quote:

It goes against logic to assume that the MOST COMFORTABLE slaves were the leaders in revolts.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think that was an assumption

As far as planned revolts are concerned, logic says House Slaves and/or others who were not Field Slaves had the most freedom, time and opportunity (no overseer per se) to make the plans necessary for revolts/rebellions. Given that and the facts as far as Nat Turner's situation (his mother was a house slave), I don't know how you can establish what the rule was and, hence, what the exceptions were without extensive research.

quote:

Originally posted by Nmaginate:

quote:

It goes against logic to assume that the MOST COMFORTABLE slaves were the leaders in revolts.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think that was an assumption

As far as planned revolts are concerned, logic says House Slaves and/or others who were not Field Slaves had the most freedom, time and opportunity (no overseer per se) to make the plans necessary for revolts/rebellions. Given that and the facts as far as Nat Turner's situation (his mother was a house slave), I don't know how you can establish what the rule was and, hence, what the exceptions were without extensive research.

~I didn't establish any rules, Nmaginate, nor refer to research. I said that it goes against LOGIC. I've heard of rebels both inside and outside of The House. It stands to reason that those who were comfortable, the snitches, Uncle Toms or whatever, were not the overall "leaders" when one thinks of "revolts". Those being whipped to a bloody pulp in the blistering sun are the ones that come to mind when I think of rebels and revolts. Surely there were precious few out there that were so comfortable that the thought of fleeing didn't occur to them on a regular daily basis. Surely thoughts of flight occured to the field slave far moreso than those thoughts occured to the house slave. I don't feel a need to research that -- I'll just go with my gut --- and I'll not argue that point. By all means, if you do research it, let me know what you find. It woud call for stats, would it not?~

Among the major or most well known revolts lead by Nat Turner, Gabriel Prosser and Denmark Vesey... none of them were Field Slaves, to my knowledge.

I fact checked that as soon as I responded to MBM because I questioned MBM's statement like you did. My first thought was... Nat Turner couldn't have been a House Slave, could he? So I looked it up.

I didn't doubt that the idea was true especially when I took time to think about it because of other things I've learned/heard of but I wasn't sure if "many" revolts (which would seem to mean a significant percentage, if not most, depending on what the poster wants to suggest) were indeed orchestrated by so-called House Slaves.

I'm willing to look at it in terms of strictly well known revolts, which I assume MBM did as well.

It does make sense that non-field oriented slaves would be the major orchestrator of sophisticated revolts.

One thing though, I think we are even creating an artificial distinction between house and field as the only two types. There were other slaves as well, blacksmiths, farmers, etc.

quote:

There were other slaves as well, blacksmiths, farmers, etc.

Already noted.

I'm not understanding why the "house slave/field slave" designation is offensive?

at any rate, i have read a couple of "escaped slave" narratives written by women. I remember something that they had in common was the way master doled out "rewards" for compliance with his desires which may have appeared to be "affinity".

Massa's favorite concubines were rewarded with better clothing, or possibly blankets, or a real bed, as opposed to the flour sack variety.

because others saw this, rivalry BETWEEN female house slaves ensued, not because they loved massa, but because allowing massa to have his way afforded a more comfortable life than all those in the field and even some of those in the house. Then again giving birth to a beige slave baby with massa's eyes and smile made the house slave mom an instant object of Missy Ann's scorn (if she wasn't in denial about her husband's baser nature).

being anywhere in the house meant having access to better food, more food, adequate clothing and the possibility of medical care or learning to read alongside massa's children (who were at times given child slaves to serve them as they grew together)

I would think that being a house slave definitely put one in the position to be more informed about politics since they sometimes could read newspapers and leaflets, overheard dinner guest conversations, and drove massa's carriage to meetings.

I don't have a hard time believing that many house slaves did think "what could be better than this"?

and

I don't have a hard time believing that insurgency could arise from the house slave population, after all they were better informed and knew how to reproduce massa's institutions and behaviors> why not fight slavery and be a class amongst themselves?

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I'm not understanding why the "house slave/field slave" designation is offensive?

I think it's offensive, in part, because Malcolm characterized house slaves in a pejorative way.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I'm not understanding why the "house slave/field slave" designation is offensive?

I think it's offensive, in part, because Malcolm characterized house slaves in a pejorative way.

To whom is it "offensive"?

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I'm not understanding why the "house slave/field slave" designation is offensive?

I think it's offensive, in part, because Malcolm characterized house slaves in a pejorative way.

To whom is it "offensive"?

To those folks who today are labeled "house slave".

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I'm not understanding why the "house slave/field slave" designation is offensive?

I think it's offensive, in part, because Malcolm characterized house slaves in a pejorative way.

To whom is it "offensive"?

To those folks who today are labeled "house slave".

Like who?

What kinder gentler label would you like applied to black people who work against the interest of black people for the sake of self preservation/promotion?

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

What kinder gentler label would you like applied to black people who work against the interest of black people for the sake of self preservation/promotion?

The point is NOT that backward self hating sell out negroes need to be coddled, it's that the real house slaves - many of whom were women who suffered some of the greatest personal indignities you can imagine, including regular rape - don't deserve to be used as a pejorative term for those current sell outs.

....I think everyone did what they thought was best to do to not die.
It would be strange to me for Malcolm to make that analysis of the people back in slavery...being as knowledgeable as he was, So I am thinking that he was referring to the different classes that certain Black people think they are in TODAY.
....I hope this movie is not to disgusting for AA. If it is, Please except my apology.


http://www.afrostyly.com/english/afro/videos/goodbye_uncle_tom.htm