Interesting Gone with the Wind though. You know me, I'm almost always game to jump in on issues of southern history.
Here's another perspective on the southern belief that slaves weren't treated badly. First of all, slaves were considered an investment. Mistreating slaves means throwing money away. It's like breaking something that you've bought - you don't want to have buy another one. Uncle Tom's Cabin was indeed a gross exageration of the way that slaves were treated, as a general rule. Anyone who treated their slaves that way would soon have run out of money replacing them.
Also, many many people regarded blacks as being more like children; they needed to be taken care of, given explicit directions, protected from the harsh light of reality, and provided for. In exchange, just like the children of the day, they needed to provide much needed work around the house & farm. Southerners often looked at the way blacks lived in the northern city, and could justifiably say that slaves lived in far more luxury and comfort than the northern black ghettos.
The problem, of course, is that the slave owners forgot about that precious commodity known as freedom. Obviously, I'm not trying to defend slavery at all, of course, as it's morally wrong. Just trying to shed a little light on why it was acceptable.
Bad treatment is bad business!tracerooSeptember 23 2008, 15:23:03 UTC
You make a really excellent point about the business angle on this! Good consideration.
I'm chewing on this issue both as one of the historical question (always ongoing in this household, you know it!) -- but also a literary one. What was Mitchell really trying to say here?
When I first read the book last summer, her bold defense of Confederate culture was like the heatwave that blasts you in the face when you open the oven. It seemed odd since the book has such a tight focus on such an awful character, however -- why focus on her? Does Mitchell really think that her Scarlett is all that and a bag of chips? Or was she saying something about the character's flaws, and maybe human flaws on a greater scale?
In light of both, I think Scarlett treated the slaves better than either her family or the prisoners in her mill. Although *I* view prisoners as slaves of a different type, clearly Scarlett O'Hara has other ideas. Prisoners are disposable, slaves are an investment. While she might view both as posessions rather than people, one is Dry Clean Only and requiring special care.
Re: Bad treatment is bad business!moosea1September 23 2008, 15:36:14 UTC
Interesting point. I've often wondered why she would write a book where the heroine is such a terrible person. And why was it so popular anyway? Is it a modern perception that Scarlet is terrible but for the time she seemed strong and modern and admirable? Maybe I should re-read it at some point.
Re: Bad treatment is bad business!tracerooSeptember 23 2008, 15:44:15 UTC
You know, then my mind starts to whirl as when I consider time travel. Mitchell published this in the 20s, I think, right? So, on the heels of the Women's Awesomeness movement, did that contempoary audience perceive Scarlett as very strong and admirable? I find that difficult to believe, honestly. In fact, the further back you go in time, the more shocking her behavior seems. Even now I'm having trouble balancing the idea that any character could be admired for being good in business and getting things done when they're such a shit personally -- female or male. But given both the time of publication and the setting of the story, a woman taking that role is so much MORE shocking! Is she supposed to be like the Mad Max of her time, chaining the guy's leg to the car about to explode, but leaving him with a chainsaw if he wants to saw his own leg off? Is she intended to be shocking?
My wife's entire family is from Kentucky. So of course, she married a Yankee, and that did not sit well at all with them. At one family reunion, the topic of slavery came up, and for some reason, they wanted the Yankee perspective on the topic. So I laid it out as much as I could, not using Gone with the Wind as a reference but kind of along the lines mentioned in the post itself.
Two things came from this conversation with them. First off, that the economic statement you made came first and foremost from them. Why would they treat them bad because they were such a large economic investment for them?
After making that statement, I pointed out that in fact there technically was two classes of slaves. The house slave and the field slave. That while I do not disagree that they treated the house slaves 'better' the field slaves were primarily the ones that were beaten, abused and treated poorly.
It was at this point, the family matriarch spoke up. She was 102 years old (has since passed away) and everyone shut up to listen. She then started telling stories about growing up, and listening to her older family members talk about slavery and how the slaves were treated.
It was her opinion, based on the things that her family had said, that in fact I was correct. That the house slaves were the ones treated well, and that field slaves were considered nothing more then farm equipment. She would talk about how people actually took pride in their house slaves, and were judged by others socially in how they treated them.
At the end of her stories, which I will never forget, she wrapped it up with, "For 100 years, I defended slavery. And now, after listenin to y'all, I finally realize how wrong I was." She stood up, looked at everyone and told them they better take a long hard look at themselves, and that the family has been blind.
Fascinating!tracerooSeptember 23 2008, 15:55:31 UTC
First off -- thanks for stopping by! Hope all is well with you and yours lately. :)
What a fascinating story! It's so hard for any of us to admit that we're wrong or change our ways, but someone who's 102! At that age she could say the sky was green and she'd have earned the right to get out of argument on that topic -- what an amazing person! And what an incredible experience for you to sit inside the "time machine" of that discussion and compare historical and cultural perspectives.
Re: Fascinating!wenbanSeptember 23 2008, 16:01:01 UTC
That is what really had left me floored. But then again, she was an incredible woman. She had been through so much in her life, but had always fought for everything she believed in. Actually, for her age, I did not really expect how lucid she would be when I met her. All cylinders were firing in her, and she was still an explosion waiting to happen in debating.
I asked my wife later though why the change. And that's when I learned something else about her. The only electronic device she actually used was a radio. She had never left the state of Kentucky, and the only radio station she listened to was a back woods am channel. I was given the impression that she had lived a quiet life, and people in the family all just agreed with what she had said.
Later, my MIL called me to complain that how dare I challenge the thoughts of a woman so old if that gives you any idea of the blinders the family had on her.
Here's another perspective on the southern belief that slaves weren't treated badly. First of all, slaves were considered an investment. Mistreating slaves means throwing money away. It's like breaking something that you've bought - you don't want to have buy another one. Uncle Tom's Cabin was indeed a gross exageration of the way that slaves were treated, as a general rule. Anyone who treated their slaves that way would soon have run out of money replacing them.
Also, many many people regarded blacks as being more like children; they needed to be taken care of, given explicit directions, protected from the harsh light of reality, and provided for. In exchange, just like the children of the day, they needed to provide much needed work around the house & farm. Southerners often looked at the way blacks lived in the northern city, and could justifiably say that slaves lived in far more luxury and comfort than the northern black ghettos.
The problem, of course, is that the slave owners forgot about that precious commodity known as freedom. Obviously, I'm not trying to defend slavery at all, of course, as it's morally wrong. Just trying to shed a little light on why it was acceptable.
Reply
I'm chewing on this issue both as one of the historical question (always ongoing in this household, you know it!) -- but also a literary one. What was Mitchell really trying to say here?
When I first read the book last summer, her bold defense of Confederate culture was like the heatwave that blasts you in the face when you open the oven. It seemed odd since the book has such a tight focus on such an awful character, however -- why focus on her? Does Mitchell really think that her Scarlett is all that and a bag of chips? Or was she saying something about the character's flaws, and maybe human flaws on a greater scale?
In light of both, I think Scarlett treated the slaves better than either her family or the prisoners in her mill. Although *I* view prisoners as slaves of a different type, clearly Scarlett O'Hara has other ideas. Prisoners are disposable, slaves are an investment. While she might view both as posessions rather than people, one is Dry Clean Only and requiring special care.
Thanks for the insight!
T.
Reply
Reply
Don't reread it. She'll annoy you.
T.
Reply
Two things came from this conversation with them. First off, that the economic statement you made came first and foremost from them. Why would they treat them bad because they were such a large economic investment for them?
After making that statement, I pointed out that in fact there technically was two classes of slaves. The house slave and the field slave. That while I do not disagree that they treated the house slaves 'better' the field slaves were primarily the ones that were beaten, abused and treated poorly.
It was at this point, the family matriarch spoke up. She was 102 years old (has since passed away) and everyone shut up to listen. She then started telling stories about growing up, and listening to her older family members talk about slavery and how the slaves were treated.
It was her opinion, based on the things that her family had said, that in fact I was correct. That the house slaves were the ones treated well, and that field slaves were considered nothing more then farm equipment. She would talk about how people actually took pride in their house slaves, and were judged by others socially in how they treated them.
At the end of her stories, which I will never forget, she wrapped it up with, "For 100 years, I defended slavery. And now, after listenin to y'all, I finally realize how wrong I was." She stood up, looked at everyone and told them they better take a long hard look at themselves, and that the family has been blind.
Reply
What a fascinating story! It's so hard for any of us to admit that we're wrong or change our ways, but someone who's 102! At that age she could say the sky was green and she'd have earned the right to get out of argument on that topic -- what an amazing person! And what an incredible experience for you to sit inside the "time machine" of that discussion and compare historical and cultural perspectives.
Thanks for sharing that!
Traceroo
Reply
I asked my wife later though why the change. And that's when I learned something else about her. The only electronic device she actually used was a radio. She had never left the state of Kentucky, and the only radio station she listened to was a back woods am channel. I was given the impression that she had lived a quiet life, and people in the family all just agreed with what she had said.
Later, my MIL called me to complain that how dare I challenge the thoughts of a woman so old if that gives you any idea of the blinders the family had on her.
Reply
Leave a comment