Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: Due 11/24
Please write a minimum of 100-200 words in response to tonight's reading. For this post, your challenge is that you must respond to something one of your classmates has already posted. Remember to include a question to make that easier!
I think the reading was about elephants.
just kidding
I liked this reading a lot because I thought it was informative and interesting. Sure, we always hear about Harriet Tubman and W.E.B. Du Bois but it was nice to read other slave's opinions and tactics. My favorite passage from the reading was on page 68, where Josie Jordan talks about her mother. Even though it contained many grammatical errors, I was impressed by how well he could write.
I found the following pieces from the reading very interesting and smart:
"'One of the strongest Negroes got up early in the morning,' Mammy would explain, 'long 'fore the rising horn called the slaves from their cabins. He skitted to the hog pen with a heavy mallet in hand. When he tapped Mister Hog 'tween the eyes with a mallet, 'malitis' set in mighty quick, but it was a uncommon 'disease'...." (pg 6 <-- this is really supposed to be an 8 and then a )
"But slaves could sabotage work by breaking tools, injuring work animals, inflicting self-injury, faking illness, going slowly, or, in the case of women, claiming pregnancy." (pg 72)
Even the simple things that the slaves did, although they were not simple to do at the time, were very tricky and outsmarted the slave owners.
Lastly, in other history classes I have taken we have talked about finding art in history. I found a sentence that seemed to speak about art:
"Elders sang songs and told folktales, full of both obvious and hidden meanings, that not only entertained but educated family and kin of all ages." (pg 72)
My question is: If you were a slave, what little tricks would you play on your master? What would your techniques be, and how often would you do them?
I have no idea what I would do If I were a slave. If you took me now and made me a slave in the antebellum south i might cease to function at all pretty quickly.
Us and our cushy lives.
It's interesting how the slaves had to dissent against their masters without their masters realizing it. It almost seems like it's something different from dissent. So i guess that's my question.
Is it still dissent when the powers that are being fought against (physically or verbally) don't know it? What if you're the only one who's doing anything and no one else knows you're doing it. Like if you're a monkeywrencher who's going and messing with all the logging tools and the loggers just think it's rust. Is that dissent or is that just...doing things?
That quote that heather brought up and what she said about art is pretty neat because it's such a natural way to dissent against an oppressive power. The purpose of the slaves' lives is pretty much to serve their masters (according to the people who own them), and art is something that's created for its own sake or for the sake of bringing happiness to the people who make/see/hear it. So by making art the slaves are saying "hey, even though you 'own' us, we can create our own purpose that isn't just to serve you and be owned by you.
I believe that technically dissenting without anyone knowing it would still be dissent. As the definition of dissent is to act against something. However this could be incorrect. Then it becomes a personal opinion. It is up to the person answering to decide whether they believe it is dissent even if their idea of dissent is a glorified one.
If I was a slave i imagine i would be too frightened to do anything against my owner for fear of being beaten.
My question is how was it that slave masters were able to controll so many slaves when they themselves were only one or two people. they were so outnumbered abd back then the differences in the weapons that each might have had would not be very different. how were they kept as slave for so long
also is the threat of punishment or the temptation of reward a more effective way to control people
It’s my first time to read those kinds of documents which shows some interesting information about slaves’ lives. Most importantly, some documents are written by slaves who truly reveal their lives’ experiences.
For answering Will’s question, I think it might count as dissent. According to one of the articles for tonight, it says their experience when they tricked their master. I believe the white might not notice their revolts, but other blacks might notice it.
It’s my first to know that the west coast development made the flash point for the civil war, and it surprises me a little. Moreover, I think that the war is using as a tool to decrease black population because they might gain more power by increasing their population. Then they will start to revolt against the white society. I
My question is any slave owners trying to learn the black culture or language? Why? How?
My question is how was it that slave masters were able to control so many slaves when they themselves were only one or two people..
-I think that slave masters were able to control their slaves by keeping them uninformed and because of the laws that were in place back then. I think many slaves didn't really know what was going on right away because the owners tried to keep them out of the loop as much as possible. The fact that many could not read or write helped the slave owner too. The threat of punishment that you brought up is also a reason for the slaves' obedience. I also think that when slaves started running away, many of the other slaves wanted to wait and see if it would work and catch on. So for a certain period of time, while some slaves were running away, a lot were not because they wanted to make sure that it worked. This is kind of what we were talking about in class a little while ago when we said that it takes a while for the rebels to get a following and build a reputation. I think that some of the slaves also thought that they were better off being a slave as they had a place to live and were given food.
My question: Obviously slaves thought that what was happening to them was wrong, but is it possible that some of them believed that this was normal and acceptable?
If I was a slave, I don’t think I will dare to do tricks on my master on my own. But if me and other slaves come up with an idea and promised to do it and receive the punishment together, I might do it.
I’m struggling with Will’s question…I can’t really say yes or no. If you killed someone and no one knows it and the person you killed was thought committed suicide, doesn’t it mean you didn’t do it? I know this is very different from dissent, but I just don’t think the things you have done could be erased just because no one knows.
I imagined myself being kidnapped and brought to a foreign country. Those people who captured me treated me like animals during the journey and before being sold. I think it will be very reasonable for me to be afraid of them and unconsciously think that I am the inferior. Perhaps I might think of fighting back, but what if I failed? Even if I succeed, where should I go and how would I live?
I really liked the reading. It’s easy to understand and very thought-provoking, but I have a question on one part. The second paragraph on p.80, “By 1790, there were 59,000 free African Americans in the United States: 27,000 in the North and 32,000 in the South.” Why were there more free African Americans in the South? Shouldn’t they keep away from slave states or territory?
Joined: 18 Nov 2009 Posts: 16 Location: In your closet
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:13 am Post subject:
hlipkin wrote:
My question is: If you were a slave, what little tricks would you play on your master? What would your techniques be, and how often would you do them?
What a slavemaster wants, is to get production. So as long as it SEEMS like work is getting done, then it would be fine. Once that line is crossed, I would imagine that there would be some punishments.
pgui wrote:
My question is how was it that slave masters were able to controll so many slaves when they themselves were only one or two people. they were so outnumbered abd back then the differences in the weapons that each might have had would not be very different. how were they kept as slave for so long
also is the threat of punishment or the temptation of reward a more effective way to control people
They were kept in control by the foremen. They feared for their lives, and the societal norm at that time was, that slavery existed, and if you were a slave, then you are pretty much stuck that way. A slave would be rewarded by being treated better when he himself gains more responsibility and is treated better. That is how some slaves become foremen.
awang wrote:
My question is any slave owners trying to learn the black culture or language? Why? How?
They probably don't give a flying fc*k about any of their culture. As I have said before, all they would care about is that work gets done, and on time. So if their culture or some ritual or something is taking up time, to a point where it would interfere with their work, then the slave owner would probably ban it.
athornton wrote:
My question: Obviously slaves thought that what was happening to them was wrong, but is it possible that some of them believed that this was normal and acceptable?
Because everyone around them believed that this was the norm, it became the norm, even in the slaves mind. They knew that if they tried to flee, they had nowhere to go. They would most likely be caught and branded. People fear pain, so unless they knew they were going to die, they would do whatever they needed to do to stay alive. There were slave rebellions, but they were all subdued and all the slaves were put to death. _________________ WARNING: I am not responsible for what i type above because apparently, my cats learned how to type
gabechai.com
I liked both of the readings, although most of the contents were familiar from the previous knowledge. The most interesting facts about the reading is on page 80, some African American slaves who had nice masters were better treated than the freed slaves in northerners. Black workers faced exhaustion and poverty from low wages and they had to compete with other white men in order to get a job. Also, blacks were not allowed to habitat in some states where slavery was legal. To answer to the previous question, why northerners had fewer freed African Americans than southerners is because the southern states had a lot more African Americans than the northern states, since they are so depended on slaves for their agricultural production. As a result, more slaves were freed in the south. My question for the next person is when the southern states receded from the Union, the u.s civil war occurred. The reading states that the war has led from combination of political, economic, and moral issues. Which issues influenced the most leading to a war?
Joined: 18 Nov 2009 Posts: 16 Location: In your closet
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:50 am Post subject:
Tpark wrote:
I liked both of the readings, although most of the contents were familiar from the previous knowledge. The most interesting facts about the reading is on page 80, some African American slaves who had nice masters were better treated than the freed slaves in northerners. Black workers faced exhaustion and poverty from low wages and they had to compete with other white men in order to get a job. Also, blacks were not allowed to habitat in some states where slavery was legal. To answer to the previous question, why northerners had fewer freed African Americans than southerners is because the southern states had a lot more African Americans than the northern states, since they are so depended on slaves for their agricultural production. As a result, more slaves were freed in the south. My question for the next person is when the southern states receded from the Union, the u.s civil war occurred. The reading states that the war has led from combination of political, economic, and moral issues. Which issues influenced the most leading to a war?
This brings up another very good point. even if they are free, in most cases, they prob won't get much because of prejudice. In some cases, they are better off being enslaved.
Political issue=Southerners want cheap labor.
Economic=Cheap labor=rich people
Moral=Slavery=wrong?
They all influenced the beginning of the war. _________________ WARNING: I am not responsible for what i type above because apparently, my cats learned how to type
gabechai.com
Last edited by gchai on Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:49 pm; edited 2 times in total
Peter’s question: Is the threat of punishment or the temptation of reward a more effective way to control people?
I think that in the 18th and 19th centuries in the thick of slavery, threat of punishment was definitely the more prevalent way of controlling slaves. Masters just had so many ways to punish their slaves; they could beat them, sell them and rip the from their families, rape them (though that wasn’t brought up in the reading)-- and they had the support of the law backing them up every step of the way. That, and I can’t imagine masters wanting to reward their slaves. Reward for work was a privilege reserved for those who didn’t have to do it.
On the other side of the spectrum, slavecatchers were effectively tempted with rewards for finding slaves, and the public was offered rewards up to $10,000 for the capture of David Walker and William Lloyd Garrison, free men. So maybe both ways are effective.
“Never make an attempt to gain our freedom or natural right from under our cruel oppressors...” (Walker’s Appeal, p. 83)
This sounds very “inalienable rights”-y and Declaration-y to me, what do you think?
I've read a lot of dry historical texts telling the hardships of being a slave in the colonies, but never really felt much because I didn't feel like I was hearing about real people. Listening to people like Josie Jordan, Nat Turner, and David Walker made me feel maybe not like I'd actually experienced their hardships, but lived in the time (basically, I formed a deeper understanding of the troubles of slaves out of this reading).
As to what environmental factor had the most impact on starting the civil war out of political, economic, or moral issues; I don't know for a fact, but would go with morality. There was a large divide of morals (people against slavery weren't against it because they were making more money that way) which eventually shaped the political parties, but that cuts out economy and politics. People felt a sort of guilt and injustice at trying to justify themselves as better than fellow human beings because they wanted cheap labour. Then the people on the side for slavery were blinded by fear of losing their source of income and support for their own family, and turned their heads to the thousands of families they were tearing apart; killing and oppressing.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
<-- this is really supposed to be an 8 and then a )
