I saw no sarcasm in your post, and I’m pretty skilled at detecting that. If your actual position is that slavery is a historical fact that has left a legacy that can be seen and felt today, it would make no sense to use sarcasm to communicate that without leaving behind any clues of doing so.
A point that is not dispute. But if we’re going to go with the historical perspective angle, we also have to appreciate that American slavery that was practiced relatively recently, for a significant chunk of our young country’s lifetime, is going to have ramifications more salient to us today than slavery that happened a lot longer than that, in other countries and regions, to peoples who ancestors are long forgotten.
Genocide has been practiced since Cain and Able, too. But surely this doesn’t mean we can’t talk about how the Holocaust has affected the Jewish people and contributed to present day current events. The only people I would expect to use the ubiquity of mass murder as a counterpoint to this history lesson is someone seeking to downplay the slaughter of 11 million people.
Sarcasm is the wrong word. Perhaps a bitter world-weariness is a better choice. I thought you knew this by now, but my posts, especially on Important Subjects, tend to be that way. Except when I’m trying to be wry or sly; they get a winkie. There’s not an emoticon for “Civilization has been around for 8000 years. Haven’t we learned yet?” That does not downplay the effects of American slavery on people today; if anything it strengthens my understanding of your frustration, as I also own part of that frustration. We should know better, but a lot of popular politicians show that we don’t.
And don’t think I didn’t notice your attempt to Godwinize me.
Your complaint is that the word “slave” was not used multiple times in a single sentence. “Workers” adds useful information to the sentence - it tells the reader why they were slaves. Merely repeating the word “slave” after it has already been established that slaves were being traded does not.
What about those questions I posed would cause you to ask this? Goal posts moving much? I just outlined the “white supremacist policies” that you struck you as dubious. Zero sum games don’t follow from that.
But anyway, if you have one group of people who are oppressed such that the wealth they create almost completely goes into another group’s pockets, they are denied educations, bank loans, and other opportunities that would allow them to compete for jobs and market share, and they are disenfranchised so that elections always favor the interests of the oppressor, then yes, all these forms of treatment would qualify as rather zero sum gamish, don’t you think?
“Worker” isn’t useful information because “worker” implies occupation, and occupation implies an identity based on voluntary, paid work. The reason they were slaves is not because they were “workers”; they were slaves because they were subjugated people denied any claim to freedom, among other things.
I’ve read that offending caption several times and I don’t know why the word “people” wouldn’t be the obvious choice.
The point is that this “historical perspective” is just minimizing the issue. We already pointed out how this is an argument used by slavery apologists. It’s completely irrelevant to the conversation. Whether I’ve benefited from slavery has no bearing on whether it is good or bad. But this sort of giving distance makes it seem more palatable to people reading it.
I can also make murder and rape look less bad by giving it perspective. I’m sure that, at some point in my family line, someone was the product of rape. I’m sure that, somewhere in my line, someone killed someone else. But they are still absolutely horrible.
The benefit of this type of perspective is when you actually need to minimize something in order to deal with it. For example, when a historian has to read through atrocities. It’s not at all helpful in these types of discussions.
The answer to white guilt is simply to not feel guilty for that which is beyond your control–to recognize that such guilt is completely useless and will only serve to make you unhappy with no solution. Not to try to make it seem less bad by historical perspective.
While I appreciate that some people have that interpretation, I have to admit that it doesn’t work for me. With the full context, the previous mention of “slave” negates the implication that worker by itself would have.
I agree that it doesn’t add information, though. Either it describes all slaves, making it redundant, or it excludes house slaves and such–which are included in the data.
Semantically, the way “worker” is used poses problems, though. My point isn’t about offensiveness. Just imprecise English.
(Italics mine)
The way this sentence reads, it implies their identity as “workers” extended to when they were in Africa. Like they were day laborers who were rounded up as they waiting in front of Home Depot or something. But the truth is, when they were packed onto those ships they were a bunch of random village folk. Children included.
In other words, they didn’t turn into “workers” (AKA slaves) until they were brought to the U.S.
What I’ve heard more than once (and was more popular in the mid 1800’s) was the idea that blacks were unable to govern themselves and were mentally inferior, so slavery was a net benefit to them, providing them order they couldn’t find in Africa.
Goes along quite well with White Race = Best Race thinking.
Great, now I’m going to have Best Korea and white supremacists linked in my head.
“The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the Southern United States.”
I can see a totally innocent, if not somewhat clueless explanation for such a sentence.
IIRC it is not particularly correct form to use any particular word twice in a sentence if the writer, can help it…or so I recall.
So, take that original sentence. Change “workers” to “slaves”. Now you have slaves in there twice. Not only that, did anyone think the "Atlantic Slave Trade " was transporting Jewish people? So that sentence is kinda silly as well. Well, maybe they were transporting “Africans”, not “workers”. Again a repeat and again silly sounding logically speaking.
Ironically, I think that author(s)/reviewer(s) might have been caught in logical trap. They WANTED to emphasize the “Atlantic SLAVE trade” (because those are the important word(s) in the sentence). Then they tried to make it sound better, using the standard rules of writing, without realizing it could sound way worse.
If you want to fan the embers back into flames.
I was in the Wilson Blvd/Clarendon area yesterday. Amazingly, saw people of all colors shopping in the expensive stores there. Now, do those people blame history and society for there plight, or have they taken personal responsibility for their successes and failures in life?
No, only if you want to accurately characterize certain aspects of American history. You didn’t answer the question – do you think that’s an inaccurate characterization?
We’re neighbors, apparently.
I’m not talking about blame, and I haven’t advocated for blame and guilt – such arguments are straw men. I’ve advocated for accurate characterization of history, which includes identification of concepts like privilege. It’s entirely possible to accurately recognize the power and influence of white supremacism through American history, even into recent decades, while still taking “personal responsibility for their successes and failures in life”.
It does today, but it didn’t in the past. For most of American history, white supremacism (and by this I mean the philosophy that white people are inherently superior to black people in fundamental ways, with accompanying government and societal policies and practices to promote white superiority and black inferiority) was the norm, and not extreme in the least.
If you want to quibble with the phrase “white supremacism”, do you disagree that the philosophy that white people are inherently superior to black people in fundamental ways, with accompanying government and societal policies and practices that promoted white superiority and black inferiority, was pretty normal and common through American history at least until the mid 20th century?
Hmmm… This is why I brought up that “zero sum game” business. Just because a certain policy or practice was discriminatory toward Mr. Black, doesn’t necessarily imply that it was beneficial to Mr. White.
Maybe my education was lacking because I was never taught to believe as you do. Hell, I’ve heard the name “Jim Crow” a few times, but never learned what it was about, and never had any reason to research it on my own. My elementary school Social Studies class used that stupid book that highlighted kids living in different parts of the Country, like “Chris of Courage Cove”…
There were many policies and practices in the US that were actually beneficial to white people at the expense of black people. Slavery comes to mind, just to start – white people (the owners and their families, anyway) benefitted materially from the (brutally enforced) free labor of black people. White people materially benefitted from an unfair justice and court system – in any dispute, such as over property or contracts, as well as in a criminal case, a black person would have been at a severe disadvantage when opposing a white person (or white witnesses) due to systemic biases, with a major advantage to white people. White people benefitted from a corrupt electoral system – they were able to vote, with a much higher influence-per-vote ratio, due to the restrictions on black people voting. White people materially benefitted from discriminatory lending practices – in redlining (among many other practices and policies that affected lending), government housing loans were reserved for white neighborhoods – black people living in black neighborhoods could not get these loans (which were not an infinite resource). White people materially benefitted from housing discrimination, in which a combination of policies and practices (which include some of these other policies and practices mentioned already) artificially inflated the value of housing in white neighborhoods at the expense of the value of housing in black neighborhoods. White people materially benefitted from employment discrimination, when some businesses would only hire white people, and some societal practices would put businesses that acceded to decency and hired black people out of business through informal boycotts. White people materially benefitted from “sundown towns”, in which white travelers would be welcomed with hospitality after sunset, while black travelers would be refused even the opportunity to stop, eat, and rest.
These are just a handful of examples. There are many, many more.
If you were unaware of these things, then your education on American history was indeed lacking, in my opinion.
Elementary school in Western PA in the '60’s. Looking back, it may have been considered a “progressive” education at the time, because we weren’t taught any of the “ugliness” of history or life. (“Bay of Pigs”? What’s that?) Grammar was drilled into us (may have forgotten some), and no expense was spared in math and science. We were expected to be tomorrow’s scientists, engineers, entreprenuers, etc.
And we were all but promised that life was going to be like “The Jetsons” by the year 2000…
I’ll note that recognizing the reality of white supremacism in American history doesn’t mean one can’t be a patriot, and can’t love one’s country. I consider myself a patriot, and I served voluntarily in the Navy, and I recognize these truths. America is flawed, and great, and I want it to be better. It’s improved a lot, and I think it (and we as Americans) can continue to improve.
