Monday, September 29, 2014

Lucy Rosenbloom Reaction Paper #1

Lucy Rosenbloom
Due: September 29, 2014
Slavery in the United States
Professor McKinney

Indentured Slavery

Although Europeans did not invent the concept of slavery, Europeans were responsible for the differences in the way white indentured servants were treated compared to the way that black African slaves were treated.  This created the concept of race-based slavery.  The commodification of the slave industry resulted in blacks being dehumanized.  Although, indentured servitude was often used as a way for whites to become enslaved in the seventeenth century, it was merely a temporary form of slavery.[1]  Indentured servants never relinquished their humanity.  They were still considered humans because of their light colored skin.  This did not make them a commodity, but rather an employee to the master.  The same cannot be said about Africans.  African slaves were treated simply as an object of property, while white indentured servants were treated as human property.  This difference of humanity is key to understanding the commodification of African slaves.
Both black slaves and white indentured servants were considered pieces of property.  Both groups also often received the same torture and harsh punishment for lack of cooperation, such as attempting to escape.[2]  Lastly, there were high percentages of both indentured servants and slaves who died at a young age before being able to achieve their freedom.[3]  Providing the same types of labor for their master was the extent of the similarities between indentured servants and slaves.  The dehumanization of slaves conflicted with the humanization of white indentured servants.  The differences between these two groups in the eyes of the master far outweigh the similarities.
Indentured servants were able to maintain their humanity while enslaved, unlike Africans.  For many years, indentured servitude was actually preferred to African slavery amongst the colonists.  Firstly, indentured servitude was less expensive than the African slave trade prior to the late seventeenth century.[4]  After the creation of the Royal African Company in 1672, it became less expensive to import African slaves.[5]  However, prior to this time, there we more benefits for colonists to employ European indentured servants.
A benefit of using European indentured servitude over African slavery was the lack of a language barrier.[6]  Europeans were able to immediately start work and follow the directions given to them the minute they arrived because they understood English.  African slaves, on the other hand, did not speak English and required a period of supervision and adaption before they were able to become productive bodies.  In the short term, the idea of indentured servitude was much more attractive than African slavery because it was less expensive and produced immediate results.  As an incentive, fifty acres of land was also given to the employer for each indentured servant.[7]  This was land that they were able to keep long after the servant had paid his or her dues in labor.  In contrast, African slavery was more expensive upfront, and required more preparation.  African slaves did not come with free land.  However, owning slaves did have its benefits.
African slaves were a long-term investment.  If the landowner could afford the upfront costs, they would undoubtedly profit from the end result.  Slavery, unlike servitude, was permanent.  There was no expiration date on the amount of labor one slave could produce.  Also, if a slave gave birth, the child automatically was born into slavery and became property of the slave owner.[8]  This gave slave owners a logical, financial, and beneficial reason justify raping their female slaves.  This forced a switch from a paternal construction of family, to a maternal one.  Slave children would take on the slave status of their mother instead of the free status of their father.  White men could continue to rape slaves without having to worry about the children claiming to have “free blood.”
European indentured servants were able to assimilate into colonial society once released from servitude.  Many of these former servants were even able to own slaves or other indentured servants themselves.[9]  This ability to assimilate was due to more than just the familiar light color of European skin.  Indentured servants maintained their humanity throughout their servitude unlike African slaves.  This is prominent when examining the education provided for Africans versus Europeans.  Simply put, slaves were not educated.  This was due mainly to fear of rebellion and the dehumanization of Africans.  Africans were not seen as intelligent and were even thought to have a smaller brain than whites.[10]  Many children who were indentured servants were educated during their service.   They were being prepared for their future lives of freedom.
While there were many similarities in the physical abuse endured by white indentured servants and black slaves, there were far more differences in the treatment of these two groups.  These differences are what lead to the ability for indentured servants to maintain their humanity.  Once taken away, humanity is difficult to get back.  It can take decades and generations to achieve.  Not only does one need to believe that they are equal humans, but they also need to be able to convince society of this as well.  Humanity is more than just something one believes to possess.  It is a framework for the social construction of all people and things in the world.  A silent social hierarchy is created by one’s humanity.  By losing their humanity, slaves were not only inferior to whites in the eyes of the masters, but to themselves and the greater slave population as well.



[1] Charles McKinney, “Slavery in the United States.” Class Lecture, Rhodes College, Memphis, September 23, 2014.
[2] Peter Kolchin, American Slavery: 1619-1877 (New York: Hill and Want, 1993), 10.
[3] Ibid., 10.
[4] Ibid., 12.
[5] Ibid., 12.
[6] Stephanie E. Smallwood, Saltwater Slavery: A Middle Passage from Africa to American Diaspora (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 107.
[7] Kolchin, American Slavery, 9.
[8] Ibid., 12-13.
[9] Charles McKinney, “Slavery in the United States.” Class Lecture, Rhodes College, Memphis, September 2, 2014.
[10] Willem Bosman, “Willem Bosman, a Dutch Trader, Describes the Details of Bargaining for Slaves, 1701,” in Major Problems in African-American History vol. 1, ed. Thomas C. Holt and Elsa Barkley Brown (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000), 42-49.

No comments:

Post a Comment