Final answer:
Rufus's home was likely equipped with various comforts and luxury amenities, whereas the slaves' homes were much more rudimentary, lacking even basic comforts. The stark contrast also extended to the perspective of labor, where manual work was frowned upon by the white household relying on slave labor. The complexities of slaves' social and cultural experiences under such circumstances are also highlighted.
Step-by-step explanation:
Rufus's home differed significantly from the slaves' homes in terms of luxury and basic amenities. While slaves' quarters were often rudimentary and lacked comforts, Rufus's home would likely have been well-furnished, spacious, and designed for comfort. An example from the passages provided mentions the luxury afforded to slaves at one point, where their rooms were equipped with tile baths, an unheard of luxury for slave accommodations ordinarily. This period of extravagance was an exception to the general living conditions of slaves. Typically, enslaved people lived in accommodations far less comfortable and were denied basic amenities that would have been standard in the homes of their owners. Furthermore, the slaves' attachment to their homes, as rudimentary as they were, was weak due to the constant threat of separation and the lack of personal freedom.
Among the substantial differences underscored, there was a lack of self-reliance in white households due to the dependence on slave labor for all forms of work, ranging from domestic to skilled trade, creating a system where labor was viewed as a mark of degradation.
The narrative shows that slaves sought fragments of joy and humanity within their harsh realities, such as expecting the excitement of going to the Great House Farm, despite their oppressive conditions.