Sage Rat on Slavery

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That’s not at all what the conversation is about. Of course most slave owners were not pathological sadists. Nobody but nobody is suggesting that.

But all slavers were brutal. The system doesn’t work without brutality. If you’re not willing to do something terrible to the people you’ve enslaved–if they don’t know you’ll follow through on your threat to do something terrible–why the fuck would they follow your orders? Why wouldn’t a baker stop baking for you and start baking for someone who will pay him?

The instant it becomes clear you’re not willing to be brutal, that’s the instant when you’re no longer enslaving someone, because now they either leave your slaver ass (what most do), or on the off chance they stay with you, it’s now out of a choice rather than out of the fact that you’re enslaving them.

Sadism isn’t an inherent part of slavery. Brutality is an absolutely essential part of it.

Yes. This.

Although I think it should be said, in further answer to the points Sage Rat was making, is that the threat of brutality was ever-present in the system. Even if we imagine a given owner treating his human property with careful kindness, the fate that awaited an escape attempt would be imposed by others, people famously not inclined to sweet reason.

I don’t like this thread, because the flavor of it is, “Look, he said a horrible thing!” In my view, the inference to be drawn is, “I cannot rebut his points, but since we all know slavery is evil, I don’t need to.” Slavery is evil, to be sure, but its evil is perfectly provable.

In this case, in my opinion the rebuttal is: even accepting the rarity of physical torture and abuse, the fact remains that physical torture and abuse were very possible, and held in abeyance by compliance with the slavers’ demands. (And even compliance was no guarantee!) In effect, then, even the most solicitous slave owner was a beneficiary, by proxy, of a regime which exacted compliance in the supposed ownership of human beings by other human beings by threat of, and application of, brutal torture.

Any hugs and puppies were thus illusory.

[inscrutable]

Have any pictures of George Washington in your wallets?

[BrainGlutton]

@inscrutable

Have any pictures of George Washington in your wallets?

Sure, everybody does.

But I’ve got nudes!

[Penfeather]

@madmonk28

Over the past year or so, the Dope has gotten noticeably more racist. Just an observation, but yeah he’s a piece of shit.

I don’t know if it’s more racist, but certainly the racists are becoming bolder and more assured.

[Sage_Rat]

@monstro

But the thing about American slaves is that–despite the conventional wisdom–they were actually intelligent human beings. Successfully running away required intention and presence of mind. No one leaves food and shelter for “inane” reasons unless they are obviously mentally impaired. Mentally impaired people don’t get very far. Every one who successfully escaped their enslavement lived to tell exactly why they escaped. I don’t think historians have turned up many reasons other than perfectly valid ones.

As said, I think that by our standards any reason what-so-ever would be considered a reasonable argument to run away from slavery. I’m not arguing, by any means, that slavery was a light and friendly institution.

But, I would expect that the grand majority of slaves running away were teens, acting irrationally, and that most of them didn’t get very far, that it wasn’t particularly well thought out, and probably most instances didn’t get much note in their own time, let alone chronicled for history. And probably most of the slaves, who didn’t run away, thought that the person running away was being silly.

There are certainly also instances - and by that I mean that there was probably a large percentile - of run aways that were seriously undertaken and seriously needed. Their owners were horrible people who would punish people for any little thing. The slaves on those grounds probably helped the escapee in their venture and were happy to see them get away.

I’m not arguing that the situation for slaves were good, that anyone deserved the treatment that they got, nor that there was any redeeming quality to the experience. My point is simply that the Hollywood treatment where every slave, in all instances are going to sleep every night with tears in their eyes is almost certainly false - just as anything Hollywood would be. The grand majority of people, regardless of time, era, or role adapt to their situation and get on with life without thinking about whether it’s fair or not. And similarly, the grand majority of bosses, captains, slave owners, parents, etc. muddle along as best they can and only mete out punishment where they feel (based upon the mores of the day) where they feel it is deserved, and they craft the level of punishment to level of infraction and the previous history of the individual.

I’m quite willing to believe that Washington may have been more strict with his slaves than average - being a military man and all - but from the information listed it isn’t reasonable to conclude thereby that he was whipping people left and right, just for the hell of it. It’s more likely that he had very explicit rules laid out (which, granted, would largely seem silly and outmoded today), that he didn’t punish people except when (by the standards of the day) deserved it, that the level of punishment was probably in line with the standards of punishment at the time (which, at the top end, included whipping), and that most people around (including slaves) would have felt that anyone running away before a big punishment were being ninnies. By our modern standards, the prospect of being whipped should propel anyone to run away and any report that the person ran away because they didn’t want to be whipped would be reasonable, and I don’t disagree with that. But that still doesn’t mean that the person doing the whipping was doing it for fun, that it was an excessive use of force, that it was a daily activity, nor that it was done without consideration of the feelings and well-being of the recipient in mind.

Knowing, now, that it’s a horrible thing to do and terribly excessive for almost any purposes doesn’t mean that they knew that then. The concept that “if someone isn’t responding well to punishment, we should try to find other means to find a solution, rather than upping the level of punishment to the next level” is a modern one - within the last 30-40 years. It was probably hard on the slaver to beat their slaves, just as it was probably hard for most teachers to paddle their students, for captains to flog their sailors, and for parents to spank their children. But, in that time, where they were unaware of alternate solutions - or those solutions didn’t exist - it wasn’t clear what to do except to up the ante.

If someone is misbehaving, who should be doing their work/study/chores, does that mean that you need to talk to them about it, give them ritalin, find an alternate activity, fire/emancipate/free them, or punish them? If you’re a parent, back before the concept of ADHD and ritalin, you can’t send your child off to fend in the streets for themselves, you’ve tried talking to them, and you need to teach them how to take care of themselves and their household before they are adults, that only leaves you with punishment and more talking, either of which will keeping getting upped over time. If you’re the floor manager of a factory and your worker won’t do his job, you could fire him, but in some towns (back in the day) that might have been the same as dooming them to starvation and freezing, you’ve talked to him, so what do you do? If you have a slave and he’s not doing his work, you’ve talked to him, tried giving him a variety of chores, and you’ve put (the modern equivalent) of tens of thousands of dollars into purchasing and providing him for the seemingly “reasonable” purpose of taking care of them in exchange for work, making it financially impossible to let them go and fearing for their safety and health if you did, again what do you do except punish them?

Because of the times and the existence of slavery, it leads necessarily to cruel acts occurring. But that doesn’t mean that the people involved were acting in what they or the people around, or even under, them would have considered to be cruel or excessive ways. And most of the time, none of that would have happened. Most of the time, every one would have fallen into their slot in society, done their best to muddle along through life, and enjoyed it for what it was.

Slavery should not exist. Ramping up punishment upon punishment with the expectation of a different outcome is fruitless. I am not arguing otherwise.

My point is purely that the Hollywood treatment, the tentpole cases, etc. are not a good view into the average life of slavery. For most people, most of the time, life was probably fairly unexceptional and they just got on with it. Everyone was just making the best of a bad situation. In hindsight, the situation shouldn’t have existed, but there’s no value in demonizing the people who were there. For most of them, when they had to do bad things, they probably hated the fact that they were being “forced” to do it and suffered pangs of guilt afterwards. And yet, they probably went on ahead and did it again the next year and the next. That’s not because they were cruel, sadistic monsters. It’s because the state of the world at that time was crap and it convinced many people that what they were doing was just as it should be.

George Washington whipped people, slaves and soldiers. He probably beat his kids, too. I don’t condone any of that. But most days, if you asked any of those people about how their day was, they would tell you, “Pretty good.” Because most days, by the standards of the time and what they expected from it, that’s what they would have honestly felt. It may be bizarre, but that’s the way humans are. We adapt to our situation and think it natural.

[Robert163]

@Sage_Rat

As said, I think that by our standards any reason what-so-ever would be considered a reasonable argument to run away from slavery. I’m not arguing, by any means, that slavery was a light and friendly institution.

But, I would expect that the grand majority of slaves running away were teens, acting irrationally, and that most of them didn’t get very far, that it wasn’t particularly well thought out, and probably most instances didn’t get much note in their own time, let alone chronicled for history. And probably most of the slaves, who didn’t run away, thought that the person running away was being silly.

There are certainly also instances - and by that I mean that there was probably a large percentile - of run aways that were seriously undertaken and seriously needed. Their owners were horrible people who would punish people for any little thing. The slaves on those grounds probably helped the escapee in their venture and were happy to see them get away.

I’m not arguing that the situation for slaves were good, that anyone deserved the treatment that they got, nor that there was any redeeming quality to the experience. My point is simply that the Hollywood treatment where every slave, in all instances are going to sleep every night with tears in their eyes is almost certainly false - just as anything Hollywood would be. The grand majority of people, regardless of time, era, or role adapt to their situation and get on with life without thinking about whether it’s fair or not. And similarly, the grand majority of bosses, captains, slave owners, parents, etc. muddle along as best they can and only mete out punishment where they feel (based upon the mores of the day) where they feel it is deserved, and they craft the level of punishment to level of infraction and the previous history of the individual.

I’m quite willing to believe that Washington may have been more strict with his slaves than average - being a military man and all - but from the information listed it isn’t reasonable to conclude thereby that he was whipping people left and right, just for the hell of it. It’s more likely that he had very explicit rules laid out (which, granted, would largely seem silly and outmoded today), that he didn’t punish people except when (by the standards of the day) deserved it, that the level of punishment was probably in line with the standards of punishment at the time (which, at the top end, included whipping), and that most people around (including slaves) would have felt that anyone running away before a big punishment were being ninnies. By our modern standards, the prospect of being whipped should propel anyone to run away and any report that the person ran away because they didn’t want to be whipped would be reasonable, and I don’t disagree with that. But that still doesn’t mean that the person doing the whipping was doing it for fun, that it was an excessive use of force, that it was a daily activity, nor that it was done without consideration of the feelings and well-being of the recipient in mind.

Knowing, now, that it’s a horrible thing to do and terribly excessive for almost any purposes doesn’t mean that they knew that then. The concept that “if someone isn’t responding well to punishment, we should try to find other means to find a solution, rather than upping the level of punishment to the next level” is a modern one - within the last 30-40 years. It was probably hard on the slaver to beat their slaves, just as it was probably hard for most teachers to paddle their students, for captains to flog their sailors, and for parents to spank their children. But, in that time, where they were unaware of alternate solutions - or those solutions didn’t exist - it wasn’t clear what to do except to up the ante.

If someone is misbehaving, who should be doing their work/study/chores, does that mean that you need to talk to them about it, give them ritalin, find an alternate activity, fire/emancipate/free them, or punish them? If you’re a parent, back before the concept of ADHD and ritalin, you can’t send your child off to fend in the streets for themselves, you’ve tried talking to them, and you need to teach them how to take care of themselves and their household before they are adults, that only leaves you with punishment and more talking, either of which will keeping getting upped over time. If you’re the floor manager of a factory and your worker won’t do his job, you could fire him, but in some towns (back in the day) that might have been the same as dooming them to starvation and freezing, you’ve talked to him, so what do you do? If you have a slave and he’s not doing his work, you’ve talked to him, tried giving him a variety of chores, and you’ve put (the modern equivalent) of tens of thousands of dollars into purchasing and providing him for the seemingly “reasonable” purpose of taking care of them in exchange for work, making it financially impossible to let them go and fearing for their safety and health if you did, again what do you do except punish them?

Because of the times and the existence of slavery, it leads necessarily to cruel acts occurring. But that doesn’t mean that the people involved were acting in what they or the people around, or even under, them would have considered to be cruel or excessive ways. And most of the time, none of that would have happened. Most of the time, every one would have fallen into their slot in society, done their best to muddle along through life, and enjoyed it for what it was.

Slavery should not exist. Ramping up punishment upon punishment with the expectation of a different outcome is fruitless. I am not arguing otherwise.

My point is purely that the Hollywood treatment, the tentpole cases, etc. are not a good view into the average life of slavery. For most people, most of the time, life was probably fairly unexceptional and they just got on with it. Everyone was just making the best of a bad situation. In hindsight, the situation shouldn’t have existed, but there’s no value in demonizing the people who were there. For most of them, when they had to do bad things, they probably hated the fact that they were being “forced” to do it and suffered pangs of guilt afterwards. And yet, they probably went on ahead and did it again the next year and the next. That’s not because they were cruel, sadistic monsters. It’s because the state of the world at that time was crap and it convinced many people that what they were doing was just as it should be.

George Washington whipped people, slaves and soldiers. He probably beat his kids, too. I don’t condone any of that. But most days, if you asked any of those people about how their day was, they would tell you, “Pretty good.” Because most days, by the standards of the time and what they expected from it, that’s what they would have honestly felt. It may be bizarre, but that’s the way humans are. We adapt to our situation and think it natural.

wow

you sure can type a lot

[Quartz]

@Sage_Rat

But, I would expect that the grand majority of slaves running away were teens, acting irrationally,

Tell me, have you heard of Spartacus? And his was not the only large-scale rebellion.

As for runaways:

[

@BBC

To deal with the problem, the Romans hired professional slave-catchers to hunt down runaways, and posted advertisements in public places giving precise descriptions of fugitives and offering rewards for their capture. Around the necks of slaves who were recovered they also attached iron collars, giving instructions on what to do with the slaves who wore them if they happened to escape again. Examples can still be seen in museums.

There is no way of knowing how many Roman slaves successfully escaped slavery by running away. But it was possible. And it helped that skin colour was no impediment.

The great orator Cicero can be heard grumbling in his correspondence about a slave named Dionysius, who was well-educated enough to have supervised Cicero’s personal library and who must have been relatively well-treated. He ran away anyway. Cicero used all his considerable influence to find the man, but to no avail: Dionysius slipped away across the Adriatic and is last heard of well out of Cicero’s reach - somewhere in the Balkans.

](BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Resisting Slavery in Ancient Rome)

[Freudian_Slit]

@MandaJo

If only slves had left written and transcribed first person accounts! If inlu many of thise accounts has been substantiated by later scholarship! If only!

Where this shit really gets racist is when people refuse to believe what actual slaves actually said about their situation. And while a handful of people who were mostly only slaves as children remembered it as all right, the vast majority of written accounts make it clear that the horror of slavery was the central fact of most slaves’ lives.

And his answer to that question in the previous thread was…

@Sage_Rat

No, I explicitly said that there certainly were cases of great horror and that those served well as tentpole cases for striking against slavery.

And wow, judging by the last reply, it’s getting worse.

[Quartz]

As a Briton, I might also mention the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Maybe even the Russian Revolution of 1917 qualifies.

[piepiepie]

@Sage_Rat

I’m quite willing to believe that Washington may have been more strict with his slaves than average - being a military man and all - but from the information listed it isn’t reasonable to conclude thereby that he was whipping people left and right, just for the hell of it. It’s more likely that he had very explicit rules laid out (which, granted, would largely seem silly and outmoded today), that he didn’t punish people except when (by the standards of the day) deserved it, that the level of punishment was probably in line with the standards of punishment at the time (which, at the top end, included whipping), and that most people around (including slaves) would have felt that anyone running away before a big punishment were being ninnies. By our modern standards, the prospect of being whipped should propel anyone to run away and any report that the person ran away because they didn’t want to be whipped would be reasonable, and I don’t disagree with that. But that still doesn’t mean that the person doing the whipping was doing it for fun, that it was an excessive use of force, that it was a daily activity, nor that it was done without consideration of the feelings and well-being of the recipient in mind.

Knowing, now, that it’s a horrible thing to do and terribly excessive for almost any purposes doesn’t mean that they knew that then. The concept that “if someone isn’t responding well to punishment, we should try to find other means to find a solution, rather than upping the level of punishment to the next level” is a modern one - within the last 30-40 years. It was probably hard on the slaver to beat their slaves, just as it was probably hard for most teachers to paddle their students, for captains to flog their sailors, and for parents to spank their children. But, in that time, where they were unaware of alternate solutions - or those solutions didn’t exist - it wasn’t clear what to do except to up the ante.

Outtakes from G-Dub’s slaving days:

Roots and Zapped

[Penfeather]

@Sage_Rat

But, I would expect that the grand majority of slaves running away were teens, acting irrationally, and that most of them didn’t get very far, that it wasn’t particularly well thought out, and probably most instances didn’t get much note in their own time, let alone chronicled for history. And probably most of the slaves, who didn’t run away, thought that the person running away was being silly.

Ah, the escaping captivity is “just a phase he’s going through” argument for owning people. It’s novel, I’ll grant you that.

[BigT]

@Bricker

I don’t like this thread, because the flavor of it is, “Look, he said a horrible thing!” In my view, the inference to be drawn is, “I cannot rebut his points, but since we all know slavery is evil, I don’t need to.” Slavery is evil, to be sure, but its evil is perfectly provable.

I do not agree with that inference. For one thing, the place to argue would be the original thread where he made the statements. Not doing so here means nothing.

For another, it’s not because slavery is so obviously evil. It’s because his excuses are so blatantly transparent. He started with the idea that slavery isn’t as bad as people think, and then came up with the one way to look at it that sorta works–if you squint really hard.

Yes, we do know that someone who was stricter than the norm would have to be rather cruel–because the norm would be quite cruel. No, adults don’t generally run away from home and abandon their family–they even stay with abusive people quite often. No, slaves weren’t separated from the family as some sort of rehabilitation that would make society better–who would want to buy a troublesome slave? We fucking know that slaves were dissatisfied with their life, and they absolutely did not think that their lives were fair–because they’ve fucking told us!

It’s just such blatant Uncle Remusing that the OP didn’t think it needed to be spelled out.

[Ramira]

@Penfeather

I don’t know if it’s more racist, but certainly the racists are becoming bolder and more assured.

it’s okay, they no longer have feelings hurt by the terrible noun applied to them, and so the special tea room expression of the racism and related prejudices can be faux politely put forth.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Sage_Rat

And probably most of the slaves, who didn’t run away, thought that the person running away was being silly.

Not wanting to be a slave, tis a silly thing.

[Emiliana]

@Penfeather

Ah, the escaping captivity is “just a phase he’s going through” argument for owning people. It’s novel, I’ll grant you that.

We can’t know for sure, but it’s quite possible that maroon societies were just like spring break in Ft. Lauderdale.

[monstro]

@Sage_Rat

But, I would expect that the grand majority of slaves running away were teens, acting irrationally

I’m sure the majority of slaves were young, because running away required guts–something that young people have a lot of. Also, dependent children would also be an impediment to running away, because it’s hard to run anywhere–let alone be inconspicious while doing so–when you’ve got a baby on your hip.

But that they were “acting irrationally” is quite an assumption to make. Even the majority of teenaged runaways today aren’t “irrational”. They may seriously misjudge how prepared they are for handling the “real world”, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a good reason for wanting to leave home–like physical and sexual abuse.

Historians allow us to actually know things about history, rather than relying on our poor imaginations. According to this cite, while the average age of runaways was quite young, were’ talking more “young adult” than “teenager”. Someone who is 25 or 26 isn’t given to making irrational decisions. I’d actually expect a 20-something to run away sooner than a teen would, since the former has endured more brutality and heartache than the latter. The teen is more likely to still have his parents with him. The adult is more likely to have watched his parents being sold away.

…and that most of them didn’t get very far, that it wasn’t particularly well thought out, and probably most instances didn’t get much note in their own time, let alone chronicled for history. And probably most of the slaves, who didn’t run away, thought that the person running away was being silly.

There are two kinds of “silly”. There’s silly as in, “Why would that fool run away from a wonderful place like this?!” and then there’s silly as in, “Why would that fool think he could ever escape this hellhole?! Who does he think he is? Harriet Tubman?”

Most runaways weren’t successful, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. There was an entire industry devoted to capturing runaway slaves, and there were major legal consequences if you were caught aiding and abetting one. Which just goes to show how brutal slavery was. If runaway slaves weren’t a serious problem for slaveowners, there wouldn’t have been any need for the Fugitive Slave Act.

There are certainly also instances - and by that I mean that there was probably a large percentile - of run aways that were seriously undertaken and seriously needed. Their owners were horrible people who would punish people for any little thing. The slaves on those grounds probably helped the escapee in their venture and were happy to see them get away.

I’m guessing the vast majority of slaves were totally fine with their brethren running away just as long as it didn’t mean extra punishment or hardship on them. Why else would a slave care if someone ran off the plantation? Do you think prisoners in jail feel bad when someone manages to escape? I’m guessing the vast majority are either happy when this happens, or they are jealous that they didn’t have the courage to join them.

I’m not arguing that the situation for slaves were good, that anyone deserved the treatment that they got, nor that there was any redeeming quality to the experience. My point is simply that the Hollywood treatment where every slave, in all instances are going to sleep every night with tears in their eyes is almost certainly false - just as anything Hollywood would be.

I’ve watched a lot of Hollywood films about slavery. I can’t think of a single one that showed slaves as miserable wretches all the time. The characters in Roots ran the full gamet of emotions. You could clearly see Solomon take pride of his work in “Twelve Years A Slave”, and there was the surreal scene where Patsy got to play tea party with the negro mistress. “Django Unchained” showed slavery in its full brutality, but it also showed some light-hearted moments.

The grand majority of people, regardless of time, era, or role adapt to their situation and get on with life without thinking about whether it’s fair or not. And similarly, the grand majority of bosses, captains, slave owners, parents, etc. muddle along as best they can and only mete out punishment where they feel (based upon the mores of the day) where they feel it is deserved, and they craft the level of punishment to level of infraction and the previous history of the individual.

It’s funny that no one ever seems to takes this point of view with the Holocaust. Folks are comfortable saying that everyone involved was evil and that the victims truly suffered. Almost everyone can understand that just because the Germans were simply “following orders” and being good citizens doesn’t mean jack shit to all the people who were murdered and traumatized.

Just because George Washington and his kind were following the norms of their generation doesn’t mean jack shit to all the black people who were brutalized for centuries.

I’m quite willing to believe that Washington may have been more strict with his slaves than average - being a military man and all - but from the information listed it isn’t reasonable to conclude thereby that he was whipping people left and right, just for the hell of it. It’s more likely that he had very explicit rules laid out (which, granted, would largely seem silly and outmoded today), that he didn’t punish people except when (by the standards of the day) deserved it, that the level of punishment was probably in line with the standards of punishment at the time (which, at the top end, included whipping), and that most people around (including slaves) would have felt that anyone running away before a big punishment were being ninnies.

You can tell yourself this stuff over and over again, but just understand that you have no basis for any of it. You can’t imagine a founding father would be an evil muthafucker because society venerates the Founding Fathers. It is only until very recently that it has stopped dick-riding Christopher Columbus (but I don’t expect we’ll stop celebrating his birthday any time soon). But intelligent, well-read people know that most evil happens behind closed doors, even the evil that is sanctioned by the state. I advise you to stop relying on your imagination and actually read some books. Maybe you can shed some of your doe-eyed innocence.

But that still doesn’t mean that the person doing the whipping was doing it for fun, that it was an excessive use of force, that it was a daily activity, nor that it was done without consideration of the feelings and well-being of the recipient in mind.

If George Washington personally beat his slaves, would you expect him to confess to doing it for fun? Or is it more likely that he would give what probably sounded like a reasonable explanation for someone back in his time? If he told you he whipped his top chef because he was late getting the dinner on the table but that he only gave him three lashes rather than the ten that is more typical, would that mark him as a good guy–in your eyes? Or would you think he was probably the kind of mofo who was more than capable of doing a lot more, only when nosy company isn’t around?

I don’t feel like poking any more at your steamy pile of nonsense.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sage_Rat

And probably most of the slaves, who didn’t run away, thought that the person running away was being silly.

If not insane.

[BrainGlutton]

@Emiliana

We can’t know for sure, but it’s quite possible that maroon societies were just like spring break in Ft. Lauderdale.

It’s horrible to live in a maroon society! They paint everything dark-brownish-red!

[Penfeather]

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
If you have a slave and he’s not doing his work, you’ve talked to him, tried giving him a variety of chores, and you’ve put (the modern equivalent) of tens of thousands of dollars into purchasing and providing him for the seemingly “reasonable” purpose of taking care of them in exchange for work, making it financially impossible to let them go and fearing for their safety and health if you did, again what do you do except punish them?
[/QUOTE]

It’s becoming pretty clear that you don’t regard African slaves as people at all, do you? They weren’t actual human beings driven by pain and fear and suffering and rage and terror and desperation, they were just cheery chocolate automatons who mostly did what they were told and everybody got along just fine except for a few troublemakers who mostly got what they deserved. Well, in contrast to your happy narrative, these are excerpts from the first-hand account of Mary Reynolds, human being and slave. It’s part of a WPA project in the 1930s which set out to capture the stories of those who had been slaves, and it’s not an isolated story

Slavery was the worst days was ever seed in the world. They was things past tellin’, but I got the scars on my old body to show to this day. I seed worse than what happened to me. I seed them put the men and women in the stock with they hands screwed down through holes in the board and they feets tied together and they naked behinds to the world. Solomon the the [sic] overseer beat them with a big whip and massa look on. The niggers better not stop in the fields when they hear them yellin’. They cut the flesh most to the bones and some they was when they taken them out of stock and put them on the beds, they never got up again.

We was scart of Solomon and his whip, though, and he didn’t like frolickin’. He didn’t like for us niggers to pray, either. We never heared of no church, but us have prayin’ in the cabins. We’d set on the floor and pray with our heads down low and sing low, but if Solomon heared he’d come and beat on the wall with the stock of his whip. He’d say, I’ll come in there and tear the hide off you backs.’ But some the old niggers tell us we got to pray to Gawd that he don’t think different of the blacks and the whites. I know that Solomon is burnin’ in hell today, and it pleasures me to know it.

We prays for the end of Trib’lation and the end of beatin’s and for shoes that fit our feet. We prayed that us niggers could have all we wanted to eat and special for fresh meat. Some the old ones say we have to bear all, cause that all we can do. Some say they was glad to the time they’s dead, cause they’d rather rot in the ground than have the beatin’s. What I hated most was when they’d beat me and I didn’t know what they beat me for, and I hated they strippin’ me naked as the day I was born.

Well, what do you do except punish them?

[Quartz]

@Penfeather

It’s becoming pretty clear that you don’t regard African slaves as people at all, do you?

Point of order again! Please stop the accusation of racism: he’s not just nihilipilificating the experiences of African slaves in America but all slaves everywhere.