>In a message dated 10/12/00 5:21:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us writes:
>
><< You describe his racist thesis in what you say following here. The thesis
>that the slaveowners ruled significantly by consent is a racist thesis. Not
>revolting and accomodating yourself to force is not CONSENT. Upon legal
>analogy, agreeing to do something under duress is not consent.
> >>
>
>Even if the thesis is false it is not racist. It does not say or imply or
>presuppose that the slaves were biologically or in any other way, say
>culturally, inferior to whites as a race. Moreover, the terms "consent" and
>"coercion" here are derived from Gramsci, who argues that no ruling group can
>long maintain its power by mere brute force ("coercion"), but must also rule
>largely by accommodating, to the extent necessary to prevent revolt, the
>interests of the subordinate groups, and to make a claim that is at least
>accepted by the acquiesence of those groups, to rule by right. This is
>"consent," and it is compatible with a lot of resentment and resistance to a
>ruling group's rule as klong as that resistance is not fundamental.
As I have already explained in another post, the essence of modern capitalist slavery is _the absence of "consent" on the part of slaves_. The reason why American slavery lasted so long is that non-slave-owning whites did consent to the rule of slave owners in the South. Gramsci's concept of "consent" is a particularly useful one with which to analyze the moral and intellectual leadership that slave owners exercised over non-slave-owning whites, without whose support masters -- a tiny minority -- could not have subjugated slaves with armed force. To rule society, the ruling class do not need the consent of _all_ subordinate classes and groups. The ruling class only need the consent of enough "kindred & allied" classes & groups in order to form the hegemonic bloc; the rest can be subjugated without consent & if necessary liquidated -- e.g., the Arawaks:
***** ...There is a great debate as to just how many Arawak/Taino inhabited Hispaniola when Columbus landed in 1492. Some of the early Spanish historian/observers claimed there were as many as 3,000,000 to 4,000,000. These numbers seem to be based on very little reliable evidence and are thought to be gross exaggerations. However, since nothing like a census was done, the methods for estimating the numbers are extremely shaky, whether by these early historians or later critics.
One long technical article on the population comes in the with the low estimate of 100,000. Several other modern scholars seem to lean more forcefully in the area of 300,000 to 400,000. Whatever the number, what happened to them is extremely tragic. They were not immune to European diseases, especially smallpox, and the Spanish worked them unmercifully in the mines and fields. By 1507 the Spanish were settled and able to do a more reliable job of counting the Arawak/Tainos. It is generally agreed that by 1507 their numbers had shrunk to 60,000. By 1531 the number was down to 600. Today there are no easily discerned traces of the Arawak/Tanio at all [Publisher's note: This is not at all certain, and evidence to the contrary is offered by the web page of the Taino Inter-Tribal Council.] except for some of the archaeological remains that have been found. Not only on Hispaniola, but also across the Windward Passage in Cuba, complete genocide was practiced on these natives.
<http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/100.html> *****
Yoshie