Why have slave rebellions been left out of US history?

[IllmaticDelta]

narrative,

white narratives

and pride imo are two huge important reasons why the stories are not spoken about enough.

I don't think pride has anything to do it with it. It's more of an issue of lack of full scale knowledge. Most aframs that are deep into black history almost ONLY mention

nat turner
denmark vesey
stono rebellion

...because those are the events/people that have gotten the most attention. White historians ALWAYS bring up those same ones + Harper's Fairy Raid

 

[Strapped]

Why would the man give something like that any praise

 

[Bboystyle]

Because that part of history doenst benefit the white man. U really had to ask this question OP?


They wanted to instill fear into the hearts of black folks with their tales of slavery to makes us look weak. Anything that slighty refutes that would never fly in their books

 

[get these nets]

Great discussion and interesting panel in the video.

I think curricuum should be expanded and everybody in America should learn about every chapter of American history, however painful or uncomfortable. I also think that Black people who have media platforms should try to incorporate more African American history into their content. It would help to educate people of different backgrounds, about the forces that shaped AA culture. People see and consume parts of AA culture, but know very little about the history.

Now, the thread question about why rebellions have been left out of history. From the white academia side, it would open up Pandora's boxes that would upset narratives they've been pushing for years. Mainly that the underground railroad was the main way that Africans resisted slavery...escaping North. This German Coast uprising in particular is about....."no, Black people are staking a claim right here."

From the Black academia and personal discussion side, I would imagine that there are a few reasons why rebellions aren't discussed more. I think the primary reason is the way that most of them ended. People (mistakenly) see them as failed. If you notice, even in this recreation.....the participants crafted an alernate ending. I see it differently.I think that every rebellion that sent white slavers to the grave was successful. As long as someone Black was left alive to tell the story, that it helped dismantle the idea that whites were invincible and planted that seed in the minds of other Africans. They mentioned that the revolution in St. Domingue/ Haiti was known and helped inspire the German Coast Rebellion. Who knows how many Africans were inspired in later generations by the GC rebellion?

 

[Lucky_Lefty]

The American education system will have you believing muthafukkas wanted freedom cause of tea and some white dude rode a horse all throughout the New England colony to muster up the troops too

 

[King Khufu]

The reason why that it was left out it was for a very simple reason.

Because there was technically supposed to be more rebellions.

But that was way back then though, this time it's different.

See us nikkas got to organize for a financial revolution because that's going to be more effective than guns shooting.

I am one smooth bad motherfukker!
Only time will tell. Ha!

 

[Able Archer 83]

As a literal student of history, I have an idea of why this might be the case.

Apart from the Nat Turner revolt, there's very little primary source evidence to draw upon. The slave revolts were a fact, but without the actual voices of the participants, you can't really put them in context. What do they mean? Why did those slaves revolt while others remained subservient? What does that revolt say about slavery in antebellum America, or even America itself? This is a side effect of two things, A: slaves being stripped of their agency and identity, and B: the unwillingness of the slaveholding interests to publicize and document any threats to the social order. This has made it extremely difficult to speak of American slave revolts apart from generalities, and also why even though John Brown was white, he's become the symbol of resistance to slavery. Since he was white, his identity counted more to 19th century America, his words and deeds were seen as an aberration, whereas slaves were seen as naturally uncivilized and savage. The sentiments and prejudices of the past influenced the recording of the deeds of the past, which influences how America currently interprets its past, if that makes sense. It's extremely unjust, but that's the history we've been left with.

This is just my perception, of course, and there are a number of other equally valid interpretations.

 

[Booker T Garvey]

As a literal student of history, I have an idea of why this might be the case.

Apart from the Nat Turner revolt, there's very little primary source evidence to draw upon. The slave revolts were a fact, but without the actual voices of the participants, you can't really put them in context. What do they mean? Why did those slaves revolt while others remained subservient? What does that revolt say about slavery in antebellum America, or even America itself? This is a side effect of two things, A: slaves being stripped of their agency and identity, and B: the unwillingness of the slaveholding interests to publicize and document any threats to the social order. This has made it extremely difficult to speak of American slave revolts apart from generalities, and also why even though John Brown was white, he's become the symbol of resistance to slavery. Since he was white, his identity counted more to 19th century America, his words and deeds were seen as an aberration, whereas slaves were seen as naturally uncivilized and savage. The sentiments and prejudices of the past influenced the recording of the deeds of the past, which influences how America currently interprets its past, if that makes sense. It's extremely unjust, but that's the history we've been left with.

This is just my perception, of course, and there are a number of other equally valid interpretations.

You're correct...I also learned about Denmark Vessey, Dred Scott, and Joseph Cinque' at HOME when i was a youngster.

they don't teach about great latino/hispanics in public school, they learn about their heroes at home...we've gotta start doing this as well

 

[Samori Toure]

...also the Gullah wars are somewhat "hidden" because of the Seminole label. Many people don't realize that there are "Black Seminoles" who were actually black people from the Carolina coasts


word to

@Jesus is my protector




https://www.thecoli.com/threads/the...-a-war-oblivious-to-african-americans.210547/

Yup this was probably one of the largest and most violent slave revolts in World history, but it has been completely written out of American history.

The answer to the OP is that White like to create lying bullshyt narratives pushing their invincibility and dehumanizing others. One such narrative is the docile slave, which was complete bullshyt that they later tried to weave into the violent mindless shiftless negro.

 

[Samori Toure]

As a literal student of history, I have an idea of why this might be the case.

Apart from the Nat Turner revolt, there's very little primary source evidence to draw upon. The slave revolts were a fact, but without the actual voices of the participants, you can't really put them in context. What do they mean? Why did those slaves revolt while others remained subservient? What does that revolt say about slavery in antebellum America, or even America itself? This is a side effect of two things, A: slaves being stripped of their agency and identity, and B: the unwillingness of the slaveholding interests to publicize and document any threats to the social order. This has made it extremely difficult to speak of American slave revolts apart from generalities, and also why even though John Brown was white, he's become the symbol of resistance to slavery. Since he was white, his identity counted more to 19th century America, his words and deeds were seen as an aberration, whereas slaves were seen as naturally uncivilized and savage. The sentiments and prejudices of the past influenced the recording of the deeds of the past, which influences how America currently interprets its past, if that makes sense. It's extremely unjust, but that's the history we've been left with.

This is just my perception, of course, and there are a number of other equally valid interpretations.

Actually slave revolts were quite numerous and there is plenty of source evidence to draw upon. White people lived in constant fear of slave rebellions, which is one of the reasons the revolts were swept under the rug.

The Stono Rebellion was one of the rebellions that caused the most fear and has been well document. That rebellion was started by slaves from either Kongo or Angola who were seeking Liberty and they led a procession to walk towards Spanish Florida. There were actual skirmishes and deaths. As a result of that revolt the State of South Carolina stopped importing slaves directly from Africa and they also imposed economic sanctions on slaves that forced them to buy goods from Whites rather than from each other.

Sixty years after that revolt the USA government stopped the direct importation of slaves directly from Africa to the USA. At that most news slaves to the USA came from the Caribbean.

Today in History - September 9

Of course one of the largest slave revolts was the Second Seminole Indian War, which was a slave rebellion led by run away Gullah Geeche people. Andrew Jackson and other the government officials recognized it as a slave rebellion.
Andrew Jackson, Story Panel 4 of 4 - Part One, Early Years - Rebellion
https://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Black Seminoles .pdf

However, most slave rebellions in the USA were small in nature, because most slaves in the USA lived on small plantations with an average of 1-4 on the plantation. In those cases most defiance by slaves was done on small scale and mostly involved the destruction of farm equipment.

 

[Captain Crunch]

This should be stickied

 

[mbewane]

Because history is written by the winners. Those who control the narrative have no incentive at all of making those stories known. Africans were fighting for their lives against slavers, fleeing when that didn't work, and committing suicide when all else had failed. Then those who got to the Americas also organized themselves as much as they could, as well as slaves born there.

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Actually slave revolts were quite numerous and there is plenty of source evidence to draw upon. White people lived in constant fear of slave rebellions, which is one of the reasons the revolts were swept under the rug.

t.

facts

 

[get these nets]

As a literal student of history, I have an idea of why this might be the case.

Apart from the Nat Turner revolt, there's very little primary source evidence to draw upon. The slave revolts were a fact, but without the actual voices of the participants, you can't really put them in context. What do they mean? Why did those slaves revolt while others remained subservient? What does that revolt say about slavery in antebellum America, or even America itself? This is a side effect of two things, A: slaves being stripped of their agency and identity, and B: the unwillingness of the slaveholding interests to publicize and document any threats to the social order. This has made it extremely difficult to speak of American slave revolts apart from generalities, and also why even though John Brown was white, he's become the symbol of resistance to slavery. Since he was white, his identity counted more to 19th century America, his words and deeds were seen as an aberration, whereas slaves were seen as naturally uncivilized and savage. The sentiments and prejudices of the past influenced the recording of the deeds of the past, which influences how America currently interprets its past, if that makes sense. It's extremely unjust, but that's the history we've been left with.

This is just my perception, of course, and there are a number of other equally valid interpretations.

A recent John Henrik Clarke thread caused me to go back and read some of his works. One of the books that he often cited was written in 1930s.

It listed at least 250 documented revolts in America. The writer drew upon lot of sources. Here is just the bibliography listing the primary sources.


Going to try to post the full book soon. The revolts and rebellions were publicized during and after the period when they were put down.

 

[get these nets]

revised edition from 1974