Walter Johnson’s book “Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market” focuses on the domestic slave trade in New Orleans and on the market itself which is representative of the underselling of slave’s worth. Looking solely at chapter six titled “Act for Sale,” Johnson introduces his focus on the slave pen, where the body as a product shaped the identities of both blacks and whites. Slave sales were always about performance and was marked by price and value. It was important to think of the slaves as objects rather than humans. To demonstrate this, Johnson says in the introduction, “…slaveholders carried around in their head was faced with the real person they hoped to take home from the market – objectification could dissolve into projection, anxiety, and finally
…show more content…
It was common for slaves to feel alienated from their own bodies, often taking two different views of their experiences. This happened because slaves acted the part that needed to be acted, often in order to secure for themselves the best possible future. Johnson solidifies this by saying, “By knowing what slaveholders were looking for, slaves could turn their own commodification against their enslavement,” also slaves began to realize “civility rather than strength would entice a likely buyer” (164). Another part that demonstrates this is, “When slaves looked at a particular buyer, they could do so with an informed eye to their own future” (Johnson 170-171). However, it was not solely slaves who acted out particular roles but also slave buyers. Buyers had to rely upon the word of sellers, “slaveholders gained creditability in the market by attaching reasons to their offers” (166), because the slave market was “impersonal”, and the trading of slaves involved much “deception and manipulation” (Johnson 172,
It was common for slaves to feel alienated from their own bodies, often taking two different views of their experiences. This happened because slaves acted the part that needed to be acted, often in order to secure for themselves the best possible future. Johnson solidifies this by saying, “By knowing what slaveholders were looking for, slaves could turn their own commodification against their enslavement,” also slaves began to realize “civility rather than strength would entice a likely buyer” (164). Another part that demonstrates this is, “When slaves looked at a particular buyer, they could do so with an informed eye to their own future” (Johnson 170-171). However, it was not solely slaves who acted out particular roles but also slave buyers. Buyers had to rely upon the word of sellers, “slaveholders gained creditability in the market by attaching reasons to their offers” (166), because the slave market was “impersonal”, and the trading of slaves involved much “deception and manipulation” (Johnson 172,