Although there were frequent incidents of slaves resisting the terms of their bondage–refusing to work, sabotaging equipment, running away, and physical violence–there are only two documented slave rebellions in South Africa. The rebellion at Houd den Bek is not widely known. Novelist André Brink used the the events as the basis for his novel A Chain of Voices (1982, Afrikaans version titled Houd den Bek), but even having a literary work in English and Afrikaans does not mean this rebellion is part of a wider historical memory.
Despite a detailed transcript of the criminal proceedings against the rebels and a rich historiography of slavery at the Cape, the rebellion has not received as much attention from historians as other facets of the colonial era. By reading Rayner, Ross, van der Spuy, and Watson, you can claim to have studied the complete scholarship on this rebellion.
What does this historiography of rebellion focus on? What questions does this literature not address? Can you suggest reasons why?
When discussing the Houd den Bek rebellions in class we focused on the different ways authors interpreted and defined the events of this slave rebellion. But when reading the articles from the different authors such as Ross, Rayner, Watson, and van der Spuy, I did not stop to question what might have affected an authors opinion about the slave rebellion and how it might affect their conclusions on the incident. While one author might have concluded that the slave rebellion was pointless and simply a waste of human effort, another saw the rebellion as dignified and the actions of the participants as meaningful and justified. Were the differences of opinions about the rebellion by the different scholars simply due to a bias created from their upbringings or educational backgrounds, or did the authors have different interpretations about the rebellions because they were exposed to different literary works at the time that they were conducting their research?
I think educational background plays a huge role in what angle these authors approach the issue from. For instance, it seems that one of the authors (Reiner, I believe) came from a much more economics-oriented background. This meant that he would have focused less on the “human” aspect of compared to Van der Spuy. To a scholar like Reiner, who perhaps would have constantly learned to and practiced analyzing history via an economics lens, it would have only made sense to analyze Galant’s rebellion through an “objective”, distant, even “indifferent” perspective. Different scholars I think pick up different viewpoints depending on how they were taught, and as it’s impossible for anyone to fully understand and apply every viewpoint available, scholars tend to specialize in a few, at least nowadays.
I mean it would more then likely have to do with there educational background as well as there upbringing. Historians are always bias and that is why you have to find ways to interpret their work and figure out for yourself what is true and what is not. In the UK they study the American Revolution very lightly, and in America it is studied quite extensively. The UK makes it seem like it was not that big of a deal, while America makes sure that we understand the significance of it, and we basically place it as one of the most important events in our history as a country. This is just one example of a bias historical viewpoint on a particular event. So yes in regards to your question I do believe that they were influenced by there educational background as well as their upbringing when it came to writing there work.
The history of rebellion focuses on either the waste of time that it was (Ross), the slaves’ ability to fight for their own well-being within the boundaries of the law (van der Spuy), the mere surprise that such violence ever occurred, or the background of those involved to create a thorough narrative (Watson). What the literature does not address is how the colonists intended to go about the situation. The rebelling slaves only began fighting because they overheard they had been freed, yet no one had officially freed them. Did the colonists ever plan to officially announce it or did they want to keep the slaves and only legitimate the end of slave *trade? It may not have been mentioned because scholars assume the slave owners would always see their slaves as such and, therefore, would never intend to actually free them. Also, the smaller rebellions generally go undiscussed, seeing as many thought them futile and not as tumultuous as the two most frequently discussed (1808 + 1825). This may be because not much really happened. Perhaps a slave tried to run away and was immediately caught – not much to discuss there. However, a record of these occurrences could be an interesting point to study to see just how big the rebellion was.
I have always found that to be an interesting component when analyzing the history of anything. In the Houd den Bek rebellion, the different interpretations and testimonies reflect how someone can perceive the same event differently. It really implies how the “truth” is an ambiguous term and it may not ever really come to light. It also makes me wonder which histories have gone unnoticed or forgotten simply because people weren’t around to document or a documentation of it simply went missing.
Furthermore, it highlights the difficulty of relying on a single historian’s outlook. Any datum provides a dozen potential interpretations, from which it is easy to infer only one without consciously excluding the others. Even the most objective and thorough historian might occasionally make hasty and unrecorded presumptions; reading multiple historians ensures a more general outlook is understood by the reader.
Melissa and Adam,
I was thinking along the same lines when I read through the four different accounts of the rebellion. Each historian included essentially the same evidence (Galant’s whipping in the kitchen, the cryptic message of “the black cat and white hen”, Galant not looking at his master, etc.), yet each historian drew completely different conclusions about Galant’s character and the rebellion in general based on this evidence. Imagine if only Ross’s account existed; the world would look at this rebellion as poorly organized and completely pointless. It makes me question the source of information more critically.
Back in high school, one of my English teachers indirectly admitted that most of the “great” literature we read was only “great” due to dumb luck – they were the ones that survived to the present day. If you think about it, how much of our cultural artifacts from the present day will survive in a century? Two centuries? Several thousand years? Even in one year we already forget about plenty of things. Plus, nowadays we argue about the meaning of things – take the diverse viewpoints on hotly debated topics ranging from the War on Terror to the immigration debate – if we ourselves, in the present, can’t come to a consensus about what “truth” really is, I don’t think we can really expect future historians to either. Like many other fields of study, history, I think, is based on vague fragments of what really happened – we only have a very few fragments, and occasionally we come across a few more, but they will never be able to fully complete the “puzzle.” It’s why historians might argue about things – do these fragments really fit the puzzle this way, or do they imply the puzzle was meant to be like this other way?
I agree with you oliver, i think the important lesson to learn here is what has already happened in history. I believe that history to some extent is determined by those who have the power to tell it. This meaning, that an issue that is controversial today, will be told or broadcasted from the bias of those telling the story. Very rarely is news or history really told from what actually happened and i think mainstream media and news in our country is a prime example of that. Having said that, i think that in regards to history, we must explore the context of when certain documents were written or recorded and place ourselves in that time period to fully understand it. I think your right, there could be so much material from the past that we have not had a chance to investigate simply because we don’t have access to it. It could change very many present day perceptions regarding certain histories.
You both make excellent points about how certain events are historicized. History is absolutely in the control of those who have the power to tell it.
Upon reading what both of you wrote, I was reminded of another slave rebellion in the Atlantic slave trade that shows how certain events are historicized by those in power.
The Amistad rebellion happened aboard the Portuguese vessel, La Amistad, when Sierre Leone captives revolted against ship owners. The event has historically focused on the trial of these captives/rebels that happened in America because John Quincy Adams participated. The bulk of scholarship focused on the American justice system and completely skirted the African side to the story; it was not until historian Marcus Rediker conducted his own research and analysis of the evidence that historians of the event began looking at “history below the deck” and giving the African side to the story (which was much more interesting and complex than most people give former slave rebels credit for). Like Oliver wrote, this was an important piece to the puzzle of understanding how slave rebellions are organized.
In discussing the Houd den Bek slave rebellion, we discussed why some of the slaves would have testified saying that they were not actors in the rebellion, but they were actually forced to participate in the rebellion due to threats. I found this very interesting. In previous classes I have taken on the Atlantic Slave Trade and slave rebellions in the United States we have discussed this idea, but my question is how believable is it? As a juror in the trial, would you believe you slave who acted in a rebellion saying he/she only did so due to threats? Why or why not?
I think prejudice and racism has the biggest role in this play. If the jurors are white, why would they be partial to the slaves. Hannah I think what we can infer from South African society, there were huge race disparities and prejudice played a huge part in this trial. Regardless if the slave acted out of defense, the law was not lenient toward slaves.
I agree with you Alexis,
The only exception I can think of in which the jurors would side with the slaves is if a master or another significant white person stepped forward and attest that that slave would do no harm.
Unless the slaves are extremely emotional/passionate for the cause (like Galant who owned up to his actions), people tend to point their fingers at a scapegoat.
Alexis, I think your answer provided me a different perspective to realizing if it really did any significance to testify if they were or weren’t actor in the rebellion. Based on previous knowledge from American slavery rebellion, many of those who participated did it voluntarily. I would like to believe that those involved did participate because they were tired of waiting for their freedom or their way of living, but I find it completely realistic and natural if there was denial.
This is a really hard question, because the slaves would obviously prefer to be free than enslaved their whole lives, however, they know that the slave owners are the ones with power. Despite their attempts at rebellion to gain some sort of power within their society, I think they always harbored the idea that the slave owners would always be on top. It’s sort of the idea of “can’t beat them, so learn to live with them.” I think some slaves were coerced into aiding the rebellion or possibly many didn’t know what else to do, because anything might be better than remaining a slave. I do think many probably lied in testimony to save their own skins though. So, as someone on the jury I would probably have to rely on my gut feelings however inaccurate a process that is- seeing as there is little evidence that can be given to prove a person’s sentiments.
As a Juror in the Houd den Bek slave rebellion trial I would be very inclined to believe the slave participants who claimed that they were forced to participate in the rebellion by Galant, the Captain of the rebellion, because of the threats he made towards them. The reason that I am inclined to believe that they were forced into the rebellion is that Galant was portrayed as being a violent towards his own wife and newborn child. I understand that he was whipped severely by his Master because he was very defiant which caused aggravation and anger, and i can see how he was raged by the fact that his Master had absolute control over his two wives and may have used them for sexual acts as well, and to add to all this, Galant was raged by the rumors that the farmers would rather kill their slaves before setting them free, and all these things fueled his passion or freedom and his anger against his Master. The slaves that say they were forced into the rebellion may well be telling the truth and may have been in fear for their lives. Galant was armed with guns and ammunition and he was not shy to use them. Galants aggression against his own family shows that he would do everything he had to in order to assure the success of his plan. Galant was even going to burn his Master’s house down with women and children inside and he had to be persuaded not to do this. Therefore I believe that some of the slaves were actually being truthful about being forced into the rebellion by Galant. And Galant’s willpower and irrationality were defined by his actions when he inflicted harm to his own family and attempted to burn a house which housed women and children. Galant would have gone to any limits guarantee the success of his rebellion.
i think that slaves were most definitely threatened or maybe even forced to participate in rebellions particularly due to the fact that if you were a slave and did not participate in a rebellion you were seen as an outsider. I think one of the reasons for this is because of the class and racial differences facing slaves. Essentially, you could have two classes of slaves comparable to the house and field negro analogy seen in plantation slavery in the Americas. The house slave is comfortable with being a slave and acknowledges his inferiority and does not oppose his master. The field slave on the other hand, desperately desires his freedom and hates his master. I would argue, that Gallant, would be seen as a field slave and is the reason why he was willing to kill his masters and coerce others to do so as well. We even have an example of him forcing a fellow slave to shoot his master stating no pardon will be given to the Christians.
If the jurors were white, they would not be lenient toward the slaves. I have to agree with Alexis’ statement because I believe during this time prejudice and racism had a big role. Especially in trials regarding slave rebellion. To the white jurors, it does not matter if the slave was forced to partake in the rebellion due to being threatened.
If I were a juror at the time, I would be hard pressed to believe the slaves had acted without being threatened. The various accounts from we’ve read all portray Galant as an overpowering, violent person, so in the mindset of racial prejudice at the time, I would assume he would the only one capable of orchestrating the rebellion. That being said, there were certain parts that I found suspicious and hard to believe while reading, like in Ross when he writes, “The other slaves, overcome by the force of Galant’s personality, and by the fact that the dependable slaves had the guns, join him in the attack” (Ross, 113). It seems like the testimonies were overdramatized sometimes and perhaps the other slaves were more responsible for organizing the event than they had lead on. Regardless, the way Galant was characterized, along with the fact that jurors had no reason to be partial with slaves, would definitely lead me to find him guilty at the time.
The literature on the Houd den Bek slave rebellion all brought questions of difference in perspective to mind. Each of these authors takes a very subjective approach when writing about the rebellion at Houd den Bek, but what I noticed is that each author based their writings on a lot of speculation about the social life surrounding Galant. For brief example, Rayner focuses heavily on the punishments that the accused were receiving and was very critical about the lack of discipline taken upon the one white male involved in the rebellion. Rayner, as an outsider looking in, couldn’t have known the reasoning for the legal system at the time to have punished or not punished him. Another example would be van der Spuy and the argument that Galant started the rebellion as a test to his manhood. Van der Spuy has no idea what the family structure of servants was. What I would really like to know is where each of these four authors built the foundation of their arguments. Were there any outside sources they used aside from the actual trial that we have also read? This would be helpful to me in fully understanding their pieces.
Well if the above post about us being able to “claim to have studied the complete scholarship on this rebellion” by reading the four provided literary pieces, these authors would have only been able to base their beliefs off of the trial transcript and the book Chain of Voices. I did a little internet research which showed that there isn’t even a wikipedia site for the rebellion. It’s fascinating that something of this nature that we can spend several weeks learning about in class, doesn’t even have a wide range of research about it. I wonder what other types topics we have covered this quarter that do not have a lot of scholarly background.
In today’s lecture (6/4) we discussed some possible reasons why the written account of the trial may not be completely accurate in terms of recalling the accounts of the uprising. There was a language barrier between the writers and the slaves giving heir testimonies, along with possible lies and people’s differing opinions that may have changed their view of things. I think it is more likely that some of the people testifying were lying as opposed to the writer making multiple mistakes. There was a lot on the line for these accused slaves. They could be killed if found guilty, brutally punished at the very least. This would force even the best of people to lie in an attempt to save their own life; people lie for much less significant things everyday. We discussed in class that death was more accepted in these times, but I still find it hard to believe people would be willing to give up their life without a fight. Based on the ability of masters to pretty much do whatever they wanted with their slaves, I find it hard to believe certain slaves were forced into rebelling. I would think they would all be on board and even those who weren’t would not get threatened. Just my opinion though…
This is perhaps the reason more historical accounts of this scenario are not written. The information is at once direct and vague, being a transcript of the trial whose errors or discrepancies are kept hidden, and there’s no way to know which parts–if any–are inaccurate or incomplete. Perhaps if there were more sources, there would be more historical coverage.
It doesn’t surprise me that there are only two documented slave rebellions in South Africa, as incidences of slave rebellions are historically pretty meager throughout history. Off the top of my head, I can only think of a couple I have ever heard of occurring around the world at any time. I have never heard of any large rebellion in early American history from the beginning of the slave trade until emancipation. I do think, however, that slave inhabitants of places like South Africa would be more likely to form an uprising because they are being enslaved on their native land. It may be generally more easy for them to seek a better life outside of the confinements of slavery, perhaps returning to an old life. For the slaves that were imported to America, this was impossible. After the Civil War, many newly liberated men who were former slaves found it very difficult to make a living in an unknown territory with a great deal of hatred from former slaveholders. Many are documented to have preferred the life of the slave, especially when that life involved slave owners that were somewhat respectful. Nevertheless, the lack of slave rebellions in South Africa shows just how strong the colonial power was in the region. South African white men were free to treat their slaves with great malice, and even kill them if they were out of line. This fear could have easily stopped many South African slaves from rising up against their masters.
I was wondering the same…whether or not South African slaves would put up more of a fight (than slaves in the US) since they are able to run away in a country they are familiar with (versus their US counterparts who have very little direction as to where to run off to and provide for themselves). I also wonder if there was a lack of slave rebellions because some of the slaves were reluctant to have an uprising, in a sense that they had grown to accept slavery or thought like Ross- that the rebellions were not worthwhile.
There have probably been countless slave rebellions, both big and small. However, I believe they were purposely undocumented because the Whites feared other slaves hearing about the rebellions and starting one of their own. They wanted a way to keep the slaves in fear, to crush the tiny sliver of hope the slaves might have had in regaining their freedom.
Many slave uprisings were intentionally not well-documented. This was done in an attempt to keep the uprisings quiet due to the fear of more slaves attempting one. In many places, particularly the Americas, slaves outnumbered the free people. This made fear of uprisings a very real thing. Whites feared spreading the news of an uprising because they did not want other slaves to hear about them and become inspired to commit the same act. It was not uncommon for slave uprisings to lead to more strict slave laws that only further defined slaves a property. One can look to another lightly studied slave rebellion, The Stono River Rebellion, to see many ways in which slave uprisings scared the free class.
I think this is an important point – for the most part, history up until very recently (and even then) has been written by the victors, mostly upper-class Western European males. Slave rebellions would not have, at least when they occurred, been recorded in any significant detail. Additionally, most slave rebellions have been unsuccessful in history to my knowledge – ranging from Spartacus to Nat Turner’s rebellion in Virginia (I think) – the reason being that the slaves do not have access to the resources and power that their masters have. Another important thing I think is that the frequency of slave rebellions varied depending on the region. From what I know, slave rebellions were actually relatively more frequent in Latin America – though I think there were many reasons why, I have not studied this topic extensively so I can’t really comment on it. Arguably the most successful slave rebellion in Latin America, the Haitian Revolution, managed to drive out French rule and establish an independent, mostly black-dominated state in the Carribean.
You’ve made a very good point Oliver. History in general, has been written by the Western countries, most of which are White. I remember learning about the unsuccessful Nat Turner’s rebellion in Fall Quarter. I vaguely remember, slaves being forced to partake in the rebellion and threatened to be killed if they did not. This goes back to slaves in the trial, stating they were threatened if they did not join the rebellion.
I agree with both of you. I find it interesting that every topic we have covered thus far has required us to read between the lines, if you will. We have missing information, yet we are able to form opinions. I think many of the histories we have read only give focus on a part of the entire history in order for us to grasp a deeper understanding of what they (historians/professors) deem important. I think focussing on the before and after of the rebellion shows us that the rebellion itself doesn’t show us as much as the consequences it left behind.Do you think historians do omit information on purpose? Or do they do it simply because that is the point of view they feel is necessary to focus on?
I think that historians do not include certain ideas in order to push forward their argument and that they approach this idea with certain focus. As you mentioned, and especially with this reading assignment, I feel that the key to understanding history is to contemplate over it’s many facets. It reminds me of a relevant quote by American film producer Robert Evans,
“There are three sides to every story: my side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently.”
I like the questions you are asking here, Alexis, but I don’t think that history is intentionally omitted, rather, I think it is obscured in different ways by different people. While reading Rayner, Ross, Watson, and van der Spuy, we can see that all four authors have a purpose to their writing and they focus on different facets of the Houd den Bek rebellion, and they do so because they come from different backgrounds and want to explore different perspectives. As a blatant example, Rayner writes from a high-level university in the United States, whereas Ross is writing from a European perspective. Coming from different backgrounds, their perspectives are bound to be different!
Erin,
Thank you for the clarification. I guess it more of a frame of reference from which each author write upon. Historiography can also explain this phenomenon. Different people, from different time periods, with different experiences, are bound to focus on different parts of information. I wish we could all read each others histories we have to write for next week, although we all are in 2013, I am sure our backgrounds will provide a unique description of the Houd den Bek rebellion.
One omission I found intriguing was not so much the omission of factual explorations from the work as the omission of the work’s content from broader historical studies of the era. What is it about these rebellions that discourages further study? Is it perhaps their inherent futility–a discouraging narrative, one of rebellion in the face of overwhelming odds that culminates not in a heartwarming upset but in proportionately overwhelming defeat. Perhaps dwelling on the enormity of the event is too much for historians to stomach when other, more promising accounts lie elsewhere.
Adam, I really like this question you ask, as it is one I have thought about myself during these readings. After thinking about why there is such little literature on the rebellion, I think I may have some insight. As we know, the only primary source for the rebellion is the trial that we have read. Perhaps because this is a short primary source and there are four authors who have taken very different perspectives on the rebellion, maybe historians don’t see a new, compelling perspective to write about. I also thought that maybe, as Ross approaches the subject, since rebellions that don’t come with major change aren’t seen as successful, maybe that’s why this rebellion hasn’t received more attention. I hope this helps!
Adam, I think you bring up a very interesting point. I have taken multiple classes on American slavery and slave rebellions, primarily with Professor Millward. Perhaps there could be similarities between the two. One thing that I remember from her classes is that slavery is an extremely touchy subject for American history, therefore we try to suppress it. When slavery was first being taught in high school classes, there was only one paragraph dedicated to the topic. I do not think that it is only slave rebellions that ‘discourage further study’, but I think that it is slavery in general. It is a very hard subject to discuss that makes many people feel uncomfortable. That is why I think further study, and information in general regarding these slave rebellions is scarce.
The question you bring up is constantly with me when I read these narratives and readings, but the main point as others have discussed, is it such a ‘touchy’ topic to go over. I have also taken a class with Professor Millward focusing on American slavery providing me with a similar insight on the suppression of the stories of rebellions. For one, I think some historians decide not to focus on these topics because there really are few primary sources that they can study. For example, the Haitian Revolution was a huge significant rebellion that led to the formation of a republic, but much of this information was not known in the United States for the fear of increasing rebellions on plantations. I also believe that the United States as some historians like Gore Vidal stated, “We live here in the United States of Amnesia”, because there seems to be no sense of history or the importance of certain events, which include the negative ones like slavery. Adam, I think you made a good point how those rebellions which aren’t successful will go undocumented, and is a mentality that needs to change. These rebellions were all successful in different ways, since most had to be thoroughly planned out and those involved knew that their lives were at stake. I believe if slavery is not being further studied, it will create this notion that the United States has a clean slate, so how can historians get over this struggle of slavery as a ‘touchy’ subject?
Adam, I also wonder why slave rebellions are excluded from historical discussions and studies about slavery. Like you mentioned, these rebellions were often discouraging and ended in defeat, as we see with Houd den Bek. Ross agreed that the Houd den Bek rebellion was essentially pointless and ineffective. However, I have to disagree with Ross and other historians or anyone who says the rebellions are “pointless,” thus unworthy of scholarship because regardless of whether or not they succeeded, action was taken. It comes down to how you define “progress” and I believe studying the rebellions are important to see how individuals made attempts to progress out of bondage.
In todays lecture(5/30) we discussed the many possible reasons why historians may interpret a piece of history differently and although this has come to my mind multiple times I still find it very interesting. As students we read what our professors assign us and although we may take it with a grain of salt it still becomes somewhat factual in our minds. Thinking of how historians see things differently makes me realize that it is impossible for anyone to truly take anyone’s word as fact. Even someone witnessing a historical event live may interpret it differently than another who saw the same thing. It makes me wonder how events that have happened and that will happen in our lifetimes will be interpreted by us.
I totally agree with you Ryan. History itself is all about how a person can interpret a story and relay it back to its student, or reader. Since we are obviously reading a book or learning about the history of a certain topic, who are we to say ” oh no, that didn’t happen like that.”
Nina quoted Robert Evans perfectly,
“There are three sides to every story: my side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently.”
Reply ↓
I couldn’t agree more with you Ryan. It is a really interesting point to think about. Historians are generally trying to argue their own thesis that they have written, therefore it is not completely objective. One historical event that has happened in our lifetime that we can look at is 9/11. Different people report different things. Some people focused on President Bush, some people focused the terrorists. There have even been conspiracy films made about the tragic day. One in particular, “Loose Change” paints 9/11 as an inside job and does a relatively good job to support their point, but what parts have been omitted. They only share what they want to in order to support their idea/opinion of something. I feel as though events in history tend to have a skewed history due to opinions regarding historical events and how people want them to remembered.