Sweet merciful crap. Why don’t you pick up the friggin’ book and READ it sometime. There are some giant chapters right at the beginning detailing the Jews struggle to escape slavery.
Although there is a silver lining here. Every time Reeder makes an idiotic assumption, an angel gets its wings.
I remember reading that during the 1930’s, many ex-slaves were interviewed in a federal works program to get their first hand accounts. These were compiled in to the Slave Narrative Collection by the Federal Writers Project. I recall reading somewhere about the interviewers being very surprised that former slaves did not view it as “a life of plenty, of simple pleasures.” Some interviewers even tried to coax the former slaves to admit that some aspects of their lives weren’t that bad. From what I recall non were willing to admit that some of it was positive.
I haven’t been able to locate anything yet on that, but I’ll look more when I have time. I feel that these narratives should be used much more than they currently are in our history classes. I was out of school probably 10 years before I learned about the existence of these narratives. This is probably the best way to counter balance the pro-slavery nonsense. After reading through some, which is very moving, I think people will come away with a completely different understanding of that time period.
Um, the big problem the Jews under the pharoah had with slavery is that they were the ones enslaved! Their stance was that it was bad for the Chosen of JHVH to be enslaved, not that slavery was bad.
I see that we have underestimated the Right once again. We thought they wanted to take America back to the 1950s. We were a century off – their real goal is the 1850s.
But the slavery that appears to be condoned by biblical references certainly bears no similarity to thr race based style which supported the southern US economy.
In biblical times they did not have welfare or social programs. If you were in dire straights you may want to sell your future or that of your children to servitude for life.
The book Bullwhip Days is a collection of those slave narratives, for those who are interested.
Actually, the most interesting aspect of the book (which I had read in a black history class taken in college) is that some of the accounts were positive. “Massa” or “Marster” was praised for not being that bad, for instance. I remember one of the former slaves saying something like, “Compared to now [the Depression], slavery wasn’t all that bad.” I remember another one saying something like “Some of these no-account negroes need to go back to slavery.” So it’s not really accurate to say that there were no positive accounts.
But I think one has to view the accounts with a critical eye. These narratives were collected some seventy years after Emancipation. Most of the former slaves were children during these times. Children weren’t protected from all the horrors of slavery, but they had it generally easier than adults did.
Not only do the accounts of former slaves bust open the myth of the happy slave, but so do the number of slave rebellions. One historian (Herbert Aptheker), calculated that over two hundred separate slave revolts and conspiracies took place from the 1600’s to the end of the U.S. Civil War in 1865.
That’s not really true, I don’t think. In fact, that was Stephen Douglas’s position, that a territory should be allowed to vote to allow slavery or make it illegal, and that was one of the main reasons that the Southern Democratic delegates to the convention wouldn’t endorse Douglas. (In fact, they walked out of the convention, and nominated a second candidate.) THe majority position among Southern Democrats at the time was that slavery couldn’t be outlawed in a state or a territory, either by state or federal action, and that any such ban would be unconstitutional.
I also don’t think I’d characterize the Emancipation Proclamation as purely a political gesture. It certainly was done partly for political reasons…doing it hurt the south diplomatically, and helped Lincoln politically in New England, but it also had soime serious political costs. In fact, some historians think that the Proclamation was the reason the Republicans lost seats in Congress during the 1862 election. And there was a moral calculus too. Lincoln was known to comment privately on the moral rightness of the Proclamation, and he confessed to friends that it was a grave responsibility to be the deliverer of freedom to an entire race.
As for Reeder’s comment:
That’s obviously untrue. William Wilberforce, the strongest voice behind the abolition of slavery in Britain, was an evangelical Christian, and part of the Clapham Sect, as was Granville Sharpe, who was probably the second strongest voice behind the abolition of slavery in Britain.
In America Amos Phelps, a prominent member of the Antislavery Society, was a Congregationalist minister, as was Henry Ward Beecher, another prominent American abolitionist. This of course, isn’t counting people like Samuel Cornish, who were African American ministers involved in abolitionism. I’d also point out to you that the Society of Friends (Quakers) banned slaveholding among its members, and were outspoken opponents to it, as did the Baptist and Methodist churches in the north.
And if you want to look at today, instead of the past, groups like the American Antislavery Group and Christian Solidarity International, are active against slavery in Sudan and Burma, as well as sexual slavery worldwide. The second group is avowedly Christian, and the first has a good deal of support from Christian churches.
I’m sorry, but i can’t buy it. I’ve read the Bible cover to cover, studied it. I happen to believe in it’s teachings, and while I can almost gleen out where homosexuality is prohibited (but I’m still not buying THAT), I am absolutely missing where the Bible, and specifically the NEW TESTAMENT actually condones slavery, i.e., the owning of one human being by another. If someone can offer me a chapter and verse, specifically Reeder, since he made the assertion, I’d be happy to look into it.
I believe the original point of the OP was not whether or not all America bears some responsibility for slavery (true to a degree, although the idea that the North and the South were equally responsible is dubious at best.)
The OP was not about the past but about the fact that right now, today, a book being used to teach children says that slavery was a more or less OK system whose evils have been greatly exaggerated.
And this book is being used in the heartland, that bastion of “moral values” which serves as a cynosure to America, a bulwark against the godless pinko faggot liberals who support the terrorists and hate America, Freedom, and the Family.
Go read it and come back when learned.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl3.htm
Slavery is slavery no matter what guise it comes in.
A few pertinent verses from my last link.
I know you won’t read it as you stand there with your fingers in your ears saying…“Lalalala I can’t hear you!”
From Jesus
Now you tell me the bible doesn’t support slavery.
The problem IMO is that the passage of time alllows to sanitize the original meaning of the words servant and maid:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
But whether the bible allows slavery or not (it does) is irrelevant to whether or not modern Christians or Jews support slavery.
And yet, Jesus tells us that we cannot serve two masters, and though he was speaking of money in that passage, I believe that his message is that the master of all of us is our teacher, Jesus/God/Love.
Slavery was an aspect of life in those times, and those passages are disheartening, but I don’t think they refer to the, like someone said above, raced based slavery of the 19th century. The slaves sold in the United States, which Reeder says Christians support, was not people bought and sold due to debt or obligation ( which is still wrong), but people stolen right out of their homes and away from their families simply because they looked different than us.
A lot of the parables Jesus used, where modified to have people apply his teachings to the actions of the day. Indeed we are to serve Jesus and the people of the world with the loyalty of a slave, but to use that as an illustration doesn’t necessarily condone the action. It’s like if I told a story using metaphor, it doesn’t necessarily mean I condone the metaphor.
I do thank you for the links to the passages though. I’ll ask around.
Also, using an athiest website to interpret the bible is more than a bit biased, don’t you think?
Bottom line, to suggest that all Christians condone and support slavery is…well, idiotic, but it’s coming from Reeder, so what can we expect?
Right, I didn’t mean to imply there were no positive accounts. I was just saying that many of the interviewers were surprised that many former slaves found nothing good about their lives as slaves. Also, because most of the interviewers were white and the slaves likely lived near the relatives of their former masters, they had good reason not to be totally honest.
No, Christians would benefit from sanitizing the Bible for mass consumption.
Atheists don’t have a dog in that race. They don’t care what the Bible says, one way or another, because no matter what it says it’s no skin off their nose. I would think that atheists would be the people the most likely to be objective about what the Bible (or any other holy book, for that matter) says.
The **anti-**theists (or even the humanists), however, are a different matter. And even then… nobody knows the bible like our resident anti-theist, gobear.
That’s right. Attack the messenger. Nothing was interpreted. It was quoted. You look the verses up in your bible.
Tell us what they say.
Am I going to get piled on if I say that I think a historical document like this should be preserved and read? I think it’s valuable to see the sort of rationalization societies use to justify their favorite vices. Such a document can be valuable in discussing the history of slavery–along with the ex-slaves’ narratives and everything else.
Sections of history that are unsavory–especially the words of the bad guys–are frequently allowed to get lost. The eugenics pamphlets that were published in the US and Europe in the early 20th century and that served as ‘scientific’ justification for certain practices in both places are now so rare as to be almost impossible to find; so it’s becoming difficult to understand the later writings we still have that refer to them, or to see the original ideas. Shouldn’t we be hanging on to such things in order to learn how easy it is to become like ‘them’? Shouldn’t we be examining our own lives to see if any of their rhetoric matches our own? What awful things do we do to each other that will be obviously barbaric in a couple of hundred years, but look fine to most of us?
The people who wrote to justify slavery tried a whole lot of different rhetorical devices to make slavery look harmless, beneficial, or like a quaint regional practice that should be preserved. People today can learn a lot from reading and dissecting the rationalizations they used to make their sins look like something that was OK. I have to say, if I were teaching a college course on the history of slavery, I’d want to use the piece as an illustration–that is, until I got so hounded by the press and outraged public that I quit my job and moved to Guatemala.
Of course, I’m a librarian, and so I’m looking at it partly from an archival perspective. And, just in case anyone can’t tell yet, FTR I’m of course against slavery, and I’m also a Christian if anyone cares which I don’t see why they should.
Slavery is an enormously complex issue. Its not as simple as slavery: evil, freedom: good. Slavery existed in every society on earth until the British, the US, and France began abolishing it (and the peaceful end of slavery in much of the western world can be traced directly to the US Civil War). Slave life was highly susceptible to local cultural and economic conditions, from Rome to Cairo to Peking to Washinton.
In America, there were good people who were slaveholders. Their were evil people, too. Mostly there were greedy people, some of whom were nevertheless decent and some of whom weren’t. Yes, they worked the slaves quite hard; the slaves, however, did enjoy greater power and freedom than is generally recognized; the population numbers prove it. As many of the worst aspects of slave life were inadvertent, such as illness due to ignorance of dietary needs, as much as deliberate, such beatings.
There was certainly a major distinction between the older plantations in Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia than in the new west of Alabama, Mississipi. (though not Texas so much). And Louisiana is a subject unto itself.
Suffice it to say, I don’t really think the views mentioned in the OP should be discredited out of hand; rather, a proper program of point-counterpoint education might be best. There’s no “one story” to be told.
Probably. What is your point? Lincoln was neither a fool nor an impractical dreamer, and believed neither in empty guestures nor PR moves. Everything he did, he did because it gave him an advantage politically; he also did everything because it seemed right to him. It is a peculiar modern notion that a man’s good works must be judged on basis of how impractical it is.
Without the war, Lincoln could not have acted efficiently. That’s just life.