Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
This week’s Davis reading was incredibly gripping. He expanded upon the nuances and contradictions of slave societies that can often be perplexing. He clarified the point that, while slavery and racism in early US history were deeply intertwined, the absence of slavery did not equate to absence of racism. The racial slavery that was characteristic of the US’s slave system had an impact that also affected free blacks. This was illustrated by the existence of a color complex among freedmen—a manifestation of internalized racism created by slavery. Freedmen were ‘eager for honor,’ and did not want to be referred to as any darker than they found themselves, thus showing that, as a result of white supremacy in the US, ‘honor’ was directly correlated with whiteness (180). The case of William Ellison, who was born a slave but became a slave owner, also showed the extent of slavery’s negative impact. The lucrative nature of slavery, especially in the south, could intoxicate anyone—even those who had been its victim— into defying the basic principles of humanity by becoming slave owners.
Tasimmons mentioned in their post that “the American preoccupation with being liked by their slaves and being ‘paternalistic’ was a result of the disparity between the institution of slavery and the principles of liberty and freedom.” While I certainly agree that the tension between the nation’s founding principles and the oppression of slavery contributed to masters’ desire to see their actions as a form of paternalism rather than overt oppression, I don’t believe slave owners had any interest in acquiring the affection of their slaves.
Masters were only willing to consider accommodating their slaves in order to instill the absolute minimum amount of docility as to not create an uprising. The slave codes of southern states showed that “bondsmen were human beings who were capable of plotting, stealing, fleeing, or rebelling, and who were likely to be less ‘troublesome property’ if well cared for under a program of strict discipline” (Davis, 193-194). The welfare of slaves was only desirable to the extent that the master’s economic interests were protected. Even then, the submission of slave rebellions was more often achieved through psychological torment (for example, the threat of separating enslaved families by selling off relatives) than by appeasement (Davis, 183). The portrayal of slave ownership as benevolent paternalism was nothing more than a condescending infantilization of blacks and an overall poor excuse used to perpetuate the lucrative institution of slavery.
Personally, I am not convinced that nineteenth century figures are above criticism for their faulty morality. It’s unsettling that some people can look back upon great acts of systematic oppression with an apologetic tone. Perhaps it’s easier to attribute the lack of humanity of the ruling class to their misguided systems of belief, but after reading Davis I can’t help but think that southern American slavery came from a conscious decision to place profit above humanity.