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