Roles of the Slave: Antagonisms Between House Slaves and Field Slaves
By Sean Magee, with comments by Elena Zubenko and Krystal Kaai
[1] No matter what time or area in the institution of slavery, the position of the house slave is always a difficult one. On one hand, the house slave is in a privileged position, free from the barbaric schedules and disciplines the field slaves are subjected to. At the same time the house slave serves as living proof for slave owners that the practice of slavery need not lay on their consciences. Household slaves were grateful to be in that position and rarely (if ever) complained, since doing so could jeopardize their situation. In The Last Supper the difference of treatment of Emundo, the Count's house slave, and the rest of the blacks is noteworthy, particularly when Emundo is dismissed from the table at the supper (1:03:55). The goal of this essay is to show that the film, while judging Emundo's loyalty as counterproductive to the cause of the other slaves, recognizes that the house slave's position is impossible.
[2] The position of the house slave on the plantation served to divert many blacks from questioning their treatment and attempting to fight it. Being a household slave meant security and entitlement to the black, creating an environment where slaves yearned for a higher position in the slave system rather than pondering ways the fight the system itself. In his autobiography, Montejo Esteban, a former slave from Cuba in the 1860's, recognizes that field slaves despised the house slaves, and that house slaves believed they were more on the level of master than slave:
I don't think the household slaves did [understand Christianity] either, although, being so refined and well treated, they all made out they were Christian. The household slaves were given rewards by the masters, and I never saw one of them badly punished. When they were ordered to go to the fields to cut cane or tend the pigs, they would pretend to be ill so they needn't work. For this reason the field slaves could not stand the sight of them. The household slaves sometimes came to the barracoons to visit relations and used to take back fruit and vegetables for the master's house; I don't know whether the slaves made them presents from their plots of land or whether they just took them. They caused a lot of trouble in the barracoons. The men came and tried to take liberties with the women. That was the source of the worst tensions. (37)
Montejo's construction of the house slaves as enemy is a valuable one for understanding the importance of the Count's behavior toward Emundo in the supper scene. For the field slaves the house slave was not a fellow black but a creature pretending to be white, a traitor to those in the field. For the field slave in the Cuban sugarmill, life was brutal and dangerous, a world where "The mills were like huge grinders which chewed up blacks like cane. Growing old was a privilege as rare as it was sad, especially in the super-barbaric stage of slavery" (Fraginals 143). At the same time being a field slave meant a life of terror and pain, in many ways being a household slave meant living a "white" life. The household slave's continual presence around the master meant many luxuries. The slave had to bathe constantly and wear clothes that made him look presentable to the whites. The household was a representation of how well the owner kept the plantation, making traits considered "white" at the time such as cleanliness, intelligence, and civility essential. Such a privileged life, if we may call it that, inspired antagonism among the field slaves, who knew such a life existed for only certain blacks. The field slaves' laughter at Emundo being chastised reinforces that antagonistic dynamic.
[3] Likewise, a feeling of the household slaves that they were above working with the field slaves, that they were better or more deserving of privilege, became inevitable. Antonio's request to be brought back in the villa earlier in the scene, indicates that there was a mutual antagonism between household and field slaves. He asks the master, "Are you going to send me back to all those dirty slaves?" (28:18). Antonio believes that what sets him apart from the other slaves is that he has worked in the villa, an experience that makes him better than those he is now forced to live with. Emundo's placement in the background reminds Antonio of the position taken from him, a position he yearns to retrieve. Emundo's presence inspires hatred or jealousy from all, an uncomfortable situation the admonishment makes clear.
[4] In his loyalty to the master, Emundo positions himself against the field slaves who are enjoying the master's drunkenness. The Count's inebriated state creates a role reversal. The slaves have an opportunity to have fun at the Count's expense, an opportunity they realize they will probably never have again. By attempting to end the dinner before the Count embarrasses himself further, Emundo places himself firmly on the side of the Count, and, just as firmly, positions himself against the field slaves. Instead of performing the role of attending to the master, Emundo defends the master against the slaves, something he need not necessarily do. (comment by Elena Zubenko) The Count's retort is unexpected and scathing, a remark that delineates the field slaves as the Count's privileged group and Emundo as a criminal transgressor: "And who are you to give me orders? Are you forgetting the role you have to play? Your master! Understand? Your master! Clear off" (1:03:55).
[5] The Count's reaction becomes a triumph for the field slaves, a reversal of position in the slave hierarchy. The Count's outburst is a doctrine practiced largely on the field slaves, the ideology that the black has been given a subservient role in his life and he must never attempt to transcend it. The insult sparks laughter among field slaves, and this humiliation may be worse for Emundo than the tongue-lashing from the Count. The Count's participation in the field slaves' mockery of Emundo positions the field hands in a role of intimacy with the Count, a role exclusively for Emundo until he tries to defend the Count from making a mockery of himself.
[6] The Count's admonishment is especially acidic for Emundo, who has already been told he is a better human being than the field slaves in front of whom he is insulted. Emundo's position is the result of the Count's generosity, a position Emundo knows relies on the premise that he remains loyal to the Count in all circumstances. Up until this point Emundo's loyalty merits rewards, among them the assurance that he is a friend of the Count and deserves his position above the field hands. Now Emundo is commanded to believe the exact opposite, that he is the outsider and the field slaves at the table have usurped his position. Emundo's power and status are taken away in an instant, creating a much worse state of mind than the field slaves (except Antonio) who have never experienced Emundo's position of privilege.
[7] But the groupings are not as simple as house slave and field slave. Antonio and Ambrosio, both field slaves who internalized feelings of worthlessness forced on them by the institution the Count defends, side with Emundo by interrupting the field slaves' fun. The Count is unconscious, something Antonio and Ambrosio are clearly aware of when they defend the Count as a good master. This awareness of the Count's unconsciousness puts the two slaves in the most difficult position of all, a house slave working in the field, defending a master when doing so will not result in any reward from the Count. This dialogue recognizes the difficult role of the field hands who have maintained or wish to maintain the house slave position. As the current household slave, Emundo's position is the most difficult of all, a position the film makes sympathetic.
[8] The film recognizes that Emundo's position during the supper is an impossible one. He can never be accepted or respected by the field slaves around him, a fact that becomes obvious when Antonio is ignored throughout the dinner after siding with the count at the beginning of the supper. Like Antonio's position with the other field slaves, Emundo's position of privilege with the master is also destroyed. He can no longer assume the Count will treat him as he always has, and so Emundo's hope is that the Count will return to normal once he is sober. But the Count's promises, promises that have saved Emundo from the field, are no longer reliable. Emundo's place of privilege now depends on a second reversal of the Count's loyalties. The consequences if the Count does not reestablish his bond with Emundo could be as disastrous as Antonio, the humiliating and brutal role of field slave substituted for the role of the household slave that has left Emundo spoiled. When asked to have the field slaves convey a message, Emundo responds, "I'll go. The sugarmill blacks are too stupid" (13:58). The threat of being grouped with or below this group is a constant threat, one Emundo can only endure as the field slaves endure their daily brutality. (comment by Krystal Kaai)
[9] Emundo's difficulty serves a pattern Alea demonstrates throughout the film, showing constant division among the slaves as a weakness that plagues them throughout their existence. The field slaves at the supper are slaves because they were sold by their African enemies. During the supper they bicker about what to do if forced to work Good Friday. Barring Sebastian, the slaves who were at the supper are caught after they separate. Emundo's attitude serves as another division, but a division the film understands and forgives. Emundo is only a traitor to some. To others, he is where they want to be.
Comments
As far as I can see it, household slaves were deliberately put into such an ambiguous position. It is the principle “divide et impera†at work. Household slaves were, indeed, much closer to their masters than field slaves. This could actually pose a threat to the whites as these slaves were aware of their lifestyle, and in case of a black revolt they might have been a real good source of information for the rebels. However, despite being the same slaves deprived of any individual rights, household slaves, as a rule, were very reluctant to show any support to their field fellow-men. First of all, they were afraid of losing their positions in case of the revolt failure. The second thing is that they regarded field slaves as their competitors who at some point could take over their place in the household. That is why they tried to distance themselves from field slaves, and the behavior of Emundo during the supper shows it perfectly. At the same time, field slaves would perceive ones from the household as traitors or spies that would sell their fellows to the master (and we can assume that it really was so in most of the cases). And without any doubt there was a great deal of envy towards household slaves who enjoyed better living and working conditions. This mutual distrust helped owners to maintain disunity among their slaves, thus securing the environment.
I completely agree with you that Emundo’s position as a house slave--superior to field slaves yet hopelessly inferior in the eyes of the white elite--places him in a very precarious position where he is forced to straddle the line between two different identities, both of which reject him as definitively “other.†Whether consciously or not, the Count uses this “divide and conquer†tactic to create divisions amongst the slaves that make it difficult for them to organize and form a collective resistance to their oppression. Those that do rebel, like Sebastian, do so in isolation. It is not until after the “last supper†that some of the other slaves begin to resist their ill treatment and likewise rebel. Clearly not all of the twelve slaves at the dinner accept this idea of rebellion. Some remain loyal to the Count and wish to side with their master rather than with the rebellious slaves. Nevertheless, it is important to note that just as Emundo is ultimately treated as an inferior who has more in common with the field slaves than with the white elite, those slaves who remain loyal to their master are punished in the same way as those who initiated the revolt. Therefore, despite the hierarchal divisions that existed within the slave class, the white elite still overwhelmingly tended to view slaves as an undifferentiated mass of inferior beings.
