"SLAVERY" (STANLEY M. ELKINS).   Term Paper ID:24876 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Critical review of 1976 work on origins of slavery in U.S., role of capitalism, freedom & authority, Samboization of blacks.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 2 sources, 10 Citations, MLA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Critical review of 1976 work on origins of slavery in U.S., role of capitalism, freedom & authority, Samboization of blacks. Paper Introduction: Stanley M. Elkins, in Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life, examines the origins of slavery in the United States, related to freedom and authority, and the creation of what he refers to as the "Sambo" as a type of slave personality. The question of the role of "freedom" in the establishment of the brutal system of American slavery must be qualified. The freedom referred has nothing to do with democratic freedom, and everything to do with the unbridled freedom of capitalism to flourish without regard to the rights or even the humanity of the slaves. The rich, white slaveholders were certainly exercised their own democratic freedom, but the fact that slavery accompanied such freedom must call into question any claim that the United States was indeed democratic while slavery endured. Of course, the freedom of the slaves themselves is also Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. To "the man of means," "the man responsible for Negro slavery"(elkins 48), the slave was a long-term investment, and only as aninvestment in capital--and not as a human being with basic human rights--was the slave seen by the capitalist: The planter was now engaged in capitalistic agriculture with a labor force entirely under his control. The argument against Elkin's conclusion that slaves were completelySamboized is presented by John W. . New York: Oxford UP, 1979.Elkins, Stanley M. However, he fails to recognize thathe is dealing in intangibles, despite his evidence, his analogies (to LatinAmerican slavery and concentration camp victims), and his scientific, ifbemused, detachment. . At every point, Elkins makesconvincingly clear, the slaveowner's authority over the slave wasconsidered sacrosanct and not to be threatened by laws, politics, or evenany religious or moral considerations. The Slave Community. the necessity of training [the slaves] to work long hours and to give unquestioning obedience to their masters . Elkins argues that the slaves were turned into docile,obedient, perpetual children by a system of slavery that simply allowedthem no sense of self, no personality, even no soul separate from theirrole as slaves. The freedom referred has nothing to do withdemocratic freedom, and everything to do with the unbridled freedom ofcapitalism to flourish without regard to the rights or even the humanity ofthe slaves. The question ofthe role of "freedom" in the establishment of the brutal system of Americanslavery must be qualified. With respect to the Samboization of the slaves,there is greater room for debate, and, in fact, as Elkins makes clear inadditions to his earlier edition of the book, his arguments about "Sambo"drew the most criticism from his detractors. . Finally, whatever records, documents, accounts or analogiesare used to bolster his argument, one simply cannot determine precisely howmuch self, personality or soul a slave maintained or lost, or what exactpart pretense played in adopting a Sambo attitude. The authority of the slaveowner over the slave was a development ofeconomics rather than politics. Elkins, in Slavery: A Problem in American Institutionaland Intellectual Life, examines the origins of slavery in the UnitedStates, related to freedom and authority, and the creation of what herefers to as the "Sambo" as a type of slave personality. Elkins discounts thesignificance of such anti-Sambo rebels (22 ), and argues that the few trueslave rebels were not truly subjected to the long-term Sambo role (138).Conversely, Blassingame argues that the whites' fear of black rebels wasbased not in fiction but in reality, and led to the whites' creation of thefalse Sambo stereotype. Here is where the Samboizationbegins. Physical discipline was made virtually unlimited, and the slave's chattel status unalterably fixed (Elkins 49-5 ). The overriding consideration, then, was thefinancial desire of the slaveowners, and when that desire came intoconflict with the rights of slaves--even their right not to be murdered--the economic desire of the slaveowner prevailed. Clearly, Elkins has been selective in his material,having access, as he certainly did, to the same data used by Blassingame.Elkins, forever maintaining his detached stance, or, perhaps, "role,"presents his evidence soberly and clearly, surprised that his originalclaims produced such a backlash. He accuses his critics of trying to "talk [Sambo] out ofexistence" (Elkins 83), when, in fact, Blassingame, for one, argues, withrespect to the rebel and Sambo extremes, "both slave characters were real"(Blassingame 233). Stanley M. In such a powerlessand terrifying situation, Elkins says, the slave internalized his master'sneeds and values, and lost his own, along with his personality, self, andsoul. Elkins' arguments in this areaare, indeed, most vulnerable to criticism, primarily because he is dealingin what are inevitably speculations about a psychological, or evenspiritual, matter. He hasbeen successful, with his Samboization claim among others, in his attemptto shift the debate to new territory. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1976.----------------------- 7 Dealing in such mysterious intangibles--the states ofminds and souls of an entire population--precludes the kind of absoluteconclusions he claims to have reached. In order to ensure theunhindered development of the economic system which depended on slavery,democratic principles were simply irrelevant. Works CitedBlassingame, John W. By making such a claim, he is saying somethingabout the character of blacks--even black slaves--which is simplyunacceptable (even if true) to most blacks and probably most whites. . The rich capitalist controlled the "democratic" political systemwhich made the laws which determined the relationship between the all-powerful and the utterly powerless slave. Most slaves probably fell somewhere inbetween the two extremes. This false stereotype allowed whites to see slavesas children who needed whites to tell them how to live, as creatures lessthan fully human, and as harmless entities and not rebels at all. Just as the freedom of capitalism grew unhindered out of a systembased on a desire for financial gain, and just as a brutal system ofslavery grew out of unhindered capitalism, so did the unhindered authorityof the slaveholder over the slave grow out of the same obsession withprofits. Of course, the freedom of the slaves themselves isalso not an issue, for they had no freedom whatsoever. In Latin America, slavery developed with lessbrutality and inhumanity than in North America because the Latin Americanslaveholders had to compete, in defining morality and making laws withrespect to slavery, with the civil and church authorities (Elkins 67).Latin American capitalists, then, were not as "free" as they would haveliked to be. Blassingame argues that theSamboization argument ignores examples of slaves who rebelled, slaves whoonly took on the guise of Sambo in order to wait for the right time torebel, slaves who were very well aware of what they were doing and who werenot losing their personalities or souls at all. To the contrary, much is invested by manyhistorians, black and white, and by the general populace, black and white,in the beliefs that many slaves did maintain their sense of self, theirpersonalities, their culture, and their souls; that much if not most of theSambo character they presented was in fact a presentation, a pretense bornout of intelligence and necessity; and that many slaves retained a sense ofrebellion against slavery. In any case, Elkins appears somewhat disingenuousin his ongoing surprise that his Samboization theory has brought suchvitriolic criticism. On the preceding points, Elkins' arguments seem thoroughly supportedby the historical records. Taking Elkins' andBlassingame's books together, evidence clearly exists that some slaves wereindeed broken by slavery, while some retained their personalities, culturesand souls, during and after slavery. The slave, says Elkins, legally lost his "rights of personality."The slaves' families, marriages, property and rights simply had no "legalor moral standing" (Elkins 5 ). The rich, white slaveholders were certainly exercised their owndemocratic freedom, but the fact that slavery accompanied such freedom mustcall into question any claim that the United States was indeed democraticwhile slavery endured. . Slavery. For the plantation to operate efficiently and profitably, . Elkins has perhaps deliberately made himself a target for criticismin making his claim about the complete Samboization of the slaves. The Sambostereotype, says Blassingame, resulted from "the desire of whites torelieve themselves of the anxiety of thinking about slaves as men" (23 ). In the United States, however, the capitalist had virtuallyall the power to define both legal and moral reality. The slaveholder was free to do with hisslaves whatever he wished, including murdering them. With respect to the question of the origins of American slavery andthe emergence of that inhumane institution from a system supposedly basedon freedom, Elkins makes clear that the freedom at issue is economic and inno way related to democracy. He also apparently fails toappreciate the implications of his claim that an entire population wastransformed into helpless children, even if by such an all-powerful andevil system as slavery. Capitalism in theAmerican colonies was the law, the church, the king: In the emergent agricultural capitalism of colonial Virginia we may already make out a mode of economic organization which was taking on a purity of form never yet seen, and the difference lay in the fact that here a growing system of large-scale staple production for profit was free to develop in a society where no prior traditional institutions, with competing claims of their own, might interpose at any of a dozen points with sufficient power to retard or modify its progress (Elkins 43). Blassingame, in The Slave Community:Plantation Life in the Antebellum South. Whatblack or white liberal today would like to think that on top of all thealready-known horrors of slavery, most slaves also lost their souls toslavery? The master must have absolute power over the slave's body, and the law was developing in such a way as to give it to him at every crucial point. . superseded every other consideration. . Ultimately, the debate will continue because,unlike the physical brutality of slavery, the psychological and spiritualbrutality and its effects are far more elusive to the researcher, no matterhow calmly he presents his evidence and findings. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.