After both the readings, some of the different forms of resistance they exemplify early on are learning to read and learning to write. In the first reading a slave hears his mistress reading the bible and he wants to learn how to read it and write. I think that because the mistress was willing to teach him, she seemed to also be uneducated because her husband had to tell her why it was inappropriate to teach him, "If you teach him how to read, he'll want to know how to write, and this accomplished, he'll be running away with himself". Just from knowing that the husband had to tell his wife why teaching a slave is bad, makes me realize how some slave owners (the wife) themselves have no idea what is really going on in slavery and have compassion. Two of the themes that go along with learning to read and write are, moral compass of master because the masters don't want their slaves to have knowledge because knowledge is freedom, and position/job because the slave knew that his job was to work and not to learn, so by learning he could become more powerful.
After reading both passages it was very clear that the master always won. No matter what the situation was slaves would give up because they were tortured until they did. When ever the slave would resist there punishment was that much worse. I totally agree with Megan that the slaves wanted to learn how to read and write and how the master would refuse to teach them because it would show that slaves would be more equal. But the master wanted to make sure that the slave knew his place. The master also wanted to make sure the slave wouldn't try to make contact with other slaves if they knew how to read and write. Try to make them isolated from one another on other farms or homes.
After reading both of the documents the themes that we have discussed have been backed up even more. For example, gender definitely played a role in the how slaves were treated, women were very frequently used for sexual reasons as slaves more than men were. In both stories that we read women were used as sexual objects, in one of the story's a women was purchased just to produce more slaves with another man, and was locked into a room every night until they did so. She was described simply as a "breeder." What the slavemaster made this women do was "uncharted, demoralizing, and debasing." she was treated the same as an animal would be treated. The other theme that these stories back up is the fact that the animals are not treated as humans. And that the slaves did not view their masters as humans either. In the masters eyes the slaves were treated the same as horses, sheep and swine. Slavery takes away every right that humans are given, and the masters in the process become inhuman themselves.
In both of the readings, there are unfariness and dehumanization. Slaves were treated with not enough food and excessive torture. Even the master that Bradley describe as a kind one still struck him and almost kill Bradley once. The first reading is more about a slave's personal feeling and shows his desire towards liberty. The second one did not discuss about feeling too much. It is more of a narrative of his own experience. In the first story, it also describes a few scenes at slave auctions. The fact, that the slave breaker did not care about separating a mother and her children and threatened to beat her if she keeps on whining, shows how benefit was playing such an important role in slavery. And also shows completely neglect on humanity.
After reading both of the passages I have come to the conclusion that the resistance for slaves was very difficult. Being a slave in general was very difficult. In these passages they showed ways that slaves would try and resist their masters. In “Cohabitation in the Cabins” it explains how someone would lock up the master and the slave “inviting the result”. This action is hard to resist. When you are locked up, it is nearly impossible for you to resist being your masters slave and being owned by him. Resistance is also shown in “A Former Slave Exposes Slavery” when the author makes the comparisons. He compares a slave to a master, and how the things they have is different. This involves resistance because it makes the slaves want to revolt against their masters. The slaves are treated so poorly by their master that they want to break free from what they are being forced to do.
After reading both passages, it is clear that there was not much slaves could do in order to resit their masters. One of the only forms of resistance was learning how to read and write because this allowed the slaves to be at their masters standard. However, there were many laws put in place to keep the average slave ignorant and complacent, for example even after the slave manages to learn to to red and write basic words the owner quickly stops his lessons in order to prevent the slaves from rising against them. Clearly, the slave owners were aware of how powerful the slaves could be if they weren't abused and manipulated: which i why they would constantly punish them and teach them to fear the white man.Although not many signs of resistance were shown in the passage I recall in class having hear about slaves working slower or producing less product in order to resist their white masters as well. Also, in Randell case in a previous reading the slave openly defied the slave owner in order to not be whipped but cases like these were extremely rare.
After reading both passages, it can be concluded that white masters thought that is they dehumanized the slaves enough, slavery could be just. Douglass stated that the southern definition of a master was "one who claims and exercises a right of property in the person of a fellow man", and they reinforce this "right" through the law and Southern religion. The fact that they called slavery a right is an example of the whites downright brainwashing themselves. If that's the definition of a master, and if the white people actually tell that to themselves enough times, they'll believe in it. That definition is saying that slavery is okay without any support as to why. They also use the term "fellow man" to make it sound fair and okay, as if they were treating the blacks as equals. This is to soothe the white people, so they don't feel bad that they aren't regarding any of their 'fellow man's' feelings. Furthermore, they use things like law and religion to justify the cruel things they do. Law and religion are supposed to be fair, righteous things, and they're being used completely incorrectly in this case. The entire definition is sugarcoated with comforting words to cover up the true unjust cruelty of subjecting the black slaves to complete dehumanization. Douglass says that until the slaves are regarded as moral and intellectual beings, the depth of masters' cruelty is not understood. The masters brainwashed themselves to think that treating their slaves like objects is their right, and won't be able to understand what they're actually doing to the slaves until they really understand what "fellow man" means; equality. Equality in mentality, morality, religion, etc. In ways, the white people who believed in this definition were a product of their time. This definition of a master was so ingrained into white southern society, nobody seemed to question it, and if they did, they didn't speak up about it. If people grew up knowing this, and everyone unspokenly believed in it, then everyone assumed it was correct.
In both readings it was clear that the slaves could only perform minimal acts of resistance. The slave owners had absolute power over their slaves which they exercised very violently with whips and other means of torture. So any drastic resistance from the slaves would be met with certain death by the hands of the slave owners. One of the small acts of resistance that were included in the articles was learning how to read or write. This was considered a threat or an act of resistance to the slave owners because a slave who was well read would know that life could be better somewhere else than on a plantation, and the slave would become unhappy with his conditions. However, one could expect a slave to already be depressed about being owned and not being treated as a human. Another small act was when Eliza, a mother, begged to her master and a buyer to not split up her family. Sadly, this was done to no avail because her son was still sold away. Clearly these acts were very insignificant in today's perspective, but considering that they could be whipped at a moments notice, these acts were very courageous for these slaves.
From these four or five examples of "the exposure of slavery and cohabitation in the cabins", I see most the slaves try to resist but it never did work out however it turns out that the slaves themselves get either whip or lashes. Masters don't want this equality to be built between them and slaves. Although slaves are human beings, they are treat just like animals. In the "Human Cattle for Sale", Eliza wants to be bought away with his son and daughter. However, she begged the buyer and the seller, and his son was the only one bought away which creates a forever separation to their family. Eliza get lashes because of that. Apparently, slaves resistant never works.
well since reading is such a Atrocious thing to do then i can see why it could be a form of resistance. If a slave uses on of the basic rights of life which is to be curious then i guess he should be sent to camp made to torture slaves its only right of course he tried to read thats borderline unholy. I guess reading and begging for son to not be sold is resistance.
The slaves that did rebel in this time, ended up with evidence from being whipped. In the first text it is made clear how the scars from beatings were evidence of a misbehaving slave, therefore they would be sold cheaper, often times separated from their families. The rebellion of slaves was one of in some ways great respect and in some idiocy. It was respectable because they were standing up for themselves but it also showed idiocy because they continued to try to stand up for themselves even though every time they did they were punished. Noble, but not intelligent. The separation of one of the female children from her three and how she reacted I found interesting. She started by begging to keep the children together but after long prevailance, she let one of them go. I have no idea what going through something like this would be like. Themes that this links to is gender and sexual reasons. The female child was bought just to be ‘bred’. She had no other purpose to the master.
If a slave was lucky enough to be bright and not have their faculties tortured too much by their masters they had a pretty good chance of figuring out a way to break the status quo. The majority of slaves simply didn't have the mental capacity to stage a mutiny or come up with the things we see as obvious loop holes in their shoddy system. Although literacy is a given birth right today, the chance of finding a literate slave was close to zero. Being literate not only helps one further explore themselves but also the world around them. If a slave is set free and can't read the signs how are they going to get anywhere. If a slave grew up on a plantation only speaking slave language they could never possibly dream of leaving because they have nothing. The one thing a robber can't steal is your brain.