I believe Genovese established an alterior view of slavery in the South by capturing the master/slave relationship in new perspectives. Throughout the 200 pages that I have read so far, it can be perceived that the slaves did "not have it so bad." Slaves were able to influence masters to fire cruel overseers, Southern laws were made to protect slaves, and many slaves protected thier masters and their masters' family members against invading Yankees. In that instance, an extended family relationship was formed showing familiar bonds between master families and slave families, despite incidents of whippings and cruelty. Genovese records that the cruel masters were not as prevalent in Southern society. Futhermore, slaves had days off, festivals, dances, and only worked on average, 12-14 hour days, unless they were on the sugar plantations. For the book's theme, Genovese shows how slaves were able to create a human world out of their dehumanizing condition while all along maintaining some forms of pride and dignity in a system that generally considered them chattel property.
After reading all of these "good" things about slavery, man, I would hates to be free myself. To my amazement, the book appears to take on an apologetic postion that favors the slaveholders by magnifying their benevolence, the slaves' propensity in not wanting freedom after the Civil War, and the slaves' dependency on the masters' good will, provisions, and paternalistic authority.
Another interesting point it Genovese's constant used of Scripture and its themes and the encased 45 or 33 album-like book cover ( 45 or 33 were round disc-shaped musical apparatus of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s), sparks my thoughts of visual purpose: some sub-themed perceptions of African-American culture in music and religion.
Despite Genovese's defense in the preface, numerous caveats, and statements to the contrary, his text does take on a tone of conciliation. I would like to highlight a couple of questionable elements in his argument:
ReplyDelete1. Does his assertion that slaves' acceptance of "a paternalistic ethos and legitimizing class rule" defended "against the dehumanization" of slavery undermine his argument for agency? It seems that this issue is connected to the paradox of reform and resistance (for the planters) and accommodation and resistance (for those enslaved). The problem seems to be this: to what real extent did these groups use reform and accommodation to conceal resistance? If this is the case, how much of a paradox was it? Either case makes for a weakness in the other.
2. Does his use of primary accounts to attempt to prove the exception undermine the rule? That is, do the readers accept that these exceptions (first-hand accounts, court cases, legislation, etc.) point to a disruption of the understanding of slavery as a marginalizing and cruel practice? I believe that Genovese believed that he was portraying it as marginalizing and cruel, but does his focus on balance and exception compromise this?
One example of this is the way in which he cites laws relating to the treatment and punishment of slaves, acknowledges the thinness of their application, but nonetheless seems to use court cases to prove the balance that social law enforced. The fact that he indicates _both_ practical and moral reasons for social pressure further tortures this argument for me since I am skeptical that morality played enough of a part in that society to warrant such a statement.
It is hard to parcel out generalizations because it does seem to diminish agency on the part of the players here. I wonder if Genovese is really just trying to explain a psychological pattern that allowed for such an insidious power structure to remain in effect. The masters were certainly deceiving themselves about their benevolent nature, as he describes through his analysis of the patriarchal system. The harder part is discerning the psychological motivations of the slaves themselves which allowed them to survive under such unimaginable conditions. Simply put, where does the need to survive end and acceptance begin? That's really what we're all having trouble with in regard to this this book, right? The proverbial elephant in the room (or book) which Genovese may not be meaning to convey but surely runs under the surface of his argument is the notion that slaves may have been complicit in their own bondage. This, of course, is not only hard to swallow, but is entirely out of line with the facts. One only needs to read the memoirs of Harriet Jacobs and Frederick Douglass to know that slaves were very much aware of just how awful a position they were in. That said, Douglass, for one, was infuriated by other slaves who were so quick to want to please their masters. Clearly, these were real people who approached their situation in different ways, both physically and mentally. How much of Genovese's argument can be made about slavery, writ large, is debatable, but I feel his intentions are worthy. Studies have been done of cross-cultural diffusion in colonial societies, which seems to be what the author is driving at, and his perpetual use of biblical references are being used to support this argument. I don't want to judge the book or its provocative ramifications until I finish it, but I can definitely see why it was so controversial.
ReplyDeleteOvell, your overview is very consistent with my own. Especially this part:
ReplyDelete"In that instance, an extended family relationship was formed showing familiar bonds between master families and slave families, despite incidents of whippings and cruelty. Genovese records that the cruel masters were not as prevalent in Southern society. Futhermore, slaves had days off, festivals, dances, and only worked on average, 12-14 hour days, unless they were on the sugar plantations."
Take this narrative's context out of the paragraph– it sounds like you could be describing labor conditions in southern factory communities in the late 19th century.