"ROOTS": Exposing the Pulitzer Prize-winning hoax
RStacy2229
I am grateful to Dr. Gary Mills of the University of Alabama for sending
me three articles which expose the fraudulent nature of Alex Haley's
"Roots." I will elsewhere comment upon the probable origins of the hoax,
but I have been asked to summarize these articles. Here goes:
"Alex Haley's Hoax" by Philip Nobile, Village Voice, NY, Feb. 23, 1993, p.
31
In 1978, Haley settled a plagiarism suit for $650,000 with Harold
Courtlander, author of the 1967 novel, "The African." More than 80
passages of "Roots" were apparently copied from Courtlander's novel.
Coincidentally or not, the very year that "The African" was published,
Haley had written to friend James Baldwin about a breakthrough in his
research: "I've got a big one baby." This article delves into many other
unsavory aspects of Haley and his "Roots" hoax, including the fact that
editor Murray Fisher wrote entire chapters of the book.
"Roots and the New "Faction": A Legitimate Tool for Clio?" by Gary B. and
Elizabeth Shown Mills, "The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,"
Jan.
1981, p. 3.
This was one of the major articles to really rip "Roots" apart. Suffice it
to say the job was thoroughly done by Mills, a University of Alabama
history professor, and his wife, a certified geneaologist. Interestingly,
they had begun their quest hoping to authenticate Haley's work. It turns
out that Toby -- the slave Haley identified as Kunte Kinte and whom he
said arrived in Maryland in 1767 -- was actually listed on Virginia court
records as early as 1762 and had probably been there for some years
previous. The North Carolinian, Tom Lea, whom Haley characterized as
"white trash" was no such thing, nor did he own a female slave named
Kizzy: The novel's infamous "rape of Kizzy" scene was pure fiction. As the
Millses show, dozens of events and depictions in "Roots" are either not
confirmed by records or, more commonly, contradicted by records.
"Uprooting Kunta Kinte: On the Perils of Relying on Encyclopedic
Informants,"
by Donald R. Wright, "History in Africa" Vol. 8, 1981.
Wright shows, among other things, that the story of Kunta Kinte's
abduction by British slavers was certainly false. Haley more or less
bribed high officials of the Gambian government to validate a story of his
(Haley's) own creation.
Robert Stacy McCain
Rome GA
David A. Kearns
In the approximately forty historical studies of American Slavery that
I have read, not one mention has been made of Alex Haley or any of his
writings.
Journalists hawked Haley's work. Journalists created the Pulitzer
Prize. When you denounce those who propagated the Haley farce, be
sure to include the largest group of contributors...your
"professional" colleagues.
David Kearns
efr...@cc.memphis.edu
David Kearns wrote:
> In the approximately forty historical studies of American Slavery that
> I have read, not one mention has been made of Alex Haley or any of his
> writings.
And this was meant for RSMc in particular:
> Journalists hawked Haley's work. Journalists created the Pulitzer
> Prize. When you denounce those who propagated the Haley farce, be
> sure to include the largest group of contributors...your
> "professional" colleagues.
In fairness, some journalists also helped
expose the fraud. Underpaid and overworked
as they are....
Ed "some of my best friends are journalists" Frank
Lynn Berkowitz
On 15 Jul 96 08:25:04 -0500, efr...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
:Lynn Berkowitz writes:
:
:> Pheobe Yates Pember is dead. Her book "A Southern Woman's Story" is
:> public domain. Yet dozens of pages were copied, almost word for word,
:> in Thomas Keneally's novel CONFEDERATES. It pains me, because this is
:> the same man who wrote the highly acclaimed "Schindler's List."
:
:Uuugh. I enjoyed _Confederates_ much more than
:I did _SL_.
:
:> Has anyone else noticed this in Keneally's book?
:
:Well, I haven't. Could you provide even rough
:pagination of the palgiarized parts? (I have
:never read Pember...)
:
Here goes. <sigh>
CONFEDS. P. 72-73 SWS. P. 19-21
CONFEDS. P. 74-75 SWS. P. 28-29
CONFEDS. P. 54-155 SWS. P. 46-47
That's just opening CONFEDS to every "Mrs. Whipple" scene and locating
the corresponding episode in Pember's memoirs. It's been a while since
I read Pember and I haven't finished reading CONFEDS, so this is an
incomplete listing as far as I have read in CONFEDS. Is this enough or
you want more?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com
Maury
~<31e98b0a...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, lynn...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>On 14 Jul 1996 12:35:31 -0400, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>:"Alex Haley's Hoax" by Philip Nobile, Village Voice, NY, Feb. 23, 1993, p.
>:31
>:In 1978, Haley settled a plagiarism suit for $650,000 with Harold
>:Courtlander, author of the 1967 novel, "The African." More than 80
>:passages of "Roots" were apparently copied from Courtlander's novel.
>Pheobe Yates Pember is dead. Her book "A Southern Woman's Story" is
>public domain. Yet dozens of pages were copied, almost word for word,
>in Thomas Keneally's novel CONFEDERATES. It pains me, because this is
>the same man who wrote the highly acclaimed "Schindler's List."
For once you know what it feels like to be a modern, white, Southerner.
These sorts of things have to be combated. Is there an area on internet
where such discussions on authors and/or films take place that covers
these sorts of things *specifically* ? I know of none that does.
Accolades to both Robert Stacy McCain for exposing Haley as a fraud,
and to you for your above post.
I haven't seen nor read "Schindler's List" but "ROOTS" is still
showing. It showed this past week, or prior to that. I didn't watch
it as I've seen it twice previously. One gets far more exposure,
and is accepted as factual history than the other (ROOTS), and
perhaps by a preference of some. I recall that Melanie Masengale
didn't like how "Andersonville" was done. These films and authors
are affecting thousands if not millions in a bad sort of why when
they don't produce works that are historically accurate. Our only
defense against such authors and books is to share, as you did
above. The History Channel at least has discussions of the films
it shows discussing "historical accuracy" of the films it shows.
Kind Regards,
-- Maury
efr...@cc.memphis.edu
Lynn Berkowitz writes:
> Pheobe Yates Pember is dead. Her book "A Southern Woman's Story" is
> public domain. Yet dozens of pages were copied, almost word for word,
> in Thomas Keneally's novel CONFEDERATES. It pains me, because this is
> the same man who wrote the highly acclaimed "Schindler's List."
Uuugh. I enjoyed _Confederates_ much more than
I did _SL_.
> Has anyone else noticed this in Keneally's book?
Well, I haven't. Could you provide even rough
pagination of the palgiarized parts? (I have
never read Pember...)
Ed "Another Idol Toppled" Frank
Lynn Berkowitz
On 14 Jul 1996 12:35:31 -0400, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
:"Alex Haley's Hoax" by Philip Nobile, Village Voice, NY, Feb. 23, 1993, p.
:31
:In 1978, Haley settled a plagiarism suit for $650,000 with Harold
:Courtlander, author of the 1967 novel, "The African." More than 80
:passages of "Roots" were apparently copied from Courtlander's novel.
Pheobe Yates Pember is dead. Her book "A Southern Woman's Story" is
public domain. Yet dozens of pages were copied, almost word for word,
in Thomas Keneally's novel CONFEDERATES. It pains me, because this is
the same man who wrote the highly acclaimed "Schindler's List."
Has anyone else noticed this in Keneally's book?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com
David Alan Kearns
This is me:
> > Journalists hawked Haley's work. Journalists created the Pulitzer
> > Prize. When you denounce those who propagated the Haley farce, be
> > sure to include the largest group of contributors...your
> > "professional" colleagues.
and Ed replied
> In fairness, some journalists also helped
> expose the fraud.
And rightly so...they made the mess, they should clean it up. But
looking at Stacy's list of articles, there are two historians and one
person whose career is unspecified. By no means is his list exhaustive,
I'm sure...
Regards,
David Kearns
Lynn Berkowitz
On 14 Jul 1996 12:35:31 -0400, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
:I am grateful to Dr. Gary Mills of the University of Alabama for sending
:me three articles which expose the fraudulent nature of Alex Haley's
:"Roots." I will elsewhere comment upon the probable origins of the hoax,
:but I have been asked to summarize these articles. Here goes:
:
Whistle-blowing articles snipped.
<Cough> Yes. Well. Now what do you say to all those African nations
with "Kunta Kinte lived here" theme parks and souvenir stands that
represent about 97% of the combined GNP of Gambia, Ghana and Rawanda
combined?
Lynn "Still in sackcloth & ashes over discovery of plagiarism by
author of SCHINDLER'S LIST" Berkowitz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com
thomas kavanagh
Lynn Berkowitz wrote:
> <Cough> Yes. Well. Now what do you say to all those African nations
> with "Kunta Kinte lived here" theme parks and souvenir stands that
> represent about 97% of the combined GNP of Gambia, Ghana and Rawanda
> combined?
Despite the fact that Harold Courlander lives/d in Silver Springs, MD, Annapolis
still has a bronze placque on the city dock says "Kunta kinte landed here."
[FWIW: Haley always said he settled just to bring the issue to an end.
He never admitted guilt. Courlander used the proceeds from the settlement to do the
research for his books on the Hopi Indians.]
tk
Maury
~In article
~<Pine.SGI.3.93.960716...@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu>,
~dke...@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu says...
~>This is me:
>I'm sure... >>Regards>>David Kearns
=====================================
"But in looking at Stacy's list of articles, there are two
historians and one person whose career is unspecified".
David, I submit that not only did Stacy point out a historical farce
worse than the accusations that Grant was a "binge drinker", but he
also provided those few sources whereby anyone can seek them out if
it's desirable. -- Maury
=========
" By no means is his list exhaustive, I'm sure "
Need it be? Did he state that it is? No, he didn't.
Stacy provided more than anyone else here for everyone.
If you, David, are so "sure" then perhaps you can provide
some of the sources *you* are "sure" about ? -- Maury
David A. Kearns
Maury wrote:
>David, I submit that not only did Stacy point out a historical farce
>worse than the accusations that Grant was a "binge drinker", but he
>also provided those few sources whereby anyone can seek them out if
>it's desirable. -- Maury
I don't think you understand my point, Maury. Stacy brought up the
topic of Alex Haley to discredit historians by claiming that
historians were at fault for the populace swallowing _Roots_, hook,
line, and sinker.
I pointed out that despite widespread *popular* acceptance of Roots as
history, no *historian* that I know of has ever cited, or indeed
mentioned _Roots_ or Haley in a historical study of American slavery
(and I have read a lot of works on American slavery).
Further, I pointed out that of the three sources he mentions, two are
written by historians, which could give the impression that historians
predominated in uncovering the scam (I know that Stacy would never
have wanted to give that impression). In my comment...
>> " By no means is his list exhaustive, I'm sure "
...I was negating that impression, pointing out that three articles
(from what probably is a ka-gillion total) are not sufficient to make
a scientific analysis.
> Stacy provided more than anyone else here for everyone.
...because he wanted to use the topic to discredit historians.
There is a problem in his argument, though:
If historians do not refer to Roots as a source for information on
American Slavery (and I have never seen one do so), and if Historians
were among the persons discrediting Roots, then who is to blame for
the populace accepting Roots as history? Certainly not historians,
as Stacy wishes us to believe.
My answer, in order of importance, Haley, the media, and the general
population.
If Stacy wants to decry the acceptance of popular myth, that's fine.
I just want to make sure he places the blame where it is due...on
those who create the myth, those who publicized the myth, those who
awarded honors to the myth-maker, and those who accepted the myth.
From my studies of American slavery historiography, historians do not
fit into any of those categories.
> If you, David, are so "sure" then perhaps you can provide
>some of the sources *you* are "sure" about ? -- Maury
[altering the lyrics of an old blues tune]....The only source I am
"sure" about is my mother...and sometimes she lies to me. ;-)
Seriously, I am not interested in the least in Haley...never have
been. I never accepted _Roots_ as anything more than a historical
drama, and so when the truth came out it didn't change anything for
me.
What I am interested in is keeping the record straight. Stacy accused
historians of deceiving the masses. Stacy was wrong. It was Haley
and the media...Stacy's profession...that created the deception.
Regards,
David Kearns
RStacy2229
In article <4sie3k$q...@nntp2.backbone.olemiss.edu>, dke...@teclink.net
(David A. Kearns) writes:
> Stacy brought up the
>topic of Alex Haley to discredit historians by claiming that
>historians were at fault for the populace swallowing _Roots_, hook,
>line, and sinker.
>
Not at all, David: I brought up "Roots" as being, in great measure,
responsible for the modern-day horror toward the Old South. There are a
great many people today for whom "Roots" is the all-time definition of
life under slavery. It is a fiction, of course.
This entire thing began when someone in the Group responded to one of my
posts by saying that he hated to see myth presented as history. I
retorted: "Then denounce Alex Haley." For the mythos of "Roots" -- slavery
as the Holocaust -- is the driving force behind the campaign of cultural
genocide being waged against the South. Until the record-breaking
broadcast of "Roots," streets named for Confederate generals and
high-school Rebel mascots were just an everyday part of our region's
milieu, with no racist intent either intended nor assumed.
As Philip Nobile points out, Haley plagiarized 80 or more scenes from a
1967 novel, and also lifted passages from other works in composing the
story told in "Roots." As Gary and Elizabeth Mills wrote, "182 pages and
thirty-nine chapters [of 'Roots] ... have no basis in fact," yet this
violent saga of kidnapping, mutilation, rape and torture -- crimes
committed by who against whom? -- was portrayed as fact to an audience
that exceeded 130 million people. This elaborate piece of fiction has
REPEATEDLY been shown AS IF IT WERE A DOCUMENTARY in public schools for
the past 15 years or more during Black History Month. I submit that this
has had a cultural impact which can hardly be underestimated.
Speak of the Old South to any person young enough to have been
indoctrinated by a February classroom presentation of "Roots," and the
reaction is instant revulsion, as the mutilation of Kunta Kinte and the
rape of Kizzy spring instantly to mind. That IS the Old South, isn't it?
No amount of facts about the economic and social history of the region
will suffice to ease the disdain which such young people feel toward
Dixie. Lincoln once spoke of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of "Uncle Tom's
Cabin," as "the little lady who started the big war." I wish I had some
clever aphorism with which to express the centrality of Haley's work to
the current PC purge of the South's history.
And it was this, David, to which I was aiming when I brought up "Roots."
For when I or other Southerners begin to discuss the war, we are
repeatedly confronted with the charge that the Confederacy existed only to
further the continuance of chattel slavery. But when some say "slavery,"
they do not refer merely to the daily drudgery of agricultural or domestic
labor. Oh, no. They mean to invoke every horrific scene of "Roots" -- the
Old South as the Third Reich; antebellum slavery as the Final Solution. It
is a lie, and must be recognized as such, if we are to discuss rationally
the war and its origins.
Robert Stacy McCain
Maury
CC: E-mail
================
~ <Pine.SGI.3.93.960717...@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu>,
~dke...@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu says...
>On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, David A. Kearns wrote:
>
>Please forgive the multiple postings...
I replied to a message of yours moments ago before I
came to the above. You have a new account, don't you?
Briefly, "No problem". All you have to do is go to that statue
of General Maury standing in Vicksburg, Mississippi, take a photo
of that statue, and snail mail it to me because I have never seen
that statue. I've heard of it recently from 4 people and had
heard of it long ago and had forgotten about it.
Maj.Gen.Dabney Herndon Maury is buried in Fredericksburg, Virginia.
He died at his son's home in Peoria, Illinois.
He was a most impressive fellow to me, serious when need be but
playful when allowed. And it's amazing to me that he started the
Southern Historical Society which ended up being 52 volumes of
CSA history -- that's "American History"! In working on e-text,
I read about an hour ago, a very impressive speech by
President Jeff Davis on the importance of the SHS and
it's "Papers" for all Americans.
RStacy2229
In article <4sc31b$7...@nntp2.backbone.olemiss.edu>, dke...@teclink.net
(David A. Kearns) writes:
>When you denounce those who propagated the Haley farce, be
>sure to include the largest group of contributors...your
>"professional" colleagues.
>
Well, Dave, I don't see how you can hold me responsible for the Ben
Bradlees and Dan Rathers and Cokie Robertses of the world. That's like
blaming the guy at the gas pump for the doings of the Arab oil cartel.
Janitors in New York City schools make more than twice what I'm paid, and
I seldom reach more than 20,000 readers at a time: And THOSE get a
viewpoint which is just a little milder than the ones you see here.
RSMc
David A. Kearns
Maury wrote:
>David, I submit that not only did Stacy point out a historical farce
>worse than the accusations that Grant was a "binge drinker", but he
>also provided those few sources whereby anyone can seek them out if
>it's desirable. -- Maury
I don't think you understand my point, Maury. Stacy brought up the
topic of Alex Haley to discredit historians by claiming that
historians were at fault for the populace swallowing _Roots_, hook,
line, and sinker.
I pointed out that despite widespread *popular* acceptance of Roots as
David A. Kearns
David Alan Kearns
David Alan Kearns
I wrote:
>> In the approximately forty historical studies of American Slavery that
>> I have read, not one mention has been made of Alex Haley or any of his
>> writings.
Maury replied:
> There are thousands if not millions that have seen and/or read
> "ROOTS" and believed in it as history, including myself. It's not
> so important to pont an accusing finger as it is to simply learn
> the Truths and bring those to the surface for History and for us,
[remainder snipped]
Maury, all of this is completely immaterial to the point I was making.
That point was that professional historians have not promoted _Roots_ as
*truth* and so Stacy's denunciation of historians is unfounded and
misleading.
David Kearns
David Alan Kearns
On 17 Jul 1996, RStacy2229 wrote:
I wrote:
> >When you denounce those who propagated the Haley farce, be
> >sure to include the largest group of contributors...your
> >"professional" colleagues.
and Stacy replied:
> Well, Dave, I don't see how you can hold me responsible for the Ben
> Bradlees and Dan Rathers and Cokie Robertses of the world.
[snip]
Come on, Stacy, I know your reading comprehension skills are better than
that. I hold you responsible only for the statements that you make in
this forum.
If you are going to denounce someone for the publicity and popular
acceptance of _Roots_ then denounce the right people. Your blame was
mis-placed.
David Kearns
Maury
CC: E-Mail; posted openly
===========================
~ <Pine.SGI.3.93.960717...@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu>,
~dke...@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu says...
>David wrote:
>>> In the approximately forty historical studies of American Slavery that
>>> I have read, not one mention has been made of Alex Haley or any of his
>>> writings.
>Maury replied:
>> There are thousands if not millions that have seen and/or read
>> "ROOTS" and believed in it as history, including myself. It's not
>> so important to pont an accusing finger as it is to simply learn
>> the Truths and bring those to the surface for History and for us,
>[remainder snipped]
David writes:
>Maury, all of this is completely immaterial to the point I was making.
Okay, okay already. You posted your point three times, a triple
post with the exact same statements. The message you quote above
was written yesterday at the same time the other one was.
I see what your "point", your *focus* is, and for now I'll state
only that I see it and that my own *focus* differs. My interest is
in more "sources" that shoot down the Haley's works as "facts".
If I understand you correctly, you're more interested in who
is to blame -- historians vs journalists. But what comes of that?
I mean, what can you do that will un-do what has been done or
possibly prevent the same or a similar thing from happening again?
While my statement, posted yesterday at the same time as the other,
may well be "immaterial" to your viewpoints, it isn't to mine.
I suspect it also isn't immaterial to many others.
One view doesn't negate the other. There is simply more
than one way to focus upon things and many ways of approach
to counter-act the deeds already done, the literary, historical "truths"
seeds already sown and deeply planted in the psyche of thousands.
Again, I am also looking at how this can harm race relationships.
I see no good can come of such things.
Now, please, elaborate on some worthiness of how you are viewing
historians vs journalists.
>That point was that professional historians have not promoted _Roots_ as
>*truth* and so Stacy's denunciation of historians is unfounded and
>misleading.
Alright, perhaps he intended it to be "misleading",
(although I don't think so), but regardless, how can
this resolve what has already taken place with Haley's
two books (Roots/Queen) and a mini-series on TV, videotapes
for private purchase, rentals, magazine articles, and more?
These are Seeds of Lies long planted, well watered, and in some
areas fully flowered into falsehoods in history. What *remedy*
do you see from your "point of view" of historian vs journalist?
Please don't answer in triplicate again. :-)
>David Kearns
Kind regards,
-- Maury
Maury
~<4sk6nj$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, rstac...@aol.com says...
><4sie3k$q...@nntp2.backbone.olemiss.edu>, dke...@teclink.net
>(David A. Kearns) writes:
>
>> Stacy brought up the
>>topic of Alex Haley to discredit historians by claiming that
>>historians were at fault for the populace swallowing _Roots_, hook,
>>line, and sinker.
>Not at all, David:
Ah! So you see, David, you were wrong afterall.
One must be careful when conjecturing another's intent
and speaking (writing) of it so boldly as to place words
into that poster's intent that was never meant.
It's easier to ask. :-) Y/N? Sure it is. -- Maury
=====================================================
I brought up "Roots" as being, in great measure,
>responsible for the modern-day horror toward the Old South. There are a
>great many people today for whom "Roots" is the all-time definition of
>life under slavery. It is a fiction, of course.
>
>This entire thing began when someone in the Group responded to one of my
>posts by saying that he hated to see myth presented as history. I
>retorted: "Then denounce Alex Haley."
==========================
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ....and when I saw that, with
Alex Haley being one of my very favorite authors, and a man I
admired highly for all of his genealigical/family-in-history
research, I pounced upon Robert Stacy McCain and questioned
him as to "WHY" should anyone "denounce Alex Haley"!?
Then came the cold-water-in-the-face-awakening as Robert posted
information on Haley, which I couldn't exactly accept at first
and subsequently asked him to post more information and with
sources if possible. Robert did *everyone* here a favor for,
well, it's "sharing truths" about history. We're all indebeted
to Robert you know.
And then Lynn got her chance and followed up with her posts
on Shindler's<sp?> List, -- another plagerism.
I don't know which authors to trust.
I know one I wouldn't trust for Truths about the civil war.
Kind Regards,
-- Maury
{deletia for brevity, see original}
>
>Robert Stacy McCain
David A. Kearns
Maury wrote:
>I replied to a message of yours moments ago before I
>came to the above. You have a new account, don't you?
No, just one that is very difficult to access via modem, so I only use
it when I'm on campus.
>Briefly, "No problem". All you have to do is go to that statue
>of General Maury standing in Vicksburg, Mississippi, take a photo
>of that statue, and snail mail it to me because I have never seen
>that statue. I've heard of it recently from 4 people and had
>heard of it long ago and had forgotten about it.
I was surfing the web one day and found a homepage for Vicksburg
Chamber of Commerce. I'm sorry I didn't bookmark it, or I would give
you the URL. I don't remember if the statue is featured on the web
page, but it may. As far as visiting Vicksburg, that isn't possible
anytime in the present, but if and when I do get there, be prepared to
send me your address....
I also want to get up to Shiloh sometime this fall...
David "have camera, will travel" Kearns
David A. Kearns
Maury wrote:
> I see what your "point", your *focus* is, and for now I'll state
>only that I see it and that my own *focus* differs. My interest is
>in more "sources" that shoot down the Haley's works as "facts".
Exactly. We were approaching the topic with different interests.
>If I understand you correctly, you're more interested in who
>is to blame -- historians vs journalists. But what comes of that?
>I mean, what can you do that will un-do what has been done or
>possibly prevent the same or a similar thing from happening again?
Actually, I don't care who is to blame. *BUT*, if blame is going to
be placed, I do want it to be placed upon the right heads. As far as
preventing a similar deception, that's a difficult question. I'll
give you an example:
When Augusta,GA was planning a founders day celebration (I think it
was the 200th anniversary), a history professor new to the local
college did some research. He found that not only was the founding
date that the city claimed incorrect by over a year (IIRC), the
details of the founding were incorrect as well. When he went with his
information to the committee that was preparing the celebration, he
was told to keep his mouth shut.
He eventually became a highly respected historian of Colonial Georgia
and just retired as the History department head of that same college.
I find it interesting that in each of the three classes I took from
him, he told that story. The lesson in each lecture was that
sometimes people prefer myth to history.
[snips]
>Again, I am also looking at how this can harm race relationships.
>I see no good can come of such things.
Well, as far as I know, all of this is old news...I know you have only
just found out about it, but I seem to remember this revelation was
made a long time ago. Any effect upon race relations would already be
realized.
>Now, please, elaborate on some worthiness of how you are viewing
>historians vs journalists.
Though it may seem that I have some axe to grind against journalists
(since you only have these posts to construct a view of my opinions),
I do not. My axe is against dissemination of false information.
>>That point was that professional historians have not promoted _Roots_ as
>>*truth* and so Stacy's denunciation of historians is unfounded and
>>misleading.
> Alright, perhaps he intended it to be "misleading",
>(although I don't think so), but regardless, how can
>this resolve what has already taken place with Haley's
>two books (Roots/Queen) and a mini-series on TV, videotapes
>for private purchase, rentals, magazine articles, and more?
I am not attempting to resolve anything but the fact that professional
historians have not used Haley's work as a source for teaching or
writing about American slavery.
>These are Seeds of Lies long planted, well watered, and in some
>areas fully flowered into falsehoods in history. What *remedy*
>do you see from your "point of view" of historian vs journalist?
From my perspective these lies have fully flowered into falsehoods in
popular myth, not history. As far as a remedy, I would simply
instruct others to rely upon reliably researched and documented (and
examined) historical studies. As a teacher, I plan to teach those
things that I have learned from studies that conform to the above
criteria.
Historians do not have the pulpit that journalists readily have, and
so in many cases, popular myth will always be difficult to debunk.
>Please don't answer in triplicate again. :-)
Once again, I'm sorry. The newsreader kept hanging when I attempted
to post the article, so I actually did not realize it had been posted
even once until several hours later. Imagine my surprise when I found
it three times!
David Kearns
David A. Kearns
Stacy wrote:
>Not at all, David: I brought up "Roots" as being, in great measure,
>responsible for the modern-day horror toward the Old South.
Did I err? I thought I read quite a lot about how historians had
taken _Roots_ and turned it into the PC version of the Old South. If
I didn't, then I'm sorry for mis-understanding.
>There are a
>great many people today for whom "Roots" is the all-time definition of
>life under slavery. It is a fiction, of course.
Historical fiction. Sure, the characters were falsified, but the
scenes that they depicted certainly occured throughout the slave
holding states. There is plenty of evidence to support them.
>This entire thing began when someone in the Group responded to one of my
>posts by saying that he hated to see myth presented as history. I
>retorted: "Then denounce Alex Haley."
Yes, a classic McCain response. It hasn't been very productive, has
it?
>For the mythos of "Roots" -- slavery
>as the Holocaust -- is the driving force behind the campaign of cultural
>genocide being waged against the South.
Cultural genocide? Slavery as the Holocaust? Give me a break. The
fact is that after 100 years of blocking the race question out of the
entire nation's consciousness, people began to ask questions. That
the answers aren't very pretty is what seems to bother you.
>Until the record-breaking
>broadcast of "Roots," streets named for Confederate generals and
>high-school Rebel mascots were just an everyday part of our region's
>milieu, with no racist intent either intended nor assumed.
That depends on your perspective, of course.
>As Philip Nobile points out, Haley plagiarized 80 or more scenes from a
>1967 novel, and also lifted passages from other works in composing the
>story told in "Roots." As Gary and Elizabeth Mills wrote, "182 pages and
>thirty-nine chapters [of 'Roots] ... have no basis in fact," yet this
>violent saga of kidnapping, mutilation, rape and torture -- crimes
>committed by who against whom? -- was portrayed as fact to an audience
>that exceeded 130 million people. This elaborate piece of fiction has
>REPEATEDLY been shown AS IF IT WERE A DOCUMENTARY in public schools for
>the past 15 years or more during Black History Month. I submit that this
>has had a cultural impact which can hardly be underestimated.
Haley's crime is well known....As far as the Mills, I suspect their
statement refers to the geneological aspects of his writings, not the
treatments of slaves that he depicts. If I am wrong, then their
statement is completely unsupportable. Do they claim that kidnapping,
mutilation, rape and torture did not occur? If this *made for TV
movie* has any value, it would be as a depiction of some of the
aspects of American slavery, but I am sure that much shorter
documentaries have been made about slavery that would suffice. As far
as cultural impact, if the screening of Roots has any success in
debunking the "happy slave" myth that you seem to support in another
thread, then more power to it.
>Speak of the Old South to any person young enough to have been
>indoctrinated by a February classroom presentation of "Roots," and the
>reaction is instant revulsion, as the mutilation of Kunta Kinte and the
>rape of Kizzy spring instantly to mind. That IS the Old South, isn't it?
The Old South in its entirety? No. An integral part of the Old
South? Absolutely.
>No amount of facts about the economic and social history of the region
>will suffice to ease the disdain which such young people feel toward
>Dixie.
Are the social and economic histories reasonable excuses for slavery?
No, they are not. I do agree that the Old South (indeed all history)
should be approached from all perspectives, social, political and
economic. I don't believe that one can be used to excuse another.
Neither do I believe that history can be constructively viewed with
emotion. Though I often find things that are personally distasteful
(understatement), I accept those things as the historical evidence
supports them. Slavery was a blight upon the United States. So was
our Latin American policy at the beginning of this century. That I
have determined these things to be "wrong" does not mean that I am
defensive or sensitive about their existence.
As you said in a different post...we can not be held responsible for
the actions of others. So why try to defend them when they are
clearly in the wrong?
>Lincoln once spoke of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of "Uncle Tom's
>Cabin," as "the little lady who started the big war." I wish I had some
>clever aphorism with which to express the centrality of Haley's work to
>the current PC purge of the South's history.
Well, "little fish in a big pond" is already taken, but I'll try to
think of something...
You are giving Haley a far too much influence. Historians had already
begun the process of delving more deeply into the nature of American
slavery before Haley published _Roots_.
As far as the whole concept of a "current PC purge," I would say that
the "PC" has become a completely worthless phrase, used to denounce
anything with which the user does not agree.
>And it was this, David, to which I was aiming when I brought up "Roots."
>For when I or other Southerners begin to discuss the war, we are
>repeatedly confronted with the charge that the Confederacy existed only to
>further the continuance of chattel slavery.
Nope, you are confronted with the charge that the Confederacy existed
*primarily* to further the continuance of chattel slavery. Most
importantly, that statement is completely accurate.
But really, if you wanted to discuss the war, there are a lot of
people that would love to join with you. You are the one who seems to
be fixated on the slavery issue. This entire discussion has been a
result of your bringing up the topic.
>But when some say "slavery,"
>they do not refer merely to the daily drudgery of agricultural or domestic
>labor. Oh, no. They mean to invoke every horrific scene of "Roots" -- the
>Old South as the Third Reich; antebellum slavery as the Final Solution. It
>is a lie, and must be recognized as such, if we are to discuss rationally
>the war and its origins.
I do wish you would stop comparing the Old South to Nazi Germany.
David Kearns
Maury
>On 17 Jul 1996, RStacy2229 wrote:
Fooey on the blame, what is the remedy? -- Maury
RStacy2229
In article <31ebe453...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, lynn...@ix.netcom.com
(Lynn Berkowitz) writes:
>Yes. Well. Now what do you say to all those African nations
>with "Kunta Kinte lived here" theme parks and souvenir stands that
>represent about 97% of the combined GNP of Gambia, Ghana and Rawanda
>combined?
Get it while the getting's good -- the American way. It's like visiting
Dollywood and thinking you've learned something about Appalachian
folkways.
RSMc
RStacy2229
In article
<Pine.SGI.3.93.960717...@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu>,
David Alan Kearns <dke...@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu> writes:
>That point was that professional historians have not promoted _Roots_ as
>*truth* and so Stacy's denunciation of historians is unfounded and
>misleading.
>
Again: I was not denouncing historians, only asking that historians
denounce Haley. How my remarks were so misconstrued is beyond me.
But let me ask David to settle something here, for those of us who have
devoted relatively little time to the study of chattel slavery in America.
My impression is that Haley, like others before him, attempted to cram
into his mythic antebellum geneaology virtually all possible abuses which
servants might have suffered under that institution: Mutilation, rape,
family dissolution, being "sold South" and so on. It is further my belief
-- based upon what little research into the matter I have done -- that in
so doing, Haley constructed a thoroughly unrepresentative portrait of
slavery.
For example, I am aware, just from glimpsing at "Roll, Jordan, Roll," that
there is good evidence that sexual relations between masters and female
servants was fairly uncommon in plantation culture, whatever Mrs. Chesnut
might have said. But further, and from the same source, I get the idea
that even where such relations existed, forcible rape was not the usual
modus operandi of the miscegenist Lothario. And so by including a "rape of
Kizzy" in his fictional antebellum family history, Haley was presenting a
credulous public with an entirely atypical view of slavery.
Other examples could be cited, but my point is that it seems Haley's
repeated portrayals of antebellum atrocities committed against slaves was
no accident. I believe that Haley was grinding a racial axe, intent upon
placing Southern whites in the worst possible "historical" light, while
emphasizing African-American status as historical victims of white malice.
What do you think, Dave? How "typical" was the familial experience of the
Kinte clan as portrayed by Haley? And is my supposition of Haley's intent
fair?
Robert Stacy McCain
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4sk6nj$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, rstac...@aol.com
(RStacy2229) writes:
>And it was this, David, to which I was aiming when I brought up "Roots."
>For when I or other Southerners begin to discuss the war, we are
>repeatedly confronted with the charge that the Confederacy existed only
to
>further the continuance of chattel slavery. But when some say "slavery,"
>they do not refer merely to the daily drudgery of agricultural or
domestic
>labor. Oh, no. They mean to invoke every horrific scene of "Roots" -- the
>Old South as the Third Reich; antebellum slavery as the Final Solution.
It
>is a lie, and must be recognized as such, if we are to discuss rationally
>the war and its origins.
I believe that most of the posters here would subscribe to the above
statement, and most particularly to the last sentence therein. However,
it is my observance that none of the pro-Union people I have encountered,
here or elsewhere, have any interest in actively working to counter this
"lie", in spite of their professions of wanting to see "true history
written".
After all, it is not *their* heritage or *their* present-day culture that
is
being harmed. I find their inaction to be hypocritical in the extreme.
R4L
RStacy2229
In article <4skquh$4...@nntp2.backbone.olemiss.edu>, dke...@teclink.net
(David A. Kearns) writes:
>The lesson in each lecture was that
>sometimes people prefer myth to history.
Especially true of local legends, and there are some of those floating
around Rome, as well. Have you ever read one of the books -- I could get
the titles -- which debunk the old "Mound Builder" myth of non-Indian
races being responsible for the earthworks of the East and Southeast? I
was just FASCINATED by that story.
RSMc
RStacy2229
In article <4skqv1$4...@nntp2.backbone.olemiss.edu>, dke...@teclink.net
(David A. Kearns) writes:
>Historical fiction. Sure, the characters were falsified, but the
>scenes that they depicted certainly occured throughout the slave
>holding states. There is plenty of evidence to support them.
>
BINGO. OK, Dave, just how prevalent was the mutilation of slaves, a la,
the cutting off of Toby's foot to prevent his running away? How prevalent
was the purchase of female slaves by "white trash" Tom Lea, apparently for
the express purpose of raping her? Did this happen every day? Every week?
Every month? In every family?
YOU HAVE INDICTED YOURSELF WITH YOUR OWN WORDS, DAVE.
Extreme abuse of slaves was never so pervasive or frequent as Haley has
portrayed it, as you must surely know, and yet you have just let him off
the hook because these abuses "certainly occurred ... plenty of evidence
to support them." Yes, but there is plenty of evidence precisely because
these were aberrant events -- unusual, and therefore remarked upon in
antebellum writings. The Simpson/Goldman murders got a lot of ink, Dave,
but they were not TYPICAL of daily life and death in America in the 1990s.
It is THIS which galls me: The pretense that Haley's work was
"symbolically true," and therefore is an acceptable representation of the
history of African-Americans under slavery. By the way, Nobile noted
something about "Roots": Except for those characters whom Haley portrays
to be his ancestors, the rest of the slaves are represented as crude,
ignorant types. Hmmmmm.
Robert Stacy McCain
RStacy2229
> with no racist intent either intended nor assumed.
My goodness, but I really tortured THAT sentence. Let's try:
"... with no racist motive, either intended or assumed."
Stacy
Who sometimes fails to proofread his posts
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4so9rj$t...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4skqv1$4...@nntp2.backbone.olemiss.edu>, dke...@teclink.net
>(David A. Kearns) writes:
>
>>scenes that they depicted certainly occured throughout the slave
>>holding states. There is plenty of evidence to support them.
>>
>the cutting off of Toby's foot to prevent his running away? How prevalent
>was the purchase of female slaves by "white trash" Tom Lea, apparently for
>the express purpose of raping her? Did this happen every day? Every week?
>Every month? In every family?
I've never read ROOTS or seen the mini-series, so perhaps you can satisfy my
curiosity. Does Alex Haley state that all runaway slaves had their feet cut
off? Does he suggest that all female slaves were purchased in order to be
raped?
>
>YOU HAVE INDICTED YOURSELF WITH YOUR OWN WORDS, DAVE.
>Extreme abuse of slaves was never so pervasive or frequent as Haley has
>portrayed it, as you must surely know, and yet you have just let him off
>the hook because these abuses "certainly occurred ... plenty of evidence
>to support them."
In what passages does Haley say they are pervasive?
RStacy2229
>As far
>as cultural impact, if the screening of Roots has any success in
>debunking the "happy slave" myth that you seem to support in another
>thread, then more power to it.
>
EH? Are you referring to a post in which I quoted a former slave on the
subject?
I do not subscribe to myths. I suppose that slaves were no more happy with
their lot in life than I am, and probably a good deal less happy. But
there are many people in my station who are far more content, and others
who are far more discontented, than I am. Happiness, you see, sir, is an
individual attitude. Saint Paul was happy in prison, as were Thoreau and
Dr. King. Some people are happy living in a ghetto, while some people who
live in mansions are discontented.
The intent of ROOTS -- and your intent in endorsing Haley's fraud -- seems
to have been to say that those slaves who were happy were fools, and that
all those who are not outraged by the historical fact of slavery are
either fools or malefactors.
Sir, as the descendant of Scots, Irish and Welsh forbears, I have every
reason to resent the English for their centuries of oppression against my
ancestors. But I am too busy defending myself against accusations of
racism (for that is what you mean, sir) to waste time hating the English.
So why is it that some people seem to have so much time to hate ME? Our
tax dollars at work, Mr. Edu.Site
Robert Stacy McCain
Lynn Berkowitz
On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:00:23 -0600, bi...@execpc.com (Dave Gorski)
wrote:
<snips hither & yon>
: Agreed , but in the context of 1850, (we are taking about history)
:slavery was acceptable, particularly in the Southern United States,
:as a means of agricultural labor. In my opinion, Even in 1850, the
:acts of the Nazi's in Nazi occupied Europe would have been considered
:atrocities by slaveholders.
:
GASP!! What an amazing concept! If everyone were so quick to grasp
this fundamental concept, as Mr. Gorski so ably demonstrates, this ng
wouldn't be any fun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com
David A. Kearns
I wrote:
>>The lesson in each lecture was that
>>sometimes people prefer myth to history.
Stacy replied:
>Especially true of local legends, and there are some of those floating
>around Rome, as well. Have you ever read one of the books -- I could get
>the titles -- which debunk the old "Mound Builder" myth of non-Indian
>races being responsible for the earthworks of the East and Southeast? I
>was just FASCINATED by that story.
Can you believe it? I can redirect this to an ObCivWar:
Another of the popular myths of Augusta, GA is that Sherman bypassed
and spared that city because he had a former girlfriend living there.
The story goes that Sherman had been stationed at the Augusta Arsenal
during his early army career, and become romantically involved with
one of the local daughters. When planning his route through GA, he
purposely spared Augusta from his torch out of sentimental devotion to
this particular Lady. Of course, there is no historical basis for the
story.
While attending a lecture by Dr. Marzelek (sp) who recently published
an interesting biography on Sherman, I had the opportunity to discuss
this story with him. He related that Augusta's story is not unique;
that quite a few towns in GA and SC have similar tails explaining why
they were spared.
Also, Dr. Edward Cashin recently pubilshed a short work entitled
_Sherman's Girlfriend: and other myths in Augusta History_ (or
something to that effect). Though I haven't read it, I understand
that it is quite an entertaining.
David Kearns
David A. Kearns
I wrote:
>> If this *made for TV
>>movie* has any value, it would be as a depiction of some of the
>>aspects of American slavery, but I am sure that much shorter
>>documentaries have been made about slavery that would suffice.
Stacy replied:
>The way you make this insinuation is instructive, reminding me of those
>radical feminists who insist that all heterosexual intercourse is rape.
I am convinced that you have not made a single attempt to understand
what I wrote above.
>Your argument has the effect of: Since some minority of slaveholders
>mistreated their chattel, therefore all slaveholders were brutal monsters;
>or rather, incidents of mistreatment within slavery, committed by
>individuals against individuals, are to be viewed as the wrongs of one
>class against another, with every slaveholder sharing in the guilt of the
>worst representative of the class, and with even the most kindly-treated
>slave equally victimized by the abuse received by the wretched few.
Wrong. My argument is: Since MOST slaveholders employed tactics of
violence and intimidation to maintain their power over their slaves,
and ALL slaveholders deprived FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS of their dignity
and natural rights as HUMAN BEINGS, slaveholders were WRONG. I don't
deal with classes, per se, as slaveholders came from all classes.
[snip]
> If you wish to discuss slavery, discuss slavery and discuss it honestly. But
>to gestalt your detestation of slavery into a destestation of the
>Confederacy and her soldiers is to condemn those men unfairly.
I have never condemned the soldiers. My condemnation of the
Confederacy has much less to do with slavery than you seem to think,
and has much to do with the same reasons I condemn the Southern
League.
David Kearns
David A. Kearns
I wrote:
>>Historical fiction. Sure, the characters were falsified, but the
>>scenes that they depicted certainly occured throughout the slave
>>holding states. There is plenty of evidence to support them.
Stacy replied:
[snip]
>YOU HAVE INDICTED YOURSELF WITH YOUR OWN WORDS, DAVE.
[snip]
I am reminded of an old joke...
Interviewer : Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
Applicant : Convicted? No.
David Kearns
Lynn Berkowitz
On 17 Jul 1996 22:15:15 -0400, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
<snips above and below>
:Not at all, David: I brought up "Roots" as being, in great measure,
:responsible for the modern-day horror toward the Old South. There are a
:great many people today for whom "Roots" is the all-time definition of
:life under slavery. It is a fiction, of course.
:
There were a great many people in the 1860's for whom "Uncle Tom's
Cabin" was the all-time definition of life under slavery. It is a
fiction, of course.
:As Philip Nobile points out, Haley plagiarized 80 or more scenes from a
:1967 novel, and also lifted passages from other works in composing the
:story told in "Roots."
It would seem that bigshot authors can commit plagiarism with no
compunction, as I demonstrated in my sample comparison of Thomas
Keneally's novel with Phoebe Pember's memoirs. If a student tried to
pull off a similar stunt in a term paper, thesis or dissertation, he
or she would be flunked, disqualified and otherwise disgraced.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com
Dave Gorski
In article <4sor68$i...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>
> But there were -plenty- of people in 1860 who thought slavery was wrong,
> probably the majority of people in the United States (not all of them were
> prepared to end it, nor were they necessarily not racists). And by 1860,
> almost all other western countries had abolished slavery. So even in the
> context of its times, it was considered immoral by most.
We could probable discuss this point back and forth, without
either of us ever having any evidence to back what WE THINK people
really thought about the institution of slavery in 1860. If so many
people thought it was wrong, especially in the South where the economy
was dependent on slave labor,why didn't the South use the law to ban
slavery ? For the same reason the North had inhumane working conditions
in so many of it's factories. It was a transitional period in our
history, a change was made,very painfully, but I still don't think
you can condemn the people of that time for being on what today WE THINK
is the wrong side.
> > Agreed , but in the context of 1850, (we are taking about history)
> >slavery was acceptable, particularly in the Southern United States,
> >as a means of agricultural labor. In my opinion, Even in 1850, the
> >acts of the Nazi's in Nazi occupied Europe would have been considered
> >atrocities by slaveholders.
>
> You are confusing your contexts here. The appropriate analogy to the
> acceptability of slavery in the Southern United States would be the
> acceptability of the Nazis in Germany.
Nazi's were accepted, but the death camps were not acceptable.
I may be wrong here, but my understanding of the Nazi party is
that it portrayed itself as a political party, the death camps were
kept a secret even from most of the party members. There were only
rumors of the camps up until they were liberated. They were kept a
secret because even most Nazis would have seen the "Final Solution"
as an atrocity. G. Washington and T. Jefferson are not the same as
A Hitler and H Goring.
> I hope I would not have, but who knows? If I had, I would hope my
descendants
> would be condemning me now.
I don't see that it is criminal to live your life, in your time,
the way that people in that time and place live. Even if it takes
years for US to realize that something is wrong, and a transition
period, even a war, to change it.
Dave Gorski
Dave Gorski
>
> As for comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust, I think they are quite
> apt.
I would have to disagree, on the basis of taking slavery
out of the context of its time. In the nearly 100 years
between the events, the morals, cultural practices, and attitudes
of people have changed ( I would hope ) a great deal.Today, whaling
is considered wrong, 100 years ago it was an occupation. We don't
attack the whalers or furriers of the past because in the context
of their time what they did was acceptable. I am not trying to be
trivial with my example, I know that it is different when you are
talking about human lives, but I hope you can see past my example
and see my point.
But they are both clearly evidence of the
> grossest ways in which humanity can be inhumane.
Agreed , but in the context of 1850, (we are taking about history)
slavery was acceptable, particularly in the Southern United States,
as a means of agricultural labor. In my opinion, Even in 1850, the
acts of the Nazi's in Nazi occupied Europe would have been considered
atrocities by slaveholders.
> What is worse, killing six million Jews and six million non-Jews in
> concenetration camps and elsewhere over the period of a half-dozen years, or
> enslaving and keeping in bondage millions of slaves over a period of hundreds
> of years?
Both are horrible, but I don't think they can be compared.
But I'll say this: both were horrible blots upon the history of
> humanity
Agreed, but they must be viewed in the context of history,I think
it likely that if I found myself in a position of wealth,in 1850,
with acres of cotton to bring in, that I might use slave labor. I
think that most people if theyare honest with themselves, and put
themselves in the context of thetime, would do the same thing. If you
can say you would not, my hat is off to you, too bad there were not
more like you in 1850.
Dave Gorski
Justin M Sanders
Maury (w...@cstone.net) wrote:
> ~article <4smpmg$g...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu says...
> I am a bit surprised that you would "open a can of worms", Justin.
> If you refer to T.W., all that he posted was not in error and
> he posted so much that there was information that could be gleaned
> of worth from what he posted. There was only one (1) person who
> focused upon denial of T.W.'s posts, L.B. who was, like
> Southerners, defending her own heritage as the two of them
> *flamed* back and forth daily for several months. They were the
> longest posts, with quotes, I've ever seen here.
> T.W. was not posting anti-South.
[Remainder snipped]
The facts I claimed were these:
1. In the past, there was a person who posted some things about the
South (among other things) which were not true. I stand behind that
statement. The person *did* post several things about the South that were
not true. I did not claim that the errors were anti-South; although, in a
sense, any false statement about the South can be considered anti-South.
2. Some people (plural) associated with TheGroup(tm) took a leading
role in disputing those points which were not true. I stand behind that
statement as well. I can immediately recall two well-known Group members
who tried long and hard to correct the errors.
I did not claim anything else. I did not claim, for example, that the
poster in question posted *only* falsehoods-- he didn't.
--
Justin M. Sanders "I shot an arrow into the air. It fell
Dept. of Physics to earth I know not where." --Henry
Univ. of South Alabama Wadsworth Longfellow confessing
jsan...@jaguar1.usouthal.edu to a sad ignorance of ballistics.
RStacy2229
>Cultural genocide? Slavery as the Holocaust? Give me a break.
Just the other day, in attacking the Georgia state flag, former Atlanta
mayor Maynard Jackson referred to "the Confederate swastiza." A member of
a protest group yesterday termed the battle flag "the world's best-known
symbol of racism."
It was filmmaker Steve Spielberg, defending "Schindler's List" from
attacks by African-American audiences, who said a few years ago that
blacks had their own Holocaust, which was slavery -- as if that flimsy
analogy could survive even cursory examination.
And as for cultural genocide against the South, I suppose that in Oxford
y'all annually commemorate the University Greys and that all the state's
social, political and academic leaders turn out to fulsomely praise the
memory of those Confederate heros? No?
Confederate history and Southern culture are being marginalized, and
purposefully so.
Justin M Sanders
REB 4 LIFE (reb4...@aol.com) wrote:
> However, it is my observance that none of the pro-Union people I have
> encountered, here or elsewhere, have any interest in actively working to
> counter this "lie", in spite of their professions of wanting to see "true
> history written". After all, it is not *their* heritage or *their*
> present-day culture that is being harmed. I find their inaction to be
> hypocritical in the extreme.
If Allen had joined this newsgroup a little earlier than I recall that he
did, he would have seen a poster-- who shall remain nameless-- who posted
quite a few falsehoods about slavery and the South (and North, and certain
ethnic groups, and God-knows what all). Allen would have also seen that a
couple of those who are usually considered to be ring-leaders in
TheGroup(tm) took the lead in refuting those falsehoods.
David Alan Kearns
I wrote:
> >As far
> >as cultural impact, if the screening of Roots has any success in
> >debunking the "happy slave" myth that you seem to support in another
> >thread, then more power to it.
Stacy asked:
> EH? Are you referring to a post in which I quoted a former slave on the
> subject?
No, actually I was refering to your use of Genovese.
> I do not subscribe to myths.
What did I do with that dixinet URL?
[snip]
> The intent of ROOTS -- and your intent in endorsing Haley's fraud --
Huh? Boy that was a logical leap...
> seems
> to have been to say that those slaves who were happy were fools, and that
> all those who are not outraged by the historical fact of slavery are
> either fools or malefactors.
What? Didn't I say that there probably were slaves that were happy? Yes.
Did I comment on that negatively? No, indeed I infered that it was
inevitable that there were some slaves that were satisfied with their lot.
Have I made any comment (or even mention) on "those who are not outraged
by the fact of slavery?" No. But by God, you have.
Where is all of this coming from, Stacy? I have never expressed or implied
any of these sentiments.
Next you're going to say that I didn't say those things but I wanted to do
so, right?
> Sir, as the descendant of Scots, Irish and Welsh forbears, I have every
> reason to resent the English for their centuries of oppression against my
> ancestors.
Sure, why not?
> But I am too busy defending myself against accusations of
> racism (for that is what you mean, sir)
When? When have I ever accused you of racism? NEVER. One thing that you
have been exactly correct on is that the people in this newsgroup are very
sensitive about accusations of racism. I have never accused any
participant in this newsgroup a racist, and I have defended members of
your own Southern League against like accusations. You take your finger
pointing and stick it. I don't play that game.
> to waste time hating the English.
> So why is it that some people seem to have so much time to hate ME?
Nobody hates you, Stacy. We like you, really. You just seem to have a
persecution complex.
> Our
> tax dollars at work, Mr. Edu.Site
(insert witty yet scathing retort #17)
David Kearns
RStacy2229
> Slavery was a blight upon the United States. So was
>our Latin American policy at the beginning of this century.
And you APPROVE of our more recent policies in re Latin America?
alt.us.bayofpigs?
RStacy2229
> The
>fact is that after 100 years of blocking the race question out of the
>entire nation's consciousness, people began to ask questions. That
>the answers aren't very pretty is what seems to bother you.
>
Gee, what ****ING part of the nation are you FROM, Dave? "The race
question," as you style it, has paraded before the eyes of the South every
day for the past 350 years or so. If YOU blocked it out of your
conciousness, that's YOUR problem. And what questions are you referring
to? And what are your answers?
As for "what seems to bother" me, I am bothered by carpetbaggers and
scalawags who style themselves historians of the war, when they are really
nothing more nor less than anti-Confederate propagandists. Then, when they
see their own tactics used against them, they hop up on the high horse and
denounce us as apologists for slavery, Jim Crow and so forth. And the
accusation, they suppose, is tatamount to conviction.
Look: Have you folks ever considered that there are such things as
self-fulfilling prophecies? That if you demean and stereotype others, they
might just get the idea that they should live up to your stereotypes?
I am a native Atlantan, and am proud to have been born in the "city too
busy to hate," HOWEVER if it would make you happy, I'll try to find the
time to hate some folks, like the ones who Friday (7-19-96) will burn my
state's flag on the steps of the state capitol.
Robert Stacy McCain
Christopher M Grimsley
Having seen the mini-series (twice), I think that Kunta Kinte (Toby) was the
only character to suffer this extreme fate. The other slave characters
certainly understood, however, that if pushed far enough the slaveholders would
resort to such measures.
If I recall correctly, the man portrayed by Chuck Connors is the only white
character who rapes a slave woman. However, the master of the slave ship
carrying Kunta Kinte to America strongly insinuates that slave women are preyed
upon sexually, and a slave woman is brought to a man's cabin (the character
played by Ed Asner) with the clear implication that she is his to violate if he
wishes. The idea in the mini-series, then, is that the sexual exploitation of
slave woman was common.
The question of whether this idea is accurate is another matter. It would be
strange indeed to find much documentary evidence one way or another. How many
slaveholders wrote letter or diary entries in which they admitted to having
raped slave women (or denied having done so)? One would have to get at this
issue indirectly, by noting the number of children of mixed parentage. Until
recent decades it was common to document mixed parentage quite
precisely--mulattoes, quadroons, octoroons, etc.--and since children born to
slave mothers were automatically slaves themselves no matter their degree of
white ancestry, it sometimes happened that women of 1/32nd or even 1/64th
African ancestry were nevertheless slaves. The number of persons categorized
as of mixed ancestry was quite large.
It is plain that many African Americans then and now are of mixed racial
heritage (which in itself indicates how artificial "race" is as a human
attribute. Can a "white" woman have a "black" child? Certainly. Can a
"black"
woman have a "white" child? Certainly not.) The question is, how did this
apparent racial mixture come about? I don't find it at all unreasonable to
suppose that a man who would enslave a woman would balk at exploiting her
sexually. This strikes me as the most straightforward and likely possibility.
A person who wished to account for the number of African Africans of
mixed heritage in a different way--that it came about through liaisons
between free whites and free blacks--would bear the burden of demonstrating as
much. One would *not* expect to find much documentary evidence of rape,
because it is hard to see how such evidence would ever have been created in the
first place. But one *would* expect to find documentary evidence of widespread
sexual liaisons between free whites and free blacks, because this sort of
behavior was socially and legally condemned in the colonial and antebellum
south and would have attracted considerable notice.
Mark G.
--
Mark Grimsley grims...@osu.edu
Department of History
The Ohio State University
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <bigg-19079...@goat.execpc.com>,
Dave Gorski <bi...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> As for comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust, I think they are quite
>> apt.
>
> I would have to disagree, on the basis of taking slavery
>out of the context of its time. In the nearly 100 years
>between the events, the morals, cultural practices, and attitudes
>of people have changed ( I would hope ) a great deal.Today, whaling
>is considered wrong, 100 years ago it was an occupation. We don't
>attack the whalers or furriers of the past because in the context
>of their time what they did was acceptable. I am not trying to be
>trivial with my example, I know that it is different when you are
>talking about human lives, but I hope you can see past my example
>and see my point.
But there were -plenty- of people in 1860 who thought slavery was wrong,
probably the majority of people in the United States (not all of them were
prepared to end it, nor were they necessarily not racists). And by 1860,
almost all other western countries had abolished slavery. So even in the
context of its times, it was considered immoral by most.
>
> But they are both clearly evidence of the
>> grossest ways in which humanity can be inhumane.
>
> Agreed , but in the context of 1850, (we are taking about history)
>slavery was acceptable, particularly in the Southern United States,
>as a means of agricultural labor. In my opinion, Even in 1850, the
>acts of the Nazi's in Nazi occupied Europe would have been considered
>atrocities by slaveholders.
You are confusing your contexts here. The appropriate analogy to the
acceptability of slavery in the Southern United States would be the
acceptability of the Nazis in Germany.
>> What is worse, killing six million Jews and six million non-Jews in
>> concenetration camps and elsewhere over the period of a half-dozen years, or
>> enslaving and keeping in bondage millions of slaves over a period of hundred
s
>> of years?
>
>Both are horrible, but I don't think they can be compared.
>
> But I'll say this: both were horrible blots upon the history of
>> humanity
>
> Agreed, but they must be viewed in the context of history,I think
> it likely that if I found myself in a position of wealth,in 1850,
> with acres of cotton to bring in, that I might use slave labor. I
>think that most people if theyare honest with themselves, and put
>themselves in the context of thetime, would do the same thing. If you
> can say you would not, my hat is off to you, too bad there were not
> more like you in 1850.
I hope I would not have, but who knows? If I had, I would hope my descendants
Stephen Schmidt
bow...@toad.orl.lmco.com (Trey Bowman) writes:
>But David, since many people believe it to be true; Have professional historians
>done enough to denounce his work? If not, then Stacy's denunciation of
>historians is justified. I believe they have a duty to do so. And thus far,
>they have not.
Oh, I think they've probably done more to denounce _Roots_ than
they did to denounce, say, _The South was Right!_.
;)
Steve
--
Stephen Schmidt Department of Economics
210A Social Sciences Union College
(518) 388-6078 Schenectady NY 12308
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <bigg-19079...@brainchild.execpc.com>,
Dave Gorski <bi...@execpc.com> wrote:
>In article <4sor68$i...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> probably the majority of people in the United States (not all of them were
>> prepared to end it, nor were they necessarily not racists). And by 1860,
>> almost all other western countries had abolished slavery. So even in the
>> context of its times, it was considered immoral by most.
>
> either of us ever having any evidence to back what WE THINK people
> really thought about the institution of slavery in 1860. If so many
> people thought it was wrong, especially in the South where the economy
> was dependent on slave labor,why didn't the South use the law to ban
> slavery ? For the same reason the North had inhumane working conditions
> in so many of it's factories. It was a transitional period in our
> history, a change was made,very painfully, but I still don't think
> you can condemn the people of that time for being on what today WE THINK
> is the wrong side.
I said that the majority of people in the United States thought slavery was
wrong, not the majority of people in the southern states. And there is plenty
of evidence to think so, including the rise of the Republican party and the
perception on the part of Southerners that Northern Democrats also opposed
slavery. (and many other, less grand pieces of evidence)
>> > Agreed , but in the context of 1850, (we are taking about history)
>> >slavery was acceptable, particularly in the Southern United States,
>> >as a means of agricultural labor. In my opinion, Even in 1850, the
>> >acts of the Nazi's in Nazi occupied Europe would have been considered
>> >atrocities by slaveholders.
>>
>> You are confusing your contexts here. The appropriate analogy to the
>> acceptability of slavery in the Southern United States would be the
>> acceptability of the Nazis in Germany.
>
> Nazi's were accepted, but the death camps were not acceptable.
> I may be wrong here, but my understanding of the Nazi party is
> that it portrayed itself as a political party, the death camps were
> kept a secret even from most of the party members. There were only
> rumors of the camps up until they were liberated. They were kept a
> secret because even most Nazis would have seen the "Final Solution"
> as an atrocity. G. Washington and T. Jefferson are not the same as
> A Hitler and H Goring.
The notion that concentration camps were great secrets is largely a myth; only
a few, such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, were really concealed. Do you think that
the people surrounding Dachau were unaware of went on there? And certainly no
one in the Nazi Party was aware that Jews were being killed, nor any soldier on
the Eastern Front. It was not just Nazi Party people who were killing jews--it
was German citizens (see the book _Ordinary Men_ for one case study).
>> I hope I would not have, but who knows? If I had, I would hope my
>descendants
>> would be condemning me now.
>
> I don't see that it is criminal to live your life, in your time,
>the way that people in that time and place live. Even if it takes
>years for US to realize that something is wrong, and a transition
>period, even a war, to change it.
I guess we should not have executed Ribbentrop, Ley, and all the others, right?
After all, they were just living their lives, in their times, the way the
Nazis lived, right?
Ted Waltrip
In <4sor68$i...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>>
>> Agreed, but they must be viewed in the context of history,I think
>> it likely that if I found myself in a position of wealth,in 1850,
>> with acres of cotton to bring in, that I might use slave labor. I
>>think that most people if theyare honest with themselves, and put
>>themselves in the context of thetime, would do the same thing. If you
>> can say you would not, my hat is off to you, too bad there were not
>> more like you in 1850.
>
>I hope I would not have, but who knows? If I had, I would hope my
descendants
>would be condemning me now.
Your descendants will condemn you for ruining the air with your
automobile and screwing up the ozone with your air conditioners and
refrigerators. So start walking everywhere and get used to salt pork
or you're a hypocrite. TW
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4sq30e$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4socjh$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>
As I said before, I've never read the book or seen the mini-series. So I am
genuinely curious as to how Haley suggests those practices are pervasive.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4spt26$i...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Ted Waltrip <ted...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4sor68$i...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>descendants would be condemning me now.
>
>Your descendants will condemn you for ruining the air with your
>automobile and screwing up the ozone with your air conditioners and
>refrigerators. So start walking everywhere and get used to salt pork
>or you're a hypocrite. TW
Ve Vere Just Following Orders!
RStacy2229
In article <4socjh$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>In what passages does Haley say they are pervasive?
Such abuses are pervasive in "Roots," the hoax in question.
RSMc
Stephen Schmidt
rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) writes:
>Mark P. said:
>>I've never read ROOTS or seen the mini-series, so perhaps you can satisfy
>my
>>curiosity. Does Alex Haley state that all runaway slaves had their feet
>cut
>>off? Does he suggest that all female slaves were purchased in order to
>be
>>raped?
>Does he suggest otherwise?
I guess we better condemn JFK as a fraud too, then. Most
presidents don't get assassinated, and Stone never suggested
otherwise...
Dave Gorski
In article <4spjm2$l...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>
> I said that the majority of people in the United States thought slavery was
> wrong, not the majority of people in the southern states. And there is
plenty
> of evidence to think so, including the rise of the Republican party and the
> perception on the part of Southerners that Northern Democrats also opposed
> slavery. (and many other, less grand pieces of evidence)
>
1. James M. McPherson " What They Fought For " pg 60
" A good many Union soldiers disagreed. (with emancipation)
A backlash of antiemancipation sentiment began to surface
in letters in 1862." He goes on to give examples from a dozen
or so letters. He goes on to say that the soldiers stated that
they were willing to fight to preserve the Union, but NOT for
Black freedom.
2. In " The Civil War Diary of C.F. Boyd, 15 Iowa Infantry"
entry for March 6 1863 page 375... A poll was taken by the
Col. of the regiment, ( he was a vocal supporter of emancipation)
the poll was conducted openly, 50 % were in favor of emancipation
25% were against, and 25% had no opinion. To me, that's 50 %
NOT in favor of emancipation, even with the Col. watching you.
3.Can't give you numbers here but the desertion rates rose
dramaticly with the Emancipation Proclamation. In one regiment
4 Captians sent in their resignations giving emancipation as cause.
Like I said, I'm sure we could trade evidence for quite a while,
I could never convince you, but you can't convince me that the majority
of Americans in 1850 did not either believe slavery was OK, or at least
were not against the institution. As time went on it BECAME less
acceptable, a transition was being made, but the slaveholders were
engaged in an activity that was generally acceptable in their time
and place. Howerver wrong, or immoral, or unaceptable it is. It was
not any less immoral or wrong then, but it was accepted, perhaps to
our shame but as I have said before, you can't condemn them for doing
what WAS acceptable. Condemn the Egyptians for using slave labor to
build the pyramids ?? Horrible, but think in the context of the time.
How about the Union treatment of Native Americans AFTER the Civil War.
The " Savages " were herded together on reservations and given new
desease's, at least the ones that were not killed outright by the
"human rights " conscious Union troopers. Wouldn't this be a better
comparison ? Maybe to the Holocaust ?
> The notion that concentration camps were great secrets is largely a
myth; only
> a few, such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, were really concealed. Do you think that
> the people surrounding Dachau were unaware of went on there? And
certainly no
> one in the Nazi Party was aware that Jews were being killed, nor any
soldier on
> the Eastern Front. It was not just Nazi Party people who were killing
jews--it
> was German citizens (see the book _Ordinary Men_ for one case study).
Can't debate the issue of who knew what when, I'll admit my ignorance
in this area.
> I guess we should not have executed Ribbentrop, Ley, and all the others,
right?
> After all, they were just living their lives, in their times, the way the
> Nazis lived, right?
Are you saying that the War crimes commission didn't prosecute or at
least name all (or even most ) of those that were a part of the
atrocities ?
All Nazis should have been executed ? All Germans should have been executed ?
If Slavery is an apt analague to the holocaust why wern't all slaveholders
rounded up and tried for their crimes against humanity ? Might the answer
be that what they did was not a crime, a social change was made,and the
slaves were freed.
Dave
Copperhead
>As for comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust, I think they are quite
>apt.
Such comparisons cannot survive the simple truth that in 1860 slavery was an
inherited institution. Blacks had not legally been yanked (pun intended) from
their home and sent to the United States since 1808. That hardly compares to
dragging Europe's Jews off to death camps in a period of a few years. By 1860,
most slaves in the US had been born in that condition - they had never known
freedom. Were their lives sometimes miserable? - yes (and so were the lives of
many poor whites). Did many dream of being free? - probably. But their lives
were not consumed with the sudden terror of the Holocaust. Laboring in a world
of unfulfilled dreams cannot be compared to laboring in a Nazi concentration
camp, and exploitation does not equal genocide.
At this point, I'm tempted to try another thread: Why didn't the
holier-than-thou abolitionists buy the slaves and set them free? And if they
did indeed constitute a majority of US citizens, as is claimed by the modern
day Yankees in this newsgroup, why didn't they use the government's power of
emminent domain to free the slaves AND COMPENSATE the owners. Were such
measures ever introduced in Congress (I don't know)? Implementing any plan to
end slavery without reimbursement of slave owners is in itself a moral and
unconstitutional crime known as theft.
Greg Wickenburg
>: Agreed , but in the context of 1850, (we are taking about history)
>:slavery was acceptable, particularly in the Southern United States,
>:as a means of agricultural labor. In my opinion, Even in 1850, the
>:acts of the Nazi's in Nazi occupied Europe would have been considered
But to many in Eastern Europe although the Nazi's might not have been
exeptable, not to many complained about the Consentration Camps until after.
I think there is a great deal to compare. From what little I know of history,
were not the Jews used as slaves while in the Camps.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <bigg-20079...@gumbo.execpc.com>,
Dave Gorski <bi...@execpc.com> wrote:
>In article <4spjm2$l...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>>
>> I said that the majority of people in the United States thought slavery was
>> wrong, not the majority of people in the southern states. And there is
>plenty
>> of evidence to think so, including the rise of the Republican party and the
>> perception on the part of Southerners that Northern Democrats also opposed
>> slavery. (and many other, less grand pieces of evidence)
>>
> ...and I have seen evidence to the contrary.
> 1. James M. McPherson " What They Fought For " pg 60
> " A good many Union soldiers disagreed. (with emancipation)
> A backlash of antiemancipation sentiment began to surface
> in letters in 1862." He goes on to give examples from a dozen
> or so letters. He goes on to say that the soldiers stated that
> they were willing to fight to preserve the Union, but NOT for
> Black freedom.
Whether or not they were willing to fight for emancipation has nothing to do
with whether or not the majority of people in the United States thought slavery
was wrong. I think that a capital gains tax cut is wrong. Am I willing to
fight to stop one? No.
> 2. In " The Civil War Diary of C.F. Boyd, 15 Iowa Infantry"
> entry for March 6 1863 page 375... A poll was taken by the
> Col. of the regiment, ( he was a vocal supporter of emancipation)
> the poll was conducted openly, 50 % were in favor of emancipation
> 25% were against, and 25% had no opinion. To me, that's 50 %
> NOT in favor of emancipation, even with the Col. watching you.
Do you alwasy treat "No opinion" as "No"? Don't look for a job in polling.
> 3.Can't give you numbers here but the desertion rates rose
> dramaticly with the Emancipation Proclamation. In one regiment
> 4 Captians sent in their resignations giving emancipation as cause.
>
No, desertion rates did not rise dramatically with the Emancipation
Proclamation.
> Like I said, I'm sure we could trade evidence for quite a while,
> I could never convince you, but you can't convince me that the majority
> of Americans in 1850 did not either believe slavery was OK, or at least
> were not against the institution. As time went on it BECAME less
> acceptable, a transition was being made, but the slaveholders were
> engaged in an activity that was generally acceptable in their time
> and place. Howerver wrong, or immoral, or unaceptable it is. It was
> not any less immoral or wrong then, but it was accepted, perhaps to
> our shame but as I have said before, you can't condemn them for doing
> what WAS acceptable. Condemn the Egyptians for using slave labor to
> build the pyramids ?? Horrible, but think in the context of the time.
> How about the Union treatment of Native Americans AFTER the Civil War.
> The " Savages " were herded together on reservations and given new
> desease's, at least the ones that were not killed outright by the
> "human rights " conscious Union troopers. Wouldn't this be a better
> comparison ? Maybe to the Holocaust ?
>
I think that the treatment of Native Americans was the U.S.'s other "great
crime."
>> I guess we should not have executed Ribbentrop, Ley, and all the others,
>right?
>> After all, they were just living their lives, in their times, the way the
>> Nazis lived, right?
>
> Are you saying that the War crimes commission didn't prosecute or at
>least name all (or even most ) of those that were a part of the
>atrocities ?
> All Nazis should have been executed ? All Germans should have been executed
?
> If Slavery is an apt analague to the holocaust why wern't all slaveholders
> rounded up and tried for their crimes against humanity ? Might the answer
> be that what they did was not a crime, a social change was made,and the
> slaves were freed.
You are saying that if people are just "living their lives, in their times,"
then whatever they do is okay. I am saying that it is not okay. Just because
a local or regional community countenances an act does not make it okay.
Female circumcision is -not- okay. Similarly, just because people in
Edgefield, South Carolina, liked slavery just fine, thank you very much,
doesn't make it okay--not then or now.
RStacy2229
In article <4socjh$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
DAVE QUOTE
>>Historical fiction. Sure, the characters were falsified, but the
>>>scenes that they depicted certainly occured throughout the slave
>>>STACY QUOTE
>>BINGO. OK, Dave, just how prevalent was the mutilation of slaves, a la,
>>the cutting off of Toby's foot to prevent his running away? How
prevalent
>>was the purchase of female slaves by "white trash" Tom Lea, apparently
for
>>the express purpose of raping her? Did this happen every day? Every
week?
>>Every month? In every family?
>NOW MARK
>I've never read ROOTS or seen the mini-series, so perhaps you can satisfy
my
>curiosity. Does Alex Haley state that all runaway slaves had their feet
cut
>off? Does he suggest that all female slaves were purchased in order to
be
>raped?
Does he suggest otherwise? Look at Dave's apologia for this "Historical
fiction," by saying that "the scenes that they depicted certainly occured
throughout the slave
holding states." And so a collection of outrages is offered as symbolic of
the institution within which those outrages occurred. By the same means do
some condemn capitalism, or the welfare state, or marriage, or the church
-- all of these being systems under which abuses occur.
Does the phrase "Rape of Belgium" ring a bell? "Remember the Maine"?
"Domino Theory"? Propaganda to support military intervention is an old
trick, as is propaganda to support political activism. Funny thing, it's
always someone else's ox who gets gored in the end, isn't it?
RSMc
Justin M Sanders
Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> As for comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust, I think they are
> quite apt.
Other than saying that they are both Bad Things(tm), I don't see much
usefulness in the comparison. What light is shed on slavery when it is
compared with the Holocaust? How is our understanding of the Holocaust
deepened if we compare it with slavery? Again, beyond the fact that they
were both inhuman systems which had official sanction, I don't see any
other points in common. And I have seldom (never?) seen anyone compare
any other aspects of the two.
Such a comparison (slavery with Holocaust) is one extreme of a range of
comparisons often made with slavery. At the other extreme, is a
comparison of slavery with social class structure, with the structure of
the family, or with wage labor. While slavery, as practiced in the U.S.,
had an element or two in common with these other things, it was also so
different in very significant respects that it really is a case of
comparing apples and oranges.
Analogies are only as useful as they illuminate the things being
compared. And in the case of most things which are analogized with
slavery, the many differences completely vitiate the usefulness of the
analogy.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <31F117...@ai2a.net>, Copperhead <ger...@ai2a.net> wrote:
>>As for comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust, I think they are quite
>>apt.
>
>inherited institution. Blacks had not legally been yanked (pun intended) from
>their home and sent to the United States since 1808. That hardly compares to
>dragging Europe's Jews off to death camps in a period of a few years. By 1860,
This objection quickly falls apart. We are not talking about slavery only in
1860.
>most slaves in the US had been born in that condition - they had never known
>freedom. Were their lives sometimes miserable? - yes (and so were the lives of
>many poor whites). Did many dream of being free? - probably. But their lives
>were not consumed with the sudden terror of the Holocaust. Laboring in a world
>of unfulfilled dreams cannot be compared to laboring in a Nazi concentration
>camp, and exploitation does not equal genocide.
In the first place, as I suggested in my original post, slavery was indeed
genocide. The casualty figures of the middle passage are certainly enough to
qualify. But I think it is absolutely disgusting that you would characterize
slavery merely as "laboring in a world of unfulfilled dreams."
> At this point, I'm tempted to try another thread: Why didn't the
>holier-than-thou abolitionists buy the slaves and set them free? And if they
>did indeed constitute a majority of US citizens, as is claimed by the modern
>day Yankees in this newsgroup, why didn't they use the government's power of
>emminent domain to free the slaves AND COMPENSATE the owners. Were such
Abolitionists did not constitute a majority of US citizens, and no one here has
said that. What -I- said is that a majority of Americans disapproved of
slavery.
As to using the government's "power of eminent domain," that did not exist in
regards slavery, and of course, any attempt to try such a thing would simply
have resulted in Civil War.
>measures ever introduced in Congress (I don't know)? Implementing any plan to
>end slavery without reimbursement of slave owners is in itself a moral and
>unconstitutional crime known as theft.
Gosh. It is so immoral to free slaves. Forgive me for being disgusted again.
Dave Gorski
In article <4srpbs$q...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>
> Whether or not they were willing to fight for emancipation has nothing to do
> with whether or not the majority of people in the United States thought
slavery
You don't think that being willing to live or die for
something is an indicator of public opinion ?
Quotes from the letters I refered to:
" The boy's here hate them worse than they do secesh "
" this is nothing but an abolition war... I am not
for freeing the negroes."
" I don't care a damn for the darkies "
" no one who has ever seen the the nigger in all his
glory on the southern plantations will ever vote
for emancipation."
> Do you alwasy treat "No opinion" as "No"? Don't look for a job in polling.
I am not looking for a job, thank you, but in examining history if
someone is given the oportunity to say thery are FOR somthing and they
chose to say nothing, I would put them in the catagory of not being for
it, not necessarily against it, but not for it either. The point that
was being made was that a full 50 % of these soldiers were NOT FOR
emancipation. This said to your statement that the majority of people
were FOR emancipation.
> No, desertion rates did not rise dramatically with the Emancipation
> Proclamation.
Then McPherson is wrong as well. I would have thought he would
have done better research before printing "Desertion rates rose
alarmingly, many soldiers blamed the Emancipation Proclamation."
"WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR" page 63
> You are saying that if people are just "living their lives, in their times,"
> then whatever they do is okay. I am saying that it is not okay. Just
because
> a local or regional community countenances an act does not make it okay.
> Female circumcision is -not- okay. Similarly, just because people in
> Edgefield, South Carolina, liked slavery just fine, thank you very much,
> doesn't make it okay--not then or now.
Please re read what I have said. At NO time have I said "whatever they do
is okay!!!" On the contrary, I said, However wrong, immoral, or unacceptable
an activity is, if in the context of history, if it was acceptable in that
time and place, the people of that time and place are not guilty of a crime.
In the case of the holocaust, the action was not acceptable, those
responsible were tried for their crimes and punished. Proof that the
acts were not acceptable. Your comparison
of slavery to the holocaust is, in my opinion invalid.
I am NOT defending the institution of slavery, it was not right then,
anymore than now. But I understand that in that time and place it was
common, and accepted practice. Those slaveholders were wrong..but should
not be condemned for THEN none criminal acts. As I've said, any of us
may have done the same thing. In the case of the holocaust, I would be
hopefull that most of us would refuse, even to our own deaths because
we know right from wrong. We can't change history because we now know
so much more than the people of 1860. But we can try to understand their
position.
Dave
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ss4pr$1...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
Justin M Sanders <jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>> As for comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust, I think they are
>> quite apt.
>
>usefulness in the comparison. What light is shed on slavery when it is
>compared with the Holocaust? How is our understanding of the Holocaust
>deepened if we compare it with slavery? Again, beyond the fact that they
>were both inhuman systems which had official sanction, I don't see any
>other points in common. And I have seldom (never?) seen anyone compare
>any other aspects of the two.
You have, of course, mentioned the Big One, that they were both inhuman systems
with official sanction. There are other points worth comparing and
contrasting, such as the role played by the "average German" or "average
Southerner," but of course what I am interested in is the moral comparison.
There have been too many people in this newsgroup saying that the two are not
comparable in this regard, and I disagree strongly.
Justin M Sanders
> to--George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
> Franklin--owned other human beings.
Although I am familiar with the fact that Washington, Madison, and
Jefferson owned slaves, this is the first time I have heard that Franklin
owned slaves (generally one hears about his role in the founding of the
first emancipation society). Can Mark give more information/references
about Franklin's slaveholding?
liz leigh
(snip)
>:As Philip Nobile points out, Haley plagiarized 80 or more scenes from a
>:1967 novel, and also lifted passages from other works in composing the
>:story told in "Roots."
>
>It would seem that bigshot authors can commit plagiarism with no
>compunction, as I demonstrated in my sample comparison of Thomas
>Keneally's novel with Phoebe Pember's memoirs. If a student tried to
>pull off a similar stunt in a term paper, thesis or dissertation, he
>or she would be flunked, disqualified and otherwise disgraced.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com
The last paragraph above is a reference to Keneally's novel CONFEDERATES, and
some readers may wish to consider the following points:
1. In his bibliographic notes Keneally listed ten books as providing background
for the novel, but also indicates he employed other sources not listed. One of
the books that *is* listed is Pember's memoirs, which I have not read.
2. My copy of CONFEDERATES totals about 430 pages, and you allege
incidences of plagiarism on six of those pages. First, this is not the
high incidence noted for Haley. Second, although relatively popular,
Kenally is certainly not the 'big time' author that Haley was. Third,
any reader of CONFEDERATES understands that the plot involves MUCH more
than a story that could be extrapolated from Pember's memoirs of a
Southern woman as its primary source.
3. Perhaps the 'plagarism' to which you refer is Keneally's technique
for providing realism to his fictional accounts of history. Perhaps
that's why SCHINDLERS LIST became so popular and the realism so
captivating.
4. There are better examples of 'big time' authors of historical
fiction who enagaged in plagarism. Consider Alexandre Dumas, pere who
wrote of THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO, THE THREE MUSKETEERS and THE MAN IN
THE IRON MASK, and other novels popularly assigned to students.
Phil Leigh
Justin M Sanders
My apologies if this comes through twice; my newserver hiccupped.
Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> In the first place, as I suggested in my original post, slavery was
> indeed genocide. The casualty figures of the middle passage are certainly
> enough to qualify.
After 1808, the slave trade to the U.S. essentially ended, so the
mortality rate of the Middle Passage is not really relevant to slavery
*per se* after that date. That is, one can easily imagine slavery with no
high mortality rate at all, yet it would still be morally repugnant. High
mortality was incidental to slavery at some periods, but it was not
inherent in it.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4staiu$9...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
>> to--George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
>> Franklin--owned other human beings.
>
>Although I am familiar with the fact that Washington, Madison, and
>Jefferson owned slaves, this is the first time I have heard that Franklin
>owned slaves (generally one hears about his role in the founding of the
>first emancipation society). Can Mark give more information/references
>about Franklin's slaveholding?
Bejamin Franklin did hold slaves during his life; see Gary Nash's _Forging
Freedom_, about emancipation in Pennsylvania.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4su1kq$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4sodg9$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>>The trans-Atlantic slave trade to the western hemisphere probably
>>killed over a million people right there,>>>
>
>According to World Book, 10 million slaves were shipped from Africa to the
>New World. Of these, only 6 percent were disembarked in North America. So
>94 percent of the "middle passage" and deaths associated with it had
>nothing to do with Dixie. Furthermore, since the importation of slaves was
>made illegal in 1808, you're talking about a practice which had been dead
>for 50 years before John Brown crossed the Potomac at Harpers Ferry.
It makes no difference where the slaves were disembarked: the trans-Atlantic
slave trade, as a whole, was genocide. The American colonies as well as other
groups of people participated in it. Note that you are adding "Dixie" to the
equation, not me--during the period in which the slave trade was legal there
were still considerable numbers of slaves in the North. And the fact that the
slave trade was illegal in 1680 does not magically erase the deaths that it
caused.
>
>>without even getting into the
>>deaths
>>caused by intolerable working conditions in gold mines, sugar
>plantations,
>>and
>>elsewhere.
>
>Most of those deaths, again, were in South or Central America or the
>Caribbean islands.
That is right, although you apparently have snipped my paragraphs dealing with
high death rates at American rice and sugar plantations.
>
>>Again,
>>The death rate caused by slavery was so high that basically only
>>in
>>the United States were slaves even able to maintain their population.>>
>MAINTAIN? An estimated 600,000 African slaves were imported to North
>America between the 1620s and 1808. By 1860, there were 4,000,000 slaves
>in the United States. To increase nearly sevenfold is much more than
>"barely maintaining" a population. While the rate of natural increase was
>not as high as the free white population, it was still very high -- higher
>than several European nations over the same period, for instance.
Apparently you lack reading comprehension. In the first place, the words you
place in quotations, "barely maintaining," are not mine--you have made them up.
In the second place, you have misread what I wrote. Read it again. What it
says is that nowhere other than in the US were slaves able to maintain their
population.
>
>>>Who
>>knows how many millions of people died as a result of slavery? It is
>>impossible to tell.>
>
>It is certainly impossible to tell if one doesn't bother to learn. But
>again, most of the deaths resulting from slavery had very little to do
>with the states of the Southern U.S., and nothing at all to do with the
>short-lived Confederate government.
We are not talking about the short-lived Confederate government here, but
rather the institution of slavery and its magnitude or lack thereof as a "crime
against humanity."
Copperhead
Mark T Pitcavage wrote:
>
> >their home and sent to the United States since 1808. That hardly compares to
> >dragging Europe's Jews off to death camps in a period of a few years. By 1860,
>
> 1860.
Then why is it being discussed on the Civil War echo?
>
> >measures ever introduced in Congress (I don't know)? Implementing any plan to
> >end slavery without reimbursement of slave owners is in itself a moral and
> >unconstitutional crime known as theft.
>
> Gosh. It is so immoral to free slaves. Forgive me for being disgusted again.
Your unwillingness or inability to distinguish between moral and immoral methods
of emancipation probably is no different than that of Notherners 135 years ago.
That self-righteous attitude caused a devestating war that cost the lives of
150,00 Americans and 300,000 Yankees. If you have much to be forgiven for, being
disgusted is the least of them.
Southern Witch
In article <4ss4pr$1...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu
(Justin M Sanders) wrote:
> Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
> > As for comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust, I think they are
> > quite apt.
>
> Other than saying that they are both Bad Things(tm), I don't see much
> usefulness in the comparison. What light is shed on slavery when it is
> compared with the Holocaust? How is our understanding of the Holocaust
> deepened if we compare it with slavery? Again, beyond the fact that they
> were both inhuman systems which had official sanction, I don't see any
> other points in common. And I have seldom (never?) seen anyone compare
> any other aspects of the two.
At last! A note of rationality injected into this discussion. It has
become far too commonplace -- in the world in general, not just in this
group -- to compare anything that we dislike to the Holocaust. In the
strict biblical sense of the word, a holocaust was something placed on an
altar or other appropriate structure and then totally annihilated by fire
as an offering to the Supreme Being. The term can certainly be applied
aptly enough to the horror that was visited on the Jewish population of
Europe in the 1940's -- they were indeed burned to cinders as an offering
to the vile "god" of Aryan supremacy. And I'm quite certain that the term
"Holocaust" was chosen to describe what happened to the Jews because of
that very aptness. To apply it to the system under which slaves in the
American South lived out their lives is ludicrous at best and insulting to
anyone of Jewish extraction at worst. I haven't seen any comment from Lynn
on this topic, but I'm insulted on her behalf.
> Analogies are only as useful as they illuminate the things being
> compared. And in the case of most things which are analogized with
> slavery, the many differences completely vitiate the usefulness of the
> analogy.
Amen.
--
Kathie Fraser http://www.erols.com/kfraser
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The South is a land that has known sorrows...a land of legend,
a land of song, a land of hallowed and heroic memories."
--Edward Ward Carmack
Justin M Sanders
Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> In the first place, as I suggested in my original post, slavery was
> indeed genocide. The casualty figures of the middle passage are certainly
> enough to qualify.
After 1808, the slave trade to the U.S. essentially ended, so the
mortality rate of the Middle Passage is not really relevant to slavery
*per se* in 1860. That is, one can easily imagine slavery with no
Dave Gorski
In article <4su1bo$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
> As I said in my previous message, one can think something immoral and
still not
> be willing to die for it. Are you having problems understanding that?
I sense a rising hostility toward MY point of view. I'm a bit surprised
that you are so concerned with changing it. I am not as concerned with
changing your point of view. You are as entitled to it as am I of mine.
I replied to YOUR post with MY opinion, cited references to back the
formation of MY opinion and choose now to leave this line of of the
discussion where it stands. I will say however, that I can understand
(being a former lurker) why people would read a post, such as your
original, and NOT voice an opinion. Your tolerance of other peoples
opinions is quite low.
Dave
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <bigg-21079...@penguin.execpc.com>,
Dave Gorski <bi...@execpc.com> wrote:
>In article <4srpbs$q...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>> with whether or not the majority of people in the United States thought
>slavery
> You don't think that being willing to live or die for
> something is an indicator of public opinion ?
As I said in my previous message, one can think something immoral and still not
be willing to die for it. Are you having problems understanding that?
>> No, desertion rates did not rise dramatically with the Emancipation
>> Proclamation.
>
> Then McPherson is wrong as well. I would have thought he would
> have done better research before printing "Desertion rates rose
> alarmingly, many soldiers blamed the Emancipation Proclamation."
> "WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR" page 63
McPherson does not say that it was the Emancipation Proclamation that caused
desertion rates to rise. Rather, he mentions that "many soldiers" blamed the
EP, but he does this after discussing the already existing "morale crisis" that
existed during the winter of 1862-63, which includes, McPherson says, the
removal of McClellan, Frdericksburg, the Mud March, and the initial failures
against Vicksburg. And if you look at McPherson's conclusion to this line of
thought, you will see that he says "Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that
proemancipation convictions did predominate among the leaders and fighting
soldiers of the Union Army."
>> You are saying that if people are just "living their lives, in their times,"
>> then whatever they do is okay. I am saying that it is not okay. Just
>because
>> a local or regional community countenances an act does not make it okay.
>> Female circumcision is -not- okay. Similarly, just because people in
>> Edgefield, South Carolina, liked slavery just fine, thank you very much,
>> doesn't make it okay--not then or now.
>
> Please re read what I have said. At NO time have I said "whatever they do
> is okay!!!" On the contrary, I said, However wrong, immoral, or unacceptable
> an activity is, if in the context of history, if it was acceptable in that
> time and place, the people of that time and place are not guilty of a crime.
In the preceding paragraph and in the following one, you try to have it both
ways. In a larger context, say the entire United States or western
civilization in 1860, a majority thought slavery was immoral. Only in the
context of the American south alone might you find a "time and place" where
slavery was acceptable. But below when you say "the action was not
acceptable," referring to Germany, you clearly refer to a larger context, since
it was not Germans who put Germans on trial at Nuremburg, but the Allies.
> In the case of the holocaust, the action was not acceptable, those
> responsible were tried for their crimes and punished. Proof that the
> acts were not acceptable. Your comparison
> of slavery to the holocaust is, in my opinion invalid.
>
In the case of slavery, the action was not acceptable, those responsible were
divested of their human property. Proof that the acts were not acceptable.
> I am NOT defending the institution of slavery, it was not right then,
> anymore than now. But I understand that in that time and place it was
> common, and accepted practice. Those slaveholders were wrong..but should
> not be condemned for THEN none criminal acts. As I've said, any of us
> may have done the same thing. In the case of the holocaust, I would be
> hopefull that most of us would refuse, even to our own deaths because
> we know right from wrong. We can't change history because we now know
> so much more than the people of 1860. But we can try to understand their
> position.
We are not talking about "criminality." We are talking about morality.
And I understand their position quite well. I just don't agree with it.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ssivb$3...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
>
>
>> In the first place, as I suggested in my original post, slavery was
>> indeed genocide. The casualty figures of the middle passage are certainly
>> enough to qualify.
>
>After 1808, the slave trade to the U.S. essentially ended, so the
>mortality rate of the Middle Passage is not really relevant to slavery
>high mortality rate at all, yet it would still be morally repugnant. High
>mortality was incidental to slavery at some periods, but it was not
>inherent in it.
Justin, please do not interpret this as a flame, but your post does not seem to
make much sense. In the first place, the fact that the legal slave trade to
the U.S. ended in 1808 is irrelevant, because slavery existed for nearly 200
years -before- that date, and the slave trade was fully legal then. We are not
talking about slavery only as it was in 1860. We are talking about the history
of "American Negro slavery."
The fact that the Middle Passage was not very important after 1808 does nothing
to erase the deaths that occurred during it. What you say is like suggesting
that Jewish deaths in 1941 are not really relevant to the Holocaust because in
later years mortality was so much greater. High mortality was inherent in the
Middle Passage, and the Middle Passage is a chapter in the history of slavery
which cannot be excised or ignored.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4stjf1$u...@dot.cstone.net>, Maury <w...@cstone.net> wrote:
> You disagree because you're African-American and like to disagree
>but as with many if not all African-Americans, it was your own ancestry
>who enslaved your own ancestry and who "begat" you through lineage,
>whether accident or not. You choose to look at things myoptically,
>one-sided -- and as long as you do that is all you will ever see
>and subsequently, think about. It is all you will ever see, think,
>and know. You condem your own self with all of that. Life is better
>than the looking at things with one sided opinions that are confirmed
>because of a mindset that refuses to see better and differently.
Maury, you say this every now and then, and it really has me baffled. What
makes you think I'm African-American?
Justin M Sanders
Greg Wickenburg (gr...@eskimo.com) wrote:
> I think there is a great deal to compare. From what little I know of
> history, were not the Jews used as slaves while in the Camps.
They were.
Justin M Sanders
Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> In article <4ssivb$3...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
> Justin M Sanders <jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
>>After 1808, the slave trade to the U.S. essentially ended, so the
>>mortality rate of the Middle Passage is not really relevant to slavery
>>*per se* after that date. That is, one can easily imagine slavery with no
>>high mortality rate at all, yet it would still be morally repugnant. High
>>mortality was incidental to slavery at some periods, but it was not
>>inherent in it.
> Justin, please do not interpret this as a flame, but your post does not
> seem to make much sense.
No offense taken. Perhaps I can express my point more clearly.
> In the first place, the fact that the legal slave trade to the U.S.
> ended in 1808 is irrelevant, because slavery existed for nearly 200 years
> -before- that date, and the slave trade was fully legal then. We are not
> talking about slavery only as it was in 1860. We are talking about the
> history of "American Negro slavery."
My mistake-- I misread an earlier statement of Mark's and thought he was
trying to restrict things to the 1860 time frame-- on re-reading I see
that I got it completely backwards.
> The fact that the Middle Passage was not very important after 1808 does
> nothing to erase the deaths that occurred during it. What you say is like
> suggesting that Jewish deaths in 1941 are not really relevant to the
> Holocaust because in later years mortality was so much greater. High
> mortality was inherent in the Middle Passage, and the Middle Passage is a
> chapter in the history of slavery which cannot be excised or ignored.
I don't wish to erase the deaths that occurred during it, but the fact
that slavery existed long after the Middle Passage and long before it,
too, shows that the Middle Passage is *not* inherent in slavery as an
institution. Let me repeat my fundamental point from my previous
article:
>> One can easily imagine slavery with no
>> high mortality rate at all, yet it would still be morally repugnant.
Slavery, by itself, is already morally repugnant. If there had never
been a MIddle Passage period, if the mortality rates for slaves had been
the same as or even better than the slaveholders, the institution of
slavery would *still, by itself* be morally repugnant.
Negligently transporting people across the ocean in horrible conditions
such that several percent are assured of death is *by itself* morally
repugnant-- no matter what the status of the passengers would be when they
land.
In short, I see two different things to be deplored: (1) slavery, and
(2) the barbarity of the Middle Passage. Where both exist together, both
should be deplored; where only one exists, the one should be deplored.
Maury
~<4ss3v6$1...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu says...
>Greg Wickenburg (gr...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>> I think there is a great deal to compare. From what little I know of
>> history, were not the Jews used as slaves while in the Camps.
>They were.
Not for long they weren't.
Northern POWs in the South weren't used as slaves
but they could have been. --- Maury
Maury
In article <4ss4pr$1...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu says...
>> quite apt.
>Other than saying that they are both Bad Things(tm), I don't see much
>usefulness in the comparison.
I do.
It's a *diversion* from the thread on Alex Haley's Hoax! (AHH!)(tm).
-- Maury
<snip>
==============
" What light ....." From yon window.............
<snip>
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <kfraser-2107...@news10.erols.com>,
Southern Witch <kfr...@erols.com> wrote:
>In article <4ss4pr$1...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu
>
>> Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>>
>> > As for comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust, I think they are
>> > quite apt.
>>
>> Other than saying that they are both Bad Things(tm), I don't see much
>> compared with the Holocaust? How is our understanding of the Holocaust
>> deepened if we compare it with slavery? Again, beyond the fact that they
>> were both inhuman systems which had official sanction, I don't see any
>> other points in common. And I have seldom (never?) seen anyone compare
>> any other aspects of the two.
>
>At last! A note of rationality injected into this discussion. It has
>become far too commonplace -- in the world in general, not just in this
>group -- to compare anything that we dislike to the Holocaust. In the
>strict biblical sense of the word, a holocaust was something placed on an
>altar or other appropriate structure and then totally annihilated by fire
>as an offering to the Supreme Being. The term can certainly be applied
>aptly enough to the horror that was visited on the Jewish population of
>Europe in the 1940's -- they were indeed burned to cinders as an offering
>to the vile "god" of Aryan supremacy. And I'm quite certain that the term
>"Holocaust" was chosen to describe what happened to the Jews because of
>that very aptness. To apply it to the system under which slaves in the
>American South lived out their lives is ludicrous at best and insulting to
>anyone of Jewish extraction at worst. I haven't seen any comment from Lynn
>on this topic, but I'm insulted on her behalf.
People here have not applied the word "Holocaust" to American slavery, as you
seem to suggest. What I have done is to suggest that it is indeed fair to
compare the iniquity of slavery to the iniquity of the Holocaust.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <bigg-21079...@ministry.execpc.com>,
Dave Gorski <bi...@execpc.com> wrote:
>In article <4su1bo$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>
>> As I said in my previous message, one can think something immoral and
>still not
>> be willing to die for it. Are you having problems understanding that?
>
> that you are so concerned with changing it. I am not as concerned with
> changing your point of view. You are as entitled to it as am I of mine.
> I replied to YOUR post with MY opinion, cited references to back the
> formation of MY opinion and choose now to leave this line of of the
> discussion where it stands. I will say however, that I can understand
> (being a former lurker) why people would read a post, such as your
> original, and NOT voice an opinion. Your tolerance of other peoples
> opinions is quite low.
> Dave
I think your point of view is mistaken. I don't care if you change it or not.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <31F1F7...@ai2a.net>, Copperhead <ger...@ai2a.net> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage wrote:
>>
>> >their home and sent to the United States since 1808. That hardly compares t
o
>> >dragging Europe's Jews off to death camps in a period of a few years. By 18
60,
>>
n
>> 1860.
>
>Then why is it being discussed on the Civil War echo?
Because slavery is quite relevant to the Civil War.
>
>>
>> >measures ever introduced in Congress (I don't know)? Implementing any plan
to
>> >end slavery without reimbursement of slave owners is in itself a moral and
>> >unconstitutional crime known as theft.
>>
>> Gosh. It is so immoral to free slaves. Forgive me for being disgusted agai
n.
>
>Your unwillingness or inability to distinguish between moral and immoral metho
ds
>of emancipation probably is no different than that of Notherners 135 years ago
.
>That self-righteous attitude caused a devestating war that cost the lives of
>150,00 Americans and 300,000 Yankees. If you have much to be forgiven for, bei
ng
>disgusted is the least of them.
>
Why should anybody give a brass farthing to someone who kept human property?
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4t019d$c...@news4.digex.net>,
Dennis Maggard <dmag...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>Those are nothing but weasel words. You entitle a thread "Slavery and the
>Holocaust: An Apt Comparison" and you *are* applying the word Holocaust to
>American slavery, or at least you should know that's how it will be taken.
I was rather explicit in explaining my purpose. A number of people in the
newsgroup have suggested that there are no grounds for comparing slavery and
the Holocaust, and I disagree. I think that in terms of morality or "crimes
against humanity" that they indeed are comparable. And I gave a number of
reasons. At no time did I title a thread that said "Slavery: the American
Holocaust," nor did I ever apply the word Holocaust to American slavery. Or
vice versa.
But I am comparing and contrasting the two. Feel free to join in.
Dennis Maggard
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
Those are nothing but weasel words. You entitle a thread "Slavery and the
Holocaust: An Apt Comparison" and you *are* applying the word Holocaust to
American slavery, or at least you should know that's how it will be taken.
Dennis
Linda Teasley
Dennis Maggard (dmag...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: >People here have not applied the word "Holocaust" to American slavery, as you
: >seem to suggest. What I have done is to suggest that it is indeed fair to
: >compare the iniquity of slavery to the iniquity of the Holocaust.
: Those are nothing but weasel words. You entitle a thread "Slavery and the
: Holocaust: An Apt Comparison" and you *are* applying the word Holocaust to
: American slavery, or at least you should know that's how it will be taken.
Quite right. Can you imagine the shouts of derision that would arise
if someone started a "Yankee Invaders and Attila the Hun" thread? Saying
that the comparison is "fair," and then trying to weasel out of the
implications by saying that the application is not there would never be
acceptable.
Linda T.
--
Five pelican bedecked battle flags began to flap. . . three thousand
men stepped off on the left foot. With strict cadence, ninety paces per
minute, a forest of burnished steel paraded up the hill.
Winchester --- 25 May 1862
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4t0gi6$b...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Christopher M Grimsley <cgri...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>First, in the late 1950s historian Stanley Elkins suggested that the
>objectionable stereotype of the slave as "Sambo"--infantilized, dependent,
>docile, etc.--might in fact have some basis in reality. He hypothesized that
>the total instritution of chattel slavery had broken down the personalities of
<deletia>
>Second, a phliosopher named Rubenstein--I cannot think of his first
>name--published a book in the mid-1970s that argued that the Holocaust was not
>an aberration, but rather the extension and culmination of several trends
that
>had long been evident in western civilization. The trends were bureaucratic
>domination, which greatly extended the reach of government; nationalism, which
>undermined alternative sources of moral authority; mass slaughter, exemplified
>by the First World War, especially deliberate battles of attrition like Verdun
<deletia>
>Third, Hitler of course viewed the Slavic peoples as untermenschen, inferiors
>fit only for slave labor. He sometimes underscored the point by saying that
>"the Slavs are our Negroes." (On other occasions he used as his analogy white
>America's subjugation of Native Americans. The goal in the USSR, he wrote, wa
s
>"to Germanize the country by the settlement of Germans and to treat the native
s
>as redskins.")
I just want to note that these points compare the conditions for Jews during
the Holocaust with conditions for African-Americans under slavery. This is a
valid arena for comparison, and I hope people will discuss it, but it was not
what I had been comparing.
Dave Gorski
In article <4t0gi6$b...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
cgri...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Christopher M Grimsley) wrote:
> It seems to me that Mark P. has qualified the comparison enough to make it
> appropriate and not tendentious.
With what evidence ? In re reading the posts the only evidence I've
seen is
1. Both are evidence of mans inhumanity.
2. Both had high death rates,punishment,rapes,etc
No one would disagree, bad, evil stuff
Mark say's " Plenty of people in 1860 thought slavery was wrong "
But he gives no evidence of what is "plenty" or how he comes to
this conclusion.
Mark say's " in the context of it's time it was considered immoral by most"
Again, what evidence does he have to validate this statement?
Mark cites as evidence " the rise of the Republican party and the
perception on the part of Southerners that
Northern Democrats also opposed slavery."
But was this opposition to the institution of slavery on moral,
human rights grounds, or on the grounds of being opposed to the
political power of the slave states ?
Mark also mentions rather generally " and many other , less grand
pieces of evidence."
I'd be interested in this evidence.
Further, Mark point out rather emphaticly that his purpose in this comparison
is the morality of the events. "We are talking about morality."
> First, in the late 1950s historian Stanley Elkins suggested that the
> objectionable stereotype of the slave as "Sambo"--infantilized, dependent,
> docile, etc.
The evidence you submit, while interesting, seems to me to indicate
more of a psychological bond, that could be applied to anyone in captivity
such as P.O.W.'s etc.
Thank you Mark G. for letting me have an opinion.
Dave Gorski
Christopher M Grimsley
In article <bigg-22079...@despina.execpc.com>,
Dave Gorski <bi...@execpc.com> wrote:
>Mark say's " Plenty of people in 1860 thought slavery was wrong "
>
> But he gives no evidence of what is "plenty" or how he comes to
>this conclusion.
Well, what sort of evidence do you want? By 1860, Britain, France and other
countries had outlawed slavery; a vocal segment of Americans had reached the
conclusion that slavery was so bad it ought to be ended at once; another
substantial segment--enough to found a substantial political party and place,
within a few years, a large number of persons in office at all levels of
government, including a president--were uncomfortable enough to think that
slavery should not be extended, that it was "wrong" in the sense of being
undemocratic if not inhuman. These are everyday facts. If Mark P. wants to
remind us of them, fine. I don't see why one should insist on quantifying
"plenty."
>
>Mark say's " in the context of it's time it was considered immoral by most"
<deletia>
>Further, Mark point out rather emphaticly that his purpose in this comparison
>is the morality of the events. "We are talking about morality."
It's okay to discuss the morality of historical events, especially when the
moral values at issue were understood and discussed at the time.
I think you are right to question whether slavery was considered immoral by
most
people. But the number of people is irrelevant. Would you regard slavery as a
morally defensible position today? If not, then you have to ask: Did anyone
in the 19th century regard it as morally indefensible? Since clearly many
did--and by "many" I will stipulate that I am talking about the estimated five
percent of the U.S. population whose views were abolitionist--then it was
clearly possible for people at that time, raised in the culture of mid-19th
century America, to perceive the immorality of slavery. Therefore it is not
ahistorical to suggest that slavery was immoral even in the context of the
time.
>
>> First, in the late 1950s historian Stanley Elkins suggested that the
>> objectionable stereotype of the slave as "Sambo"--infantilized, dependent,
>> docile, etc.
>
>The evidence you submit, while interesting, seems to me to indicate
>more of a psychological bond, that could be applied to anyone in captivity
>such as P.O.W.'s etc.
Exactly. That was Elkins' point: that anyone subjected to the conditions of a
total institution might have exhibited the traits of "Sambo."
> Thank you Mark G. for letting me have an opinion.
> Dave Gorski
No sweat. Now, I wonder if I could ask a question. I've just spent twenty
minutes responding to your post and probably another thirty minutes today
responding to other posts. I used to post on this group regularly until I
noticed how little dialogue there was--lots of ad hominems and people talking
past each other. I reluctantly concluded that I was wasting my time. Well, am
I?
You know, the thing about Mark P's post is that he's been trying to launch a
discussion, to get an exchange of views. And so far, most of what I've seen
has been forceful denials that there's any point in discussing slavery in
comparison with the Holocaust. Two observations: First, if there's no point,
then why bother to respond at all? Second, in your post you indicated that
slavery and the Holocaust were related, in that they both involved
tremendous human suffering, but that the comparison was uninteresting because
it was so obvious. That surprised me. I would think that, just as the Germans
have to ponder the Holocaust in terms of what it says about them, Americans
have to ponder slavery in terms of what it says about us. Can we believe that
the past has shaped us only in ways that are pleasant to contemplate? The
Holocaust and slavery share this in common: both were monstrous wrongs.
Unless one is prepared to dispute that, or wants to argue that the past has no
impact on the present--so that the sins of the past are truly past--then it
seems to me that there's a great deal to discuss.
But I'll be highly surprised if that happens.
Mark G.
--
Mark Grimsley grims...@osu.edu
Department of History
The Ohio State University
Justin M Sanders
Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> Benjamin Franklin did hold slaves during his life; see Gary Nash's
> _Forging Freedom_, about emancipation in Pennsylvania.
Thanks for the cite.
I went to the library and consulted several biographies of Franklin.
Some mentioned his slaves-- he took two with him to England in 1756. But
many didn't even mention it.
The most thorough treatment of Franklin's slaveholding that I found was
in Lopez & Herbert, "The Private Franklin: The Man & His Family" (Norton,
1975).
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4sumpm$l...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
Justin M Sanders <jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
(I said)
>> The fact that the Middle Passage was not very important after 1808 does
>> nothing to erase the deaths that occurred during it. What you say is like
>> suggesting that Jewish deaths in 1941 are not really relevant to the
>> Holocaust because in later years mortality was so much greater. High
>> mortality was inherent in the Middle Passage, and the Middle Passage is a
>> chapter in the history of slavery which cannot be excised or ignored.
>
>I don't wish to erase the deaths that occurred during it, but the fact
>that slavery existed long after the Middle Passage and long before it,
>too, shows that the Middle Passage is *not* inherent in slavery as an
>institution. Let me repeat my fundamental point from my previous
>article:
You seem to be speaking about the entire history of slavery on the planet,
rather than the more precise phenomenon of the African diaspora to the Western
Hemisphere. In this, slavery in the Western Hemisphere by definition did not
exist before the middle passage. And again, the fact that it lasted after the
Middle Passage essentially ended (although the slave trade to Brazil lasted a
long time indeed), does nothing to reduce what the Middle Passage adds to the
enormity of slavery.
>>> One can easily imagine slavery with no
>>> high mortality rate at all, yet it would still be morally repugnant.
>
>Slavery, by itself, is already morally repugnant. If there had never
>been a MIddle Passage period, if the mortality rates for slaves had been
>the same as or even better than the slaveholders, the institution of
>slavery would *still, by itself* be morally repugnant.
>
>Negligently transporting people across the ocean in horrible conditions
>such that several percent are assured of death is *by itself* morally
>repugnant-- no matter what the status of the passengers would be when they
>land.
>
>In short, I see two different things to be deplored: (1) slavery, and
>(2) the barbarity of the Middle Passage. Where both exist together, both
>should be deplored; where only one exists, the one should be deplored.
Well, Justin, I confess I don't see why one should bother to separate them.
Should the transportation of Jews to the concentration camps be separated from
the concentration camp experience?
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4sundi$l...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
>
>> Benjamin Franklin did hold slaves during his life; see Gary Nash's
>> _Forging Freedom_, about emancipation in Pennsylvania.
>
>Thanks for the cite.
>
>I went to the library and consulted several biographies of Franklin.
>Some mentioned his slaves-- he took two with him to England in 1756. But
>many didn't even mention it.
>
>The most thorough treatment of Franklin's slaveholding that I found was
>in Lopez & Herbert, "The Private Franklin: The Man & His Family" (Norton,
>1975).
I confess that I was very surprised to find out that Benjamin Franklin had
owned slaves.
gary charbonneau
In article <31F117...@ai2a.net>, Copperhead <ger...@ai2a.net> wrote:
> At this point, I'm tempted to try another thread: Why didn't the
>holier-than-thou abolitionists buy the slaves and set them free? And if they
>did indeed constitute a majority of US citizens, as is claimed by the modern
>day Yankees in this newsgroup, why didn't they use the government's power of
>emminent domain to free the slaves AND COMPENSATE the owners. Were such
>measures ever introduced in Congress (I don't know)? Implementing any plan to
>end slavery without reimbursement of slave owners is in itself a moral and
>unconstitutional crime known as theft.
In all probability, any proposal for compensated emancipation would
have been rejected by the slaveholders, as it would have left them with
the very problem which underlay the existence of slavery -- a shortage
of cheap labor. And of course those who owned no slaves, but supported
slavery nonetheless, would gain nothing from a scheme of compensated
emancipation. Lincoln approached representatives of the loyal slave
states in mid-1862 with a proposal for compensated emancipation
and was turned down cold.
One objection raised by Southerners to compensated emancipation was
that the South paid a disproportionate share of federal taxes through
the tariff, and would therefore pay a disproportionate amount of the
cost of emancipating its own slaves.
- Gary Charbonneau
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4t1j2k$f...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
Justin M Sanders <jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
>Mark T Pitcavage (mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>> >that slavery existed long after the Middle Passage and long before it,
>> >too, shows that the Middle Passage is *not* inherent in slavery as an
>> >institution. Let me repeat my fundamental point from my previous
>> >article:
>
>> You seem to be speaking about the entire history of slavery on the
>> planet, rather than the more precise phenomenon of the African diaspora
>> to the Western Hemisphere.
>
>term "slavery" used in the thread title, indicated that Mark wanted to
>restrict the topic solely to African slavery in the Western hemisphere.
I think my initial post was quite clear on the subject, but it doesn't matter.
I do not think one can compare a particular episode in history--the
Holocaust--to a condition--"slavery" writ large. I think one can compare or
contrast it to another episode, even an episode larger in time--the phenomenon
of slavery in the Western Hemisphere, for instance.
>
>Mark is fixing on the slave trade and is treating it as an integral and
>inseparable part of slavery as practiced in the Western Hemisphere. I,
>on the other hand, am fixing on slavery itself which has been practiced
>by many nations in many eras without any slave trade.
>
>There were many slaves in America in 1860 who had been born here-- they
>never experienced the slave trade, nor were their parents killed in the
>trade (obviously). Nevertheless, holding that person a slave was morally
>wrong. The fact that others were killed as slaves or in the trade doesn't
>affect the immorality of holding that person as a slave.
That's right. But I honestly don't see how it is at all important. Perhaps
you are only thinking of individual moral culpability?
>
>> In this, slavery in the Western Hemisphere by definition did not
>> exist before the middle passage.
>
>It is my impression that Indians were enslaved prior to any importation
>of African slaves.
Indians were enslaved in some of the Caribbean islands very early on, but this
was a transitory phenomenon, as a) the Crown prohibited Indian slavery and
b) they died, anyway, because of disease. I'm grossly overgeneralizing here,
but the institutions that arose in the Latin American colonies were basically
the encomienda--where a Spaniard would have tribute rights over a large group
of Indians--followed by a system (I'm blocking on the name--repartiamento, I
think) that required Indian labor from each community. These systems were
exploitative, but not the same as slavery. The French and English both took
Indian slaves, but had African slaves at the same time, so you can't really
separate it there.
>Since Mark has never addressed my main point, I'll repeat it yet again:
>
>>>>> One can easily imagine slavery with no
>>>>> high mortality rate at all, yet it would still be morally repugnant.
>>>
>>>Slavery, by itself, is already morally repugnant. If there had never
>>>been a MIddle Passage period, if the mortality rates for slaves had been
>>>the same as or even better than the slaveholders, the institution of
>>>slavery would *still, by itself* be morally repugnant.
>
>[Snip of my previous statement]
>
>>>In short, I see two different things to be deplored: (1) slavery, and
>>>(2) the barbarity of the Middle Passage. Where both exist together, both
>>>should be deplored; where only one exists, the one should be deplored.
>
>> Well, Justin, I confess I don't see why one should bother to separate
>> them.
>
>Because they are two different things. Since one (slavery) could exist
>in the absence of the other (slave trade).
>
>> Should the transportation of Jews to the concentration camps be
>> separated from the concentration camp experience?
>
>If a clearer understanding of what was done, by whom, and in what manner,
>would result, or if the experience of the Jews in the camps differed in a
>significant way from their experience in their transport to the camps,
>then separating them would probably be a valuable thing.
>
>Note:
>This is exactly the kind of thread that I do not enjoy. Too squishy--
>nothing that can result in a clear resolution. I try to limit myself to
>arguments where a preponderance of evidence can compel a rational
>conclusion. But moral discussions are not of that sort. They depend very
>little on hard data and far more on each person's idiosyncratic value
>system. Mark and I agree on the "data," but the "conclusions" have so
>little to do with the data and so much to do with our individual beliefs
>was what is important that they (the conclusions) are quite different.
>
>I'm beginning to despair that Mark and I will come to any common ground.
>Whenever I feel that I am endlessly repeating myself, I usually conclude
>that my participation in a thread has reached the end of its usefulness.
>Such is my feeling now. If I see an opportunity to contribute with a new
>thought or idea, I'll step back in.
Well, I honestly cannot understand your reasoning for separating the slave
trade from slavery. Regardless of whether or not they could have existed
independently of one another, they did exist together. Perhaps we will simply
have to agree to disagree, because although I am trying to understand your
distinction, it just seems meaningless to me.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4t1k5n$4...@dot.cstone.net>, Maury <w...@cstone.net> wrote:
>
>~<4su1t1$2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>~mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu asked:
>>Maury, you say this every now and then, and it really has me baffled.
>>What makes you think I'm African-American?
>
>
> Because you said so and more than once although it is rare for
>you to mention it. Here in this newsgroup, you said so when
>I had mentioned you had said it back on GEnie many years ago.
>In that now long-ago message here, I also mentioned your
>"Slavery Topic" on GEnie (-- which is now here under this thread).
>I recalled that you once made the statement that you are
>African-American who (at that time) was studying military history.
I have -never- said I was African-American, neither here on this newsgroup nor
on GEnie. It is bizarre of you to say so. I might well have said that I was
studying military history and African-American history, though.
System Janitor
cgri...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Christopher M Grimsley) writes:
>Well, what sort of evidence do you want? By 1860, Britain, France and other
>countries had outlawed slavery; a vocal segment of Americans had reached the
>conclusion that slavery was so bad it ought to be ended at once;
This isn't the whole story. The above makes it sound as if white Americans
had suddenly come to the conclusion that slavery was immoral and that
the rights of black Americans in the South were being violated. These
same white Americans elected a government that appeared to have
concluded that slavery promoted the presence of black people, and that
slavery should be ended and black people should be deported. After
the war Southern blacks *were* elevated, by the federal government,
to the level of ``Americans with rights'', but only as a war measure,
the federal government desiring to put the Southern government into
the hands of a population it could control.
>a large number of persons in office at all levels of
>government, including a president--were uncomfortable enough to think that
>slavery should not be extended, that it was "wrong" in the sense of being
>undemocratic if not inhuman.
Here Mark G is using ``large'' the same way Pitcavage was using it.
Did Sumner and his band of radicals reflect the values and the viewpoints
of the majority of the government or the people? I think probably not.
>These are everyday facts.
Then it should be easy, and illustrative to onlookers, to set me straight,
because it's news to me.
>I don't see why one should insist on quantifying "plenty."
I hope the above shows you why I can't keep up unless you do. Maybe
others have the same problem.
>It's okay to discuss the morality of historical events, especially when the
>moral values at issue were understood and discussed at the time.
Discussed by people that Southerners thought needed to be beat with a
cane. I think it is clear cut that issues we see as clear cut weren't
seen as clear cut then. Clear?
-Mike
System Janitor
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>And note that a feeling that slavery was immoral need not equate with a desire
>for rights for blacks.
Well then, we might as well argue about how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin.
-Mike
gary charbonneau
In article <4ssa7o$s...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>You have, of course, mentioned the Big One, that they were both inhuman
>systems with official sanction. There are other points worth comparing and
>contrasting, such as the role played by the "average German" or "average
>Southerner," but of course what I am interested in is the moral comparison.
>There have been too many people in this newsgroup saying that the two are not
>comparable in this regard, and I disagree strongly.
Slavery and the Holocaust were both Bad Things(tm), but one was a bad
thing and the other a much worse thing.
A couple of interesting points worth noting in making the not particularly
appropriate comparison between slavery and the Holocaust:
1. While the Third Reich's anti-Semitism was well known, the Holocaust was a
state secret. Many Germans thought that Allied claims about the
existence of the Holocaust were just so much propaganda. Slavery was
not a state secret.
2. Although the Civil War was due almost entirely to issues related to
slavery, the Union did not initially go to war to free the slaves. It
was not one of the initial war aims. Similarly, the Allies did not fight
the war, by and large, to put an end to the Holocaust.
- Gary Charbonneau
Christopher M Grimsley
In article <hubcap.838118007@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>
>This isn't the whole story. The above makes it sound as if white Americans
>had suddenly come to the conclusion that slavery was immoral and that
>the rights of black Americans in the South were being violated. These
>same white Americans elected a government that appeared to have
>concluded that slavery promoted the presence of black people, and that
>slavery should be ended and black people should be deported. After
>the war Southern blacks *were* elevated, by the federal government,
>to the level of ``Americans with rights'', but only as a war measure,
>the federal government desiring to put the Southern government into
>the hands of a population it could control.
I don't think my previous post suggests that white Americans monolithically
came to any one conclusion. I did suggest that a vocal five percent, the
abolitionists, had concluded that slavery was bad for the reasons we understand
it to be bad today. A larger number--let's say 40%, the approximate number who
voted for Lincoln in 1860--had concluded that slavery was bad enough that ought
not be extended. Much of their reasoning, I *fully* agree, emphasized the harm
that slavery did to the free labor of whites, or that it obliged blacks and
whites to live in close proximity. Although by 1860 it was mostly white
Southerners who held slaves, most white Americans north and south were strongly
racist, and I see all white Americans as culpable for the monstrous wrong of
slavery. *In no way* am I trying to throw this off on Southerners alone.
>a large number of persons in office at all levels of
>>government, including a president--were uncomfortable enough to think that
>>slavery should not be extended, that it was "wrong" in the sense of being
>>undemocratic if not inhuman.
>
>Here Mark G is using ``large'' the same way Pitcavage was using it.
>Did Sumner and his band of radicals reflect the values and the viewpoints
>of the majority of the government or the people? I think probably not.
I still don't get this insistence on quantification. What do you want, an
exact percentage? By "large" I do not mean a majority, and when I refer to the
large number of officeholders, I refer to all stripes of
Republicans--conservative, moderate, radical--who opposed the extension of
slavery. Even taken as a whole, this group did not constitute a majority, and
I never said they did. I *did* say that a sizeable number of Americans had
become uncomfortable with slavery for one reason or another.
>>These are everyday facts.
>
>Then it should be easy, and illustrative to onlookers, to set me straight,
>because it's news to me.
With respect, how do you want me to set you straight? I know from your
previous posts that you're willing to read, and I'd suggest that you peruse any
college-level history textbook for the information I outlined in my previous
post.
>>I don't see why one should insist on quantifying "plenty."
>
>I hope the above shows you why I can't keep up unless you do. Maybe
>others have the same problem.
Well, for the sake of discussion, perhaps I can offer my ballpark understanding
of how Americans in 1860 divided up on the question of slavery. There is no
way for me or anyone else to prove this estimate, but I doubt whether it's off
by more than 10% in any category:
Percentage of white Americans who regarded blacks as inferior: 95%
Percentage of white Americans who regarded blacks as equal: 5%
Percentage of white Americans who thought slavery the only appropriate way to
mediate race relations: 35%
Percentage who thought slavery wrong but constitutional: 35%
Percentage who thought that American society should make energetic attempts to
end slavery by peaceful means, esp. colonization and compensated emancipation:
20%
Percentage who thought slavery should be ended immediately and without
compensation: 10%
My principal point here is not to argue that these figures are the precise
ones, but to give you a better sense of how divided I think Americans were on
the score of slavery. The bottom line is that even then, a small percentage of
Americans living in the 19th century, with all its racist assumptions, were
able to see that slavery was an enormous human evil.
>>It's okay to discuss the morality of historical events, especially when the
>>moral values at issue were understood and discussed at the time.
>
>Discussed by people that Southerners thought needed to be beat with a
>cane. I think it is clear cut that issues we see as clear cut weren't
>seen as clear cut then. Clear?
I agree with you about the clarity issue, with a couple of qualifications:
First, to the abolitionists, the issue was extremely clear cut. Ditto for the
proslavery ideologues. But for many Americans, yes, the issue was not clear
cut.
I don't grasp your point about Southerners beating people with a cane.
Certainly slaveholders hated being told they were participants in a monstrous
crime against humanity. Nobody enjoys that.
I'll continue this exchange in another post.