The question addressed refers to the consequences which accrue for sociologists when an accepted historical interpretation is suddenly challenged by rival historians who present either additional data or simply a new interpretation of the existing data. As of 1974, such a controversial situation exists with respect to the history of slavery, and a brief discussion of the extensive debate among historians is addressed in the first part of the essay. Alternatives which the historical evidence of "day-to-day resistance" suggests for sociological theorizing are addressed next. That is, assuming a certain credibility of an anti-Sambo argument, what impact would such an interpretation have on current sociological concepts? In dealing with this question, the main deficiency observed for the sociology of race relations is the failure to account for the phenomenon of separatism or racial nationalism which is well documented by slave historians. A separatist model is formulated because the models of paternalism, assimilation, and colonialism, which are all current in the race relations literature, seems inapplicable to certain aspects of the slave situation in the South. The separatist model is not an appropriate explanatory concept for all of slave behavior, but rather is addressed to a considerable range of slave activities which were ostensibly quite common but have been largely overlooked by sociologists and historians. (Author/AM)