Because White People Can Be Really Stupid
We're at the point in Dante's life where he's beginning to give more than a passing glance to issues about race relations in the US, and as usual, he asks very straightforward questions. It is my opinion that kids sometimes ask the most honest questions because they make them so simple. Particularly since much of El Hijo's and my training in literature and culture comes from the mid 1800s, when your child asks you, "Why did they have slavery in the first place, and why did people put up with it?" you are in an incredibly accurate position to know just how much detail could go into that response. History, economics, culture, religion, politics, all of it factors into the equation of why slavery had such a powerful hold over people in the US. Based on my study of the time period (which is still ongoing and consumes damn near an entire 6 foot bookcase's worth of primary and secondary sources), it is my opinion that American slaveholders were likely the most brutal slaveholders in the history of slaveholding. I've got a shitload of source material for that, if you're interested.
But what was my eloquent answer to the boy's question? All that came out was "Because white people can be really stupid. Especially when they're interested in money and power."
And quite frankly, I don't know if there really is more to the story than that. Most slaveholders were sadistic bastards. Most of them knew that slaveholding was fundamentally immoral, and worked like hell to reconfigure all their cultural, educational and legal structures to prop it up and make themselves feel better about it. And the dirty little secret in American culture is the fact that the North did plenty to encourage and sustain it. Most white Northerners weren't very interested in abolitionism, and treated free blacks with incredible racism at best. Many were even openly violent toward free blacks they thought were taking jobs and the like. The North was certainly not the "good guys." At best, they were the "indifferent guys."
Today we still deal with a culture that was spawned out of that time period, well over 150 years ago. Although we may no longer be overtly racist (most of the time), we are most definitely "white supremacist." Everything in our culture trends toward valuing white heterosexuality as the "norm" and everything else as the "marginal."
A few quick examples:
When you think of "Southerners" during the Civil War and just before and after it, what is the image you come up with? It likely is a vision of women in hoop skirts, or men with accents. I bet they're mostly white images. But "Southerners" at one point, would have more truthfully referred to black slaves, considering they outnumbered whites in many areas. But when we think of "the South", most of us are trained to think white, not black.
Switch it up and think of the North. Who do you think of? Probably people like William Lloyd Garrison or other abolitionists, or industrialized people, a bit more forward thinking than "the South." Those people are probably also white in your mind. Where the devil did all the blacks go? We're culturally trained not to pay as much attention to them as a group.
How often have you heard somebody say something like, "You know, I went to that new doctor the other day--you know, the black one (or the woman doctor)...". This happens all the time because we're trained to pick up on race as a quick and easy guide for distinguishing between people (and we're certainly not the first culture to do so).
Obviously not everyone automatically thinks of white people when they think of positions like engineers, doctors, etc. But most of us do. We value "ethnic" women with whiter features as more beautiful than women of darker colors, and if you think that's not right, go try and find a dark skinned model in a magazine. I can think of exactly one who works regularly (Alek Wek, who is actually one of my favorite models and close to my exact age, actually--google her). How many more white models/actresses do you see on the covers of magazines than black ones? And the tired excuse that there are just "more to pick from" with white models is paper thin--and overlooks the fact that one of the reasons for the seemingly greater "availability" is because our society values white features.
Meh.
I'll end my rant here. I'm in the middle of another examination of black writing from the 1800s-1850s this semester, which has only reinvigorated all those former observations. And I did go into more detail with Dante about the factors behind slavery. Which prompted his next question:
"Why was there segregation? Who cares if black people sat at the front of the bus?"
And surprisingly, the answer still works: because sometimes white people can be really stupid. Sigh.
-- Virgil
posted by contemplator at Thursday, February 14, 2008
35 Comments:
Bullshit! If there's one thing we white folk can do well, it's creating a monopoly!
Nobody gets any racism or stupidity but me and my fellow crackers!
Don't take that away from me, Mad Dog!!
As a population during this time period, yes, they had the monopoly on stupidity and racism. The majority of the white population participated in it. Both North and South, and even some so-called "abolitionists." It was an incredibly sadistic period, and the recorded incidents (which number in the thousands) would turn your stomach. At this time in history, most white people behaved very, very stupidly.
JP: It's tough for Dante sometimes, because he's too "white" for some of his black friends and too "black" for some of his white friends' parents. He self identifies as black. He's schooled other people before--and I've assisted them. Don't even get me started on the kindergarten teacher he had, racist twat.
I'd like to not have to fuck people's shit up. But over 100 years of slavery and the subsequent years of racial inequality have far reaching effects, even on 21st century minds.
"As a population during this time period, yes, they had the monopoly on stupidity and racism."
I don't think so.
"It's tough for Dante sometimes, because he's too "white" for some of his black friends and too "black" for some of his white friends' parents."
Thanks, you just proved my point.
by the way, I am mad dog. This blogger software won't let me post with a name. It keeps claiming that I get the security image wrong, but I get it perfect each time.
So...two questions here. First, what makes you think that the majority of the white population during the 1800s and before did NOT have the monopoly on racism in the United States? Or are you implying that blacks enslaved themselves?
Second, what makes you think a MODERN example (i.e. my son) proves a point about a culture I'm talking about from 150 years ago?
"So...two questions here. First, what makes you think that the majority of the white population during the 1800s and before did NOT have the monopoly on racism in the United States?"
Racism is simply judging a person by his or her skin color, rather than for their personal traits. Just because one is oppressed does not mean that one is not racist. A non-racist is someone who judges other people purely for their personal traits.
I think that it is rather absurd to say that white people were the only ones to judge others for their skin color or ethnic background during the 18th and 19th centuries.
You know who I think has a monopoly on stupidity and racism? Ron Paul.
"Racism is not only about judgment, it's about action predicated on that judgment. That's what it means to "act like" a racist."
That's racist action. It is merely an external expression of what is truly inside that person, namely, a racist mind. If that person did not have racist thoughts, there would be no racist action.
"So again, I'll ask you, why is it that you think whites did NOT have the monopoly on racism IN THE UNITED STATES during the 1800s?"
It's impossible for one group of people to have a monopoly on anything that is ingrained in human nature.
"You know who I think has a monopoly on stupidity and racism? Ron Paul."
You have a monopoly of inane comments in this thread. It looks like you have cornered the market here.
Yay!! Online race debate!!
This is why I wish I committed more of the information that I read to memory. I remember reading a series of articles at one time that explain that so-called "reverse racism" cannot exist because it's not just the attitudes of individuals but the constructed culture and society that are racist... not just people.
Or something like that. Nothing says "comfortable conversation" like being a white male and talking about oppressed minorities. :)
Maybe I'll blog about racism. That could be fun.
Part of your problem is you have this mindset that if certain people of a race are guilty of a crime against humanity, that therefore, ALL members of that race are guilty of the same crime. It is like saying that ALL Germans want to throw Jewish people in to ovens, or that ALL English people wish to kill Irish people, or that ALL Japanese people wish to conquer Asia and the Pacific.
And the people who witness it but who do nothing to stop it are also equally guilty. You can choose not to believe this, if it makes your mind easier, but people who stand by and watch crime should bear a part of the guilt.
The majority of white people DURING THE 1800s (I'm capitalizing it because you seem to keep ignoring the parameters) were very, very guilty of these things. A monopoly means "near total control". That was certainly the case with whites in the US in the 1800s. If you believe differently, prove it. Whites in the North frequently turned over runaway slaves back to a life of misery and torture. It wasn't just the politicians. It was the regular citizens as well. Racism, although in action more vicious in the South, was all over the US.
Again, have you read anything on the subject? You asked me about the last 1000 years of human history. Sorry, sweetie, the last 1000 years do NOT reveal the kind of systematic kidnapping, enslavement, torture, mutilation and rape of one people by another that the whites did to Africans during this time period.
Was slavery going on in other places? Yes. Was it ever at the sadistic and malicious level that it reached in the US during the 1800s? NO. And if you believe otherwise, you need to cite your sources. Because I can cite mine.
Were Africans enslaving other Africans? Yes they were. And here is where I know you haven't done any reading on the subject: Was it "many" of them? NO it wasn't. In fact, if you'd actually read any of that 1000 years of history you commented about or if you'd seen any economic data on the subject, you'd discover that when demand from whites entered the picture, the enslavement process went through the roof--because of good, old capitalistic supply and demand.
White slaves were rare. The number of blacks exported for slaves in America far overwhelmed any other race. Free blacks in the US were often kidnapped and sold into slavery in the South--by Northerners, in many cases.
You can try to steer things back to "racism", as if that doesn't somehow imply the entire history of the US up to this point. You can try to point out counter examples. What you won't do is admit you haven't read anything about it, or that the majority of white people were guilty of racism and extremely sadistic acts during this time.
Why might that be, I wonder? Why is it so hard for whites to admit without reservation that their race committed some of the most barbarous and cruel acts during the course of human history?
Own up to it and learn from it. Denial, even if it's qualified admission, just breeds ignorance.
"And the people who witness it but who do nothing to stop it are also equally guilty. You can choose not to believe this, if it makes your mind easier, but people who stand by and watch crime should bear a part of the guilt."
But what about the white people who actively opposed it or fought against it? Should they be laden with guilt too?
But even if a white person did not actively fight against slavery, should they necessarily share the guilt too? Keep in mind that to oppose the powers that be often means death, or at the very least, ostracization. Perhaps more people than you realized had opposed slavery, but did not act out of fear of the state or the more bigoted locals, who were known to lynch whites who they felt were too friendly to black people.
My examples of slavery done by various people at various times throughout history, as well as during the 18th and 19th centuries, was simply proof that white people did not have a monopoly on slavery. If they did have a monopoly on slavery, then NO other people would have EVER engaged in it. A monopoly means that only one person or group participates in that trade.
The only difference between the white powers and everyone else at those times was that the white people had more power back then. Had the black tribes had more military might and wealth, they could have easily been far more active in slavery. No group of people is more noble than any other, simply due to skin color.
You are not paying attention, and it is killing your argument.
1) Monopoly does NOT mean "total" control. It means "majority" control. Look it up on dictionary.com. You are misunderstanding the concept of the word. Just because "some" other people were enslaving doesn't mean that the majority of whites weren't enslaving at far higher rates than other cultures were.
2) If white people were active in abolitionist movements, then obviously they weren't sitting by doing nothing and would obviously not fall under the category of guilty by failing to do something. Showing you understand my categories does not somehow prove your point.
3) Please cite sources proving that the majority of whites would have been subjected to ostracism and death if they had opposed the powers that be. Blacks would have been. (Gee, I wonder why that was??)
4) Prove whites were systematically lynched for trying to help blacks.
5) Prove your postulation that if blacks had more military power, they would have used it most likely to enslave other people. Assuming that countries would automatically use power to enslave other countries begs for proof. We're not talking about waging war. We're talking about systematically kidnapping and removing hundreds of thousands of people for the use of free labor in the home country. The way you prove this is easy: simply show historical precedents where countries that came into power immediately used that power to import other human beings for exploitive purposes. It should be easy, if it's so obvious.
6) Prove that other cultures who did practice slavery were more barbaric than the US was in the 1800s.
Red Dog,
Why so sensitive? Afraid someone's going to ask you to sign a reparations check? I bet a good liberty lover like you thinks everybody who works hard should get paid, and that their descendants should be entitled to an inheritance. But I bet you'd rather eat a poop taco than see the descendants of the people who made the economy of Europe and the US viable get a penny.
"You are not paying attention, and it is killing your argument."
I am paying perfect attention. Your'e just getting mad because I am not agreeing with you.
"Monopoly does NOT mean "total" control. It means "majority" control. Look it up on dictionary.com."
Now you are mincing words. But anyway, I just did look it up:
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
7. (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property. (this one is probably not relevant to the topic at hand)
Any questions?
"2) If white people were active in abolitionist movements, then obviously they weren't sitting by doing nothing and would obviously not fall under the category of guilty by failing to do something. Showing you understand my categories does not somehow prove your point."
But throughout this thread, you have made it sound as if someone is automatically racist or guilty of supporting slavery simply because they are WHITE. What this amounts to is guilty until proven innocent.
Suppose someone accused you of being racist, simply because you were white?
"Please cite sources proving that the majority of whites would have been subjected to ostracism and death if they had opposed the powers that be."
http://ctlibrary.com/ct/2000/january10/2.47.html
'Abolitionists set out to convince slaveholders to repent of their sin. They did so first by mailing publications to prominent citizens in the South. Soon they discovered that Southerners were not only unready to repent, but would not even tolerate the voice of the preacher. Abolitionist pamphlets were collected at Southern post offices and burned, their authors hung in effigy. Southern newspapers advertised large rewards for the lives of William Lloyd Garrison or Arthur Tappan. (Tappan, in perhaps his only recorded attempt at humor, was supposed to have said regarding the $100,000 offered for him, "If that sum is placed in a New York bank, I may possibly think of giving myself up.")'
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0308e.asp
Garrison’s answer was clear: abolitionism was a fight for human rights, not male rights. He wrote,
Two capital errors have extensively prevailed, greatly to the detriment of the cause of abolition. The first is, a proneness on the part of the advocates of immediate and universal emancipation to overlook or deprecate the influence of woman in the promotion of the cause; and the other is, a similar disposition on the part of the females in our land to undervalue their own power. A million females in this country are recognized and held as property — liable to be sold or used for the gratification of the lust or avarice or convenience of unprincipled speculators — without the least protection for their chastity — cruelly scourged for the most trifling offenses — and subject to ... to severe privations and to brutish ignorance! Have these no claims upon the sympathies — prayers — charities — exertions of our white countrywomen?
Garrison’s defense of women was undoubtedly spurred by three events. After Prudence Crandall wrote to him for advice on opening the nation’s first academy for black girls, The Liberator carried the school’s advertisement.
Crandall was arrested, imprisoned, tried twice, and ostracized from respectable society. Eventually, the school was set ablaze.
Then Garrison attended the Annual Convention of Anti-Slavery Women in Philadelphia, where the women’s meeting hall suffered the same fate as Crandall’s school.
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/twain/race.html
"Emancipationists and abolitionists were threatened with violence, were jailed, were socially ostracized. It got to the point were public resistance to slavery was almost as dangerous for a white person as for a slave."
http://www.iefd.org/manifestos/anti_imperialist_twain.php
"Mark Twain was painfully aware of many people's inclinations to go along with prevailing evils. When slavery was lawful, he recalled, abolitionists were "despised and ostracized, and insulted"—by "patriots." As far as Twain was concerned, "Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.""
"Prove whites were systematically lynched for trying to help blacks."
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/LL/jgl1.html
"In the five years preceding the war, mobs frequently sought out suspected slave rebels and white abolitionists."
http://www.theliberatorfiles.com/1215
"
August 3, 1860
Three lines: ‘The latest news from New Orleans, dated July l30th, is that two Abolitionists have been hung in Texas for distributing arms and inciting slaves to rebellion.”
"
http://tinyurl.com/2stotb
"The Liberator, December 4, 1857 (p. 196) copies the following account of the manner in which an abolitionist was lynched in Mississippi: "...A crowd took him to the woods, told him to strip, carried to a hollow and tied around a tree. He was then told what was their intention: to lynch him until he told something."
http://www.tshaonline.org/daybyday/09-13-003.html
On this day in 1860, abolitionist Methodist minister Anthony Bewley was lynched in Fort Worth. Bewley, born in Tennessee in 1804, had established a mission sixteen miles south of Fort Worth by 1858. When vigilance committees alleged in the summer of 1860 that there was a widespread abolitionist plot to burn Texas towns and murder their citizens, suspicion immediately fell upon Bewley and other outspoken critics of slavery. Special attention was focused on Bewley because of an incendiary letter, dated July 3, 1860, addressed to a Rev. William Bewley and supposedly written by a fellow abolitionist. Many argued that the letter, which urged Bewley to continue with his work in helping to free Texas from slavery, was a forgery.
http://www.notfrisco.com/colmatales/broderick/index.html
"The spring before Broderick arrived in Washington, South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks had strode into the Senate Chamber and thrashed Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a heavy cane. Elsewhere, abolitionist editors were murdered, duels were fought, homes burned, and the town of Lawrence, Kansas was sacked. The Chivalrists rigged elections by despatching legions of voters into states deciding the slavery question for themselves."
http://academics.smcvt.edu/dmindich/understanding_frederick_douglass.htm
"The Jacksonian age was marked by vicious and bloody conflicts. The rise of the pennies starting with the founding of the New York Sun paralleled the peak, from 1833-1837, of mob violence, especially partisan and anti-abolitionist mobs. This violence included destroying presses and trying to lynch abolitionist editors, as a mob did with William Lloyd Garrison, pulling him by a rope around the Boston streets.24 "
http://www.answers.com/topic/little-egypt?cat=travel
"...Illinois law generally forbade bringing slaves into Illinois, but a special exemption was given to the salt works near Equality and as long-term indentured servants or as descendants of slaves in the area before statehood. In 1834, citizens of Alton, Illinois, near St. Louis, lynched abolitionist printer Elijah P. Lovejoy."
"Prove your postulation that if blacks had more military power, they would have used it most likely to enslave other people."
One only has to look at the massive genocidal killing that is going on TODAY in various nations across Africa to see that they are quite capable of all forms of evil.
But if you're gonna give me "But we were talking about slavery" BS, not only have they done slavery, but slavery still exists over there:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0507-03.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html
"In Niger, slavery is also a current phenomenon. A Nigerien study has found that more than 800,000 people are enslaved, almost 8% of the population." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
Now that it has been established that slavery exists NOW in Africa, in LARGE scale, is it a stretch to say that if they had the most powerful armies on earth, that they would think nothing of enslaving more people? Keep in mind that there is enormous amounts of slavery and genocide currently going on in Africa, and some of their armies are the weakest.
In fact, it seems like whenever African governments get their hands on money, soldiers and military hardware (even if just enough to buy a Popsicle), the first thing they do is invade and often wipe out the rival village or state.
"Prove that other cultures who did practice slavery were more barbaric than the US was in the 1800s."
Easy. Just look at Dark Ages/Medieval Europe. Virtually everyone was a slave, aka, serf, rather than just a relatively small minority of people, like in the antebellum south. Those people had little to no rights. Even worse, one could be accused by any number of things by the religious hierarchy, and often tortured to death for any reason. Sometimes, the lords brutalized their serfs for fun.
Another example: India throughout the many centuries of its existence. The Hindu Caste system. The lower castes were treated severely. The Dalits, lowest of the low, were treated in a manner that would make most other forms of slavery seem enviable. Other people refuse to even touch them. They are and have been forced to do the most dangerous and dirty jobs imaginable, against their own will.
A black man in Antebellum Southern USA could potentially become a successful business owner or wealthy person. A Dalit can never have such hope, regardless of how gifted he/she is.
Another example where a society was notably cruel to its slaves was Ancient Rome. Can you think of any other place that would force slaves to fight against lions and tigers as amusement for the citizens? Or how about sending them against professional soldiers in the ring? If a slave was called upon to give evidence in a Roman court, by law he had to be tortured first. Slavery was a cruel and repressive institution, enforced by hatred and fear. "All slaves are enemies", stated a Roman proverb.
http://members.aol.com/UbarLuther2/Scroll64.html
Another area where slaves were treated cruelly was Nepal and Tibet.
http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=75
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/31672.stm
"Why so sensitive? Afraid someone's going to ask you to sign a reparations check? I bet a good liberty lover like you thinks everybody who works hard should get paid, and that their descendants should be entitled to an inheritance. But I bet you'd rather eat a poop taco than see the descendants of the people who made the economy of Europe and the US viable get a penny."
Contemplator (or Julian), if that is you, you might want to refrain from hiding. You do not make yourself look good or earn yourself any respect when you make all kinds of cheap shots while in disguise.
This is getting good. Arguments like this could almost set the groundwork for a graduate-level English class. :)
My two cents:
Do I think that white people in America were inherently more likely to support slavery in the 19th century simply because they were white? No.
Do I think that there were economic, cultural, and historical issues influencing white Americans at the time that resulted in one of the most brutal displays of oppression in history? Oh my yes.
White Americans in the 1800s were not inherently bad. But then again, Germans in the 1930s weren't inherently bad either. But at that given time and given the economy and culture of Germany at the time, you better believe that they were doing some evil shit. Same goes for 19th Century white Americans. We excelled at evil shit.
Maybe if an African country had developed in a way that had exactly paralleled the United States in economic, educational, and cultural ways, they may have behaved in the very same way. The point is that they didn't.
You can blame history and culture all you want. But at the end of the day, we're responsible for our own damn history. No one individual is responsible for slavery, but at the same time, we're all to blame.
I don't understand it all myself. The problem is that in our country, it's considered taboo to try to learn about it or discuss it. I give Contemplator and Mad Dog props for at least being willing to have the discussion.
If I weren't such a coward, I'd join in more than I am.
Interesting debate. I don't know much about the situation in the 1800s in the USA.
Interestingly I've been reading a series of letter in the London local paper regarding racism in the fashion industry like Dante's Virgil mentioned. Several people have stated they were rejected for roles because of their looks (very black), which led to discussion of what 'looks' are in these days and out. The tragedy is that those who have paler dark skin tend to do better - I've noticed this in tv as well.
It's the same in south east countries too. Paler skinned girls are regarded as prettier than dark skinned girls. If you read in matrimonial websites (yes they do exist..), you'll find that most boys are looking for a light skinned bride. Skin lightening creams are used by girls from a young age, and their parents encourage their use.
Unfortunately people have been brainwahsed into thinking that white is good. White means beauty. Of course there are connotations for it - such as paler skinned people mean that they don't go out in the sun that much, meaning they don't work outdoors, indicating wealth (well this is what used to be the reasoning).
When you have people like Michael Jackson changing his skin colour, it's hard to explain to young children that it's because the guy was insane (or maybe he really did have a health problem - who knows). They grow up thinking one colour is better.
Listen, sweetheart, I have a handle, and you should know by now that I'm not afraid to use it. I find it highly insulting that you would think I'd choose to be anonymous on my own blog. Given my stat tracker, I can also tell you it's not Julian. What it does indicate, is that yet another person thinks your argument is full of shit.
Oh, and what anon said about the economies of said countries being built on the backs of slave labor is very, very true. We have an illusion of the US as a growing super power during this time, and the majority of it was the result of forced labor. Not capitalism.
1) Failure to learn even when the words are right in front of your face. Look at the very first definition you cited for monopoly. I'll bold the part you chose to skip: "or a control that makes possible". You can dance around semantics all you want. The truth is, it also means circumstances that lead to that kind of control, majority control.
2) I have NOT said that white people are automatically racist. You, on the other hand, are automatically sensitive about it. If you'd like to deny that the majority of white people were racist in the 1800s, anyone with even a sliver of history reading from that period would laugh in your face. The facts speak for themselves.
3) Your example of abolitionists, which I expected you to find, is NOT the "majority" of Americans. Do you know the circulation size of Garrison's Liberator magazine? 3000 copies at its peak. In a nation of millions. That should say something to you right there. Do you know why you can only find examples of people like Garrison, with one or two subsamples? Because there were only a handful of people who bothered.
Your own TSA handbook that you quoted from said that abolitionism was a tiny movement in Texas that never really picked up speed. Yet, we're supposed to think that a couple of white lynchings somehow equals the giant string of black lynchings.
Oh, interestingly enough, who lynched a few white abolitionist editors around the US? Black mobs? Oh, that's right--white mobs. For what purpose? Trying to change popular opinion about blacks.
So even with a few white deaths, it all still goes back to white racism, doesn't it? Why is that so hard to admit? I'm truly curious.
Your examples about Africa are based on genocide, not enslavement. You know it doesn't work the same way, because you immediately tried to frame it by saying "You can call it bs if you want to, but..." As a matter of fact, you can call it bs if you want to, but you can't simply fit history to your theory and call it a day. Remember, no one is saying that other people didn't have slaves. I'm simply saying it's a proven fact that during the 1800s no other group was more cruel to slaves than Americans were.
(I noticed you didn't bother trying to refute the increase of slavery in economic terms. Perhaps some kind of agreement could be reached if you'd choose to admit some things I said just might be right, rather than ignoring or running away from it.)
You found Lovejoy and Garrison, and I'm a bit surprised you didn't find John Brown, he being the big revolutionary at the time. Think about why you couldn't find more than a mention of a few white deaths. Think about why you think a few deaths--lets be generous and say a few hundred--is somehow on par with the scale of black death at white hands during the 1800s. That's truly mind blowing.
You act as though someone is accusing you personally of having done something wrong.
I'm nobody's sock puppet, little dog. What point are you even trying to argue at this stage? Do you have a position here? Cause it sure looks like you just want to refute Contemplator's ideas. Why don't you present your own ideas instead of just cutting and pasting rebuttals to everything other people say? Would that require too much original thought? Would you not be able to find an answer using Google?
As far as your statistic on slavery in Africa goes, do you know the percentage of the population in US terms in the 1800s? Nearly 20%. Well more than twice as many slaves as are being kept in Africa now by your own statistic. Oh, but wait! It gets better.
Since you like websites instead of primary sources, we'll go with that.
We went from 700,000 slaves at the signing of the Constitution (you know, where all men were created equal?) to 4 million slaves by 1860.
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/index.php?id=161
Even good old Wikipedia gets into the debate. Do you know what that means? It means that one out of every five people were slaves. I'm sure you've heard of the term "economies of scale". Well, this would be one of those instances. But Americans were only being "on par" with every other civilization, right? (You'll note we never, until slavery was completely abolished, got anywhere near the 8% figure for number of slaves held.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
This all started because you desperately want to prove that white people don't have the monopoly on stupidity or racism (per your own post, of course). My comment was that during this time (which you keep ignoring) that white Americans who participated in racism and slave holding (which you keep ignoring) were likely the most sadistic slaveholders to have existed.
Then you took it personal, and shit hit the fan.
We are talking about DURING THE 1800s and we are talking about the EXTENT of sadism by whites who participated in racism & slavery.
You are trying to frame the debate differently, because you are trying to make yourself fell less uncomfortable about my supposition. So if you want to keep arguing about it, at least stick to the terms at hand.
Micah Ricks from Raleigh, NC advertises in the "Standard" on 7/18/1838: "Ranaway, a negro woman and her two children; a few days before she went off, I burnt her with a hot iron, on the left side of her face, I tried to make the letter M."
William Benton from Michigan advertises in the "Lexington Observer" on 7/22/1838: "Ranaway, a negro named Henry, his left eye out, some scars with a dirk on or under his left arm, and much scarred with the whip."
Mr. Ashford from Michigan advertises in the "Natchez Courrier" on 8/24/1838: "Runaway a negro girl called Mary, has a small scar over her eye, a good many teeth missing, the letter A is branded on her cheek and forehead."
A letter on record from a Mr. Samuel Hall (now in a collection held by Theodore Dwight Weld) from December of 1837: "A negro was tied up and flogged until the blood ran down and filled his shoes, so that when he raised either foot and set it down again, the blood would run over their tops. [...] the whipping was continued to the number of 500 lashes; as I understood. A quart of spirits of turpentine was then applied to his lacerated body. [...] The crime for which the negro was whipped, was that of telling the other negroes, that the overseer had lain with his wife."
I have hundreds of these. Would you like to hear some more? And then you can tell me how a few abolitionist deaths also at white hands stacks up.
Ok, 'Anonymous', I am actually going to pretend that your drivel is worth addressing.
"Why so sensitive? Afraid someone's going to ask you to sign a reparations check?"
I fear no such thing, as I have committed no racist deed to any black person. No one has the right to demand reparations from me.
"I bet a good liberty lover like you thinks everybody who works hard should get paid, and that their descendants should be entitled to an inheritance."
I take pride in my love of liberty, but, their descendants are entitled to nothing, except that which the hard worker wishes to give to them out of his/her own free will.
"But I bet you'd rather eat a poop taco than see the descendants of the people who made the economy of Europe and the US viable get a penny."
The descendants are not relevant. They did not build Europe or America. The only people who are entitled to reap the rewards are those who did actual work.
"I'm nobody's sock puppet, little dog."
Then who are you?
"What point are you even trying to argue at this stage? Do you have a position here?"
I am against this nonsensical idea of collective guilt, the idea that people who had nothing to do with a crime or a series of crimes are to be held guilty, simply on account of trivial things like being related to the criminal, or even by sharing the skin color. You know who used collective guilt to punish innocent people? Adolf Hitler.
"Cause it sure looks like you just want to refute Contemplator's ideas. Why don't you present your own ideas instead of just cutting and pasting rebuttals to everything other people say?"
Why don't you present some original ideas, instead of talking a bunch of shit?
"Would that require too much original thought? Would you not be able to find an answer using Google?"
If you have a problem with something I said, then address it. Otherwise, quit wasting my time.
MD: Couple of things.
1) So you are saying that the majority of Americans were NOT racist during the 1800s? That requires a yes or a no answer.
2) If "anon" picks an equally anonymous handle, how does that make any difference? Mad Dog is not your real name, just as Contemplator or Dante's Virgil isn't mine. How does having an alternative handle matter?
3) "The descendants are not relevant. They did not build Europe or America. The only people who are entitled to reap the rewards are those who did actual work."
Ah, but the descendants are relevant. Free forced labor did in fact create European and American economic might. To argue the other side of the coin, why is it fair that the descendants of white slave holders (who are easily traceable) get to enjoy a lifestyle and position in society that can easily be traceable to slave holding? After all, they didn't work for it either. You can't have it both ways.
The descendants are most certainly relevant, because they are still experiencing the after effects of slavery and racism. They are only a few generations removed from slavery and even fewer generations removed from Jim Crow laws. How is that not relevant?
"So you are saying that the majority of Americans were NOT racist during the 1800s? That requires a yes or a no answer."
For me to determine this, I would require a degree in psychology, a time machine, plus the ability to scan the brain of every man, woman and child from the 19th century.
"Ah, but the descendants are relevant. Free forced labor did in fact create European and American economic might."
It might have helped out the cotton industry in the south here and there.
"To argue the other side of the coin, why is it fair that the descendants of white slave holders (who are easily traceable) get to enjoy a lifestyle and position in society that can easily be traceable to slave holding?"
Because they had no say in the matter. They did not choose to be their descendants. They have committed no crime. The descendants of slave owners should not be held responsible for the crime of slavery anymore than the children of murderers or rapists should be held for the crimes of their fathers. Would you demand that a child go to prison for the crime of his or her father? I think you and I both know that would be ludicrous.
"After all, they didn't work for it either. You can't have it both ways."
All I have said is that no one is entitled to anything, except that which they have earned through their effort. What is your problem with that?
"The descendants are most certainly relevant, because they are still experiencing the after effects of slavery and racism."
Only because certain folks keep bringing the issue up, like the Sharptons and the Jacksons of the world. All the slaves are dead. All the slavemasters are dead. Even many of the people during the civil rights era, which occured a hundred years later, are dead.
" They are only a few generations removed from slavery and even fewer generations removed from Jim Crow laws. How is that not relevant?"
A few generations? The word 'few' is usually an opinionated one. What may seem like many dollars for rent to a tenant may only seem like a few dollars to the landlord. It is all based on perspective, distorted by what interest of the person it serves.
Slavery ended over a 140 years ago. Since a generation is roughly thought of as about 20 years, that would roughly be 7 or so. You can define 7 generations as a 'few' if you like, but I don't think I will go along with that.
Mad Dog: You're saying that you can't possibly know the minds of every person in the 1800s, so you can't know for sure if they were racist. Since you openly admit you don't know, then why are you arguing "no" so strongly? There are people who know. People whose lifetimes are devoted to the studying of these things from multiple perspectives. It is a knowable answer.
What you are saying is the equivalent of "We cannot know for certain if the Greek people worshiped a pantheon of gods. Even though we have their literature, their historical documents and their cultural artifacts, since I can't get into the minds of every single Greek person who lived back then, we can't possibly know." If you understand why this strategy is very sill in this example, you'll understand why your argument is equally ridiculous.
While the people for whom slavery happened are dead, the ideas behind slavery certainly are not dead; these ideas are pernicious in our culture. The whole point of studying history is to learn why people did certain things. If you want to pretend it's a dead idea, you can. But understand that you are choosing to remain in ignorance because it's more comfortable.
There are wonderful books and studies on the subject I can point you to, if you have a sincere desire to learn more about the subject. "Certain folks" keep bringing the subject up for a reason--because it's still an issue. By the way, only referring to Sharpton and Jackson is a perfect example of the white supremacy my post was talking about. Don't you know any whites who also talk about this issue? Because they are there.
Saying that slavery "might've helped" the cotton industry in the South is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you post. It shows what a simplistic understanding you have of the past, especially of slavery. If you don't know anything about it and choose not to engage in learning anything about it, why struggle so uncomfortably hard against the notion? Do your reading first, and then come and argue your points. Slavery made up a huge chunk of all agriculture and even things like the shipping industry and the construction field. It wasn't just a few bags of cotton here and there.
You don't have to agree with me, but you need to shut up if you admit you don't know what you're talking about. Arguing just to argue something makes you look uninformed.
"There are people who know. People whose lifetimes are devoted to the studying of these things from multiple perspectives. It is a knowable answer."
Bullshit. Keep in mind that we are talking about millions of people here. Especially considering that racism is an internal trait.
"Even though we have their literature, their historical documents and their cultural artifacts, since I can't get into the minds of every single Greek person who lived back then, we can't possibly know."
Oh? So you are saying that there are artifacts in the house of virtually every citizen from those times that are racist? What did they do? Paint the words "KILL BLACK PEOPLE!" on their walls? A little bit presumptuous of you. Keep in mind that we are talking about MOST white people here. Not just a few crackers in Georgia.
"While the people for whom slavery happened are dead, the ideas behind slavery certainly are not dead; these ideas are pernicious in our culture. The whole point of studying history is to learn why people did certain things. If you want to pretend it's a dead idea, you can. But understand that you are choosing to remain in ignorance because it's more comfortable."
Ignorance? Please. I have provided more facts than anyone else in this thread.
"Saying that slavery "might've helped" the cotton industry in the South is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you post."
Okay, I was exaggerating a bit. I thought I would counter the exaggerations that you made which amounts to 'slave labor made everything' with an exaggeration of my own, but in the opposite direction.
This absurd claim is made by those who hate white people; who want to portray them as lazy and worthless. They tend to be virulent Marxists who blame all the world's troubles on white people, on capitalism and freedom and have plenty of time on their hands to write slanderous reports of American 'history' that are so stretched that they makes Gumby jealous. People like this have ridiculous conspiracy theories of how white people are planning on destroying the world and are the cause of every problem in history, etc. I would just love to see these jerks make it in the real world.
"You don't have to agree with me, but you need to shut up if you admit you don't know what you're talking about. Arguing just to argue something makes you look uninformed."
I know plenty about 19th century history. I know enough that you seem to have forgotten so many of the positive parts of it, that you have only focused on a small fraction of it. Maybe you should read this: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4126
Mad Dog, I'm sorry to say that you don't know jack shit about the 19th century. Which is disappointing, because you seem to want so desperately to understand and engage in informed debates.
If you think quoting from capitalist magazine proves you know about the 19th century, you're sadly mistaken. The fact that you think there are no people who have studied these events and can come to reasonable conclusions about them proves how incredibly ignorant and unread you are about those same events.
You don't even know the major authors of works on this time period, but you think you've got their politics and their work ethic pinned down, which couldn't be further from these authors' actual biographies. The more uncomfortable you get, the more you stray from dealing in fact and continue to spin ridiculous ad hominems that do nothing but make you look more foolish.
I could give you a list of books that would explain things very clearly to you, but if it's not printed in Capitalist Magazine or Ron Paul's website you wouldn't credit it, so what's the point?
I even passed on your retarded "seven generations" comment because I didn't want to make you look stupid. But since you belligerently persist in showing yourself to be so, here' something you should take into consideration. Let's go with your "seven generations" figure. Suppose people do breed every 20 years. They don't then die after they mate. They typically go on to live until they're around 70. My son's great grandmothers, who are in their late sixties and early 70s lived through Jim Crow laws. Their grandmothers were slaves. The children know all the stories. They also know through personal experience that racism is alive and well. You could tell them all it wasn't and that it's Al Sharpton's fault, but they would see you for the uncomfortable and woefully out of touch white man you are.
Just because you are white and privileged doesn't mean that generations "seven times" removed from slaves haven't somehow experienced the aftereffects of it.
You can call bullshit all you want. The fact is, you're sitting in a steaming pile of it. Nobody is trying to create some kind of group white guilt. You came up with that term because this discussion makes you uncomfortable. My people came from slave holders. I don't feel "white guilt" about it. I'm also able to study and read and use my BRAIN to determine things about the culture they came from. It doesn't take an omniscient act like time traveling and mind reading to figure things out. For you to call bullshit on scholars you've not read is absolutely hysterical. You don't even know what you're arguing against, because you haven't looked at it.
Until you're ready to challenge your own notions of how the world works, no one is ever going to take you seriously in matters that require thinking.
Uh, excuse me, just because I have shown you a rebuttal from one or two sites (which I doubt you read) does not mean that I am ignorant.
I sincerely doubt you even read that reference I did provide. If you did, then why did you not discuss the points brought up in it? Are you simply going to judge the article because it has the word "Capitalism" in it? Do you even know who wrote the article?
But back to your original claim. Your claim was that white people had a monopoly on stupidity and racism during the 19th century. I still find this to be unbelievable.
First, lets deal with stupidity (during the 19th century). There are so many advances that were made with technology, construction, government, science, medicine, industry, urban planning, etc., the list goes on. If you were to look at any of the big cities from, say 1800, and then 1850, you might think that you were looking at two different planets. The fact is, the western world went through an extremely rapid period of development, unprecedented before in human history. If you were to travel to virtually any other place on earth at the time, it would have looked prehistoric by comparison.
Did you know that the western world is the FIRST to eliminate slavery? And they did it during the 19th century. Slavery went on in all other parts of the world, even continuing to this day in varying degrees. To criticize white people for not ending slavery fast enough is to claim that the Olympic Gold Medal winner was not running fast enough. Maybe it could have gone faster, but you have to think about how well everyone else did by comparison.
Did the west have a monopoly on racism in those times? Keep in mind that the west was where the age of enlightenment had occurred then. Many of the leading philosophers and politicians actively pursued liberty, democracy and equality for all. Can you think of any non-western culture that fought for these things in those times? Because I don't think these concepts were really the top priorities of the Chinese Emperor, the Indian upper castes, or the Sultans of Arabia. Probably not even to this day.
I'll have you know that many people around the world have a great deal of respect for the early years of America. Why? Because the Americans were the first to fight off the imperialist shackles. They look to it as a model to look up at, even though they understand that the elite of America have slowly, but severely damaged the nation and virtually every ideal that it stood up for.
"MD has casually tossed about with little or no context - namely, current afriKan politics, and 19th century Hind(u) prejudices."
The way you say this seems to imply that the atrocities that occur and have occurred in those lands are somehow excusable. I disagree.
The only reason I brought those issues up was because I was simply comparing the western world to the rest of the world at the time (and even today).
When was the last time you saw genocide in the west? Nazi Germany? The Soviet Union? When was the last time before then? Medieval times perhaps, if one could construe them as even having anything that resembles it?
When was the last time there was a rigorous legal/social permanent hierarchy for the west? Prior to the renaissance? Perhaps some semblance of it continuing in to the late 18th/early 19th centuries, completely gone after the first World War?
You could say that the people in Africa and India do not have the same background that the westerners do. That would be true. I am not criticizing those who were brought up in such cultures, but how could that be construed to mean that westerners were more backwards and racist than everyone else at the time?
"blah, blah, blah, white man reacting overmuch" "blah, blah, blah, I'll have you know when I didn't do any reading myself..."
Some of the links you cited were things that I've read in the original. Tell me you didn't honestly just google something like "whites aren't racist in 1800s".
I know more about Garrison and his magazine the Liberator than you can google in the next three hours. I've read it in the original. I've read the news event of Prudence Crandell before you managed to google a site that linked the information. I've read a hell of a lot of books and primary sources, including political texts and historical documents from this time period. Your so called "leading politicians of the time" certainly did NOT advocate for equal rights for everyone and justice for all. It's in the damned documents and minutes of their meetings. I have nearly a full bookcase just on this subject alone sitting here to the right of me.
I can say clearly: you don't know what you're talking about.
The fact remains that you're desperately afraid to admit that many white people did something wrong or stupid during this time. You can't say it out loud. You have to try to point the finger to other people and say "They did it too!" because it's too uncomfortable for you. Instead of giving me yet more links to capitalist magazine, maybe you should question why that thought makes you squirm so much.
I looked at your links. You wouldn't know "objective source" if it slapped you in the face. Your main thrust throughout this whole ludicrous exchange is the White must be Right. If you want to blab about the way international people "look up" to this country without being able to understand what "colonialism" means, that's the risk you run. If you want to make ludicrous statements like America showed other countries how to throw off "Imperialism" without realizing the imperialism American and the West foisted on other countries, well, you'll just need to rent a backhoe to replace the shovel you're currently digging with.
But keep arguing that White has gotta be Right. It in no way proves the concept of white supremacy alive and kicking in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rdNUynVWZA&feature=related
Yup. A Penn & Teller YouTube about reparations.
Guess you showed everybody.
The Watchdog of Liberty's Next Trick: An interview with David Blaine where he tells us all how he didn't need affirmative action to become a successful magician!
That wouldn't be a trick. That would be like stating that 2+2=4, because of its overwhelming obviousness. Who are you to insult David Blaine by insinuating that he needs a crutch from the state? I think that he would be quite offended.
Post a Comment
<< Home