Read Online Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond by Mark Ames - Free Book Online
Authors: Mark Ames
Tags: United States, General, Social Science, True Crime, Political Science, Murder, Criminology, Violent crimes, Violence in Society, Civics & Citizenship
Ads: Link
most frequent reasons for the slave’s industriousness was the feeling that he had a stake in the successful completion of his work. Many slaves developed this feeling because the planters promised them money, gifts, dinners, and dances if they labored faithfully.
— Blassingame , The Slave Community
For a good number of slaves it was a life that, on the surface, resembled the life of many working poor at the time, with the obvious exception that they were owned like property and that they were viewed as racially subhuman. But this ownership wasn’t an issue that came up everyday or every minute in the average slave’s mind—with conditioning, man can get used to anything. As Lunsford Lane wrote in his 1842 slave memoir, “[M]y condition as a slave was comparatively a happy, indeed a highly favored one… .” Ownership was certainly in the back of every slave’s mind, but he still lived, relaxed, visited his friends and lovers, married and had children, shopped, went to church, and enjoyed whatever entertainment was allowed or available. Just so long as he got his work done and didn’t break any laws.
As Blassingame notes, “The planters generally had little concern about the recreational activities in the quarters. They did not, however, want their slaves carousing all over the country and wearing themselves out before the day’s labor commenced.” The slaves’ owners generally weren’t worried about their slaves running away. True, runaways were far more common than rebellions, but they were still rare, still fraught with the unknown and the overwhelming chance of failure (as opposed to the certain chance of failure in an uprising). Instead, masters were worried that their slaves might wear themselves out if they were having too much fun off the plantation. As Elijah Marrs, in Life and History , notes, [Our master] allowed us generally to do as we pleased after his own work was done, and we enjoyed the privilege granted to us.”
As slavery and the slave economy in America became more refined, so did the slaveholders’ treatment of their slaves. A whole industry of slave management grew up around the practice. Slaves were generally treated much better than white indentured servants because they were property, whereas indentured servants could only be squeezed for a limited period. It was in the master’s interest to stretch out his slave’s work efficiency as long a period as possible, either to get a full life’s work out of him or her, or to keep the resale value high. That meant keeping the slave relatively healthy and happy. Many masters developed a genuine affection for their slaves, however patronizing, and this affection was often reciprocated. Masters saw it as their moral duty to treat their slaves well and to civilize them, as grotesque as that seems today. As a rule, mainstream slave management theory didn’t advocate that slaves had “unlimited juice to squeeze” as former General Electric CEO Jack Welch said of his workers, or that “fear is the best motivator” as Intel’s Andy Grove once boasted. Slaves weren’t driven by stress or viewed by their masters as having a half-life of “only a few years” as Intel CEO Craig Barrett said of his engineers (although indentured servants were viewed as such, and were truly squeezed for all they were worth). Indeed usually it was the overseers who posed the greatest threat to slaves, not their owners. The overseer had no direct economic incentive to keep the slaves content; his only concern was output.
Mainstream slave management theory of the nineteenth century had taught masters that the best way to get the most out of your slaves was to provide him with incentives in order to make the slave believe that his interests coincide with his master’s. In this sense, slave management theory had more in common with mid-twentieth-century corporate management theory than with the kind of sadistic evil we normally associated with
— Blassingame , The Slave Community
For a good number of slaves it was a life that, on the surface, resembled the life of many working poor at the time, with the obvious exception that they were owned like property and that they were viewed as racially subhuman. But this ownership wasn’t an issue that came up everyday or every minute in the average slave’s mind—with conditioning, man can get used to anything. As Lunsford Lane wrote in his 1842 slave memoir, “[M]y condition as a slave was comparatively a happy, indeed a highly favored one… .” Ownership was certainly in the back of every slave’s mind, but he still lived, relaxed, visited his friends and lovers, married and had children, shopped, went to church, and enjoyed whatever entertainment was allowed or available. Just so long as he got his work done and didn’t break any laws.
As Blassingame notes, “The planters generally had little concern about the recreational activities in the quarters. They did not, however, want their slaves carousing all over the country and wearing themselves out before the day’s labor commenced.” The slaves’ owners generally weren’t worried about their slaves running away. True, runaways were far more common than rebellions, but they were still rare, still fraught with the unknown and the overwhelming chance of failure (as opposed to the certain chance of failure in an uprising). Instead, masters were worried that their slaves might wear themselves out if they were having too much fun off the plantation. As Elijah Marrs, in Life and History , notes, [Our master] allowed us generally to do as we pleased after his own work was done, and we enjoyed the privilege granted to us.”
As slavery and the slave economy in America became more refined, so did the slaveholders’ treatment of their slaves. A whole industry of slave management grew up around the practice. Slaves were generally treated much better than white indentured servants because they were property, whereas indentured servants could only be squeezed for a limited period. It was in the master’s interest to stretch out his slave’s work efficiency as long a period as possible, either to get a full life’s work out of him or her, or to keep the resale value high. That meant keeping the slave relatively healthy and happy. Many masters developed a genuine affection for their slaves, however patronizing, and this affection was often reciprocated. Masters saw it as their moral duty to treat their slaves well and to civilize them, as grotesque as that seems today. As a rule, mainstream slave management theory didn’t advocate that slaves had “unlimited juice to squeeze” as former General Electric CEO Jack Welch said of his workers, or that “fear is the best motivator” as Intel’s Andy Grove once boasted. Slaves weren’t driven by stress or viewed by their masters as having a half-life of “only a few years” as Intel CEO Craig Barrett said of his engineers (although indentured servants were viewed as such, and were truly squeezed for all they were worth). Indeed usually it was the overseers who posed the greatest threat to slaves, not their owners. The overseer had no direct economic incentive to keep the slaves content; his only concern was output.
Mainstream slave management theory of the nineteenth century had taught masters that the best way to get the most out of your slaves was to provide him with incentives in order to make the slave believe that his interests coincide with his master’s. In this sense, slave management theory had more in common with mid-twentieth-century corporate management theory than with the kind of sadistic evil we normally associated with
Similar Books
