Genovese

[kelley]

At 11:56 AM 10/14/00 -0400, JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
>Well, it's not that I have not paid the matter of Ancient versus American
>slavery some attention. The differences between them are significant, and
>many kinds of Ancient slavery (not all) were less onerous than most North
>American slavery. Nonetheless, I think Genovese has established that despite
>these differences a broadly Gramscian analysis applies. I don't know how you
>can say that an institution that lasted 350 years and was only suppressed by
>a civil war wasn't comparatively stable. I agree that the consent of the
>nonslaveholding whites was important, and Genovese doesn't deny this. But I
>don't see how you can deny that the slaves, like other subordinate groups,
>consented to their subordination, which does not mean that they didn't resent
>and hate it. An institution like American slavery, a minority domination over
>a majority population, that was a stable over hundreds of years, could have
>survived on mere brute force. Maybe we just disagree about that fundamental
>point. --jks

oh well ferchrisakes.  this argument is just bizarre.  gramscian consent to 
your own subordination INCLUDES all sorts of resistance.  of course they 
hated and resisted it.  the point is that manifestations of that hate and 
resistance reinscribes their own subjugation.