sierramcconnell wrote:Sleeping Beauty wrote:IMO, I think "the slaves had retired" is fine, because I read it as from the perspective of a young rich girl, and I didn't think she'd quite understand what kind of life the slaves lead. I agree with Sierra - that phrasing makes her sound naive, but I feel it's intentional. (I don't personally think it could be said that
any slaves were treated well, however.)
I'd post my 250 words, but I'm too intimiated by the high quality of excerpts in this thread to do so.
Aw, I'm sure it's fine. :3
And I meant as far as, not all of them were beaten mercilessly and kept in holes in the ground. Some were actually reluctant to leave their master's sides at the end, because they were fed, clothed, housed, and treated well under their care. Without them, they would have nothing. They don't teach that in History Class. They teach about the bad side of it. The rape and torture and the splitting up of families. But they don't teach that there were some people who were NICE. That liked to treat their servants with some respect.
Those people are going to be in your house, after all. You might not want to piss them off. Heck, look at what happened at the Myrtle's...
Slavery is bad, yes, but there was also indentured contracts that go before all of this. And servantry of a different sort before that. People selling and giving their children into other families for better relationships or because they couldn't keep them. It's not just boxed into this one section of time. Slavery had been going on for years, and still goes on today, even in America, though most people wouldn't even want to think about that...
[hops off soapbox]
Sierra is definitely right.
No one can deny that slavery was bad, but all the horrible things that went on have gotten more play in our history books/classes/popular culture. Of course, there were more incidences of abuse and wrong doing on the large plantations (200+ slaves) where the owners were more concerned with the bottom line and not what was actually going on. But in reality, many slaves were treated decent (defining decent as getting food, clothing, and housing) and some were considered family members (especially the "mammies" who were often put on a pedastal...especially by their male charges). I think the better treatment stemmed from the smaller plantations that had a lot more to lose by absuing their slaves (who were quite expensive). But then again who have historical figures such as Mary Boykin Chestnut, who was heavily entrenched in the Southern aristocracy, who wrote in her diaries that she taught every slave she came in contact with to read (which of course was a crime at the time). And don't even get me started on Thomas Jefferson!
Brenda--I definitely meant "two." Good catch!
Watcher--are you being sarcastic?
While I'm a southern girl at heart, and have been through my fair share of my plantation homes, I can proudly saw that I descend from a long line of small time farmers/sharecroppers and mill workers!
To everyone who commented on Julienne's naivete--she is kind of on the naive side at this time. She's smarter than the average southern belle (thanks to her father--who educated her like a boy) and has to "buck up" after what happens beyond the first 250. Her family is involved in horse breeding and not crops, so there slave population is fairly small. And her father (being the forward thinking man that he is) even has a black overseer (they grew up together...a lot of trust is there) who looks after the place. But even though the plantation is somewhat utopic, they are still virulent supporters of the Confederacy. They lean upon the State's Rights mantra, of course. When Julienne gets called out by her love interest, she stubbornly defends their way of life. I deliberately set it up as a paradox to some extent given that a lot of people felt this way (most notably Robert E. Lee who stated that he "could not raise a hand against the south" when Abraham Lincoln asked him to lead the Union army). OK, enough history for today!
But thanks!
