Numerous historians, such as Stampp, Fogel and Engerman, and Genovese, have interpreted the attitudes American slaves had toward their work experiences; however, each historian presents a unique perspective, which often conflicts with the view of other historians. The Peculiar Institution, a nonfiction book published in 1956 and written by Kenneth M. Stampp, contains a chapter titled “A Troublesome Property.” In his chapter, Stampp disputes the claim that slaves “...unthinkingly accepted bondage as their natural status.”(257) Utilizing primary sources from slave overseers and slaveowners, Stampp argues that in reality African Americans knew of their condition as slaves and the freedom slavery restricted them of. Since “...no slave uprising
…show more content…
In fact, Genovese takes it one step further and states that unless some kind of incentive was provided, slaves would continue to neglect their duties. Punishments were one obvious form of incentives for slaves, but Genovese argues that positive incentives “served...to stimulate productivity”(303) and were generally more successful. Goods and money were materialistic incentives used to motivate slaves to continue their good work, but according to Genovese, “the most important incentive to these long hours of extra work was the community life they called forth.”(306) To support his argument, Genovese provides common labor tasks completed by slaves in most plantations, such as corn shucking, cotton picking, and collecting turpentine. Using evidence derived from slaves, Genovese asserts his argument of how slaves preferred corn shucking because they did the work as a community with other slaves, even though it was hard and long work. Whereas, cotton picking was less accepted by slaves since they only got to work in groups to complete the task; overseers would then have to rely on punishments as incentives, but the task slaves detested the most was collecting turpentine because it was done individually, although it was simple and easy work.(footnote) Although they share some similarities in their interpretations, all four historians, Stampp, Fogel and Engerman, and Genovese, interpret the way slaves viewed their work experiences differently from each other. They all use different sources of evidence to support their argument and occasionally contradict each other in their
In fact, Genovese takes it one step further and states that unless some kind of incentive was provided, slaves would continue to neglect their duties. Punishments were one obvious form of incentives for slaves, but Genovese argues that positive incentives “served...to stimulate productivity”(303) and were generally more successful. Goods and money were materialistic incentives used to motivate slaves to continue their good work, but according to Genovese, “the most important incentive to these long hours of extra work was the community life they called forth.”(306) To support his argument, Genovese provides common labor tasks completed by slaves in most plantations, such as corn shucking, cotton picking, and collecting turpentine. Using evidence derived from slaves, Genovese asserts his argument of how slaves preferred corn shucking because they did the work as a community with other slaves, even though it was hard and long work. Whereas, cotton picking was less accepted by slaves since they only got to work in groups to complete the task; overseers would then have to rely on punishments as incentives, but the task slaves detested the most was collecting turpentine because it was done individually, although it was simple and easy work.(footnote) Although they share some similarities in their interpretations, all four historians, Stampp, Fogel and Engerman, and Genovese, interpret the way slaves viewed their work experiences differently from each other. They all use different sources of evidence to support their argument and occasionally contradict each other in their