1. Based on Barrow’s personal experience that whippings did not improve work habits among the slaves, why do you think he continued to whip them often?
Whipping was definitely not the best method to motivate slaves to do a good job. Nonetheless Barrow kept doing it whenever there was a chance. At that time I believe peoples’ mentality was different then today’s days. The motivation approach was not known well as today. Masters way to rule was primitive and based on physical punishment. Over time we see that this is not going to work. This method is never bringing any results and more over progress. People are naturally created free and a chance to make them slaves is very low because they will always resist this status. I do see in the book that some slave owners used another way to motivate slaves. For instance the tried to encourage work with promises of small gifts and brief holidays. It was very positive step towards progress. But in general as long as people are slaves they will always resist to perform high quality job until they become free.
2. Why do you think the plantation owners preferred whipping as the main source of punishment?
Plantation owner did not know the better way to motivate slaves. Whatever they did was the best method known. I think this is common rule in a slavery world; If you don’t do a job you will be punished. Another thing is that whipping is increasing fear. We know that whipping was public. And normally victims were tied to a stake in the quarter, and the others were made to watch. That was a simple logic, public punishment for all to see. It was a false idea to get the rest into fear.
3. How does paternalism endorse and contradict slave whipping?
During this period of American history, paternalism was believed by slave owners to be a form of “Christian Guardianship,” typifying the responsibility of slave masters to provide for and manage their slaves. In essence, it represented the father-child relationship that these plantation managers believed they had to fulfill, according to the state laws, which gave nearly “uncontrolled authority over the body” of the slave. Ultimately, paternalism encouraged a slightly higher standard of care for the more valuable slaves, primarily because it made economic sense. Productivity was essential on the plantation and it became increasingly important to make slaves “last as long as possible” by doing “whatever it takes to promote their health and make them more prolific.”
One of the most significant challenges that the entrusted guardians (slaveholders) believed they had was in dealing with those dependents (slaves) that were naturally lazy and at times, insubordinate. The more archaic forms of punishment (branding, mutilation, etc.) were considered less humane and eventually abandoned, while the whip remained the tool of choice for these pseudo-guardians to exercise control over their flock and producing a hardworking, conscientious, and efficient labor force. The use of the whip was the most effective form of coercion that remained for slaveholders; however, slaves often used this concept to appeal to their master’s inherent need to see themselves as good, decent, and merciful human beings.
Specifically, paternalism endorses slave whipping by creating the illusion of compassion (albeit, insincere) with slaveholders needing to maintain control in a more humane manner. Their practice was justified in their mind, by convincing themselves that it was absolutely necessary to further exert their guardianship beliefs. They extended greater provisions of food, housing, clothing, mid-day rest periods and days off when the harvest was complete. In reality, this was highly contradictory, because the Bennet H. Barrow records indicated that whipping did not change the slaves’ behavior or mentality, only reinforced them. It perpetuated needless drama of slaves denying their master what they wanted the most each day, an ability to control them and break their will. In the end, it only served to strengthen the slaves in their fight for freedom, justice, and equality.
5. What prevented slaves (especially those in lower south) from retaliating against their confinement and torture?
Many of those slaves from the Upper South were able to escape to the North or even travel to Canada. For those in the Deep South, with the exception of Texas where they fled to Mexico, it was virtually impossible to escape very far. By 1860, Whites outnumbered Blacks 2:1 in this region of the US and experienced seemingly constant paranoia about slave revolts. In response to this perceived and on rare occasion, real threat, the Southern Whites were heavily armed and there was little protection for the slaves who wished to escape. In fact, it proved to be suicide for them when they did with Nat Turner’s story serving as an example.
The term, “lying out” was given to the slaves who tried to escape, but surrendered after only a few days of being without food, shelter, and/or chased by slave hunting dogs. Slaveholders employed several methods of tracking them and worked tirelessly to make examples of them as a deterrent to revolt. The story of Denmark Vesey, a free Black carpenter from Charleston is one that exposes the conspiratorial nature of slaveholders as they implicated him and a multitude of others in a plot “to riot in blood, outrage, and rapine.” Although there was no valid evidence to convict, 35 were hanged (including Vesey) and 37 more were banished from South Carolina.
Although this type of action was meant to deter, the resiliency of the slaves’ human spirit shone through; thus, creating a vibrant African American culture that enabled them to endure over two centuries of slavery the oppression that was to follow. In spite of the hopes and aspirations dimming for some who experienced the brutality of this culture, slaves were able to affirm their dignity and worth by striking back physically, culturally, and spiritually. Many worked tirelessly to resist the tyranny of theirs captors and sabotage their master’s interests. Protesting their bondage by sustaining the religious beliefs, sense of community, and family worth empowered them to show the slave master that they were in fact, not omnipotent. A hard lesson to teach, and even harder to learn…
No comments:
Post a Comment