An evaluation of the factors governing relations between slaves and their owners

Sure, here’s a series of bullet points formatted as a revision guide for “An Evaluation of the Factors Governing Relations Between Slaves and Their Owners.”

Extent and Nature of Control

• Violence and punishment were used extensively by owners as a means to assert control and maintain a climate of fear among the enslaved population. This was instrumental in restricting the slaves’ liberty and ensuring their obedience.

• Basic rights of slaves were non-existent, with owners having legal ownership over the enslaved individuals. Slaves could be bought, sold, or traded at the owner’s discretion.

• Access to literacy and education was severely limited for slaves, keeping them subservient and further enhancing the owners’ control. A lack of education kept the enslaved ignorant of their rights or any potential avenues for escape or uprising.

Economic Relations

• Slaves were considered property, and therefore an investment, which had an impact on their treatment. The slave owner’s profitability was directly tied to the health and productivity of the slaves.

• Some owners allowed and encouraged slaves to have their own small gardens and plots, where they could grow food or rear animals. The products could be used for the slaves’ own subsistence or may be sold, which established a sort of slave economy within the plantation system.

Social Interactions

• The cultural backgrounds of the slaves had a significant impact on their relations with their owners. African cultural practices were often brought over and continued on plantations, fostering a sense of community among slaves and creating a distinct culture that owners needed to navigate.

• Some owners allowed slave marriages and families to exist. While this was often seen as a way to keep slaves under control, it also demonstrated a begrudging recognition of the slaves’ humanity.

Presence (or lack) of Empathy

• There were varying degrees of personal interaction between owners and slaves. Some owners rarely interacted with their slaves, making decisions from afar, while others took an interest in their welfare, though this did not negate the inherent power imbalance.

• Cases of manumission, where owners freed their slaves, were exceptions rather than the norm, and typically occurred as a result of personal attachment or reward for ‘good’ behaviour. This demonstrated that relations weren’t uniformly negative, though were still predominantly oppressive.

Remember, while there were instances of less brutal relationships, this by no means mitigates the overwhelmingly oppressive and exploitative nature of slavery. The fundamental premise of the Atlantic slave trade was the dehumanisation and subjugation of Africans for economic gain.