Why African slaves in America were so docile when compared to their Caribbean counterparts

The institution of slavery lasted for over three hundred and fifty years in what is today the United States until it was finally abolished in the eighteen sixties. It was one of the most brutal and dehumanizing institutions in the history of the human race with the greatest victims being the African slaves. African slaves were imported like commodities from Africa to work in the large white owned plantations due to the fact that they could withstand those European diseases which normally killed the Indian slaves. Moreover, the ability of the Africans to work in the harsh conditions of a hot sun was seen to be an added advantage for their conversion to slaves. Europeans used various means to justify their enslavement of Africans and one of these was that the bible stated that they were the children of Ham and that they had been cursed to be slaves to the other races that were descended from Noah. Another justification was the belief that Africans were subhuman, that they were inferior to the white race and that because of this, it was justifiable to treat them in any way one wanted because they had no human feelings at all. These very mistaken concepts ensured that the slave trade continued and many Africans were brought to America and forced to undertake tasks under very harsh and brutal conditions for the sake of making a profit for their masters. In this paper, we shall look at several factors which made the African slaves in America so docile as compared to the slaves who were in other parts of the Americas and the Caribbean where it was very common to hear of slave revolts.

It is very difficult to determine why the American slaves were so docile as compared to their counterparts in the Caribbean because the former had more opportunities for rebellion due to the large chunks of the western part of America where they would have gone to hide. Not only would they have been able to hide, they would also have created maroon communities such as those which were formed by runaway slaves in the Caribbean. This, however, was not the case in America and instead, these slaves showed a type of docility which one finds very shocking. Perhaps their docility was just mere subterfuge and it was the only way they thought they would survive the yoke of slavery. In this paper, however, we shall discuss two possible factors which may have contributed to this docility namely: the slaves’ adoption of Christianity; and the fear of recapture and torture by their masters.

When slaves were brought from Africa, many of them still practiced their own traditional African religions. In time, however, they were forced to convert to Christianity by their masters and given European names because their masters considered Christianity to be the only true religion and that the practices of their slaves were pagan. Despite some initial resistance, where the slaves continued to practice their own religions secretly, the slaves took to Christianity and made it their own. They took the teachings of the bible very seriously especially those parts in the New Testament which encouraged the docility of slaves because it promised them that the kingdom of God would be theirs in the afterlife. This adoption of Christian beliefs may have greatly contributed to their inactivity towards the brutal actions of their masters and instead of revolting against them in a bid for freedom; they acted towards their masters with great humility. The Christian influence seems to have been so great on them that the accepted their situation and status in society as it was and became completely resigned to it. They took all the brutality that was meted out on them because of the faith they had in their new found religion and continues with their labors on the great plantations (Smithers, 2009). They seem to have dismissed any thought of revolt or escape as being a contravention of God’s will and instead chose to remain in the situation in which they had been sold or born into. It is therefore true to say that the Christian religion played a large part in contributing to the docility of the American slaves.

The second probable reason for the docility of the American slaves was the fear of the consequences of revolt or recapture after escape (Stanley Elkins). Those slaves who escaped and were hunted down by their masters were often given severe punishments and even killed in very inhumane to serve as examples to others who thought to follow in their footsteps. Although many slaves attempted to make a dash for freedom every year, very few were able to make it and these were usually tracked down by dogs and if caught, their punishment began on the spot. The dogs were allowed to savage them for a while although most owners were very careful that the economic value of their slaves would remain intact. After this came the flogging which took hours and the slave could go in and out of consciousness during such sessions; the weaker ones would die. If the slave survived this ordeal, he was often confined in chains until such a time as their master saw fit to release them, either to set them to work or to sell them. In the worst case scenario, the master could have the slave either hanged or burned so that they would be an example to their fellow slaves (Taylor, 1996). Slaves who witnessed the ordeals of their runaway fellows would probably have chosen to remain docile because to do otherwise would have been to expose themselves to unimaginable torture or death. It is the fear of this which kept them under the firm control of their masters and instances of slave rebellions in America were very few and these were only on a small scale. Instead, many who sought escape from their situation often did so through suicide (George Fredrickson and Christopher Lasch).

In conclusion, it can be said that it is indeed true that the American slaves seem to have been more docile than those in the Caribbean. This is despite the fact that they had more places to go if they escaped than the latter. Those in the Caribbean were however better organized than those in America and that is why their revolts or escapes often used to happen on a larger scale and some even became great successes such as the one in Haiti. The adoption of Christianity by the American slaves and their great fear of the torture which resulted from any form of rebellion ensured that they remained docile as a way of survival.

Clinton's Impeachment

Bill Clinton was the second president of the United States to be impeached by Congress over matters concerning perjury before a grand jury and abuse of power. These were very serious offenses which should have ended in his removal from office and it was immoral for the senate to acquit him. The offenses which he was accused of committing were proven beyond any doubt to have happened and not only was this done but overwhelming evidence was brought to the attention of the public. There was no justification for Clinton’s acquittal by the senate just because a few Republican representatives were found to be hypocritical because they were found to have been unfaithful to their spouses. 

Most of the latter stepped down from their positions because of their moral obligations to the American society but the President, whose actions had a greater significance than the others chose to retain his position. This was a sign of disrespect not only to the American people but to the whole world. It reduced the respect which the institution of the American presidency inspired among other world leaders and instead, brought a sense of disillusionment towards its authority. The best course of action that should have been taken against Clinton would have been his removal from office so that this action would have served as an example and warning to presidents who came after him. It would have set a precedence on how to deal with such matters within the presidency and reestablished the respect which the presidency deserved. However, this was not the case when the senate acquitted Clinton despite the fact that he had tarnished the image of his office.

Public Prejudice Towards Asylum Seekers in Australia

What underlies public prejudice towards asylum seekers?

Many Australians feel the government should maintain a tough policy on asylum seekers who arrive by boat.
Hadi Zader/Flickr, CC BY

Anne Pedersen, Murdoch University and Lisa Hartley, Curtin University

According to a poll taken last December, 60% of those surveyed think the Australian government should “increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers”. What’s behind this negative sentiment (otherwise known as prejudice) towards asylum seekers in Australian society?“

One very important and consistent predictor of prejudice is the acceptance of inaccurate information, or myths, as true. A 2006 study, carried out by one of this article’s authors, identified three frequently cited myths that depicted asylum seekers as "queue jumpers”, “illegals” and not having a genuine reason to seek asylum. This study found that people who were high in prejudice were significantly more likely to accept these myths as being true.

These beliefs have been linked with government rhetoric about asylum seekers under the previous Howard government. Under the Abbott government, there has been no shortage of hostile rhetoric. The punitive asylum seeker policies of the Labor government under Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have also continued.

The ugly side of nationalism and perceptions of consensus

Some research links extreme levels of nationalism to prejudice towards asylum seekers. In one study into the phenomenon of flying Australian flags on one’s car for Australia Day, researchers from the University of Western Australia and Curtin University surveyed 501 people in public spaces in the week leading up to and on Australia Day in 2011.

The study found car-flag flyers rated more highly on measures of patriotism and nationalism and were significantly more likely to express prejudiced views against asylum seekers than non-flag flyers. Of those who flew flags, only 9.9% held positive views towards asylum seekers, compared to 24.7% of non-flag flyers.

Research suggests a correlation between nationalism and prejudice against asylum seekers.
Flickr/Brian Costelloe, CC BY

We have found that people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers are also notably more likely to over-estimate support in the community for these views compared with those more accepting of asylum seekers.

A 2008 study carried out by one of the authors found while both groups over-estimated their support in the community, the effect was much more pronounced among people holding prejudiced views.

This finding is of concern because other research finds people who see themselves as having a “majority voice” are more likely to be vocal and less flexible in their views than others who see themselves as having a “minority voice”.

People who seek to be tolerant and accepting of asylum seekers often find it difficult to speak out. This compounds the problem: prejudiced people’s influence can be disproportionate to their numbers.

The role of emotion

In addition to these cognitive factors that underlie prejudice, some studies indicate community views about asylum seekers are strongly linked with emotions. Research in 2010 found people who are positive towards asylum seekers are more likely to feel empathy for them, to feel moral outrage at their situation and to express disgust and embarrassment at Australia’s policy stance.

Hostile rhetoric from our politicians can build prejudice against asylum seekers.
AAP/Daniel Munoz

Our recent unpublished study found people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers were more likely to feel threatened by them. This was the case in regard to perceived threats to both security and “Australian values”.

Prejudiced participants were also more likely to be angry at asylum seekers for their mode of entry. Once emotions are involved, the issue becomes even more difficult to resolve.

Participants were significantly more prejudiced against asylum seekers who arrive by boat compared with refugees who were accepted offshore and resettled through Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program. So, although racism – prejudice based on race – is clearly involved, it is not the whole story.

Countering the myths that fuel prejudice

The fact our participants were more negative towards boat arrivals relates to a myth touched on above: “queue jumping”. The term queue implies that an orderly resettlement process exists, but this is far from reality.

It may also be the case many Australians are quite sensitive to what they see as rule-breaking. Our 2012 study on prejudice against Muslim Australians found a strong predictor of resentment was a perceived lack of conformity with Australian culture. Asylum seekers are often seen as Muslim even though they come from a range of religions, including Christianity and Hinduism.

Our finding also relates to the “not genuine” myth. Yet, over the last decade, more than 90% of boat arrivals have been found to be refugees. These myths, among others, need to be refuted if we are to reduce prejudice.

Levels of prejudice in Australian society can be reduced. Studies of both university students and older Australians in the community show attitudes can become more positive. This is important, as individuals can turn into a critical mass that can change social norms and government policy.

Anne Pedersen, Associate Professor in Psychology, Murdoch University and Lisa Hartley, Lecturer, Centre for Human Rights Education, Curtin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.