Tobago’s enslavement experience: Shattering the stereotypes

Dr Rita Pemberton

THE EARLIEST contributions on the history of Tobago under British rule were made by individuals who were members of the administration and/or plantation owners who were committed to providing the support required by the newly established plantation operations.

Through these individuals, personal and official interests became so entangled that there was no difference in the sentiments expressed when they spoke or wrote as officials, plantation owners or sympathisers.

As a result, documented information on developments on the island from 1763 onwards reflects a strong planter bias.

Since these documents constituted the most readily available information, they provided the source material on which subsequent writers came to depend. Some of the island’s early histories, and later ones which fed from them, present some inaccuracies which have created stereotypes of the experience of Tobago’s enslaved population which need revision.

First and foremost – even though there occurred several instances of open rebellion, which threatened the infant plantations, within seven years of British rule – is the notion that the island was peaceful because its happy and contented enslaved population was not inclined to resist. It has been asserted that the caring and generous plantation owners created such goodwill among their enslaved charges that resistance was minimal.

It is to be noted that in the quest for accuracy, it is important to pay attention to the socially defining lines on the island. The population was a minority white and a majority black who were dubbed “slaves,” and the lines between these two groups were drawn by law which provided brutal punishments for deviants, and were fiercely maintained socially.

“Slave” was a status which indicated that those so called were commodities that could be bought and sold, dehumanised, had no rights, were forced to do the bidding of their owners and, on the plantation property lists, were classified with assets such as animals, carts, etc. In other words, they were dehumanised as chattel.

The process also included stripping them of their identity, isolating them from family, community, culture, language, history, all of which were listed as backward, inferior and undesirable. This was enforced by brutal public punishments.

This is the process that created an enslaved population. Since it does appear difficult to perceive of good relations emanating out of that scenario, it is necessary to indicate what prompted this assertion.

Towards the end of the 18th century and during the early 19th century, several developments alarmed the planting community. There was increased instability in the enslaved communities in the British colonies, religious groups were active in the region and a movement to terminate the slave trade was gaining support in Britain.

These were all viewed as offering challenges to the maintenance and profitability of the plantations. While it was possible to strangle resistance in a smaller colony like Tobago, the planting community was unable to prevent the growth of the anti-slavery movement, which received increasing support from other economic interests in Britain.

Led by then governor of the island and owner of Betsy’s Hope Estate, Sir William Young, the strategy was to try to undermine the base of the anti-slavery movement, which centred on the inhumanity of the slave trade and the treatment meted out to the enslaved. He encouraged fellow plantation owners to demonstrate how they treated their enslaved charges well, with gifts of all types, and present them in happy circumstances celebrating and receiving goodies from their owners. Sir William established the pattern and publicised his engagements with the enslaved population on his estate when he visited and distributed gifts.

It was a PR stunt and not a norm of the plantation-life experience of enslaved Africans in Tobago. While this PR attempt did not help the planters' cause, its anticipated outcome remains part of the record in the Young diaries.

Another part of the strategy was to encourage the activity of religious groups among the enslaved population, which Young encouraged even before he was appointed governor. This was accepted by several plantation owners under terms which included guarantees from the home bodies that there would be no interference in the social life of the island and that the enslaved were not to be exposed to those sections of the Bible which mentioned human equality, but that they should emphasise the merit of obedience, subjection to their role in life and obey their superiors.

Religious bodies were present on the island at the end of the 18th century and were active on plantations in Tobago from the start of the 19th century. Their presence was primarily based on the expectation of assistance to control the enslaved and repress their inclination to resist.

What is not said is that planters used several underhand methods to stifle expressions of resistance. "Divide and rule" was one such method. Enslaved people were encouraged to leak information about plots and were rewarded with their freedom, while the plotters received severe punishment, which usually included public hangings.

In addition, planters rewarded those enslaved people who brought news about runaways or performed lifesaving tasks for the planters, their families and property, sometimes with freedom or with promotion in the estate hierarchy.

Undoubtedly, they cared about the success of their plantations, but there is no evidence to support any assertion that they expressed care for their enslaved charges, who could be easily replaced by purchase.

What stands out in this entire process is that the enslaved Africans in Tobago utilised a variety of resistance methods, some of which were not recognised as resistance modes by the planting community – the tight hold on their African traditions and cultural practices, foodways, language, child-rearing and healing methods.

While the sources abound with evidence of planter abuse, brutality and inhumanity, there is no evidence of caring, balanced treatment of the enslaved population and no evidence of contented enslaved people on the island.

Plantation owners maintained the sharp divisions between the white community and enslaved blacks whom they owned. Their actions were highly motivated by the need to control their property and prevent resistance, while the enslaved utilised myriads of ways to counter the plantation realities and give expression to their inner selves.