In the March
10, 2005 issue of ,
Dr. Jonathan Scott criticized the recent PBS series, Slavery
and The Making of America for failing to mention
Bacon’s Rebellion, the 1676 revolt of European and Black bondsmen
in the Virginia colony. We present this response from the series’
producer, Emmy Award-winning Black filmmaker
Danté Josef James.
Dear Dr. Jonathan Scott,
I am compelled to respond to your misguided and offensive
critique of the series Slavery and The Making of America.
I read your piece, PBS Says American Slavery Was Natural, on
BlackCommentator.com. Before I speak directly to the piece
you need to know several things. This response represents only
my opinion of your article and of your thoughts on the institution
of slavery. I am an independent filmmaker, therefore, I do not
speak for or represent PBS or WNET, the producing station for the
series, nor do I speak for the team of brilliant historians and
filmmakers I had the honor and pleasure of working with. However,
I am compelled to speak to the integrity and the skill of the entire
production team and to thank them for their invaluable contributions
to the series. Additionally, I will not reference any of them or
cite their impeccable credentials.
Slavery and The Making of America was described
by the New York Daily News as, "The most powerful and important
television work on the subject since Roots." Ray Richmond
of the Hollywood Reporter/Reuters wrote, "A significant, impeccably
researched and extraordinary insightful portrait." And Sid
Smith of the Chicago Tribune wrote, "A superb, and ultimately
addictive, four part documentary." Additionally, PBS audiences
across the nation endorsed the series with higher than normal PBS
viewer ratings. However, putting those endorsements aside your
assessment of the series clearly reflects a lack of knowledge and
sophistication regarding the history of the enslaved Africans and
African Americans, and the production of historical documentary
films.
When producing a historical documentary many editorial
and aesthetic choices are necessary due to many issues, time constraint
being one of them, as well as volumes of information that must be
reviewed, interpreted, and presented in the context of the theme
of the story. The theme of this story that you did not comprehend
and therefore could not appreciate was the resilience of enslaved
Africans and African Americans during a period of terrorism that
history defines as slavery. Early in the research stage a choice
was made to tell the story of slavery from the point of view of
the enslaved. This decision was grounded in the fact that over
the past ten to fifteen years a wealth of new scholarship by some
of the most brilliant academics in the nation has been published.
One of the primary purposes of the series was to deconstruct myths
about the lives of the enslaved. In the past, they were often portrayed
as passive victims. However, the new scholarship redefines enslaved
Africans and African-Americans as the proactive freedom fighters
they were.
We told stories that featured the humanity and dignity
of the enslaved under the most oppressive and horrific conditions.
These stories included the first eleven enslaved Africans to arrive
in Dutch New Amsterdam. Their intellectual ability allowed them
to navigate slavery, which at that time was a loosely defined system.
The series included the story of Mum Bett and her legal fight to
attain her freedom. We told the stories of Colonel Tye who fought
against the colonist because he realized that was his best route
to freedom. There is also the story of David Walker who challenged
the hypocrisy of Thomas Jefferson. The story of Harriet Jacobs
who fought the sick, vile actions of Dr. James Norcoum, who thought
he could violate black women whenever and wherever he wanted, a
presumption many Anglo-American slave owners held. All of these
stories reflect the strength, intelligence and resilience of the
sprit of the enslaved. I remind you that the premise of the series
was to tell the story from the point of view of the enslaved, not
the point of view of indentured Europeans.
Your main complaint with the series is we did not
feature the story of Bacon’s Rebellion. You maintain that this
omission frames American slavery as natural, which is the title
of your article "PBS says American Slavery was Natural:”
You further wrote, "the plight of the poor and property-less
European American was ignored”. If you will remember that in the
first scene the film the narration said, “They were from Africa
and Europe. Some were enslaved. Some were indentured servants.
All of them were poor and exploited. Their status as workers was
confusing and complex. Their lives were controlled by the Dutch
West India Company.” This opening passage clearly makes the point
that both black and white were exploited in an unjust system of
labor. As the film evolves, the exploitation takes different paths
and those paths are based on race. There was a turning point in
1640 that made slavery a racial institution. If you were the filmmaker,
you would have chosen to make the point of class exploitation through
Bacon’s' Rebellion. I, as the filmmaker, chose to make the point
in the opening scene of the film using a different example of the
facts. I remind you that I began this response by informing you
that many choices are made in the production of documentary films.
I chose a creative engaging way to make the point of class oppression.
You clearly did not understand the segment and to my knowledge you
are the only one who did not understand it.
Throughout the series the point is constantly made
that slavery was essential to the expansion of capitalism and if
the landed gentry could have extracted free labor from any other
source they would have. They tried to enslave Native Americans,
however Native Americans were better prepared to resist The Native
Americans were not torn from their homeland, their families and
their culture. The exploitation of indentured Europeans was abandoned
because the free labor of enslaved African and African Americans
was more cost effective. Slavery was grounded in capitalist exploitation,
and was ultimately also grounded in racial exploitation and oppression.
Beginning with the ruling against John Punch in 1640, we see race
as a determining factor in one's status in the colonies. Punch,
the black indentured servant, was sentenced to servitude for life
while white indentured servants who committed the same offense at
the same time were sentenced to only several additional years of
servitude. Laws were enacted prohibiting black people from getting
an education, owning land, and living in certain areas. Restrictive
black codes that controlled every aspect of the lives of the enslaved
were enacted in 1739 following the Stono Rebellion. These laws
or court rulings were not directed at poor European laborers; they
were directed toward Africans and African Americans. A system that
grew out of the expansion of capitalism further evolved into a system
of racial oppression. This was not natural nor does the series
say or imply that it was; racial slavery was the result of a progression
of conscious decisions.
You end your piece by writing that James’ PBS series
is “… a return to the gloomy biological and religious arguments
to explain vitally important political social and historical questions.”
Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Slavery and
The Making of America is the story of African and African American's
asserting their humanity and dignity. It is the story of the resilience
of the human sprit and the story of how the enslaved addressed the
issues of political, social and economic injustice, and how it is
only natural to fight back when one is oppressed and exploited.
For many years some segments of American society resisted, denied
and ignored this story. Because of Slavery and The of Making
of America that can no longer happen.
Sincerely,
Danté Josef James
Series Producer, Slavery and The Making of America |