was slave labor. Even his actions do seem hypocritical, as some have discussed, Equiano establishes himself as a more ethical person by treating his slaves more respectably.
ReplyDeleteI think that when looking at Equiano’s life, it is more important to look at the historical environment that he was a part of, rather than whether or not he was moral. For example, the reading says that Equiano wanted to prove that race did not matter by recounting his own life which he though would be seen as “impressive” regardless of race. I found this interesting because it illustrates how in order for Equiano to make the point that race does not matter, he had to first conform to what Europeans would find either normal or impressive.
ReplyDeleteI think this ties in to the question of whether or not Equiano’s actions were justifiable because I think it proves that they were, seeing as Equiano had to place himself on the same plane as Europeans in order to prove his point that race does not matter. By this, I mean that Equiano was not hypocritical, because it was necessary for him to demonstrate that race does not matter.
On a separate note, I found the two pieces of literature (the Germantown Petition and the Selling of Joseph) to be very interesting. It seemed to me like it was difficult for people of that era to realize that slavery was wrong. For example, in the Germantown Petition, the four Quakers had to question every aspect of slavery to determine that it was immoral. And with the Selling of Joseph, it was a response to a man feeling guilty about his participation in the Witch Trials. I found it surprising just how differently slavery was seen during its existence compared to how it is seen now.