Seeking interest in Brand New Black Newspaper
kevin@auvax1
The Root of a Meaningful Dialogue
Even though this is the 1990's, a meaningful dialogue needed to
alleviate the problems between Black and White people still does not exist.
We, as a society who is supposed to be a high intellect, are having a
difficult time in finding this meaningful dialogue. Why are we having this
difficultly? Is it a lack of stimuli? Is it unwillingness? Is it fear? Is
it possible that it would prove to be too conflicting with traditional ideas?
As a student of a generally educated, moral conscious, endeavoring and
observing society, I strongly believe the roots of this meaningful dialogue
lies in Education. This meaningful dialogue would be the product of a proper
and appropriate multicultural education. We, I must state, are a miseducated
people (Black and White).
Since the very first public school was established in Boston,
Massachusetts in 1821, they (U.S. schools) have all have been uniformly
adopted for the development of one sect of the population, the White sect.
Moreover, even with the introduction of the first integrated public school in
1953, they still service that same sect. Sadly, it has become the "norm" in
the American educational system.
Black people have been taught everything about European History while
White people have not been taught one thing about African History. It is a
shame that we all have to wait until February to learn anything about (Black
History Month) about Black people. Ironically, it is also the shortest month
of the year. In the majority of institutions where the population is
predominantely White, you will find that an African-American history course
only contains a handful of White students. On the contrary, the European
history courses are packed with white students. This is a disgrace! If White
people do not know about the contributions of the African civilization, then
that is most likely the cause of the disrespect, animosity, and insensitivity
toward Black people. If White people knew the truth about Black people, the
prejudice against Black people would diminish (somewhat). It has becomes
obvious that African-American history (and other ethnohistories besides the
European's) are a necessity in the U.S. educational system.
It is safe to say that scholars have hidden and deprived society of a
well balanced education. Proper education is the tool and initiator of a
healthy, productive society. I must say its good to know the truth. Perhaps
all of Adelphi University should take heed to our own slogan, "The Truth Shall
Make Us Free".
Arthur Johnson
> African American History: A Necessity in Education
> The Root of a Meaningful Dialogue
>
public high school in the town that I grew up in had, as one of its
offerings in history/social studies, a course entitled "Minority
Problems". The course was recommended for those students who were not
academically inclined. Since I didn't attend this school, I can't say with
100% certainty what this meant, but I strongly suspect that it meant a
"punt" course (multiple choice/fill-in-the-blank exams, no research papers
of any significance, etc.) In this school, "punt" courses were, for the
most part, taken by those who hated school and spent most of their time
zoned out on drugs. At the time, this was basically a white school (only a
few black students were there), which means that the people taking this
course were white drug addicts. This brings to mind the sad vision of a
classroom, supposedly dedicated to the study of African-American history
(although the title "Minority Problems" itself suggests a distorted
presentation), filled with white "students" staring off into space,
muttering a burnt-out "What?" out of a thick marijuana fog. In this case,
African-American history first was separated from American history by
means of a separate course, followd by African-American history becoming
the study of a "problem", a "problem" the study of which was appropriate
only for the "problem" white students. Truly amazing.
Arthur Johnson
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Chemistry
joh...@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu
RUDEBOY
Arthur, I would have to say that your statements about marijuana
smokers are prejudiced and unfair. In my high school we had African History,
The History of blacks in America and African American Literature. I took all
three courses and attended many classes while high. I have to say that these
were the three most challenging and interesting classes I ever took. Each class
was finished with a research paper 10-20 pages long and I recieved an A in the
first two and a B- in the latter. Although many people do smoke pot to just feel
good, the responsible use of marijuana can actually improve your idea formulating capabilities. In fact, Most of my friends who were also in the class
and I would get together, blaze a few J's and discuss what we were learning.
GanjaMon
P.S. Thanks Dr. Spruill!
(My favorite Teacher)
Arthur Johnson
>
> Arthur, I would have to say that your statements about marijuana
> smokers are prejudiced and unfair. In my high school we had African
History,
> The History of blacks in America and African American Literature. I took
all
> three courses and attended many classes while high. I have to say that
these
> were the three most challenging and interesting classes I ever took.
Each class
> was finished with a research paper 10-20 pages long and I recieved an A
in the
> first two and a B- in the latter. Although many people do smoke pot to
just feel
> good, the responsible use of marijuana can actually improve your idea
formulating capabilities. In fact, Most of my friends who were also in the
class
> and I would get together, blaze a few J's and discuss what we were
learning.
>
> GanjaMon
>
> P.S. Thanks Dr. Spruill!
> (My favorite Teacher)
>
>
it could be taken to mean that I believe that all people who use marijuana
are irresponsible. That was not my intent. I was trying to convey a sense
of the type of students that the public high school in the town I grew up
in reserved the African-American social studies courses for. Perhaps I
should have chosen a better set of metaphors. Be that as it may, there is
no question in my mind that African-American history, at least in this
case, was not something that the "college-bound" students were expected to
take. It doesn't surprise me, therefore, when I hear that many white
students know nothing about African-American history or culture. In fact,
my experience in talking with white college students has been that most of
them consider the study of African-American history and culture to be a
waste of time, and a political sop thrown to black students to "keep them
quiet". Strangely, many of these same white students do not say this about
the study of African history. For example, the University of
Wisconsin-Madison has a three credit ethnic studies requirement. In large
part, the purpose of this requirement is to help white students relate to
the history and culture of blacks in America. Many white students take
African history or African literature to fulfill this requirement, and
have very positive, even enthusiastic, things to say about these courses.
However, I have yet to meet a white student here who has taken an
African-American history or African-American literature course to fulfill
this requirement. It would seem, therefore, that white American students
are more interested in relating to Africans than to African-Americans.
This leads me to wonder if the kind of thing that was done in my home-town
public high school, i.e. separating African-American history from American
history via a separate course, and then designing that course for those
who are considered "not academically inclined", has led, at least in part,
to the disparaging view that many white students have toward
African-American studies. Is it possible that separating African-American
history from American history produces a mind-set in which white students
consider African-American history not part of American history (and
therefore not worth studying as American history), and also not part of
African history (and therefore not worth studying as African history)? I
don't know the answer to this, but I wonder.
The high school that I did attend did not make this separation, i.e.
there were no separate courses in African-American history. However,
African-American history was always treated as an integral part of
American history, and was never shunted aside as something only to be
brought up during February. A lot of this was due to the belief of the
instructors that race has, unfortunately, been (and is) one of the key
paradigms of American history, and needs to be addressed head-on if one is
to make any sense at all of American history. Thus, unlike at many high
schools in this country, American history was not taught from a
"patriotic" perspective. But it wasn't taught from a "separatist"
perspective, either. Everyone had to learn about African-American history;
the option of white students separating themselves from black Americans by
not learning about them historically was simply not allowed. Overall, I
think my history instructors did a pretty good job in this respect.
Aaron Barnhart
>The Root of a Meaningful Dialogue
>
> Even though this is the 1990's, a meaningful dialogue needed to
>alleviate the problems between Black and White people still does not exist.
>We, as a society who is supposed to be a high intellect, are having a
>difficult time in finding this meaningful dialogue. Why are we having this
>difficultly? Is it a lack of stimuli? Is it unwillingness? Is it fear? Is
>it possible that it would prove to be too conflicting with traditional ideas?
Yes yes yes and yes. The same people are not guilty on all charges, of course,
and each of us needs to examine h'self esp. for fear. But when you roll
together the groups in this country that are significantly moved by apathy,
unwillingness, fear, and old allegiances, you have a large, even majority,
share of the population, which esp. this week is a very sad fact.
> As a student of a generally educated, moral conscious, endeavoring and
>observing society, I strongly believe the roots of this meaningful dialogue
>lies in Education. This meaningful dialogue would be the product of a proper
>and appropriate multicultural education. We, I must state, are a miseducated
>people (Black and White).
> Since the very first public school was established in Boston,
>Massachusetts in 1821, they (U.S. schools) have all have been uniformly
>adopted for the development of one sect of the population, the White sect.
>Moreover, even with the introduction of the first integrated public school in
>1953, they still service that same sect. Sadly, it has become the "norm" in
>the American educational system.
>[other good stuff deleted for space]
>If White people knew the truth about Black people, the
>prejudice against Black people would diminish (somewhat). It has becomes
>obvious that African-American history (and other ethnohistories besides the
>European's) are a necessity in the U.S. educational system.
Scaa regulars have talked a lot about Shelby Steele and his book _The Content
of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America._ Last night Prof. Steele
was on a panel during the CBS special report, "Beyond Rage" (about the LA
violence). He also said education, esp. K-8, was the key to the future, but
I think it was pretty clear he was talking about education that improved the
self. As he opposes race-based policies, such as job programs that are race-
based, he also would give education to uplift the poor from "the cycle of
poverty" (his words) priority over culturally (race) based education.
Aaron Barnhart
barn...@gagme.chi.il.us
--
Aaron Barnhart | "A Thursday story incorrectly quoted Council-
barn...@gagme.chi.il.us | man Stewart Clifton as calling Mayor Bill
I live in Evanston, Illinois | Boner a 'squeeze-bag.' Clifton called Boner a
and attend Reba Place Church | 'sleaze-bag.'" -- Nashville Evening Banner
Sean Andre Reed
>Is it possible that separating African-American
>history from American history produces a mind-set in which white students
>consider African-American history not part of American history (and
>therefore not worth studying as American history), and also not part of
>African history (and therefore not worth studying as African history)? I
>don't know the answer to this, but I wonder.
IMHO, The problem is that african-american history was added only recently
because lots of people demanded it. If it had existed in history books and
academic departments previously, i.e., if some people previously thought it
was a subject of VALUE which should be included in the curriculum, then the
mind set would have ALREADY been different than today and the idea of having
a separate AA department would be as silly as having a department for
20th century american authors separate from the rest of an English department.
African-american history should have always been a part of AMERICAN history.
> The high school that I did attend did not make this separation, i.e.
>there were no separate courses in African-American history. However,
>African-American history was always treated as an integral part of
>American history, and was never shunted aside as something only to be
>brought up during February.
From your description, it sounds to me like we could use the approach which
your high school took in many places across the country. One of the first
things that I hope went out of the window in your class is the whole idea that
this country has been a melting pot... people have been brought up thinking
that is true, and then it is only logical that they don't understand " why
black people are so angry all of the time. Why don't they melt like
everyone else?"
Another idea which I hope went out of the window is the fact that
racism is NOT a thing of the past, a minor wart which was surgically removed
in that best forgotten era, the '60s. Racism is rampant at the core of
american history. I hope that is a statement that people can understand.
The Constitution did not erase racism in 1789: a compromise was reached with
the southern states to include 3/5 of all "other persons", after all, Madison,
TJ and the gang couldn't let arguments over blacks endanger the new union, it
wasn't worth it.
The 'large, wholescale confiscation of property' (definitely not my words)
signed by executive order on the first day of 1863 did not end racism:
many (white) people in the country became concerned and outraged that the
republican party would turn the war into a war to free slaves rather than
save the union
(if you don't believe me, one piece of evidence is the NY DRAFT RIOTS of 1863,
which should also be known as the NY RACE RIOTS: many people paid with there
lives for being black in lots of cities around the country)
the congress did not erase it with the 13th and 14th
amendments ~1868: the federal court system eroded the protection of
the 14th amendment until it was useless as far as affording blacks anything
remotely resembling citizenship was concerned.
I could continue this line as far forward as time would allow.
Someone on this net (I think from new brunswick, NJ) made a comment that
blacks 'should stop bitching about the past.' To him, I say open your eyes and
take a look around. I wish that we were just bitching about the past,
because the country wouldn't look like it does now.
sean reed
sr...@leland.stanford.edu
Arthur Johnson
sr...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Sean Andre Reed) writes:
> joh...@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
> > The high school that I did attend did not make this separation,
i.e.
> >there were no separate courses in African-American history. However,
> >African-American history was always treated as an integral part of
> >American history, and was never shunted aside as something only to be
> >brought up during February.
>
> From your description, it sounds to me like we could use the approach
which
> your high school took in many places across the country. One of the
first
> things that I hope went out of the window in your class is the whole
idea that
> this country has been a melting pot... people have been brought up
thinking
> that is true, and then it is only logical that they don't understand "
why
> black people are so angry all of the time. Why don't they melt like
> everyone else?"
>
>
was generally seen as the result of the struggle (wrestling?) between all
Americans over how to build a nation founded on the political ideals of
the American Revolution, as stated in the Declaration of Independence
(note well: NOT as stated in the original Constitution!), i.e. "we hold
these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, among these
are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". American history is
filled with accounts of struggles between the landed gentry and the yeoman
farmers, capitalists and labor unions, men and women, all struggles for
human dignity. However, all of these struggles were seen to be corollary
to the key struggle: to achieve racial equality in America. This is the
one struggle that Americans have always been most passionate about, for
this struggle is the hinge upon which all of American history ultimately
turns. Anyone who doubts this need only consider the fact that Americans
have never fought a civil war over union rights, and no American woman was
ever lynched over the question of granting women the right to vote.
>
>
> Another idea which I hope went out of the window is the fact that
> racism is NOT a thing of the past, a minor wart which was surgically
removed
> in that best forgotten era, the '60s.
>
>
history up to about 1975. As I said above, I was never taught that racism
was a minor factor in American history.
>
> I could continue this line as far forward as time would allow.
> Someone on this net (I think from new brunswick, NJ) made a comment that
> blacks 'should stop bitching about the past.' To him, I say open your
eyes and
> take a look around. I wish that we were just bitching about the past,
> because the country wouldn't look like it does now.
>
>
>
>
> sean reed
> sr...@leland.stanford.edu
Sean Andre Reed
>In article <1992May3.1...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>sr...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Sean Andre Reed) writes:
>> joh...@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>> > The high school that I did attend did not make this separation,
>i.e.
>> >there were no separate courses in African-American history. However,
>> >African-American history was always treated as an integral part of
>> >American history, and was never shunted aside as something only to be
>> >brought up during February.
>>
>> From your description, it sounds to me like we could use the approach
>which
>> your high school took in many places across the country. One of the
>first
>> things that I hope went out of the window in your class is the whole
>idea that
>> this country has been a melting pot... people have been brought up
>thinking
>> that is true, and then it is only logical that they don't understand "
>why
>> black people are so angry all of the time. Why don't they melt like
>> everyone else?"
>>
>>
> I don't remember any use of the term "melting pot".
With regard to the issue of the 'great american melting pot', the term was
quite common in the text books that I remember (definitely elementary school,
possibly also high school). There was even an ABC
'Schoolhouse Rock' segement done with that very same title
(those of you who grew up on cartoons in seventies know what schoolhouse rock
is: small informational cartoon segements done to teach children about the
american revolution, boston tea party, and other american history subjects,
as well as math, english grammar ( the ones that come to mind are
Interjection!, and 'conjuction junction,what's your function?) [ I apologize
for the extended description of schoolhouse rock.] Anyway, the point is that
this was (I assume) nat'l network television (as seen from brooklyn, N.Y.), and
VERY mainstream.
Actually, the only reason the term melting pot was even in my mind at all was
that there was Donahue show in the past few weeks in which them was a woman in
the audience who decribed this country as such, while asking a question of
a young muslim who was in favor of a distinct black nation being created in
america. I guess she and I were watching the same t.v. programs... with
different perpectives on history.
>American history
>was generally seen as the result of the struggle (wrestling?) between all
>Americans over how to build a nation founded on the political ideals of
>the American Revolution, as stated in the Declaration of Independence
>(note well: NOT as stated in the original Constitution!), i.e. "we hold
>these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they
>are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, among these
>are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
American history is
>filled with accounts of struggles between the landed gentry and the yeoman
>farmers, capitalists and labor unions, men and women, all struggles for
>human dignity. However, all of these struggles were seen to be corollary
>to the key struggle: to achieve racial equality in America.
o.k. there are so many things going through my mind that I barely know where to
start. First of all, I really don't believe racial equality was at all an
issue with jefferson in his crafting of the Declaration, and I sincerely
question any passion with which he could have held this idea. As I recall,
there was a reference to the eradication of slavery in his original draft of
the Declaration, but it was removed to sell the document to the mainstream.
So much for passion. Now, I think a distinction must also be made between
the idea of the abdication of slavery as an economic system, which certainly
meshed well with the liberal ideas represented in the Declaration, with the
idea of racial equality, that 'all races are created equal, if you will.
(note: liberal as in classical liberal as in J.S. Mill's book "On Liberty"
I don't want anyone on the net to flame me.)
And if you make that distinction, IMHO,the declaration was not understood to
apply to blacks in any real sense at ALL by anything like a majority of
america. Again, to get an idea of what Jefferson, the author of the D of I,
thought about the equality of blacks to whites, I think that his 'Notes on the
State of Virginia' (c. 1791) is a good reference, as is correspondence with
Benjamin Bannaeker(sp?) who wrote him to find out if he actually meant what he
said.
This is the
>one struggle that Americans have always been most passionate about, for
>this struggle is the hinge upon which all of American history ultimately
>turns. Anyone who doubts this need only consider the fact that Americans
>have never fought a civil war over union rights, and no American woman was
>ever lynched over the question of granting women the right to vote.
Again, I really have to disagree with you on a major issue:
A large component of america WAS fighting a war over union rights, both in the
beginning, in the middle (1863, after Emancipation Proclamation), and at
its conclusion in 1865. I mentioned the draft riots last time as one
illustrative example of the feeling during the middle of the war, but here
is another argument which concentrates on the situation after the end of it
(not conclusive by any means, just suggestive):
if the average person wasn't fighting for union rights, or at the very most
was fighting only for the abolition of slavery rather than racial equality,
then how come the country remained so fundamently screwed up on the granting
of basic citizenship rights, non segregated facilities in south and NORTH, etc
etc. for ONE HUNDRED YEARS, and why did it take another struggle, both
violent and non-violent, to secure these rights? If people actually believed
in this, the events of the 1960's would have occured in the late 1860's -early
1870's during reconstruction.
MY favorite(sic) campaign slogan of history belongs to the democratic candidate
for president, whose last name was Seymour, running in 1868:
This is a WHITE man's country: Let WHITE men RULE
Seymour lost (to Grant or Johnson, I forget whether johnson was nearly
impeached during his first or second term), but the slogan itself has
probably damaged my view of the history of this country beyond all repair,
primarily because I believe the sentiment he expressed was not solely his, and
is NOT solely his even TODAY.
[ END OF HISTORICAL SIDENOTE ]
When I was in Hampton, VA last year there was a newspaper report of a few
fliers which were distributed in the area, one of which had various racial
epithets (an equal opportunity offender), another which had a picture of
a black man, and said:
He may be your equal, but he sure isn't MINE.
>>
>> Another idea which I hope went out of the window is the fact that
>> racism is NOT a thing of the past, a minor wart which was surgically
>removed
>> in that best forgotten era, the '60s.
>>
>>
> Since I graduated from high school in 1978, we only covered American
>history up to about 1975. As I said above, I was never taught that racism
>was a minor factor in American history.
I graduated in 1986. I really mean to say not that is wasn't a factor in
american history, but just that is was a factor in american HISTORY, not its
present.
>>
>> I could continue this line as far forward as time would allow.
>> Someone on this net (I think from new brunswick, NJ) made a comment that
>> blacks 'should stop bitching about the past.' To him, I say open your
>eyes and
>> take a look around. I wish that we were just bitching about the past,
>> because the country wouldn't look like it does now.
>>
>>
> I don't know who that person is, but it isn't me!
I hope that the guy from NJ doesn't flame me, I think that the comment
might have been from the Univ of CAPE TOWN. If it was, I APOLOGIZE!!!!
>Arthur Johnson
>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>Department of Chemistry
>joh...@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu
To the guy who posted from fordham, GO RAMS!!!!
--
****************************************************************************
Sean Reed
sr...@leland.stanford.edu
Arthur Johnson
> In article <1992May5.1...@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>
joh...@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>
> >In article <1992May3.1...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
> >sr...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Sean Andre Reed) writes:
>
> >> joh...@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>
>
> > I don't remember any use of the term "melting pot".
>
> With regard to the issue of the 'great american melting pot', the term
was
> quite common in the text books that I remember (definitely elementary
school,
> possibly also high school).
>
>
high school that I attended, "melting pot" was not used as a paradigm in
the teaching of American history. I agree that it is a mainstream term,
and it's very possible that the term was used in my elementary school
history textbook. It certainly didn't make much of an impression on me;
clearly, it has on others, however.
fact, the older he got, the more entrenched he became in his pro-slavery
position. However, once he wrote down those words, they started to take on
a life of their own. The abolition of slavery in all the states north of
Maryland during or just after the Revolutionary War was, IMO, a direct
result of the Revolutionary fervor generated, in part, by the ideals of
the Declaration of Independence. I understand that large-scale slavery in
the states that abolished it was also not economically feasible (unlike in
the southern states), but small-scale slavery in the sense of someone
having one or two house slaves might very well have been economically
feasible. Consequently, I don't think that the states that abolished
slavery did so purely for economic reasons; rather, they did so because
they thought that abolition was consistent with their interpretation of
the Declaration ideals (which most certainly was different from
Jefferson's "original intent", thank God!)
>
>
> So much for passion. Now, I think a distinction must also be made
between
> the idea of the abdication of slavery as an economic system, which
certainly
> meshed well with the liberal ideas represented in the Declaration, with
the
> idea of racial equality, that 'all races are created equal, if you will.
> (note: liberal as in classical liberal as in J.S. Mill's book "On
Liberty"
> I don't want anyone on the net to flame me.)
> And if you make that distinction, IMHO,the declaration was not
understood to
> apply to blacks in any real sense at ALL by anything like a majority of
> america. Again, to get an idea of what Jefferson, the author of the D of
I,
> thought about the equality of blacks to whites, I think that his 'Notes
on the
> State of Virginia' (c. 1791) is a good reference, as is correspondence
with
> Benjamin Bannaeker(sp?) who wrote him to find out if he actually meant
what he
> said.
>
>
"abolition of slavery" and "racial equality" are two very different
things, and that the majority of white Americans in the 18th and 19th
centuries (and many in the 20th century as well) did not believe that the
"all men are created equal" clause in the Declaration applied to black
Americans in any meaningful way. However, the fact that black Americans
have always comprised such a large percentage (between 8% and 25%,
depending on the time period) of America, coupled with the fact that,
until 1964, black Americans have always had fewer political rights (note
that I said "political", not "economic") than white Americans, firmly
places race as the key paradigm of American history. Up to 1865, this
manifested itself as the struggle over slavery. Once slavery was finally
abolished, the focus of the struggle then shifted to racial equality.
Indeed, concerning racial equality, complete and total victory, while IMO
inevitable (I always was an optimist :-)), has not yet been achieved.
Discussion of possible methods for achieving this will be saved for
another thread. Anyway, I still stand by my original two assertions. Race
(NOT gender!!!) is the key paradigm of American history, and racial
equality is the key struggle of American history (irrespective of what
some or most white Americans may or may not have believed at any
particular time.)
>
>
> This is the
> >one struggle that Americans have always been most passionate about, for
> >this struggle is the hinge upon which all of American history
ultimately
> >turns. Anyone who doubts this need only consider the fact that
Americans
> >have never fought a civil war over union rights, and no American woman
was
> >ever lynched over the question of granting women the right to vote.
>
>
> Again, I really have to disagree with you on a major issue:
> A large component of america WAS fighting a war over union rights, both
in the
> beginning, in the middle (1863, after Emancipation Proclamation), and at
> its conclusion in 1865.
>
>
"union rights", I didn't mean "Union rights", i.e. the issues surrounding
the preservation of the Union, or what the proper power relationship
should be between the states and the Federal Government. I meant "labor
union rights". "Union rights" was definitely one of the issues involved in
the Civil War, as you point out, but no American has ever fought a civil
war over "labor union rights".
>
>
> I mentioned the draft riots last time as one
> illustrative example of the feeling during the middle of the war, but
here
> is another argument which concentrates on the situation after the end of
it
> (not conclusive by any means, just suggestive):
>
> if the average person wasn't fighting for union rights, or at the very
most
> was fighting only for the abolition of slavery rather than racial
equality,
> then how come the country remained so fundamently screwed up on the
granting
> of basic citizenship rights, non segregated facilities in south and
NORTH, etc
> etc. for ONE HUNDRED YEARS, and why did it take another struggle, both
> violent and non-violent, to secure these rights? If people actually
believed
> in this, the events of the 1960's would have occured in the late 1860's
-early
> 1870's during reconstruction.
>
>
after the Civil War was that the Federal Government was divided. Andrew
Johnson was a Democrat, while Congress was controlled by the Republicans,
who themselves were divided about how to reconstruct the South. Johnson
came from a non-planter family in Tennessee, and he hated both plantation
owners and black Americans. Given that, it seems clear to me that he was
psychologically incapable of doing anything productive in resolving the
issue of reconstruction. The Republicans were divided between the
Radicals, who pressed for immediate racial equality at all levels of
society, and the Moderates, who felt that, now that slavery had been
abolished, racial equality would appear naturally over time (doesn't that
sound just like a Republican of today?) In addition, everyone was still in
shock over the tremendous carnage that resulted from the war, not to
mention the recent assassination of Lincoln. My feeling is that the period
between 1865-1870 was one of those times that a great opportunity opened,
and was missed, primarily because of political division and war
exhaustion. I'm not saying that white Americans during that time suddenly
all started embracing black Americans. But I do think that the horror of
the Civil War did, for a few short years, cause white Americans to realize
what the ultimate consequences are when a racially diverse society tries
to maintain a racially unequal political system (no justice, no peace).
The same thing, I believe, happened in the 1960's. The civil rights
movement (one might even call it "the civil rights war") swept away Jim
Crow, and secured basic citizenship rights for black Americans. At that
point, another window of opportunity opened for a few short years, and
again the opportunity was missed, and again the reasons were political
division and war exhaustion (as well as several political assassinations).
>
> MY favorite(sic) campaign slogan of history belongs to the democratic
candidate
> for president, whose last name was Seymour, running in 1868:
> This is a WHITE man's country: Let WHITE men RULE
>
>
Party has always claimed that it's purpose is to defend the political and
economic interests of the white working class in America. Before the Civil
War, it was the party of slavery. After the Civil War, it was the party of
Jim Crow, sharecropping, and state's rights. Their support of "labor union
rights" does not get them off the hook, either, because what they meant by
this was "labor union rights...for white workers".
>
>
> Seymour lost (to Grant or Johnson, I forget whether johnson was nearly
> impeached during his first or second term), but the slogan itself has
> probably damaged my view of the history of this country beyond all
repair,
> primarily because I believe the sentiment he expressed was not solely
his, and
> is NOT solely his even TODAY.
>
>
recall exactly what the charge was, but I remember that it was the Radical
Republicans who wanted him out. One of the great tragedies of American
history, IMO, is the failure of the Radical Republicans to maintain
control of Congress during Reconstruction. Thaddeus Stevens clearly
understood that both racial equality and economic compensation to the
former slaves were necessary if Reconstruction was to succeed. (Before
someone accuses me of being some kind of a right-wing Republican looney,
let me add that the modern Republican Party bears no resemblance to the
Republican Party of 1865. The modern Republican Party, in allowing
white-supremacy and vicious race-baiting to become its guiding philosophy,
has undergone a complete and total moral collapse.)
> [ END OF HISTORICAL SIDENOTE ]
>
> When I was in Hampton, VA last year there was a newspaper report of a
few
> fliers which were distributed in the area, one of which had various
racial
> epithets (an equal opportunity offender), another which had a picture of
> a black man, and said:
> He may be your equal, but he sure isn't MINE.
>
>
distributed. Here in the Madison area, there is a guy named Ken Peterson
who distributes literature for some KKK organization (on pink paper, no
less). I reported him to my landlord when he tried to solicit in the
apartment building where I live. If you think that posting his address and
phone number here might be valuable (he lists these on his literature), I
can do so the next time I see one of his fliers. I'm not suggesting that
anyone go out of their way to harass the guy, but it might be good for
everyone to be aware of who the ringleaders of these white supremacist
organizations are, and where they live.
>
>
> I hope that the guy from NJ doesn't flame me, I think that the comment
> might have been from the Univ of CAPE TOWN. If it was, I APOLOGIZE!!!!
>
>
for an Afrikaner to say that black Americans should stop "bitching about
the past" is kind of ironic, since it is the Afrikaners who constantly
"whine, moan, and bitch" about how terrible the English treated their
ancestors during the Great Trek, the Boer War, and pre-apartheid South
Africa (from the end of the Boer War up to 1948).
>
>
**************************************************************************
**
>
> Sean Reed
> sr...@leland.stanford.edu
Sean Andre Reed
>>
>> > I don't remember any use of the term "melting pot".
>>
>> With regard to the issue of the 'great american melting pot', the term
>was
>> quite common in the text books that I remember (definitely elementary
>school,
>> possibly also high school).
> I guess I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that, in the
>high school that I attended, "melting pot" was not used as a paradigm in
>the teaching of American history.
Got it.
>>First of all, I really don't believe racial equality was at all an
>> issue with jefferson in his crafting of the Declaration...
> I agree that racial equality was never an issue for Jefferson.
>However, once he wrote down those words, they started to take on
>a life of their own.
The abolition of slavery in all the states north of
>Maryland during or just after the Revolutionary War was, IMO, a direct
>result of the Revolutionary fervor generated, in part, by the ideals of
>the Declaration of Independence. I understand that large-scale slavery in
>the states that abolished it was also not economically feasible (unlike in
>the southern states), but small-scale slavery <stuff deleted>...might very
>well have been economically feasible. Consequently, I don't think that the states that abolished slavery did so purely for economic reasons; rather, they did so because they thought that abolition was consistent with their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>interpretation of the Declaration ideals (which most certainly was different
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>from Jefferson's "original intent", thank God!)
^^^^^^^^
THANK GOD, INDEED! People think that race relations in this country are
in bad shape NOW...
Actually, when I said people were for the abdication of slavery as a economic
system, it was precisely for the reason which you stated: namely, that the
idea that there should be a system of labor in a country which held
liberty as one of its basic tenets was in some measurable sense inconsistent.
Sorry, should have been more clear.
>> Now, I think a distinction must also be made between
>> the idea of the abdication of slavery as an economic system, which
>certainly meshed well with the liberal ideas represented in the Declaration,
>>with the idea of racial equality, that 'all races are created equal.
>> And if you make that distinction, IMHO,the declaration was not
>understood to
>> apply to blacks in any real sense at ALL by anything like a majority of
>> america. < stuff deleted>
<stuff deleted>
>... the fact that black Americans
>have always comprised such a large percentage (between 8% and 25%,
>depending on the time period) of America, coupled with the fact that,
>until 1964, black Americans have always had fewer political rights (note
>that I said "political", not "economic") than white Americans, firmly
>places race as the key paradigm of American history.
No argument from me. Expand on the political vs. economic aspect.
>Up to 1865, this
>manifested itself as the struggle over slavery. Once slavery was finally
>abolished, the focus of the struggle then shifted to racial equality.
>Indeed, concerning racial equality, complete and total victory, while IMO
>inevitable (I always was an optimist :-)), has not yet been achieved.
You ARE an optimist. Do you have a chart with predictions on the year this
will happen and the associated odds? I can ALWAYS use some extra cash.
>Anyway, I still stand by my original two assertions. Race
>(NOT gender!!!) is the key paradigm of American history, and racial
>equality is the key struggle of American history (irrespective of what
>some or most white Americans may or may not have believed at any
>particular time.)
We really don't have a disagreement. So how do we get the rest of the world
to look at it this way? (you DON'T really have to answer that, but if you
do have a good answer, you should consider running for office.)
>> Again, I really have to disagree with you on a major issue:
>> A large component of america WAS fighting a war over union rights...
> Again, I didn't make myself clear. Sorry about that... I meant "labor
>union rights"...
BIG difference! Got it.
>> if the average person wasn't fighting for union rights, or at the very
>>most was fighting only for the abolition of slavery rather than racial
>>equality, then how come the country remained so fundamently screwed up on
the granting of basic citizenship rights...
>> etc. for ONE HUNDRED YEARS, and why did it take another struggle, both
>> violent and non-violent, to secure these rights?
> Here I can only speculate. I think that one serious problem just
>after the Civil War was that the Federal Government was divided.
>Johnson came from a non-planter family in Tennessee, and he hated both
>plantation owners and black Americans.
True true true. He was on the ticket because he was a southerner, though a
peculiar one. The eastern tennessee region from which johnson felt a strong
affinity was yeoman 'high country'. everybody was the enemy, the planters for
their complete domination of state life, and the slaves, because it was
their forced labor which made the planters wealthy and thereby dominate
state life.
>My feeling is that the period
>between 1865-1870 was one of those times that a great opportunity opened,
>and was missed, primarily because of political division and war
>exhaustion.
One of the great tragedies of American
>history, IMO, is the failure of the Radical Republicans to maintain
>control of Congress during Reconstruction. Thaddeus Stevens clearly...
I think the opportunity was missed because there was no ground swell.
I characterize the typical midwestern reaction as
"Slavery is dead, the negro is not, there is the misfortune."
or 'so what if they're are no longer slaves we still don't want them in our
beloved state can't we send them back to africa where we got them?'
The southern reaction was generally less philosophical, much more violent and
was usually something simple like 'Kill the nig***s', or even a more
moderate version like 'Kill the nig***s if they don't want the country
and our relationship with them to be the same as it was before the war'
obviously I am making generalizations,... but even if the Rad Repub's
were able to keep the different statehouses packed with their supporters
for another few years, even if Johnson actually gave a damn, Grant had been
effective, etc at some point the local leaders would STILL have been allowed
back into control. I just would have happenned later rather than sooner,
because I don't think attitudes would have changed much...
and if what I characterized above was even remotely like what the local
leaders sentiments were, and what their constituency felt race relations
be like, then there was no hope.
The people of Georgia(SC?) ELECTED the VP of the CONFEDERACY to the SENATE for
goodness sake. that is my definition of no hope.
>I'm not saying that white Americans during that time suddenly
>all started embracing black Americans. But I do think that the horror of
>the Civil War did, for a few short years, cause white Americans to realize
>what the ultimate consequences are when a racially diverse society tries
>to maintain a racially unequal political system (no justice, no peace).
Unfortunately, after the window was gone, it was buisiness as usual.
Don't you want to go back and tell them to get it together? ( I would do
it myself, but I probably wouldn't survive too long.)
>> MY favorite(sic) campaign slogan of history belongs to the democratic
>candidate
>> for president, whose last name was Seymour, running in 1868:
>> This is a WHITE man's country: Let WHITE men RULE
>>
>>
> I'm not surprised that this guy Seymour said this. The Democratic
>Party has always claimed that it's purpose is to defend the political and
>economic interests of the white working class in America.
>their support of labor union rights" does not get them off the hook,
>either, because what they meant by this was "labor union rights...for
white workers".
Yep.
> Johnson was nearly impeached during his first term; I don't quite
>recall exactly what the charge was, but I remember that it was the Radical
>Republicans who wanted him out.
I can't recall the charge either, but the RR's were definitely behind it.
>> When I was in Hampton, VA last year there was a newspaper report of a
>few fliers which were distributed in the area,
>> one of which had a black man, and said:
>> He may be your equal, but he sure isn't MINE.
>>
>>
> I am very much aware that fliers like the ones you mentioned are
>distributed. If you think that posting his address and
phone number here might be valuable...
I'll pass on that one, thanks.
>> I hope that the guy from NJ doesn't flame me, I think that the comment
>> might have been from the Univ of CAPE TOWN. If it was, I APOLOGIZE!!!!
> It might very well have been an Afrikaner from Cape Town. However,
>for an Afrikaner to say that black Americans should stop "bitching about
>the past" is kind of ironic, since it is the Afrikaners who constantly
>"whine, moan, and bitch" about how terrible the English treated their
>ancestors during the Great Trek, the Boer War, and pre-apartheid South
>Africa (from the end of the Boer War up to 1948).
>Arthur Johnson
>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>Department of Chemistry
>joh...@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu
I think we have little or no disagreement; you are just a little more of an
optimist than I, both about what could have been done in the past, and what
can be done in the future. Keep trying, though, you may convert me yet!
--
Sean Reed
sr...@leland.stanford.edu