When I was in high school, I seldom agreed with my English teacher. I never fully agreed with his style of teaching and his political views. However, a random comment he stated made a profound impact on my perspective of life. Paraphrasing, he stated: "no matter how much the society claimed it has advanced in various fields of science, the minds and hearts of the people never truly progressed at all." Essentially, we, as a whole society, are stuck in history. When there is any sort of disagreement among individuals, it seems like the ultimate solution we are prone to select is violence.
War, regardless of its scale regionally or globally, is something that everyone wishes to avoid. Is violence escapable? Certainly not. There is no doubt that as long as human beings exist, there is going to be disagreement. But can certain violent act be justified? I would think so. In previous class discussions, we talked about slave resistance and its gradual transformation to rebellions. Africans Americans would often fake illness, do less work, bad work, and even sabotage property in order for them to be heard. These acts represented the result of long-term repression, and when these actions did not attain any compromise or negotiation, the effect was series of more and larger scale of violent acts. For instance, Nat Turner, a black preacher that led a slave revolt in 1826, killed over 50 slaveholders, which included men, women, and children. Some students in the class expressed their disagreement over killing women and small children, asserting that his action violated ethical boundary. To an extent, I see why Tuner’s rebellious move could be unpleasant to some individuals. However, I consider this outbreak of violence was eventual and unavoidable if that is the only path for African Americans to win their freedom. By committing a violent act, it is the fastest route to get public attention.
For years, African American slaves were silenced by the predominately white society. They were forced to turn into commodities. The complete constitution of slavery was supported by selfish reasons. It was mistake, and an entire race was suffering, living in an undignified life because of that mistake. Therefore, I propose, war is a necessity if that is the only access to the door of freedom. Violence is the tool to open that door of liberty. In other words, violence is only justified for legitimate reasons, to end wrong beginnings.
I think the use of violence to obtain freedom for slaves is like a double-edged sword. On one hand, the violence proves to the slaveholders that the slaves are capable of coming together for a common cause--their freedom. Not only are they capable of coming together, but they are very serious about acquiring their liberty, doing whatever it takes. I think the fear instilled in white slaveholders was the best result from the revolts. The other side to this violence, though, is that this violence also makes the slaves look barbaric. The slaveholders will wonder why a race that turns to violence would expect to be set free. As a result of revolts and rebellions, slaveholders might enforce more rules to keep their slaves in check. So while violence may be a gateway in some cases to liberty, I do not think it was necessarily the best way to liberty.
ReplyDeleteI feel like slave violence might have been one of the reasons southern whites were trying to hold onto slavery. In her comment, Rachel said it instilled fear in the slaveholders, and I believe she is right. It was like "holding the wolf by the ears" they were afraid of letting go. Because of their violence in their revolts, whites didn't know what was going to happen when slavery ended. While the slaves were trying to show their will to be free, it also sealed their fate to be considered barbarous.
ReplyDeleteThis post brings to mind a Herman Melville novella named Benito Cereno. In the novella, a group of slaves being transported overtake the ship, killing off the majority of the crew. The ship becomes stranded and is eventually come upon by a similar vessel. As this occurs, the slaves who have taken control of the ship (it is named the Benito Cereno) quietly regress back to some form of traditional semblance. Babo, the least imposing of the slaves and ringleader of the mutiny, puts on an show for the foreign ship's captain, claiming to be the personal assistant of his own captain. In a striking scene, Babo is shaving his captain in front of the foreign captain and discussing their problems in hopes of him helping them carry on with their voyage. Babo is the only armed man in the scene, and blade in hand, he simply continues shaving.
ReplyDeleteViolence eventually ensues at the climax of the story, but I feel like Babo's refusal to harm the men holding he and his fellow slaves captive works as a microcosm for the idea of justified violence in slavery. He used violence to gain the upper-hand, but he did not abuse it. The story initially presents Babo as a villain, but slowly begins turning the reader's focus to a point at which he becomes a hero. Considering the story was written in the 1850's, I would assume that outlook certainly didn't take hold right away, but as a historical piece of fiction, I think it complements Nat Turner's rebellion quite nicely. If violence becomes the only means of survival, does it still breach common morals?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Rachel's comment. Piggy backing off of that, the idea of using violence to gain freedom, in my own understanding, is the only choice slaves had disregarding the strategy of "waiting it out." Slaves did not have schools in order to develop the eloquent and beautiful speaking skills that MLK used to unite the nation of Black Americans nor did they have the means to take legal action. All that is left in the face of the callous southern slaveowner is revolt. Thinking back to what I have read about reactions of society to the Black Panther party and Malcom X, the implied "barbarism" of such actions is ineffective in proving their humanity, holding their "diplomatic" and "intelligent" approach to solving problems as the rubric when dealing with disagreement. Yet, slaves were commodities, and while I imagine slave owners started taking better care of their slaves as they increased in monetary value, it seems logical that the fear that Rachel mentions induced by these revolts increased the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of slaves. Although, it does seem equally logical that this would simply lead to owners taking more precautions to avoid conspiracy, taking away their privilege to congregate and socialize from their preexisting scarcity of "freedoms" and increasing oppression. I'm sure both scenarios occurred, but I'm going to emphasize the former because revolts like that of Nat Turner are the only escapes from hopelessness and despair so far in this class.
ReplyDelete