“This dynamic mirrors broader revolutionary patterns. The French Revolution unfolded at a moment of rising expectations,…”
Humm, I seem to remember something similar here in the USA. Civil Rights Act of 1964 was followed by the worst race riots across the USA in 1967–all as barriers to equality were being lifted across the nation.
Another slave revolt that corroborates the main thesis was the Males Revolt in Brazil.
It was a revolt led by Muslim and Islamized slaves in the country's Northeast. They lumped all mixed-race people and the blacks who didn't support the revolt together with white "enemies", regardless of their status as free people. It's believed their goal was to form a Muslim state in the region.
All this happened during the troubled Regency Period (the first Emperor abdicated and the successor was still a minor). Many revolutions took place around the empire during this time.
All the examples are from the "western" perspective. It would be interesting to see analysis of non-Western slave revolts, such as the Zanj that almost toppled the Abbasid caliphate; or the Mameluks defeating the Ayyubids in 13C Egypt.
Well, the Mameluks were elite slave soldiers, and upon rebelling they maintained much of the system, including perpetuating the Mameluk system, so it fits Matthews's pattern.
This is an incisive and unsentimental account. It strips rebellion of its romantic veneer and restores it to the field of cause and effect. Men do not revolt merely because they suffer; they revolt when suffering comes into contact with hope and comparison. Privilege breeds envy when it stops short of freedom. It is the same mechanism that drives all class revolutions—the appetite for a higher rung, not the destruction of the ladder. Once on that rung, the climber kicks hard, more often than not.
Tacky, Cuffy, and Sharpe were not prophets of equality. They were men accustomed to command, thrown into subjection, and therefore more conscious of its insult. The lowest slaves, like the poorest laborers, lacked the margin of security from which risk could be undertaken. Those who dared were those who could afford the first move. In all likelihood they also had the brains needed to envision a better life for themselves. The agonized victims of the worst in the ruling class do not see an alternative. The enslaved genius sees it all too well. This makes him suffer more but also makes him more capable of finding an exit.
To understand rebellion in this way is to abandon the sentimental comfort that misery alone will redeem itself through revolt. Misery endures; hope disturbs.
Does this apply to anti-colonial movements? I see the same antecedents in anti-colonial movements. In Africa, one of the truisms Africans use to criticize anti-colonial movements is that once the white “mzungu” left, Africans were left with the black “mzungu” who was keen on perpetuating the very atrocious things he vehemently agitated against and accused the white mzungu of. Some imagine life would have been better had colonization lasted longer.
What you probably don't know is how white slaves were treated, not black slaves as there was very little difference for this.
White slaves were actually treated worse than black slaves because they were only owned for Seven year terms and were essentially expendable. A black slave, you own for life and, therefore, want to look after him/her. White slaves were often neglected because of this and death rate was ~50%.
What you also probably don't know is that there were at least as many white slaves as black slaves, if not more (and probably more).
Of all the black African slaves (sold to us by black Africans) only about 400,000 went to the US, most actually went to the Middle East and were treated worse there. Approximately 10,000 British children were taken into slavery every year, take fourth years of this and then you have equalled out to 400,000 and slavery lasted far longer than this.I am not trying to justify slavery. I am simply trying to educate people, many of whom are very much mislead about slavery. Slavery is not racist, the word “slave” actually comes from “slav”, Slavs are both white and European. White people should not be apologising for slavery, no race should be because they are all guilty. Slavery is still common practise in Sub-Saharan Africa and is brutal. The same is true in Islam, historically arabs would castrate slaves so that they could not breed and sexual slavery is prevalent today (although a particular group that I don't really think I need to name is largely responsible). What I am saying is that it doesn't matter where they were treated worst because everyone is responsible and everyone treated their slaves badly regardless of race. Nobody should apologise for slavery and it should be forgotten, at least forgiven.
“This dynamic mirrors broader revolutionary patterns. The French Revolution unfolded at a moment of rising expectations,…”
Humm, I seem to remember something similar here in the USA. Civil Rights Act of 1964 was followed by the worst race riots across the USA in 1967–all as barriers to equality were being lifted across the nation.
Another slave revolt that corroborates the main thesis was the Males Revolt in Brazil.
It was a revolt led by Muslim and Islamized slaves in the country's Northeast. They lumped all mixed-race people and the blacks who didn't support the revolt together with white "enemies", regardless of their status as free people. It's believed their goal was to form a Muslim state in the region.
All this happened during the troubled Regency Period (the first Emperor abdicated and the successor was still a minor). Many revolutions took place around the empire during this time.
All the examples are from the "western" perspective. It would be interesting to see analysis of non-Western slave revolts, such as the Zanj that almost toppled the Abbasid caliphate; or the Mameluks defeating the Ayyubids in 13C Egypt.
Well, the Mameluks were elite slave soldiers, and upon rebelling they maintained much of the system, including perpetuating the Mameluk system, so it fits Matthews's pattern.
This is an incisive and unsentimental account. It strips rebellion of its romantic veneer and restores it to the field of cause and effect. Men do not revolt merely because they suffer; they revolt when suffering comes into contact with hope and comparison. Privilege breeds envy when it stops short of freedom. It is the same mechanism that drives all class revolutions—the appetite for a higher rung, not the destruction of the ladder. Once on that rung, the climber kicks hard, more often than not.
Tacky, Cuffy, and Sharpe were not prophets of equality. They were men accustomed to command, thrown into subjection, and therefore more conscious of its insult. The lowest slaves, like the poorest laborers, lacked the margin of security from which risk could be undertaken. Those who dared were those who could afford the first move. In all likelihood they also had the brains needed to envision a better life for themselves. The agonized victims of the worst in the ruling class do not see an alternative. The enslaved genius sees it all too well. This makes him suffer more but also makes him more capable of finding an exit.
To understand rebellion in this way is to abandon the sentimental comfort that misery alone will redeem itself through revolt. Misery endures; hope disturbs.
Does this apply to anti-colonial movements? I see the same antecedents in anti-colonial movements. In Africa, one of the truisms Africans use to criticize anti-colonial movements is that once the white “mzungu” left, Africans were left with the black “mzungu” who was keen on perpetuating the very atrocious things he vehemently agitated against and accused the white mzungu of. Some imagine life would have been better had colonization lasted longer.
Great work!
What you probably don't know is how white slaves were treated, not black slaves as there was very little difference for this.
White slaves were actually treated worse than black slaves because they were only owned for Seven year terms and were essentially expendable. A black slave, you own for life and, therefore, want to look after him/her. White slaves were often neglected because of this and death rate was ~50%.
What you also probably don't know is that there were at least as many white slaves as black slaves, if not more (and probably more).
Of all the black African slaves (sold to us by black Africans) only about 400,000 went to the US, most actually went to the Middle East and were treated worse there. Approximately 10,000 British children were taken into slavery every year, take fourth years of this and then you have equalled out to 400,000 and slavery lasted far longer than this.I am not trying to justify slavery. I am simply trying to educate people, many of whom are very much mislead about slavery. Slavery is not racist, the word “slave” actually comes from “slav”, Slavs are both white and European. White people should not be apologising for slavery, no race should be because they are all guilty. Slavery is still common practise in Sub-Saharan Africa and is brutal. The same is true in Islam, historically arabs would castrate slaves so that they could not breed and sexual slavery is prevalent today (although a particular group that I don't really think I need to name is largely responsible). What I am saying is that it doesn't matter where they were treated worst because everyone is responsible and everyone treated their slaves badly regardless of race. Nobody should apologise for slavery and it should be forgotten, at least forgiven.
Bad Mr slave!