In the Davis reading for this week, the primary focus was on the topic of slave revolts, specifically those of Nat Turner of Virginia, Denmark Vesey of South Carolina, and John Smith of Barbados. One of the first issues that Davis deals with is how the historical representation of these revolts has changed through time, our modern interpretation not being arrived at until the 1960s. How would differing interpretations of such a controversial subject help shape political and social discourse about slavery both before and after abolition?
One interesting fact that I noticed in the Davis reading was his highlighting of the major discrepancies between the number of whites killed by revolting slaves and the number of slaves, both belligerent and not, during and after the revolt. In each slave revolt that Davis studies, the number of slaves killed vastly outnumbered the number of whites killed. Indeed, Davis emphasizes the self-discipline required for the slaves to not succumb to anger and kill those who had so brutally oppressed them and their kind. After this, Davis mentions the fact that there were really no successful slave revolts in the period between 1831 and John Brown's raid around the time of the Civil War, which raises the question did the slave-owning elite's massive and brutal responses help subdue the slaves with threat of brutal violence, or were there some other forces at work in determining whether slaves revolted or not?
Blassingame, in his review of Roll, Jordan, Roll introduces Genovese's concept of reciprocity, which basically states that slaves and masters were mutually dependent on each other in the slave owning society. Genovese posits that while slaves provided the masters with social status and self-esteem, the masters provided the slaves with a station in life and "prevented their own dehumanization" (403). On one side, this theory provides slaves with some semblance of power, albeit small, in having influence over their masters. One the other hand, it seems to stray dangerously close to affirming the notion that the paternalistic behaviors of the masters were actually beneficial to the slaves. Taking this into account, I have two questions. First, do you think the theory of reciprocity is valid? Second, how do you think Genovese's claims related, if at all, to the ideas of slave revolts discussed in the Davis chapter?
In the second packet, Rereadings: Roll, Jordan, Roll, Walter Johnson primarily talks about the power structures of slavery that Genovese discusses in his book. One of the main distinctions made is the one between "individual and collective acts of resistance" (1), a concept that I believe relates back to the Davis chapter on slave revolts. Davis points out that most slave revolts other than the Haitian Revolution were localized affairs, and despite their including up to hundreds of slaves, were not truly collective acts of resistance. To be collective, all slaves of a given group or country would have to unite to throw off the yoke of their oppressors, like what was done in Haiti. Why the slaves in North America were unable to do this remains up for debate. It could be attributed to their lack of knowledge of the immensity of the slave system due to the oppression of the plantation system. Or, as Davis points out, it could be due to their lack of awareness of the temporal situation that they were in, i.e. how they saw the history of slavery that they were living in. To what do you attribute the absence of slave revolts from 1831 to 1859?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Trevor’s first question, I believe that the difference between the way that the revolts were recollected depends not completely on time, but rather on who was recounting them, and this seems to follows a temporal gradation. At the time many of the revolts took place, they wanted to convey that the slaves were bad, and subordinate, which is reflects the fact that slavery runs on the basis of racism.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the idea of reciprocity is valid because it only makes sense that without the slaves, the masters would be lost, and similarly, for many of the slaves at the high of the antebellum South, the slaves would be lost completely if they were dissolved into the public sphere. Few could read or write, and even fewer knew much about “the real world.” Finally, I would attribute the lack of slave revolts during this time to the fact that slave masters became increasingly brutal and it had been made obvious multiple times that the revolts would fail miserably, and this example made of previous attempts made slaves question their actions in revolting. Similarly, the institution of slavery had grown to such a size that it would be too large to revolt against, so many slaves who wanted to end it fled to the North as opposed to trying to fight their way out.
In response to the discussion about reciprocity, I do believe that although the fundamental idea may be valid, it is ultimately misleading. Although the slaves were dependent on slave masters to some degree, that dependence was only created through the creation of slavery. Therefore, I think that it is a very dangerous argument because it borders on reaffirming patriarchy in slavery.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Trevor’s question about why there was an absence of slave revolts, I thought that the Walter Johnson reading gave an interesting contrast to the Davis reading. The Davis reading suggested that a key contrast between collective and localized revolts was that collective revolts had to involve an entire group of slaves. However, Walter Johnson challenges the idea that “there is a contradiction rather than a continuum between individual and collective acts of resistance” (57). So one question I had is whether or not these two ideas are contrary to each other, or if the Davis reading reaffirms Johnson’s challenging of the ideas posited in Roll, Jordan, Roll.
This is a tough topic to cover. I thought for a while about the theory of reciprocity, and, honestly, I was unable to form a solid opinion on the matter. Firstly, it made me wonder about whether or not the idea was created by white people who liked to take the paternal view of slavery in a "Song of the South" style romanticism of the antebellum United States and slave culture. Conversely, it is essential to recognize the strong culture of the slave community. Secondly, Genovese's claim about slaveholders trying to live up to the promises of paternalism struck me as odd, and against the grain of many of my notions about the slaveholder-slave dichotomy. Walter Johnson says he's just plain wrong, which I think I agree with. But still, it raises the issue of agency (cultural and spiritual) within the slave class, and whether or not this had an impact on the absence of slave revolts from the 1830s up until the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to my response to Trevor's question about what caused this lack of rebellion. From what I have gathered in my reading about the American slave trade, I don't think that this general quiet could be attributed to the slaves' lack of awareness of the vastness of the plantation system. Because many slaves had their family members sold to other plantations, served as messengers, accompanied their masters in travel, and were bought and sold numerous times, one couldn't say with confidence they weren't aware of the size of their population. I think, rather, that the cause of this quiet can be explained by human psychology. After so many generations of captivity, many slaves might have seen the experience of enslavement common. Because of the brutal attitudes towards them by their masters, it could have lent to a feeling of hopelessness, that this is just the way things are. It is possible to assert that an underlying culture tied the slaves together in a community and was focused less on revolt and more on weathering the atrocious events that took place on plantations.
To conclude, I think it is essential to remember that because we didn't live in the past, it is difficult for us to qualify what happened, especially with something like slave life where most of our primary documents are heavily weighted in favor of one side of the dichotomy. Additionally, we also must be weary of revisionists tainting historical facts.
In Davis, the differences between the slave revolts, or lack of, in the United States compared to Latina America and Haiti really stood out due to the lack of success. Though many historians during the time believed it was due to the slave's "docility", the slave revolts seem to be few because the consequences and violent brutality that followed most of the slave revolutions. For example, in Nat Turner's revolution in Virginia that led to his hanging and the death of over 200 people. The absence of slave revolts from 1831 to 1859 was due to the violent reactions of the white oppressors and the racist ideology that went along with it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the two reviews of Roll, Jordan, Roll it is interesting how Genovese presented the argument that reciprocity humanized slavery and brought mutual dependency. Blassingame focuses on reciprocity but it almost seems to downplay the horrors and oppressive nature of slavery. Personally, I believe the paternalistic slave owners did not humanize slavery but instead used paternalism to justify their actions and their immorality. Johnson points out in his essay how many paternalistic slave owners "desperately needed the gratitude of their slaves in order to define themselves as moral human beings". With their ignorance, they believe in the justifications of slavery in order to continue to oppression. I agree with Genovese on his point that paternalism became an ideological mechanism to disguise the exploitation of their slaves.
In regards to Trevor’s first question, the interpretation of the topic of slave revolts could and did change the political and social discourse as explained by Davis when he says that when the majority of historians were white, they paid most of their attention to the whites that were killed and only rarely addressed the “execution, often without trial, of hundreds of blacks”(205). The views on slave revolts changed even after abolition because people often changed their minds about who they sympathized with in the revolts.
ReplyDeleteFor his second question, I think that one of the main reasons that there were not many slave revolts was because of the fear that slave had of their owners and because of the brutal treatment that slaves knew they would received in the case of an unsuccessful revolt.
I think the theory of reciprocity is valid because the masters depended on their slaves not only for labor and economic gain but also as a symbol of their wealth, and without the slaves they would not get those things as easily. Although I do believe that it is a little harder to see why slaves would be dependent on their masters, one has to consider that back then in some slaves’ case they didn’t know anything other than the life of a slave so changing adopting to everyone else could be a difficult task.
This week’s reading, which focus mainly on slave revolts, gave us more information on a topic we’ve touched on in previous discussion—what inspired slave revolts? Why weren’t there more of them? The viewpoints put forth by the three writers of this week’s readings gave interesting insights into these questions that shed more light on the subject.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to Trevor’s first question, I’d say that differing interpretations of such a controversial subject certainly helped shape discourse—I agree with Silvia. I believe those with more racist points of view in the past would likely blame the general depravity of the slaves for the slave revolts, instead of considering the point Trevor brings up about how many more slaves were killed during slave revolts than whites. This interpretation would make the slaves involved in revolts to out to be the “bad guys” when, in fact, slave owners and traders were far more morally corrupt and antagonistic. More recently, historians can more clearly see the reason behind slave revolts and come to the conclusion that, due to the causation of these revolts, the slaves deserved more of our sympathy than their white oppressors.
I agree with Davis that the massive threat of what would come of a slave revolt was an effective method of revolt suppression. The slaves understand that the likelihood of a successful revolt was low and that they would probably have been more harmful than successful. I also however think that this blends well with Blassingame’s review, but not in the way Blassingame intended. I do think that the concept of Genovese’s reciprocity borders on the defense of slavery as good for both masters and slaves, but I do think that on a lesser level it is correct. I believe that the slaves knew that if they revolted, in the slim chance that they succeeded, they would be in terrible condition, and they would have nowhere to go, because no matter what they did, they would still be runaway slaves. I believe this inability to have or do anything post revolt was actually the biggest cause of the lack of revolts. Although it is not quite the same thing as providing the slaves with benefits, this idea still uses the slave’s owners to lock them into a secure job and a place to be. I believe that this modified version of reciprocity is not a defense of slavery, but rather a logical reason why the slaves were not motivated to revolt.
ReplyDeleteWhile Davis’s views on slave revolts are interesting when he mentions how unsuccessful many revolts were, I think his assumption of the infrequency of revolt is unsteady. The issue I have with Davis’s thought process that a few others have also assumed is that the slaves would be informed enough to know of failed revolts. Unless there was a previous revolt on the same plantation, how would word come about to the slaves who rarely, if ever, left their plantation? Did the masters make the failed revolts known to the slaves to intimidate them? I feel that clarifications need to be made when talking about the infrequency of revolts due to the fact that the slaves may have not revolted due to many other factors, such as other forms of intimidation employed by plantation owners.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Trevor’s first question, I think reciprocity is false. While I can see how masters used slaves to display wealth, I don’t understand how in any way slaves depended upon their masters. Sure, society often forced freed slaves into other forms of hard labor, but that doesn’t mean the slaves are like little children lost without their masters. Reciprocity just seems like another justification for the slave system to me.
To answer Trevor’s first question I believe that the framing of revolts was a primary factory in how people viewed the institution of slavery. When slave revolts were framed as violent and unprovoked it served to convince people that the slaves were in fact an entity that needed to be controlled. This type of framing also served to scare the white plantation owners into believing that if they did not crack down on their slaves they would ultimately lose them. On the other hand when revolts were framed as the oppressed rising up against their oppressors it created a type of narrative that created sympathy for the slaves that were revolting.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the theory of reciprocity. As has been documented in previous readings the institution of slavery was one of the most dehumanizing institutions that could be imagined. Given that I am highly wary to make a claim that legitimizes the institution in any way shape or form. I believe that the concept of reciprocity buys into the theory of paternalism that was used to justify the idea and the atrocities of slavery for so long.