I believe that most states had laws against master's abusing their slaves. The popular image exploited by propaganda such as this film is that cruel, white slave masters ruthlessly and relentlessly beat their slaves senseless out of pure sadism. Now why would a man spend $1000 (of 1840's money) on a laborer from whose work he expected to profit and then incapacitate the man? Is it likely that a white man who was cursed with such poor impulse control and had such a flagrant disregard for his own monetary welfare would have even accumulated $1000 to begin with?
In general, the relationship between races on plantations was far more cordial than this movie ["12 Years a Slave"] depicts. Many black slaves were better off than poor southern whites because white laborers could not work as cheaply as slaves and were forced to scrape by as best they could. Thus it was the white laborer and not the wealthy planter who was antagonistic towards blacks. Unfortunately, this movie doesn't present these historical truths and therefore adds nothing of value to understanding the actual daily life of slavery.
And finally, why should we believe that white slave owners raped their black women slaves? It's almost unheard of today for a white man to rape a black woman and it strains credulity to believe that tastes have changed so much that there was any more white on black rape back then.
18 comments
There is a grain of truth to this. Most slave owners weren't cruel for the sake of it. However, to say that they were better off than most lower-class whites is unbelievably dumb. At least poor whites weren't owned by somebody else.
Oh, and to say that white men almost never rape black women? That is so dumb, I don't know where to begin.
I believe that most states had laws against master's abusing their slaves.
Which weren't appliec.
Many black slaves were better off than poor southern whites..
Apart for being legally considered as chattel.
And finally, why should we believe that white slave owners raped their black women slaves?
Are you stupid or are you just looking like.
Most states had no such laws. Slaves were considered chattel property. You could no more be charged with abusing a slave then kicking a dent in your own car.
The only thing holding back a slaveowner was the fact the slaves were not an inexpensive commodity, so why render something so expensive useless?
Oh yes, I'd like to introduce you to Sally Hennings...
Sweet Jesus Almighty help this man if he actually isn't a troll or poe.
True, not all slave masters mercilessly tortured their slaves. However, some were unspeakably cruel to their slaves. Take for example the remarkable story of a man named Gordon . Nice or cruel, slavery is an inhumane institution to be a part of. One of the reasons people treated their slaves badly was because they were wealthy and viewed their slaves as a cheap and expendable source of labor. If one acted up, the slave would be severely whipped or flogged, sometimes to death to make an example to otrher slaves to keep them in line.
As for the second part of your comment. Have you not heard about the interesting story of Sally Hemings ?
Somebody fell asleep during history class.
Edit: Sangfroid beat me to the Sally Hemings reference.
Having a law on the books and having the inclination and ability to enforce it are two very different things. When slaveowners dominated the government and the testimony of slaves was not admissible in court, what protections existed on paper (if there were any in to begin with) were very different from what protections were available in practice.
white slave masters ruthlessly and relentlessly beat their slaves
Yep.
image
why should we believe that white slave owners raped their black women slaves?
Because they did. Look up "fancy maids" and "fancy trade". Even female slaves that weren't part of the fancy trade were raped. Are you telling me a slave could freely reject her masters sexual advances. Really?
Do you say stupid shit just to say stupid shit, or are you just stupid?
Is it likely that a white man who was cursed with such poor impulse control and had such a flagrant disregard for his own monetary welfare would have even accumulated $1000 to begin with?
Because nobody in the 1840s ever inherited wealth. That's why dumb heirs who drink and gamble away their inheritance are entirely absent from 19th century literature.
A white man could leave the plantation and find work. A white man could go and settle on the Frontier where (other people's) land was freely available. And perhaps we can believe the stories of rape a) because the documented occurrences are pretty common, and b) because the frequency of African-Americans with European DNA and no record of whites marrying their ancestors is very common.
"and then incapacitate the man"
Because if his slave had a habit of trying to escape, disobeying, not doing things properly or trying to incite a rebellion he viewed the slave as "damaged goods". Slave owners viewed slaves like that the same way most people today view a computer that stops working or keeps freezing up or is full of viruses. Eventually most people (especially middle-class and wealthy people) will just throw the damn thing away and get a new one. Slave owners did the same with slaves. They were literally JUST PROPERTY. Not people. Keep in mind most slave owners were wealthy. These were not poor people who would be ruined if so much as one slave were lost or injured.
"Is it likely that a white man who was cursed with such poor impulse control and had such a flagrant disregard for his own monetary welfare would have even accumulated $1000 to begin with?"
Others have already answered that for me. Thanks!
Having a law on the books and the law being enforced are 2 VERY different things. Some states still have laws against sodomy. Think that stops any heterosexual couples from having anal sex? Nope. Or gay men from hooking up? Nope. Besides, how will laws against abusing slaves be enforced if the testimony of slaves is inadmissible in court as evidence? The penalty for abusing slaves was usually minor anyway. Like the penalty you'd get for not having car insurance or for letting your yard or driveway get too messy.
"why should we believe that white slave owners raped their black women slaves?"
Uh, because DNA proves it. Because the vast majority of African-Americans have recent European DNA. The majority of European DNA in black Americans is Y-DNA, meaning it came from a white MAN (women cannot pass down Y-DNA as women do not have the Y-chromosome, it can only be passed down from father to son)......You get the picture....
"It's almost unheard of today for a white man to rape a black woman"
No it isn't. I've heard this bullshit claim from almost all racists (and even some white people who I personally know are not racist have bought into this popular myth). Let me go ahead and dispel this myth right here and now:
http://www.ccasa.org/documents/Rape_Myths_&_Facts.pdf
White men are just about as likely to rape black women as black men are to rape white women. Black women are just significantly less likely to report a raping at the hands of a white man (or men) than white women are to report a raping at the hands of a black man (or men). Likely due to fear or not being believed or nothing being done about it. Cops are much more likely to lock up a black man who rapes a white woman than to lock up a white man who rapes a black woman. Often they'll assume the black woman was a prostitute who regrets having sex with a white client. That and white criminals in general are more likely to be able to afford good private lawyers who can get them off than black criminals.
Let's assume for a moment you are correct about white-on-black rape today. I don't know if you are, but let's assume you are. Back then black women were property and could not say no. So of course there would be more incidents, because that is a perfect situation for a predator. Moron.
He also forgets the power of examples.
Instead of taking the time to whip every slave a little, just kick the shit out of one of your slaves so the rest learn to work faster.
You easily make up for any lost work that one injured slave might miss.
I think that the dumbass has something of point: He's wrong on almost everything, but at least 2 things he said are technically true.
Obviously, slaves were treated as property, not people, but plenty of slave owners weren't whip-happy brutes: not out of compassion, of course, but because slaves could cost upwards of $200,000. Not really much sense in beating your "property" to death. That's not to say that none of them did, just that a few of them didn't.
Also, he's right that plenty of slave-owners thought that their slaves were better off working for them, as they received free food, housing, and medical care, but that's only considering an economic basis, rather than a moral one, or a fair one. It probably wasn't much solace to the people who had to work 12+ hours a day for no pay while your "employer" physically abused you from behind.
They didn't beat their slaves. How compassionate of them. Instead, they just owned them, worked them, and sold their children off like livestock.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.