The slave market was the ultimate depiction of
commodification. The absence of any
human-like characteristic, in the mind of the slave owners and buyers, was evident
in the slave market. Slaves were
presented, described, and desired for as objects. Johnson states that the slave
market results in people “performing their own commodification” (Johnson
164). The slaves were judged and picked
based off every characteristic they possessed.
How ironic is it that these slaves, who contained no humanlike characteristics
in the mind of slave owners, now are
being stripped, inspected, and judged for defects. The
slaves were not even considered to be the same species as human, but now other
humans are judging the slaves on all the
same qualities they posses. One aspect
of Johnson’s description and argument shocked me more than rest. Johnson argues that slaves could create
themselves in the market (176). I
understand the background from which he makes that claim, however I strongly
disagree.
Johnson’s argument was referring to the opportunity for
slaves to answer the slave buyer’s questions in order to fulfill their personal
desires. That does seem like a
reasonable opportunity, however it did not work way. The slaves were mentally abused during the
slave trade almost as severely as they were physically abused for
misbehaving. The buyers entered the
slave trade with plans to create alliances with the slaves in order to obtain the
most information possible. The buyers fired
questions at the slaves and expected the correct answers. In the slaves’ perspectives, they were conversating and, quite-literally, selling themselves to a person that could possible own
full control of them. Meanwhile,
regardless of the last owner, the slaves were well aware they could not trust
any of these people. Slave owners would constantly
threaten the slaves to be sold into the slave market, creating a severe
negative association. On the other hand,
some owners would promise their slaves a good masters if they behaved well,
which created a positive image for the actual trade (177). Just like slave owners in general, the entire
slave trade was a large contradiction.
The idea of slaves being able to create themself in the
slave market is so far from accurate, in my opinion. The slaves were being judged and chosen for
every small detail of their being; their liveliness, stance, muscle, skin
color, skin complexion, and so many more characteristic were amongst the many
being noted. Yes, the slaves were able
to answer questions themselves, but they really had no choice in what they
said. If the slaves lied, they would immediately
be punished. Anyways, what was it all for? The slaves could answer the questions and
present themselves in the best light possible, all to be sold to a new master
who would control them and probably abuse them, as well. I am aware that the slaves hoped for a kind
master that would give them more freedom, with the ultimate goal being entire
freedom. How realistic was that?
The slave trade is a microcosm of the institution of slavery,
in that it is unexplainable inequality, unfairness, and inhumane. I was very taken back by Johnson’s Acts of Sale. Prior to reading Soul by Soul, I had not
been to exposed to a great deal of information about the actual slave
trade. It is so difficult to try to understand
how American humans, at a time when freedom was such a big deal, could morally
accept an institution as corrupt as slavery.
I agree with what Alex said about slaves "creating themselves" not seeming very viable as they did not have a truly fair opportunity to do so but that was kind of the whole point of slavery was that they had no equality. So it is interesting I think the small little ways they made do to try to improve their quality of life in any way they could. The whole idea of answering questions a certain way or acting out or being publicly disobedient to reveal the ill manners of their masters. The kicker I think is that doing anything at all was just as risky as it could be beneficial. For example if you talk yourself up a lot that you are a hard-worker with myriad redeeming qualities, while that could lead you to being in a better situation with a nicer master, it could also make you more appealing to the not so nice ones as well to do more strenuous work since you appear to be someone they would not have to worry about rebelling or complaining. I feel like trying to subtlety combat the “system” would require a lot of strategic thinking. But at the end of the day, the person asking you these questions could not even care at all about what your saying because to that person you are simply a commodity. A means to an end of wealth. A tool. So how do you make the best of a situation that is doomed from the start? How do you carry on knowing there is no light at the end of the tunnel? But how did our society get so broken down and twisted into creating a mass agreement that these “slaves” were not people and that they deserved to be treated that way?
ReplyDeleteAll of these follow up questions are really great ones, and it's troubling that they are almost impossible to answer. I think this blogpost and comment reveals just how critically important the act of negotiation was during the slave trade and the institution of slavery as a whole. Although it is undeniable that the slave trade system was "boomed from the start," I also recognize the concept of negotiation as the "light at the end of the tunnel" that seemed to be missing. Slave negotiation was by no means successful in every situation, but slaves knew that it held a great deal of weight in their circumstances. Being forced to the Caribbean and the new land of the United States, being separated from loved ones, losing hope of living a free life where one can dream and accomplish dreams, and ultimately living as commodities, did not leave much room for hopeful thinking. However, when negotiation was successful - whether that was by means of burning the crops, leaving the masters in economic ruin, or by shaping their own stories in the slave trade - I would imagine that each of those successes would prove to be quite significant. To hold weight in a system that deems you a commodity was surely a dim light at the end of a terribly long tunnel.
ReplyDeleteI also think successful slave negotiation had more of an impact on the slave masters and families than anyone could outwardly notice. I have to believe that everyone knew deep down that the commodification of humans was wrong. Perhaps being reminded every once in a while of the power of all human beings - yes, even those with dark skin - slowly wore down the layers of lies that these slaveholders were selfishly protected by.
What a powerful blog post. I love the statement, "The slaves were mentally abused during the slave trade almost as severely as they were physically abused for misbehaving". Could this be expanded upon? How were they more mentally abused? What larger implications can this have? A blog I recently read noted that "chains are an example of physical control over the slaves, and the migration exemplified how the slave masters wanted to keep the body of a slave strong and sturdy, and the mind weak as possible". Why would a slave master wish to keep the mind of a slave weak, yet the body strong? Perhaps it was another way to commodify the slaves, to make them more efficient, to subordinate them and prove who is master. I would think that weakness in the mind would've enabled slave masters to have more control, more power. Control over the mind combined with healthy physical beings is wrong, but it is an extremely efficient way to produce product.
ReplyDeletehttp://lakiataylor.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/the-effects-of-slavery-and-torture-on-an-american-slave/
"I love the statement, "The slaves were mentally abused during the slave trade almost as severely as they were physically abused for misbehaving". Could this be expanded upon? How were they more mentally abused? What larger implications can this have?"
ReplyDeleteNoelle, the slaves were mentally abused by the extreme manipulation. The slave owners strived for control over the body, as well as the mind, because that would eliminate the chances for the slave to think for themselves. If the slaves could not possess their own thoughts, they would not produce ideas that went against those of the slave owners.