It is tempting to view the ethnic slave rebellions a successful attempt of those enslaved in the Caribbean to resist the often cruel and inhumane treatment of slave owners or overseers as a knee jerk reaction by all blacks slaves. As the Shuler’s article “Ethnic Slave Rebellion in the Caribbean and in the Guianas show us, the complexities of resistance and rebellion was a complex compilation of many variables, including ethnic, psychological and environmental factors. Not only were the reasons for rebellion complex, the methods used varied based on different factors as well.
Ruth Hamilton’s article helps to clarify how many of these factors must be considered in understanding why and how decisions were made to rebel. Using the differences in ethnicity or whether a slave was indigenous to Africa or born in their New World existence is an example of what variable influenced the decision to fight or flee their existence. When Hamilton refers to the cosmology as a “field of action”, she refers to what was the current reality for those making individual and group decisions to change what had to be intolerable conditions. For example, the differences in perceptions of Africans and those born in captivity lessoned the comradery that would increase the chances of an organized rebellion to be successful. This perceived difference occurred with the Creole or mixed race to an even further degree. The reality of preferential treatment by whites or even other blacks would influence a decision of “how bad” their lives were in comparison to other blacks.
Religion or belief systems would also be an influence on the decision to resist or revolt. Because many of the Caribbean plantations did not initially discourage the practice of either indigenous African or transplanted religion, these beliefs were shown to produce both leaders of revolts or give those leaders a sense of invincibility as described in the Shuler article. This psychological advantage had the potential to influence those who normally may not have had the courage to act themselves.
Although perceived differences could contribute to the failure or limit the success of organized resistance, one group of runaways seemed to band together with longstanding success. Specifically, the Jamaican maroons were a mixture of African groups that led resistance and led a separate existence in remote parts of the Jamaican forest. As Hamilton helps us to understand the cultural dynamics of the groups, the Cameroons were interested in self-preservation, and through a treaty, agreed not to accept “rebellious” slaves. The at times would collect a bounty for their return. Ironically enough, the Maroons were helpful in some instances to support large scale insurrections, such as in the revolts in Suriname in 1757 and 1772.
Both articles help to add additional understanding of the complexities of resurrection, resistance and rebellion of slaves. One major misconception is that resistance consisted of the desire to be free. As mentioned in the articles, those slaves that perceived their conditions as more favorable may not have only concluded that their existence was tolerable, but some contributed in sabotaging the efforts by acting as spies or informants to their enslavers. The other misconception about freedom was it was always based on the desire to be free. As noted, many times, rebellion or resistance was based on certain conditions (famine or natural disasters), or even an absent proprietor that left them in the hands of a harsh overseer. Understanding the different variables that affected the decisions of those enslaved helps to broaden the understanding of how and why rebellion occurred.
No comments:
Post a Comment