In Omi and Winant’s book, Racial Formation in the US, they discuss the idea of racial dictatorship. It is clear that the United States was previously a racial dictatorship, prohibiting the participation of non-white races in politics. They discuss the view of Antonio Gramsci, who held that “hegemony is always constituted by a combination of coercion and consent”(p. 199). He claimed that, “Although rule can be obtained by force, it cannot be secured and maintained, especially in modern society, without the element of consent” (p. 199). In my opinion, the African role in the slave trade is commonly overlooked. We have discussed the motives of Africans involvement in the slave trade. They could either provide slaves or be provided as slaves. There was also the gun/slave cycle—Africans could acquire warfare technology for the trading of slaves. The initial involvement of Africans provides part of the consent that Gramsci mentions.
The Africans who profited consented and helped secure and maintain the slave trade. But once the slave trade transformed into New World slavery, this form of consent disappears. There is little to no balance between coercion and consent. This is the point in which I ask, how much of a part did African Americans have in their own oppression? How much of a part could they have had? It amazes me that the institution of racial slavery was not extinguished during its onset, but it is difficult to say who would have extinguished it. Perhaps it was the consent of society that allowed the development of slavery. Either way, as the institution of slavery gained strength and support, it only became increasingly difficult for anybody to oppose. It seems that regular resistance by African Americans did not start until the Revolutionary Era, which began in 1763. It is from 1765-1783 that we witness the runaway of tens of thousands of slaves. Up to this point, it is doubtful that African Americans agreed with the establishment of slavery; yet, the major slave revolts of groups and individual slaves were observed mostly after the American Revolution. Perhaps the ideas fueling the white American’s revolution gave rise to black American’s discernment of their own persecution. In modern America, the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are almost ingrained attitudes. However, at this point in history, these were innovative ideas that hit home with the black race.
Daniel has summed up the different ways in which slaves led ‘individual revolts’, in which slaves not only avoided, but also resisted slavery. We ended class on Friday with this question: what did the individual revolts mean? Professor McKinney suggested that they meant African American slaves were not completely powerless. No matter how many basic rights they lacked, or what little security they enjoyed, they still had some way of practicing self-preservation and self-protection. I believe this basic power, though seemingly elementary, revealed the potential for African American to win their freedom from slavery.
I question the role that individual slave revolts played in the eradication of slavery. After all, the ending of slavery had nothing to do with violence or uprising committed by the slaves themselves. Instead it was the Southern states fear of the Republican Party that led them to secede. Even upon taking office Lincoln promised he would not emancipate the slaves in states or territories where slavery was already illegal. His only goal was to make sure it did not spread beyond its current borders. The rationale at the time was that without room for expansion slavery would die within its borders. The Southern states, however, feared the threat the Republicans posed to their sacred economic institution of slavery and began to secede.
ReplyDeleteLincoln did eventually come to see blacks as individuals as capable as whites, although he did not always think that. Yet he only issued the Emancipation Proclamation for strategic reasons. For the Union the justification for the war was to preserve the Union - a Constitutional duty Lincoln thought he must enforce. As the war grew on that cause did not seem good enough. By issuing the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln made the war about a particular issue again. It gave meaning to the war. More importantly, though, Lincoln issued the Proclamation so that blacks in the South would defect to the North and fight for the Union army, which they did in large droves.
My point is that when the eventual emancipation of slaves is looked at in the context of history it becomes apparent that slave rebellions played little part. The fear of a slave rebellion did not contribute at all to greater freedoms or emancipation.
I strongly agree with the notion that the American Revolution was instrumental in encouraging African American freedom. Even though there had always been both white and black individuals to speak out against slavery, the notion of freedom had yet to gain large scale momentum. Because the ideals of liberty and freedom were very connected to the Revolution, African Americans were able to unite under the same common values that whites had just went to war over. Now, in addition to emotional and moral reasons to oppose slavery, African Americans and other proponents of abolition had a very sound logical argument. I believe the American Revolution eventually led to a more vehement anti-slavery movement, which in turn indirectly impacted the eventual emancipation. The growing issue of slavery fueled by moral reasons and now logical reasons put more stress on the relationship between the North and the South. As this mounting divide grew due to other issues as well, the topic of slavery seemed to become more in the forefront. Therefore, I am not convinced that individual slave revolts directly impacted eventual emancipation because the emotional reaction the revolts evoked did not translate into more anti-slavery sentiments. Moral reasons alone should have been enough to end human bondage; however, in the end, the ideals of the American Revolution garnered the extra needed support for abolition, as more white Americans were able to see the hypocrisy of slavery.
ReplyDelete