Quote:
Originally posted by Grapedy1982:
That's not entirely true, Dancer. Kaya's tribe would have had slaves. Native American tribes, especially the Plains tribes, were constantly enslaving each other and captives became slaves for the brave who had captured them, and they could be bought and sold among other tribe members. That's how Sacajawea ended up marrying the French trader, she was sold to him by the man who had captured her.
For once, I would like to see an average plantation owner depicted in children's literature. VERY FEW slaveholders were as cruel as history would have us believe. Slaves were an investment, a MAJOR investment. Most plantation owners saw their slaves in that light. You don't beat and starve and ignore a major investment. Yes, it's a sad mindset to have, but that's the way most of them thought. Owning slaves was a BIG financial commitment. The master was responsible for food, clothing, shelter, shoes, medical care, repairs, maintenance, and anything else that came along. And this was for LIFE. On sugar plantations, the costs went up even more come sugar-making time, from all of the things that the master would give to them to get them through the long process and round-the-clock work. Most slaves were allowed to grow vegetables, and then they had the option of selling the vegetables to the kitchen, or they could take them into town on Sundays and sell them. Anything they made on their own time could be sold and they got to keep every penny of the money.
For example, the plantation where I work, we have no records or stories WHATSOEVER of any slaves enduring abuse of any kind. All 80 of the builder's slaves marched in his funeral procession, which they were not required to do. And then after the Civil War ALL 120 field hands that the second owner had, opted to sign a work agreement and REMAIN on the plantation. Most of them then stayed on the plantation for the rest of their lives, or until it was divided up in 1908- whichever came first.
And then on the other hand, one parish over is where "Twelve Years a Slave- the Story of Solomon Northup" took place, and his life was a living hell. Treatment of the slaves varied greatly from plantation to plantation. The kind, somewhat benevolent masters far outweighed the bad apples.
This issue is the reason that I do NOT like Meet Addy. It paints a rather unrealistic, somewhat exaggerated portrayal of slavery at that time in Virginia. They made it a lot more grim than it actually was on most plantations. I've never connected with her character in any way because of the way her story opens. I've read all of her books, but don't remember anything about them because of my first impression in Meet Addy.
I realize that slavery was a very dark time in American history and I am in no way trying to justify it. As a student of history, I simply want the people around me to see BOTH sides of the story, the good and the bad, the nice and the cruel. I'm a born and bred Southern girl, and I don't like it one bit when my history is portrayed incorrectly or when all Southerner slave owners are made out to be cruel. Please look at both sides of the issue before anyone makes a sweeping judgement about an issue as complex as slavery.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A lot of children's and young adult historical novels with white Southern children or teens as main characters are like this. I've read quite a few like this, usually with a wealthy southern girl/teen as the main character, whose family's slaves are not abused... I can't think of any particular ones right now, maybe some of the Ann Rinaldi ones, I know she has a few like this, and one of the Dear America books...