Sabeena Jagdeo
“What were the attitudes of American slaves toward their work experiences?” Every experience is different for everyone. People and communities have different backgrounds, situations, and views which all develop their perception of a particular event. Just like Stampp, Fogel and Engerman, and Genovese, people in society today have their own opinions on how slaves felt about their work experience. It all depends on how a person grew up and was taught to think about a certain situation throughout history. Some may view situations in the eyes of conflict, while others stray far away from that, focusing on freedom and liberty. Others may even choose to question the system at hand or look at history through an entirely different …show more content…
They state that “even though they longed for freedom, slaves could strive to develop and improve themselves in the only way that was open”(296). They became drivers and and general managers, and even sometimes were left in charge of the plantation when the owner was away. Fogel and Engerman focused on all the great things that slaves achieved during their work experience, overshadowing the cruelty they endeared saying that people like Stampp “overestimated the cruelty of the slave system”(296). They suggest in their writing that slaves strived to become the best they could be in their work experience during this …show more content…
They focus on the freedom in preference to the conflict, which classifies them as a consensus historian. Fogel and Engerman choose to work around the cruelties of slavery in their piece rather than embrace them, which is what consensus historians do. They do not want to portray America as a bad place, which was not united; so they only choose to present the good, not accepting the bad. They overshadow the things they do not want to represent the country with multiple examples of ways slaves lived great plantation lives. They give excuses like drivers on plantations, managers, and even were left in charge of the plantation on some occasions. They also state that slave owners recognized that slaves were more diligent workers than whites, even though they viewed themselves as superiors. Fogel and Engerman were aware of the cruelties of slavery but, choose not to deal with them in their piece because they did not want perceive America as weak, conflicted country. Fogel and Engerman belong to the consensus school of historiography because they devote their time to proving the freedom and great lives that the slaves led, discarding all the bad during the period to make America look like a great united country, which they believe it is, despite the obvious conflicts better demonstrated by Stampp and
“What were the attitudes of American slaves toward their work experiences?” Every experience is different for everyone. People and communities have different backgrounds, situations, and views which all develop their perception of a particular event. Just like Stampp, Fogel and Engerman, and Genovese, people in society today have their own opinions on how slaves felt about their work experience. It all depends on how a person grew up and was taught to think about a certain situation throughout history. Some may view situations in the eyes of conflict, while others stray far away from that, focusing on freedom and liberty. Others may even choose to question the system at hand or look at history through an entirely different …show more content…
They state that “even though they longed for freedom, slaves could strive to develop and improve themselves in the only way that was open”(296). They became drivers and and general managers, and even sometimes were left in charge of the plantation when the owner was away. Fogel and Engerman focused on all the great things that slaves achieved during their work experience, overshadowing the cruelty they endeared saying that people like Stampp “overestimated the cruelty of the slave system”(296). They suggest in their writing that slaves strived to become the best they could be in their work experience during this …show more content…
They focus on the freedom in preference to the conflict, which classifies them as a consensus historian. Fogel and Engerman choose to work around the cruelties of slavery in their piece rather than embrace them, which is what consensus historians do. They do not want to portray America as a bad place, which was not united; so they only choose to present the good, not accepting the bad. They overshadow the things they do not want to represent the country with multiple examples of ways slaves lived great plantation lives. They give excuses like drivers on plantations, managers, and even were left in charge of the plantation on some occasions. They also state that slave owners recognized that slaves were more diligent workers than whites, even though they viewed themselves as superiors. Fogel and Engerman were aware of the cruelties of slavery but, choose not to deal with them in their piece because they did not want perceive America as weak, conflicted country. Fogel and Engerman belong to the consensus school of historiography because they devote their time to proving the freedom and great lives that the slaves led, discarding all the bad during the period to make America look like a great united country, which they believe it is, despite the obvious conflicts better demonstrated by Stampp and