Slavery as Capitalism
The Shape of American Slavery
The slave system in America was unique in human history. Sometimes
slaves were treated cruelly; at other times with kindness. They were more
often used as a sign of affluence, a way of displaying one's wealth and
of enjoying luxury, rather than as the means for the systematic
accumulation of wealth. Previously, slavery had existed in hierarchical
societies in which the slave was at the bottom of a social ladder, the
most inferior in a society of unequals. While each society normally
preferred to choose its slaves from alien people, it did not limit its
selection exclusively to the members of any one race. Slave inferiority
did not lead necessarily to racial inferiority. In contrast to this,
slavery in America was set apart by three characteristics: capitalism,
individualism, and racism.
Capitalism increased the degree of dehumanization and depersonalization
implicit in the institution of slavery. While it had been normal in other
forms of slavery for the slave to be legally defined as a thing, a piece
of property, in America he also became a form of capital. Here his life
was regimented to fill the needs of a highly organized productive system
sensitively attuned to the driving forces of competitive free enterprise.
American masters were probably no more cruel and no more sadistic than
others, and, in fact, the spread of humanitarianism in the modern world
may have made the opposite true. Nevertheless, their capitalistic
mentality firmly fixed their eyes on minimizing expenses and maximizing
profits. Besides being a piece of property, the American slave was
transformed into part of the plantation machine, a part of the
ever-growing investment in the master' mushrooming wealth.
The development of slavery in America resulted from the working of
economic forces and not from climatic or geographic conditions. When the
first twenty Africans reached Virginia in 1619, the colony was comprised
of small plantations dependent on free white labor. While some historians
believe that these immigrants were held in slavery from the beginning,
most think they were given the status of indentured servants. English
law contained no such category as slavery, and the institution did not
receive legal justification in the colony until early in the 1660s.
Although the fact of slavery had undoubtedly preceded its legal
definition, there was a period of forty years within which the Africans
had some room for personal freedom and individual opportunity. Rumors of
deplorable working conditions and of indefinite servitude were reaching
England and discouraging the flow of free white labor. To counter this, a
series of acts were passed which legally established the rights of white
labor, but they did nothing to improve the status of the African. In
fact, their passage pushed them relentlessly towards the status of slave.
The price of tobacco declined sharply in the 1660s and drove the small
white farmer to the wall. Only those with enough capital to engage in
large-scale operations could continue to make a profit. In order to fill
the need for the huge labor supply required large-scale agriculture, the
colonial legislature passed laws giving legal justification to slavery.
At the same time, Charles II granted a royal charter establishing a
company to transport African slaves across the ocean and thereby
increasing the supply of slaves available to the colonial planter.
Until this time, the number of Africans in the colony had been very
small, but thereafter their numbers grew rapidly. The African slaves
provided the large, dependable, and permanent supply of labor which these
plantations required. The small white planter and the free white laborer
found the road to economic success had become much more difficult. To be
a successful planter meant that he had to begin with substantial capital
investments. Capitalist agriculture substantially altered the social
structure of the colony. On one hand, it created a small class of rich
and powerful white planters. On the other, it victimized the small white
planters, or white laborers, and the ever-growing mass of African slaves.
The second unique factor in American slavery was the growth of
individualism. While this democratic spirit attracted many European
immigrants, it only served to increase the burden of slavery for the
African. Instead of being at the bottom of the social ladder, the slave
in America was an inferior among equals. A society which represented
itself as recognizing individual worth and providing room for the
development of talent, rigidly organized the entire life of the slave and
gave him little opportunity to develop his skills. In America, a person's
worth became identified with economic achievement. To be a success in
Virginia was to be a prosperous planter, and white individualism could
easily become white oppression leaving no room for black individualism.
The existence of slavery in a society which maintained its belief in
equality was a contradiction which men strove diligently to ignore.
Perhaps this contradiction can be partly understood by seeing the way in
which individual rights had come into being in English society. Instead
of springing from a belief in abstract human rights, they were an
accumulation of concrete legal and political privileges which had
developed since Magna Charta. Viewing it in this light, it may have been
easier for the white colonists to insist on their rights while denying
them to the slaves. Nevertheless, the existence of slavery in the midst
of a society believing in individualism increased its dehumanizing
effects.
The third characteristic which set American slavery apart was its racial
basis. In America, with only a few early and insignificant exceptions,
all slaves were Africans, and almost all Africans were slaves. This
placed the label of inferiority on black skin and on African culture. In
other societies, it had been possible for a slave who obtained his
freedom to take his place in his society with relative ease. In America,
however, when a slave became free, he was still obviously an African. The
taint of inferiority clung to him.
Not only did white America become convinced of white superiority and
black inferiority, but it strove to impose these racial beliefs on the
Africans themselves. Slave masters gave a great deal of attention to the
education and training of the ideal slave, In general, there were five
steps in molding the character of such a slave: strict discipline, a
sense of his own inferiority, belief in the master's superior power,
acceptance of the master's standards, and, finally, a deep sense of his
own helplessness and dependence. At every point this education was built
on the belief in white superiority and black inferiority. Besides
teaching the slave to despise his own history and culture, the master
strove to inculcate his own value system into the African's outlook. The
white man's belief in the African's inferiority paralleled African self
hate.
Slavery has always been an evil institution, and being a slave has always
been undesirable. However, the slave in America was systematically
exploited for the accumulation of wealth. Being a slave in a democracy,
he was put outside of the bounds of society. Finally, because his
slavery was racially defined, his plight was incurable. Although he
might flee from slavery, he could not escape his race.
North American and South American Slavery
Slavery, as it existed in British North America, contained interesting
points of comparison and contrast with the slave system existing in
Portuguese and Spanish South America. Although both institutions were
geared to the needs of capitalistic agriculture, the rights and
privileges of the South American planter were restricted and challenged
at many points by the traditional powers the Crown and the Church. On one
hand, capitalism, unimpeded by other powerful institutions, created a
closed slave system which regimented the totality of the slave's life. On
the other hand, through the clash of competing institutions, the slave as
been left with a little opportunity in which he could develop as a person.
In the seventeenth century, while the British colonies were being
established in North America and their slave system was being created,
the English Crown underwent a series of severe shocks including two
revolutions. Although it eventually emerged secure, the monarchy managed
to survive only by making its peace with the emerging commercial and
industrial forces. These same crises undermined the authority of the
Church as a powerful institution in society. The nonconformist sects were
the stronghold of the merchant class and spread rapidly in the American
colonies. There, instead of being a check on the commercial spirit, the
Church itself had become dominated by the middle class. Equally important
is the fact that in colonial America the level of religious life was very
low. Most colonists, with the exception of the original founders who had
fled religious persecution, did not come for religious freedom but for
economic advancement. When some Virginians at the end of the seventeenth
century, petitioned the government to build a college for the training of
ministers, they were told to forget about the cure of souls and instead
to cure tobacco. The result was that the planter class, unchallenged by
any other powerful institutions, was free to shape a slave system to meet
its labor needs. In any conflict which arose between personality rights
and property rights the property rights of the master were always
protected.
In contrast, the South American planter would not have such a free hand
in shaping his own affairs. The Renaissance and Reformation had not made
the same impact on Spain and Portugal as they did on the rest of Western
Europe. Consequently, secularization and commercialization had not
progressed as far in eroding the traditional power and prestige of the
Crown and the Church. Although both institutions readily compromised with
capitalist interests and strove to develop a working alliance with them,
neither the Crown nor the Church in Spain and Portugal had ever been
taken over by the commercial interests.
Both Spain and Portugal had had continuous contact with slavery extending
back into ancient times. Roman law as well as the Church fathers had
concerned themselves with it, and these concepts had been incorporated
into Spanish and Portuguese law. Also, slaves continued to exist in both
countries down to modern times. Therefore, when Portugal began importing
slaves from West Africa in the fifteenth century, the institution of
slavery was already in existence. Before long, significant numbers of
African slaves were to be found in both Portugal and Spain. When the
South American planters began importing slaves, slavery already had a
framework and a tradition within which the planter had to operate.
The Spanish Crown devoted a great deal of time and energy to the
supervision of its overseas possessions. Instead of permitting
considerable local autonomy as the British did, the Spanish Council of
the Indies in Madrid assumed a stance of illiberal, paternal,
bureaucratic control. From the point of view of the colonial capitalists,
the cumbersome royal bureaucracy was always involved in troublesome
meddling which impeded their progress. As part of the careful management
of its colonies, the Crown strove to control the operation of the slave
trade. Similarly, it was concerned with the treatment of the African
slaves within the colonies. The Spanish Crown included the slaves as
persons instead of relegating them solely to the status of property at
the disposal of their owners.
The Church, as a powerful institution, jealously guarded its right to be
the guardian and protector of social morality. Besides being concerned
with influencing individual behavior, the Church insisted that it was a
social institution with the right to interfere in matters relating to
public morals. In fact, it was through this role that the Church was able
to exercise its worldly powers. While condemning slavery as an evil and
warning that it endangered those who participated in it, the Church found
it expedient to accept slavery as a labor system. However, it insisted
that the African slaves must be Christianized. Missionaries were sent to
the trading stations on the African coast where the captives were
baptized and catechized. The Church feared that the purity of the faith
might be undermined by the infusion of pagan influences. Then, when a
slave ship reached the New World, a friar boarded the ship and examined
the slaves to see that the requirements had been met. The Church also
insisted that the slaves become regular communicants, and it liked to
view itself as the champion of their human rights.
The degree to which the individual rights of the slave were either
protected or totally suppressed provides a clearer insight to the
differences between North American and South American slavery. The laws
outlining the rights of slaves have been traditionally placed into four
categories: term of servitude, marriage and the family, police and
disciplinary powers, and, finally, property and other civil rights.
In both systems the term of servitude was for life, and the child's
status was inherited from its mother. Children of slave mothers were
slaves, and children of free mothers were free regardless of the status
of the father. Inherited lifetime slavery was the norm.
Manumission--granting freedom--was infrequent in British North America.
Occasionally, masters who had fathered slave children would later give
them their freedom. A few other slaves were able to purchase their own
freedom although, strictly speaking, this was a legal impossibility. The
slave was not able to own property according to the law, and this meant
that the money with which he purchased his freedom had always belonged to
his master. Obviously, he could only do this with his master's fullest
cooperation.
In South America, however, manumission was much more frequent. This
practice received highly favorable social sanction, and masters often
celebrated national holidays, anniversaries, birthdays, and other special
events by manumitting one or more of their favorite slaves.
The law also defended the right of the slave to purchase his own freedom.
He had the right to own property and could accumulate funds with which he
might eventually achieve his dream. He also had the right to demand that
his master or the courts set a fixed price for his purchase which he
could then pay over a period of years. Sundays and holidays were for the
slave to use as he saw fit, and, in some cases, he was also guaranteed a
couple of hours every day for his own use. During this time he could
sell his services and save the proceeds. The law also stated that parents
of ten or more children were to be set free. Finally, slaves could be
freed by the courts as the result of mistreatment by their masters.
While there was much sentiment in North America supporting marriages
among slaves, and there was much animosity against masters who separated
families through sale, the law was unambiguous on this point. Slaves
were property, and therefore could not enter into contracts including
contracts of marriage. Jurists also noted that to prevent the sale of
separate members of a family would lower the sale price, and this was to
tamper with a man's property. Therefore, property rights had to be placed
above marriage rights. In contrast, in South America the Church insisted
that slave unions be brought within the sacrament of marriage. The Church
also strove to limit promiscuous relationships between slaves as well as
between masters and slaves, and it encouraged marriage instead of
informal mating. Also, the law forbade the separate sale of members of
the family, husband, wife, and children under the age of ten.
The general thrust of the laws outlining police and disciplinary powers
in North America was to entrust complete jurisdiction to the master. One
judge had laid down the law that the master's power must be absolute in
order to render slave obedience perfect, and, although the courts were
empowered to discipline slaves in certain situations, the masters
generally acted as judges, juries, and dispensers of punishments. In
those rare cases where the law did protect the slave against extreme
mistreatment, its protection was nullified by the universal proscription
against any slave or Black person testifying in court against any white.
The court also had assumed that it was irrational for a man to destroy
his own property, and, therefore, it was impossible for a master to
commit premeditated murder against one of his own slaves.
However, in South America the court exercised much more Jurisdiction over
the slave. Crimes comitted by a slave were prosecuted by the court, and,
if a slave was murdered, this case was prosecuted by the court as if the
victim had been a free man. The law also made a more concerted attempt
to protect the slave against mistreatment by his master. A certain type
of state lawyer was an official protector of the slaves; he received
regular reports on slave conditions from priests as well as from special
investigative officials who had been appointed by the state for this
purpose. Mistreatment could lead both to the freedom of the slave and to
the imprisoning of the master. The law had devised an ingenious system
whereby the fine was divided equally between the judge, the informer, and
the state treasury.
Finally, the slave in North America could not own property and had
absolutely no civil rights. The law clearly stated that he could neither
own, inherit, or will property nor engage in buying and selling except at
the pleasure of his master. In contrast, the slave in South America could
own property, could engage in buying and selling, and was guaranteed
Sundays, holidays, and other times which to work for his own advancement.
In short, the law implied that while the master could own a man's labor,
he could not own the man as a person.
It is not easy to make a final comparison between these two slave
systems. South American masters often evaded the law and would be
exceedingly brutal, and North American masters were often much more
lenient than the law required. Conditions moreover, were usually more
severe in South America, and this fact may have worsened the actual
material situation of South American slave. Nevertheless, in North
America the slave was consistently treated as a "thing." In South America
there was some attempt to treat him as a man. This fact made a profound
difference in the way in which the two systems affected the slave as an
individual, and in the way in which they impinged upon the development of
his personality.
Slavery and the Formation of Character
The study of American slavery, frequently consisting of a heated debate
concerning the institution's merits, has, in recent years, branched into
new directions. Scholars have become engaged in the comparative
examination of differing slave systems such as those of North and South
America. More recently, Stanley M. Elkins has begun an inquiry into the
impact of a slave system in forming the individual character of the
slaves within that system. In his provocative study, Slavery: A Problem
in American Institutional and Intellectual Life, he has made some
interesting comparisons between the American slave system and the German
concentration camps and has endeavored to account for their respective
impacts on character formation through the social-psychological theories
of personality formation.
In Elkins's thinking, the concentration camps were a modern example of a
rigid system controlling mass behavior. Because some of those who
experienced them were social scientists trained in the skills of
observation and analysis, they provide a basis for insights into the way
in which a particular social system can influence mass character. While
there is also much literature about American slavery written both by
slaves and masters, none of it was written from the viewpoint of modern
social sciences. However, Elkins postulates that a slave type must have
existed as the result of the attempt to control mass behavior, and he
believes that this type probably bore a marked resemblance to the
literary stereotype of "Sambo." Studying concentration camps and their
impact on personality provides a tool for new insights into the working
of slavery, but, warns Elkins, the comparison can only be used for
limited purposes. Although slavery was not unlike the concentration camp
in many respects, the concentration camp can be viewed as a highly
perverted form of slavery, and both systems were ways of controlling mass
behavior.
The "Sambo" of American slave literature was portrayed as being docile
but irresponsible, loyal but lazy, humble but chronically given to lying
and stealing. He was a child figure, often demonstrating infantile
silliness and exaggeration, exasperating but lovable and, above all,
utterly dependent on and attached to his master. The master explained
this behavior as the result of the slave's race or of his primitive
African culture.
While assuming that many slaves did approximate the character of "Sambo,"
Elkins absolutely rejects any racial or cultural explanation. Modern
African studies have not led to any evidence of a "Sambo" type in Africa.
Similarly, the literature of South America does not contain any figure
comparable to him. Apparently, "Sambo" was not merely the result of
slavery, but he was the result of the unique form of slavery which
developed in North America. Unrestricted in his powers by institutions
such as the crown and the Church, the American slave master had gained
total control of his slave property. In a desire to maximize the profits
of his investment, he strove to develop the perfect slave. Although the
slave might endeavor to conform externally while maintaining his inner
integrity, eventually his performance as an ideal slave must have
affected the shape of his personality. Modern existentialism has argued
that how we behave determines what we are, and it is in this sense that
the controlled behavior in the concentration camp and its impact on
personality formation provide an illuminating parallel to the study of
American slavery.
The experienced gained in the German concentration camps during the
Second World War showed that it was possible to induce widespread
infantile behavior in masses of adults. Childlike action extended
beyond obedience to the guards and showed that a basic character
transformation had occurred. Previous social-psychological theory
stressed the ways in which an individual's personality was shaped
during his earliest childhood years and emphasized the tenacity with
which these early traits resisted attempt at alteration. Personality
theory was not adequate to what occurred in the camps.
The concentration camp experience began with what has become labeled as
shock procurement. As terror was one of the many tools of the system,
surprise late-night arrests were the favorite technique. Camp inmates
generally agreed that the train ride to the camp was the point at which
they experienced the first brutal torture. Herded together into cattle
cars, without adequate space, ventilation, or sanitary conditions, they
had to endure the horrible crowding and the harassment of the guards.
When they reached the camp, they had to stand naked in line and undergo a
detailed examination by the camp physician. Then, each was given a tag
and a number. These two events were calculated to strip away one's
identity and to reduce the individual to an item within an impersonal
system.
One's sense of personhood was further undermined by the fact that there
was never any privacy. The individual had lost both his identity and his
power. Everything was done to him or for him, but nothing was ever done
by him. The guards had the power to dispense food, clothing, shelter,
punishment, and even death Prisoners had to request permission to use the
sanitary facilities, and permission was not always forthcoming. As the
inmates were not sentenced for specified periods of time, they tended to
view camp life as having a limitless future.
In a relatively short time, this experience of total dependence developed
characteristics of infantile behavior in those prisoners who managed to
avoid the extermination chambers. A childish humor and infantile giggling
were common. Boasting and lying were widely practiced. Patterns of hero
worship emerged, and the guards became the heroes. The prisoners came to
accept their values including their German nationalism and anti-Semitism.
Some even altered their uniforms to resemble those of the guards, and
they slavishly followed orders beyond necessity. Attempts at resistance
were very rare, and, when the liberating American forces arrived at the
end of the war, they were surprised that there was not some attempt at
mass revenge.
In comparison, the African who became an American slave underwent an
experience which had some marked similarities to those of the German
concentration camp. He too underwent a kind of shock procurement.
Although millions of men became slaves, the event was unique to each man.
Usually, he had been captured in the course of warfare which, in itself,
was a humiliation. After being chained together and marched to the coast,
his horror must have increased when he realized that he was being sold to
Europeans. It was widely believed by Africans that white men were
cannibals. At the coastal station, he also had to endure the humiliation
of a naked inspection by a physician. This was followed by a lengthy
transoceanic trip which must have exceeded the horrors of the train ride
to the concentration camp. The crowded unsanitary conditions in the slave
ships were at least as bad as those in the cattle cars, and the Africans
also were beaten and harassed to keep them docile.
Moreover, the trip itself was much rougher and longer. After undergoing
another inspection, the African was purchased and had to face lifetime of
bondage in an alien environment. He was stripped of identity, given a new
name, and he was taught to envision himself and his African heritage as
inferior and barbaric. The White master insisted on total obedience and
created a situation of utter dependence. He supplied food, clothing,
shelter, discipline, and he was in a position to control the slave's
friends and mating. The "Sambo" of literature mirrored reality, this
life of dependency created infantile characteristics in many of the
slaves and taught them to reject their past while adopting the values of
their masters. The American slave system, besides exploiting the Africans
labor, possessed and violated his person.
Three schools of mass behavior have been suggested as explanations:
Freudian psychology, the interpersonal theories of Henry Stack Sullivan,
and role psychology. Freudian psychology has put total emphases on early
childhood experiences and is the least suited for this purpose. It could
be argued that the shock procurement and the total detachment from
previous life which it achieved both in the concentration camps and in
American slavery emptied the super-ego or conscience of its contents.
Then, the creation of total dependence which followed could have resulted
in infantile regression. This would account for the childlike behavior of
both "Sambo" and the camp inmates. The slave master the camp guard, each
in his own way, became a father figure, and the respective victims
internalized the value system of this symbolic father.
The interpersonal school of psychology states that the determining factor
in influencing personality development can be found in the estimation and
expectation of "significant others." Those responsible for the physical
and emotional security of an individual are his "significant others." For
a child these are his parents. As he matures, the number of "significant
others" in one's experience increases. This permits one to make decisions
of one's own and to develop some individuality.
However, the child has already internalized the estimations and
expectations of his parents, and this tends to shape his personality for
rest of his life. Still, acquiring new "significant others" as adult can
be important in reshaping the adult personality. Both the American slaves
and the camp prisoners were thrust into situations in which they had a
new single "significant other." This was a situation similar to that of
childhood, and it could have had the same impact in shaping personality.
All previous "significant others" had been made insignificant, and, in
each case, the estimations and expectations of this new "significant
other" became internalized into the personality of the victims.
Role psychology holds the most promise for explaining the impact of a
social situation in determining the development of individual
personality. In role psychology the individual and society can be
compared to the actor and the theater. Society provides the individual
with a number of roles, and the individual's behavior is his performance,
the way in which he plays them.
Normally, each individual plays a number of roles simultaneously. While
some are pervasive and extensive in scope, others are limited and
transitory, The role of man or woman is extensive, but that of customer
or student is transitory. Society also endows some roles with
considerable clarity, while leaving others open to individual
interpretation, The roles people play and the way in which they play them
determine personality. Within American slavery as well as within the
German concentration camps, the number of roles available were severely
limited, and both the slave master and the camp guard defined them very
clearly. Both demanded a precise and careful performance. There were
those whose performance was faultless in playing their roles. While the
concentration camp guard guaranteed its performance through terror and
torture, the slave master usually used more subtle means. Besides
punishment for missed cues, masters displayed considerable fondness for
slaves who played their part well. By restricting role availability and
by carefully defining the performance, society could create a group
personality type, and, through changing roles, society could change
personality.
Although the innovative use of personality types has further illuminated
the nature of the American slave system, it has tended to blur the
individual experiences and contributions of millions of Africans into a
vague amorphous abstraction. The technique has provided important
insights into the plight of the slave as the victim of a dehumanizing
system, but it tends to obscure the active participation of Africans in
American life. Further, it is a crude generalization which, in fact,
included many types within it. While most slaves were plantation field
hands, there were many whose lives followed different lines and for whom
slavery was a very different experience. Some slaves departed sharply
enough from the "Sambo" image to become leaders in insurrections. These
men were usually urban slaves possessing unusual talents, and thereby
escaping much of the emasculation which the typical slave had to endure.
Emphasizing the slave as the victim of the slave system further reduces
him to a passive object by insisting that the slave was effectively
detached from his African heritage. Many scholars, including Elkins,
believe that the attempt to discover Africanisms in America by
researchers such as Melville J. Herskovits has led to trivial and
insignificant results. This belief is reinforced by the example of the
German concentration camps. There, people from wide variety of social and
educational backgrounds reacted in highly similar ways. Apparently the
individual had been detached from his prior life, and his reactions to
the camp were shaped in standardized manner. Similarly, it is argued,
the slave was stripped of his heritage, so that none of his African
background could influence his life in America. His personality and
behavior were shaped exclusively by the unique form of American slavery.
However, if we apply the experiences gained in the Chinese
prisoner-of-war camps during the Korean War, some doubts on this point
can be raised. While Americans from a wide variety of social and
educational backgrounds behaved with a marked similarity to each other,
thereby appearing to prove that their previous experiences were
irrelevant to their reactions to the camp, there was, to the contrary, a
significant difference between the behavior the American and Turkish
prisoners who had both been fighting the Korean War. The morale of the
American prisoners was easily broken, and each one strove to look out for
himself even at expense of his comrade's life. In contrast, the Turks
maintained military discipline and group solidarity. This evidence would
seem indicate that, while individual differences were insignificant,
cultural differences did influence adjustment to the camp situation.
There are also grounds to believe that different value systems influenced
the way in which contrasting cultures adjusted to slavery. While the
African made the adjustment successfully, the American Indian, when he
was enslaved, did not. The African's agricultural labor had contained
many similarities to the work required on the plantation, but the Indian,
accustomed to a migratory hunting existence, was totally unprepared for
plantation slavery. He found nothing in it to sustain his values or his
will to live, and he was unable to make the adjustment.
If the African's agricultural background helped his adaptation to
American slavery, then we must assume that his detachment from his
heritage was not complete. Perhaps, besides influencing his life as a
slave, his African background may have found its way into other aspects
of American society. However, it would seem that because the African came
to believe in his own inferiority, there must have been very little
conscious attempt to keep his culture alive. Certainly, the recent Black
Power movement, which intended to revive pride in race and in the past,
bears eloquent testimony to the degree to which any conscious link with
the African past had been suppressed. Nevertheless, mental and emotional
habit can continue without any conscious intention, and habits of this
kind are important for the formation of personality, Moreover, it is
possible that the image of "Sambo" as an exasperating child may tell as
much about the mentality of the white master who perpetuated the picture
as it does about the slave whom it depicted. Perhaps the picture of the
childlike slave is also a reverse image of the sober, patronizing white
master whose life was rooted in austerity. To such a man spontaneity and
exuberance might well have seemed infantile.
The life of a slave did not give him much opportunity to create artifacts
which could later be catalogued as evidence of African influence.
However, he did create a unique music. While Negro spirituals were not
imported directly from Africa, they were more than an attempt to copy the
master's music. They represent highly complex fusion of African and
European music, of African and European religion, and of African and
European emotion. Blues and jazz, which emerged at a later date,
represent a similar creative tension. They clearly evolve from the
experience of the African in America and include in them elements which
can be traced directly to Africa. Jazz is now viewed throughout the world
as American music. It demonstrates the fact that the African immigrant
was not totally detached from his heritage and that he has made
significant contributions to American culture. While American slavery
did violate the person of the slave, some Africans, in the face of it
all, managed to maintain some sense of individuality and manhood.
Slave Response
Undoubtedly, the slave's most common response to his condition was one of
submission. There was no hope of his returning to Africa, and there was
no realistic expectation that the situation would be significantly
altered. The hopelessness of his plight created a deep sense of apathy.
However, even this acceptance of his master's values may have reflected
African influences. It was common for a defeated tribe in West Africa to
adopt the gods of its victors within the framework of its own religion.
This attitude would have facilitated the African's adjustment to slavery
in an alien culture.
The majority of slaves worked in the fields on large plantations. The
majority of them were herded into large work gangs, supervised by
overseers, and carefully directed in the accomplishment of whatever task
was necessary for that day. Others were regularly assigned to a specific
task without constant supervision and were held responsible for its
completion. In this way it was possible for them to develop some sense of
initiative. House slave were usually better off than field hands, but,
because they lived in such proximity to their masters, they were much
quicker to adopt the master's values and tended to be more obsequious.
Another significant group of slaves, both on the plantation and in the
city, developed their talents and became skilled craftsmen: barbers,
blacksmiths, carpenters, and a wide variety of other trades. Masters who
could not fully utilize the skills of such a craftsman rented their
property to their neighbors. In some cases, master permitted the slave to
be responsible for hiring himself out and allowed him to keep some of the
profits. The variety of experiences permitted within slavery allowed
significant variations in the types of slaves who emerged.
Even apparently submissive slaves developed techniques of passive
resistance. The laziness, stealing, lying, and faked illnesses, which
were usually attributed to the slave's childlike behavior, may have been
deliberate ways of opposing the system. Masters complained that many of
their slaves were chronic shirkers. When slaves dragged their feet while
working, it was seen as evidence of their inferiority. When white union
workers behave similarly, it is labeled a slowdown.
Other slaves appear to have indulged in deliberate mischief, trampling
down crops, breaking tools, and abusing livestock. A southern physician,
Dr. Cartwright, concluded that this behavior was symptomatic of a mental
disease peculiar to Africans. He labeled the disease Dysaethesia
Aethiopica and insisted that masters were wrong in thinking that it was
merely rascality. He also concluded that the slave's chronic tendency to
run away was in reality the symptom of yet another African disease,
Drapetomania, which he believed would eventually be medically cured.
Finally, some slaves engaged in active resistance. Most of the slave
insurrections in America were very small, and most were unsuccessful.
The three best known insurrections were those led by Gabriel Prosser,
Denmark Vesey, and Nat Turner. These revolts will be treated more fully
in the next chapter.
The masters consistently refused to see examples of passive or active
resistance as signs of manhood. Lying and stealing were never interpreted
as passive resistance, but were always attributed to an inferior savage
heritage, as was slave violence. Prosser, Vesey, and Turner, instead of
being numbered among the world's heroes fighting for the freedom of their
people, were usually represented as something closer to savages,
criminals, or psychopaths. Modern historical scholarship has been
influenced by the interpretation of slave behavior, which stressed the
impact of the system on the slave, rather than his response to it.
Consequently, it has failed to give proper recognition to African
contributions to American life.