Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Essay 4

Although total freedom for slaves in Olaudah Equiano’s time was not a possibility, slaves did hope and strive for better living conditions, treatment, and even wages. Some slaves living in England fought to have the status of domestic servants who, although not held in high regard by society, had more freedom and rights than slaves. Slaves fought the most for some sort of wage that would contribute to their maintenance and enhance their rights. They also desired to work under a master who would treat them well, even if their service did fall under the category of slavery. The slaves considered themselves “free” if they were able to work and live under these conditions.

Slaves in England fought to earn wages for the work that they performed for their masters. The receipt from the wage that the slave received implied some sort of contract. At this time, a contract involved the consent of free people, which would imply that the slave was free. Domestic servants often found themselves working under the same conditions of slaves. For example, servants also “faced corporal punishment for disobedience and worked under the close supervision of the master and mistress of the household” (Lorimer, 63). The actions of the servant were severely restricted, which prevented them from being completely free. Slaves would still not be completely free even if they received a wage, but it would constitute a drastic improvement in their lives.

Ouladah Equiano recalled that people who did not own a plantation would loan out their slaves in exchange for money. The money would then be used to provide the slaves with extra subsistence. The food would allow a better standard of living for the slave (Equiano, 91). The money would go directly to the master and not the slave, but it still provided the slave with a sense of self-worth. If the slave did receive some sort of compensation they could buy objects that contributed to their autonomy. Equiano wrote about a man who was able to buy a boat unbeknownst to his master (92). The money earned by slaves represented some autonomy, if not freedom.

Equiano went in depth about the plantations that gave better treatment to the slaves. The slaves still had to work under a master and were not free, but they were able to work and live under better conditions. The plantations perceived as “better” also did not abuse their slaves (97). Equiano would work harder under his master who was kind in order to not be sold to other individuals who were cruel (94). Slaves would be more willing to comply with the orders of their masters if they did not risk being physically punished.

The improvements the slaves received may have been a small victory, but it impacted English society on many levels. Slave owners could not longer view their slaves as property that had absolutely no rights. English society had to accept the domestic status of the slave, which allowed for fewer restrictions, but it still allowed the slave to be freer.

2 comments:

  1. In my essay I also mentioned that wage earning was important for a slave to be or feel free. However, I didn't think about or talk about them making money as an issue of self worth, something that would allow them to purchase things for themselves. Yes, money does allow you to buy things, but the way I saw it was that once a person earned wages for the work that they did, they could no longer be classifed as a slave who didn't recieve money for their work.

    Also, I'm not so sure if I would considered those slaves working on any type of planation free or having any sort of freedom. True, their living conditions might be better than that of others, but I don't see how they could be free on a plantation. They didn't have any sort of freedom at all, they couldn't chose whom they wanted to marry, they weren't free to leave, they were considered the property of someone else. There is no freedom in that, just better conditions. In contrast, those who earned their wages were not necessarily tied down, yest they had contracts, but once their contracts were up, they could leave if they wanted to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also think there is large difference between slaves and indentured servants when it came to freedom. As Claudia said, they were able to leave when their contract was up, but slaves were tied to the land and to their masters.
    In Equiano's case, I thought it was interesting that if his master had to discipline them, he threatened them with abandonment.
    I was also surprised you didn't mention the role of Christianity in the lives of both slaves and slaveholders. Equiano strove to become a part of the Christian faith, in hopes of helping him gain more freedom.

    ReplyDelete