Paper short abstract:

The limited sources available on the lives of former slaves lack representativeness and often concern exceptional people or circumstances. This paper reflects on how these sources, both precious and frustrating, can be used to shed light also on those ex-slaves who remained in the shadows.

Paper long abstract:

A range of political and social factors worked against the retention of information on the lives of former slaves in twentieth-century East Africa. Neither missionaries nor colonial officials wanted to acknowledge the persistence of unfreedom or hardship for former slaves, people with marginal origins had little to gain from stating them, and those seeking to keep them marginal preferred to use less charged categories in doing so. Due to this conspiracy of silence, information on the aftermath of slavery is often scattered, fleeting, partial and partisan.

When information is richer (or even if it is available at all), this is often due to exceptional circumstances and focused on exceptional individuals. For instance, the names of ex-slaves may turn up in the record if they needed emergency help during famine. Almost all respondents who acknowledged their ancestors’ slave origins were descended from people who had done exceptionally well for themselves or shown particular courage. Their subsequent success enabled them to safely acknowledge their marginal origins.

This paper seeks to reflect on the implications of the reliance on the historiography of post-slavery on such ‘unicorns’, that is, sources available due to exceptional circumstances or the exceptional character of their protagonists. It argues that we must acknowledge the limitations of this material while pushing against them. We will never have a representative set of sources on post-slavery lives, but the struggles and pursuits of the most fortunate can still yield some information also on those who remained in the shadows.