In
class the question was brought up were slave owners racist? Thomas Jefferson, a
leader of our country sets an example the rest of his citizens, they called him
a product of society. So why do individuals become slave owners? The domino
effect comes to mind, when one individual owns a slave another person such as a
neighbor will think that it is ok to own a slave as well. History of slave
owning sets a precedent for slave owning in the future. A slave owner doesn’t
necessarily have to be racist but just following the example set by past slave
owners. Another reason people own slaves are not because they are racist but
because it is an economic necessity. The more slaves an owner has the more they
can force them to labor there field or house ect. If the slaves are working the
on the field, they are producing material goods for the owners to make a profit
thus benefiting them economically than if they didn’t have slaves to produce
the goods for them. I believe that some slave owners had feelings and that some
actually were not ok with what they were doing to these actual human beings.
Thomas Jefferson was one example that had actual relationships with his slaves
and even fathered children from them. But regardless of the relationships the
slave owners had with them, slavery was still a norm during this time.
However,
I do think that there were individuals who were racists and treated slaves as
if they were commodities. Not everyone, even to this day have the same opinions
of race and there were people who felt threaten by African Americans and
treated them as if they were inferior to them just because their skin color was
black. The thought that even lower class whites were in support of slaves even
though they had the same economic status is very interesting. They wanted
someone to be underneath them so they were not the lowest class and could use
the slaves to treat worse off than they would be treated. Even though the skin
color is only a physical difference, slave owners would say that there really
is a natural difference of their mind and body. They are not good enough as
whites and are inferior in all ways. This is where commofication happens, every
class of people are will treat slaves as if they are not good enough because of
the norm that has been said that black are inferior physically and mentally,
even though the only difference is the color of the skin. So back to the
question if slave owners are racist? I would have to say no matter what reason
a person owns a slave; they still treat them as their inferior thus having some
judgment of who they are with rearguards to their skin color.
I agree in that slave owners contributed greatly to the racism. Furthermore, I believe that the process and concept of commodification had the largest influence on the attitudes of white people toward slaves. I feel that the attitude slave owners exceeded far beyond racist towards the slaves, because that would imply associating human-like qualities with the slaves. The thoughts of the slave owners were even below that, as they did not even see the slaves as humans. In Jefferson's Pillow, Wilkins states that Washington referred to slaves as "that species of property" (Wilkins 76). Essentially, the slaves were just another crop for the whites to prosper from.
ReplyDeleteAn aspect that is very interesting and confusing to me are contradictions displayed by slave owners. The slave owners did no associate humanity with the slaves in any ways, yet often times the slaves represented the family. In Soul by Soul, Walter explains that "many slaveowners represented themselves to one another by reference of their slaves" (Johnson 13). Slave owners refused to grant their slaves their natural given right to freedom, however they used them to, in a way, represent their family. Similarly, many slave owners had relations with their slaves. For example, Thomas Jefferson clearly states his belief that blacks had natural differences in A Hideous Monster of the Mind (Dain 30). Like Regina stated, Jefferson fathered children with a slave, Sally Hemings. Jefferson, as a founding father, was the epitome of the contradictory actions slave owners and whites constantly committed.
In conclusion, I believe that the largest influence on the attitude of the inferiority of the blacks is the process of commodification. Commodification, a result of the actions and beliefs of many whites, completely stripped the slaves of any human rights and freedom, and also any association with humanity from the minds of the white slave owners.
I often wonder whether slave owners and lower class whites who supported slavery actually believed the things that were said about African-Americans or whether they simply agreed with the stereotypes because doing so benefitted them both economically and socially. In class we discussed the fact that race is a fiction. It is not objective or codified, but merely a product of popular beliefs about human differences. So, when "phrenological studies" suggested that African-Americans were inferior to whites intellectually, did the white society accept this because they genuinely believed this to be true, or because rejecting this idea would mean losing mass amounts of cheap labor (or, in the case of the lower class that did not own slaves, losing a higher level of social status)? Professor McKinney pointed out that Thomas Jefferson would frequently "move the goal posts" for African-Americans. For example, Jefferson would say that they did not have the creative or intellectual capacity to write and, when someone proved him wrong by writing poetry, he came up with excuses to diminish the fact that they had done so. And, as you both stated above, he stated that African-Americans were naturally different than whites, but that didn't stop him from fathering children with one of them (that we know of). Basically, he led a life of hypocrisy and contradiction. This leads me to believe that whites were aware that African-Americans were obviously humans, but treated them as commodities because that somehow lessened their guilt.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that a great number of the slave owners were probably racist in that they viewed blacks as inferior to whites due to certain race specific characteristics and abilities. However, I also believe that far more slave holders simply hopped on this bandwagon and potentially used this accepted idea of "racism" as a support for their use of slaves to progress their lives economically. Because this idea was supported by the government (or at least not protested), supported by the wealthy, economically very productive, and widely used, many slave holders and those interested in becoming slave holders basically had full support for their endeavor. This indubitable support made it seem "okay" in their minds to have slaves (regardless of whether they felt these people were actually lesser and under their control). Regardless of the sympathy, indecision, or guilt that could've been (and potentially was) felt, the unabridged support made it all seem okay. So, I don't know if racism was really at the heart of the issue in the masses, certainly many and probably even close to the majority contained some sense of inferiority, but I would have to say that most people just gave in to the idea of support and rightness that was surrounding slavery at the time. This paired with the evident economic benefits and the idea that the slave owners would have to do less work, made this institution ever so enticing for potential slave owners. I'm sure many of the owners had feelings against the institution and didn't actually have feelings of racism, but it was "just the thing to do" (for lack of a better statement). It was the "accepted" thing to do that would make life much easier for the slave holders.
ReplyDeleteI would like to qualify Regina’s conclusion in that I agree that, regardless of race, commodification would have stripped humanity from any race of people, but that racism was a major player in the process of commodification, therefore slave owners were indeed racist.
ReplyDeleteI think the process of commodification was a more elongated process than a ‘domino effect.’ I do not agree that one day, one individual decided it would be most beneficial to suddenly strip the rights of his worker and call him a slave, and that his neighbor adopted the idea, and so on. We have to remember the original 20 slaves that came over held many rights such as buying property and even buying their freedom. Commodification led us from this to the creation of chattel slavery; which completely removed the humanity from an African Americans. Much like Alex states, it was largely a matter of economics. Any business man can examine the cost benefit of having an indentured servant versus having a slave and tell you the more profitable outcome. Businessmen would naturally therefore gravitate to a system which was more akin to slavery. We saw the development of legislative structures to support this, such as laws which established barriers to perpetuate slavery in the 1660’s. Slowly we can trace the removal of freedoms in the “upside-down Bill of Rights” as McKinny stated in class. All of these actions mentioned were fueled by racism. Taylor mentions Jefferson “moving the goal posts” in an effort to perpetuate and continue slavery. His actions were indeed simple measures to continue the system, but his reasoning was based on the inferiority of the race. While many masters did enter into relations with slaves, as many of the blog respondents have mentioned, I would insert that this was also primarily another example of the white slave owner’s use of slaves as objects. A master could have relations with any slave not necessarily because of an emotional attachment, but out of a possessive attachment; he owned her so he could do what he wanted to her. The commodification of African’s was perpetuated by racism, so I conclude that they are necessary for the other.