Difference between revisions of "Week 10 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I think it is likely that these mistresses did conduct themselves in a way very similar to Weld's accounts even though a decent amount of time had passed between when she had witnessed the actions and when she recorded them for publishing. The treatment that she described I believe was very common of the slave owners to not see their slaves as fully human and therefore not treat them as such. However, the treatment that stood out most to me during this entry was how the mistress would not beat the slaves herself but have that slave's brother or sister beat them. I would think this would make them want to act out more.- Elizabeth Frank | I think it is likely that these mistresses did conduct themselves in a way very similar to Weld's accounts even though a decent amount of time had passed between when she had witnessed the actions and when she recorded them for publishing. The treatment that she described I believe was very common of the slave owners to not see their slaves as fully human and therefore not treat them as such. However, the treatment that stood out most to me during this entry was how the mistress would not beat the slaves herself but have that slave's brother or sister beat them. I would think this would make them want to act out more.- Elizabeth Frank | ||
| + | In Woloch's book I was intreged by Sarah Haynesworth Gayle's diary entries. She sounded hurt by the actions of her slaves, as if she considered them to be her wayward children in a way. It goes back to what we discussed in class about the idea that slaveowners believed they were "helping" their slaves and that the slaves owed their masters for that. She sounded very disappointed for instance when some of her slaves started slacking off in their tasks as it were, and then she had to sell one of her favorite slaves because of it. I guess it is one thing to hear it in class and another in writing from the time the idea that they couldnt understand why the slaves would be unhappy. --Mary P. | ||
Woloch’ Book—Reading Louisa S. Cheeves McCord attack on Stowe was a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that she plays right into the Patriarchal system of having to assume the role to take care of those less fortunate. Otherwise, she attempts to give credence to southern white man’s burden for the purpose to have slaves. I find it amusing when she writes, “We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless.” (219) Why I find this amusing is that she believes the white race must assume a god like status in the care of the less fortunate, thereby the less fortunate group could only prosper in a civilized world, if they were enslaved by the white race; white man’s burden. However, if the white race were so godlike or given providence as she claims, then why are southern slave owners dependant on slaves for their very existence?—John Furner | Woloch’ Book—Reading Louisa S. Cheeves McCord attack on Stowe was a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that she plays right into the Patriarchal system of having to assume the role to take care of those less fortunate. Otherwise, she attempts to give credence to southern white man’s burden for the purpose to have slaves. I find it amusing when she writes, “We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless.” (219) Why I find this amusing is that she believes the white race must assume a god like status in the care of the less fortunate, thereby the less fortunate group could only prosper in a civilized world, if they were enslaved by the white race; white man’s burden. However, if the white race were so godlike or given providence as she claims, then why are southern slave owners dependant on slaves for their very existence?—John Furner | ||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
In Rose William's Story, that deals with an important issue of the extent to which slave owners interfered in slave familty life and encouraged slaves to reproduce...I enjoyed reading how it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children, and child bearing increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the liklihood of her sale and separation from family members. It was in the owners interest to encourage reproduction and thereby increase the extent of his slave property.-Katie D. | In Rose William's Story, that deals with an important issue of the extent to which slave owners interfered in slave familty life and encouraged slaves to reproduce...I enjoyed reading how it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children, and child bearing increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the liklihood of her sale and separation from family members. It was in the owners interest to encourage reproduction and thereby increase the extent of his slave property.-Katie D. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I know that this is going to sound horrible and in many ways wrong, but the slave holders viewed their slaves as property, almost on the same grounds as cattle, right? That being said, maybe in thier minds they saw the breeding of slaves as nothing more then a farmer would see breeding cattle. Making sure the bloodlines were such that the product of the union will be of value and also insuring a certain number of offspring being born. As I said it sounds horrible but who knows what they might have been thinking, wrong thinking seems to be common place for slaveholders. --Mary P. | ||
