that the definition of many African ‘nations’ evolved over time. In addition, the definition of who was Mina
or Angola changed according not only to the period but also to the city or region in the Americas: the Minas
in Salvador included other ethnic groups than the Minas in Rio de Janeiro. Yet notwithstanding their
original inconsistency, many of the terms defining slave ‘nations’ acquired new meanings in the Americas.
When adopted by the slaves themselves, these ‘nations’ could reflect ongoing processes of ethnogenesis and
express new, colonial identities that have remained significant until the present. The twentieth-century
creation of the capoeira styles Angola and Regional, for instance, is, to some extent, a recurrence of
this pattern.
The configuration of the slave trade and the distribution of captives among plantations constituted
another crucial factor in the formation of colonial slave identities. It is well known that most colonies received
slaves from a wide range of different backgrounds, usually from at least three or four of the cultural
subzones mentioned above.^25 Sometimes planters deliberately mixed slaves from different origins on their
estates to assure better control and to avoid unrest. One of the reasons why many slave rebellions did not
succeed was precisely because rebels from one ‘nation’ failed to secure support from the other ethnic
groups on the plantation. On the other hand planters were seldom offered great choice when purchasing
their slaves. The vicissitudes of the slave trade usually forced planters to purchase their workers from a
relatively homogenous lot offered on the market after the arrival of a slave ship. As a result, the slave
population on most plantations, although never completely homogenous in ethnic terms, did invariably consist
of some dominant ‘nations’, sizeable groups of half a dozen, a dozen or even more slaves who shared a
common cultural heritage. That meant a significant number of slaves could communicate with each other,
be it in their own language, in a lingua franca or because they spoke related idioms. Furthermore, their
possibilities of communication extended beyond the plantation. Although masters aspired to limit the
mobility of their chattel, slaves from different plantations met on a number of occasions: while executing
tasks for their master, or during mass, religious festivals, carnival and civic celebrations. The practice of
petit marronage, whereby slaves ran away for the night in order to see a mistress or to attend some
celebration elsewhere, was obviously not allowed. But exasperated overseers or masters often had no other
choice than to tolerate these manifestations of slaves’ low-level resistance.
The point to make here is that slavery, despite its imposition of harsh labour conditions, bad food,
housing and clothing, did not prevent slaves from having a social life—and in this respect I disagree with
scholars who argue that enslavement resulted in ‘social death’ for captives.^26 The study of slavery has, for a
long time, remained trapped in a dichotomy, whereby slaves supposedly had only two options: revolt and
die heroically or accept the brutality they were subjected to and suffer in silence. Research over the last 20
years has, on the contrary, clearly shown the complexity of slave agency. Between martyrdom such as the
one experienced by the maroon chief Zumbi and total assimilation and disempowerment as symbolized by
‘Uncle Tom’, a wide range of possibilities existed, which involved deception and other forms of low-level
resistance, as well as some forms of negotiation with the master or overseer.^27 It is precisely in the every
day struggle for survival, and for the affirmation of a human condition partly denied by their masters, that
slaves forged their culture, shaped by the complex dialectics of resistance and accommodation. For that
purpose they not only tried to maintain their own traditions, and to find a common ground with related cultures,
but they also re-appropriated elements and manifestations of slave society dominated by European culture.
Yet it seems that it was primarily within these reconstituted ‘nations’ that African slaves sought to
perpetuate their culture and to constitute new forms of solidarity and kinship.
36 THE CONTEXT OF THE BLACK ATLANTIC