The Study of Racialism

Discussion of U.S. Racialism
About This Study Group and its Site
'
It is currently Fri 03 Sep 2010 03:43

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Disallowed: ad hominem, straw man, faith-based dispute, semantic dispute
Allowed: unsubstantiated factual claim, moral advocacy, mere feelings



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 15 Apr 2007 11:32 
Online
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 26 Nov 2004 21:14
Posts: 5517
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Salsassin wrote:
Quote:
as dark skin color is a dominant trait

I find it ironic the Professor Williams would make such an incorrect claim considering dark skin color of her family definitely did not dominate in her

If the professor had made the ridiculous and ignorant claim that skin tone is a "dominant trait" on this website, she would have been forced to either learn the facts or be suspended.

_________________
Frank W. Sweet
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 15 Apr 2007 12:28 
Offline
Experienced User
Experienced User

Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2007 22:07
Posts: 261
Location: Canada
Aside from the genetic realities of skin tone, I think this lady makes some good points about racialism in the United States. "Confederate Heritage Month" ? :roll:

I had been thinking a little on this case, and even though the parents have been the ones put on the hot seat, it's really their lawyers who chose the position and informed them of what to say.

The fact that any trained lawyer would find this racial argument as their best strategy says more about the society than about the specific individuals in this case. Those lawyers would likely be aiming for a trial by jury which would mean their money is on the American public to find this racial argument a sound and logical way of viewing this situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 15 Apr 2007 17:20 
Offline
Superuser
Superuser
User avatar

Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005 15:59
Posts: 3515
Patience wrote:
Aside from the genetic realities of skin tone, I think this lady makes some good points about racialism in the United States. "Confederate Heritage Month" ? :roll:


Quote:
The Confederados are a cultural sub-group in the nation of Brazil. They are the descendants of Confederate soldiers who fled to Brazil with their families after the American Civil War.

At the end of the American Civil War, Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil was interested in having cotton crops due to the high prices and, through Masonry contacts, recruited experienced cotton farmers for his nation. Dom Pedro offered the potential immigrants subsidies and tax breaks. General Robert E. Lee advised Southerners not to flee to South America but many ignored his advice and set out to establish a new life away from the destruction of war. Many Southerners who took the Emperor's offer had lost their land during the war, were unwilling to live under a conquering army, or simply did not expect an improvement in the South's economic position. In addition, Brazil would not outlaw slavery until 1888. Although a number of historians say that the existence of slavery was an appeal, Alcides Gussi, an independent researcher of Campinas University, found that only four families owned a total of 66 slaves from 1868 to 1875. So, it is an established fact that the immigrants did not revert to large-scale, slave-intensive agriculture. Most of the immigrants were from the states of Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina.

It is unknown just how many immigrants came to Brazil as refugees from the war, but an unpublished research in the Rio de Janeiro Port by Betty Antunes de Oliveira counts some 9,000 Americans that entered Brazil from. Of those, an unknown number returned to the United States as conditions improved there. Many immigrants renounced their American citizenship and adopted Brazilian citizenship.

The immigrants settled in various places in Brazil ranging from the urban areas of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo to the northern Amazon region and Paraná in the south. But most of the Confederados settled in the area around present-day Santa Bárbara D'Oeste and Americana, Brazil near São Paulo, derived from the name Vila dos Americanos. This was the name given by natives in the region due to its American population.

The first original Confederados known to arrive was Colonel William H. Norris of Alabama—the colony at Santa Bárbara D'Oeste is sometimes called the Norris Colony.

Dom Pedro's program was judged a success for both the immigrants and the Brazilian government. The settlers brought with them modern agricultural techniques and new crops such as watermelon, and pecans that soon spread among the native Brazilian farmers. Some foods of the American South also crossed over and became part of general Brazilian culture such as chess pie, vinegar pie, and southern fried chicken.

The original Confederados continued many elements of American culture and established the first Baptist churches in Brazil. They also established public schools and provided education to their female children, which was unusual in Brazil at the time. The Confederados also founded Colégio Internacional in Campinas and the Escola Americana in São Paulo to provide higher education to their children.

Surprising to modern Americans, the Confederados educated their slaves and black freemen in their new schools. To their Brazilian neighbors this practice was considered unusual and even scandalous.

Descendants of the immigrants

The first generation of Confederados remained an insular community, but by the third generation, most of the families had intermarried with native Brazilians or immigrants of other origins. Descendants of the Confederados increasingly spoke the Portuguese language and identified themselves as Brazilians. As the area around Santa Bárbara d'Oeste and Americana turned increasingly to the production of sugar cane and society became more mobile, the Confederados drifted to cities. Today, only a few descendant families still live on the original land owned by their ancestors. The descendants of the original Confederados are mostly scattered throughout Brazil but maintain the headquarters of their descendant organization at the Campo Cemetery, in Santa Bárbara D'Oeste.

The descendants still foster a connection with their history through the Fraternity of American Descendants, a descendant organization dedicated to preserving the unique mixed culture. The Confederados also have an annual festival, called the Festa Confederada which is dedicated to fund the Campo Cemetery. The festival is marked by Confederate flags, traditional dress of Confederate uniforms and hoop skirts, food of the American south with a Brazilian flair, and dances and music popular in the American south during the antebellum period. The descendants maintain affection for the Confederate flag even though they all consider themselves completely Brazilian. Modern Confederados distance themselves from any of the racial controversies.

In Brazil the Confederate flag has not previously had the racial stigma that has been attached to it in the United States. Many descendants are of mixed race and reflect the varied racial categories that make up Brazilian society in their physical appearance. Recently the Brazilian residents of Americana, now of primarily Italian-descent, have removed the Confederate flag from the city's crest citing the fact that Confederados now make up only 10 percent of the city's population. The Confederate flag was associated with the city in the wake of Jimmy Carter's visit to the region.

Many Confederados have traveled to the United States at the invitation of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an American descendant's organization, to visit Civil War battlefields, attend reenactments, or see where their ancestors lived in the US.

The center of Confederado culture is the Campo Cemetery in Santa Bárbara d'Oeste, where most of the original Confederados from the region were buried. Due to their Protestant religion, they established their own cemetery. The Confederado community has also established a Museum of Immigration at Santa Bárbara d'Oeste to present the history of Brazilian immigration and highlight its benefits to the nation.

In 1972 Then Governor (and future President) Jimmy Carter of Georgia visited the city of Americana and visited the grave of his wife Rosalyn's great-uncle who was one of the original Confederados.

Image
Image
Image
Image
http://www.confederados.com.br/
http://www.scv.org/Camp1653/tour.htm

Now if Brazilian Confederates of mixed ancestry can consider Confederacy more than just nostalgia on racialism, why couldn't mnay Americans do so as well?
Quote:
I had been thinking a little on this case, and even though the parents have been the ones put on the hot seat, it's really their lawyers who chose the position and informed them of what to say.

The fact that any trained lawyer would find this racial argument as their best strategy says more about the society than about the specific individuals in this case. Those lawyers would likely be aiming for a trial by jury which would mean their money is on the American public to find this racial argument a sound and logical way of viewing this situation.

Agreed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 15 Apr 2007 17:36 
Offline
Experienced User
Experienced User

Joined: Fri 20 Oct 2006 21:33
Posts: 280
Location: Akron, Ohio
What a hoot! roflmao!

With a bit of luck, in a hundred years or less the entire human population will be hugging and kissing.

Just think, the Jews in South America will undoubtedly, given enough time, embrace the guy who used to run Germany 62 years ago even though their complaint wasn't about slavery.


Last edited by Andrew Waters on Sun 15 Apr 2007 17:45, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 15 Apr 2007 17:38 
Offline
Wizard
Wizard
User avatar

Joined: Wed 07 Feb 2007 17:02
Posts: 1876
Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
I never understood why people are proud their ancestors were traitors. I would be ashamed.

I also never fully understood why Jefferson Davis and the rest of the leaders of the Confederacy (political and military) were not hanged for treason after all the death they caused. :roll: Every single one of them should have been strung up (my personal belief would be drawn and quartered but you know).

_________________
My Site:
http://evocausality.ipbhost.com/

George Bernard Shaw: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 15 Apr 2007 17:46 
Offline
Experienced User
Experienced User

Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2007 22:07
Posts: 261
Location: Canada
Thanks for this information Salsassin. That is a very interesting and strange story. I never heard of Civil War refugees in Brazil before.

Quote:
Now if Brazilian Confederates of mixed ancestry can consider Confederacy more than just nostalgia on racialism, why couldn't mnay Americans do so as well?


From what I get from the information you posted on the Confederados, something changed in their perspectives and their society.

A symbol is just a lot of lines and colours without an understanding behind it.

The American South had the KKK etc. In a lot of ways nothing changed there and this flag came to represent the celebration of that unchanging. That is the big difference. Same lines and colours but altogether different meanings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 15 Apr 2007 23:10 
Offline
Superuser
Superuser
User avatar

Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005 15:59
Posts: 3515
I would say that slavery was one issue and state rights were another. Many see the confederate flag on one line and other see the other line. Remember that the confederacy didn't start slavery, so a comparison to Germany would be incorrect. Nor was Lincoln trying to make Blacks equals in rights to him so that claim is false as well. Born and raised in slave states many people did horrible things, but you can't claim the whole era was evil because of one aspect of it.
I think many embrace the confederate flag because of their frustrations with how government is today. Right or wrong, I do not think it is always about racism. Not saying I agree with them, far from it, but they have a lot more burning in their minds than racialism.

http://www.geocities.com/confederate_cause/

I guess I would just get a feel for a person who embraces that flag before assuming they are racists.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 15 Apr 2007 23:19 
Online
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 26 Nov 2004 21:14
Posts: 5517
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Patience wrote:
From what I get from the information you posted on the Confederados, something changed in their perspectives and their society.

Not really. We modern folks tend to project Jim Crow attitudes back onto the antebellum South. Tens of thousands of biracial slaveowners fought for the Confederacy. The richest woman in 1825 Florida was a professional slave-trader from Senegal. In 1850 New Orleans, one Black family in four owned slaves and the fraction was even higher among Coloured Creoles. Buy my book, if you want to learn more, or read the three online essays: Barbadian South Carolina: A Class-Based Color Line, Antebellum Louisiana and Alabama: Two Color Lines, Three Endogamous Groups, and No Color Line in Spanish Florida. The folks in Cidade Americana descend from Lower South (Gulf Coast, Florida, SC) Confederates (1864), not from Jim Crow Southerners (1920). They were fanatically obsessed about slavery but not very concerned over "racial purity." The latter is a notion that took hold much later in the U.S. but not in Brazil, where these people were living at the time. We (Mary Lee, the kids, and me) lived near Cidade Americana and visited there. In fact, now that I recall, our family dentist was from there. That's why he spoke perfect English but with a strange accent.

Dragon Horse wrote:
I never understood why people are proud their ancestors were traitors. I would be ashamed. I also never fully understood why Jefferson Davis and the rest of the leaders of the Confederacy (political and military) were not hanged for treason after all the death they caused. Every single one of them should have been strung up (my personal belief would be drawn and quartered but you know).

Excellent question! Believe it or not, it was debated in Congress. The Congress wanted to do just that, but the new president (a former slaveowner from Tennessee who became president upon Lincoln's murder) vetoed their every effort. Finally, they tried to impeach him but failed. He was not re-elected but the next president, Grant, had become convinced that: (1) Such retaliation would produce never-ending hatred and terrorism, generation after generation (like Northern Ireland). (2) His successors gradually realized that the nation's wounds could be healed very cheaply by simply making African Americans the scapegoats for the whole unpleasantness. Personally, I would have voted with you. It is probably best that we are not politicians.

_________________
Frank W. Sweet
Image


Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 16 Apr 2007 00:37, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 00:22 
Offline
Experienced User
Experienced User

Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2007 22:07
Posts: 261
Location: Canada
Quote:
Buy my book, if you want to learn more, or read the three online essays: Barbadian South Carolina: A Class-Based Color Line, Antebellum Louisiana and Alabama: Two Color Lines, Three Endogamous Groups, and No Color Line in Spanish Florida.


Frank, I must confess that I need to read more of your writings and research, and I will do that eventually. If you just could have thrown in more passionate adventures and fewer numbers. :D

Now, I'm in no way a big Confederacy fan for one obvious reason, but "traitor" is really a matter of opinion isn't it? After all, to many of my Loyalist ancestors, your ancestors were traitors and thieves, yet I'm sure they didn't see it that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 00:40 
Online
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 26 Nov 2004 21:14
Posts: 5517
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Patience wrote:
"traitor" is really a matter of opinion isn't it?

Of course. If you lose you're a traitor. The Continentals of 1776-83 won. The Confederates of 1861-65 lost.

_________________
Frank W. Sweet
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 02:36 
Offline
Wizard
Wizard
User avatar

Joined: Wed 07 Feb 2007 17:02
Posts: 1876
Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Patience wrote:
Quote:
Buy my book, if you want to learn more, or read the three online essays: Barbadian South Carolina: A Class-Based Color Line, Antebellum Louisiana and Alabama: Two Color Lines, Three Endogamous Groups, and No Color Line in Spanish Florida.


Frank, I must confess that I need to read more of your writings and research, and I will do that eventually. If you just could have thrown in more passionate adventures and fewer numbers. :D

Now, I'm in no way a big Confederacy fan for one obvious reason, but "traitor" is really a matter of opinion isn't it? After all, to many of my Loyalist ancestors, your ancestors were traitors and thieves, yet I'm sure they didn't see it that way.


The winner decides who the traitor is. That is the way it is. The people who led the revolution here fully expected to be hanged, Benjamin Franklin said "we stand together or hang seperately".

These people were traitors to the union and they should have hanged for high treason. The is the price of starting sh1t you can't finish.

_________________
My Site:
http://evocausality.ipbhost.com/

George Bernard Shaw: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 09:24 
Offline
Experienced User
Experienced User

Joined: Fri 20 Oct 2006 21:33
Posts: 280
Location: Akron, Ohio
Salsassin wrote:
''I would say that slavery was one issue and state rights were another.''

But they became intertwined as time dragged on. So depending on which historian one reads they were separate issues; not so to others.

''Remember that the confederacy didn't start slavery...'', I agree but they went to war to maintain it.

''...so a comparison to Germany would be incorrect.''

The comparison was people of color embracing a symbol of oppression which will be the Stars and Bars and the hypothetical that Jewish people would embrace the swastika after the fact. It doesn't matter what time frame. The people in Brazil in the late 1800s may not have known or even cared about the flag and what it represented to those laboring under its reach but it seems to me those living in that area today would know what it means...at least one?

''Nor was Lincoln trying to make Blacks equals in rights to him so that claim is false as well.''

I agree on this.

''Born and raised in slave states many people did horrible things, but you can't claim the whole era was evil because of one aspect of it.''

The whole of Nazi Germany wasn't evil either, just the folks running it—and the military machine as a tool to implement force.

''I think many embrace the confederate flag because of their frustrations with how government is today.''

A lot of people don't like the way the government is run but they don't see the confederate flag as a symbol to uphold in demonstrating their displeasure.

''Right or wrong, I do not think it is always about racism. Not saying I agree with them, far from it, but they have a lot more burning in their minds than racialism.''

And I will agree with this because events far removed from the present just won't carry the same weight for some people. Some have the ''nostalgia gene'' some don't. For quite a lot of them I'm sure it is nothing more than honoring relatives who were caught up in a situation far beyond their control. I wouldn't take that from them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 11:13 
Online
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 26 Nov 2004 21:14
Posts: 5517
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Andrew Waters wrote:
events far removed from the present just won't carry the same weight for some people. Some have the ''nostalgia gene'' some don't. For quite a lot of them I'm sure it is nothing more than honoring relatives who were caught up in a situation far beyond their control. I wouldn't take that from them.

My experience with nostalgia nuts who wave the so-called Confederate flag today (both in the U.S. and in Brazil) is that most are abysmally ignorant of their own past.

The heritage buffs that we met in Americana, Brazil, had no idea of the horrific state-sponsored anti-Black terrorism that the United States went through during the Jim Crow era, a half-century after their ancestors left the South. After all, the Confederates in Brazil sent their slave kids to school with their own kids, and manumitted Brazlian slaves were accepted into mainstream working-class society (including being suitable marriage partners).

Here in the 'States, many Confederate re-enactors of my acquaintance sincerely believe that the U.S. Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, and that hundreds of thousands of African Americans fought on the Confederate side in the doomed struggle to resist Yankee oppression. They are honestly mystified as to why African Americans resent the so-called Confederate flag, or think that the resentment is merely Yankee political-correctness run amok.

Perhaps we should split off a thread called "The so-called Confederate flag," since there is so much misinformation and ignorance about this unauthentic political symbol.

_________________
Frank W. Sweet
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 16:17 
Offline
Mentor
Mentor

Joined: Wed 27 Apr 2005 15:27
Posts: 878
fwsweet wrote:
Andrew Waters wrote:
events far removed from the present just won't carry the same weight for some people. Some have the ''nostalgia gene'' some don't. For quite a lot of them I'm sure it is nothing more than honoring relatives who were caught up in a situation far beyond their control. I wouldn't take that from them.

My experience with nostalgia nuts who wave the so-called Confederate flag today (both in the U.S. and in Brazil) is that most are abysmally ignorant of their own past.

The heritage buffs that we met in Americana, Brazil, had no idea of the horrific state-sponsored anti-Black terrorism that the United States went through during the Jim Crow era, a half-century after their ancestors left the South. After all, the Confederates in Brazil sent their slave kids to school with their own kids, and manumitted Brazlian slaves were accepted into mainstream working-class society (including being suitable marriage partners).

Here in the 'States, many Confederate re-enactors of my acquaintance sincerely believe that the U.S. Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, and that hundreds of thousands of African Americans fought on the Confederate side in the doomed struggle to resist Yankee oppression. They are honestly mystified as to why African Americans resent the so-called Confederate flag, or think that the resentment is merely Yankee political-correctness run amok.

Perhaps we should split off a thread called "The so-called Confederate flag," since there is so much misinformation and ignorance about this unauthentic political symbol.


It's amazing how ignorant people are of American history. I think it's sometimes deliberately so. I realize that many Southerners have been brainwashed into believing the Civil War was just a "War Between the States," but once someone is an adult and has access to real history it's a different story.

It's mystifying that people really don't want to believe that slavery was a horrific institution. And, I agree with you, Frank, about the cynical use of blaming "political correctness" for righteous indignation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 17:16 
Online
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 26 Nov 2004 21:14
Posts: 5517
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Triguy wrote:
It's amazing how ignorant people are of American history. I think it's sometimes deliberately so. I realize that many Southerners have been brainwashed into believing the Civil War was just a "War Between the States," but once someone is an adult and has access to real history it's a different story.

At one level, I can understand the problem. K-12 "history" is not intended to teach about America's past. The kids and their teachers must cover an overwhelming amount of material, so whenever school boards discuss curricula, they must decide what to leave out. And they usually decide that "history" should aim to teach citizenship skills, specifically, to cover only the U.S. myths and legends that they must learn if they are to function in U.S. society. Once they can function as citizens, if any of them want to learn the facts, they can do it in college. At least, that is the rationale.

At another level, it is very frustrating. Most people do not take college history and so they go through life thinking that what they were taught in K-12 is factually accurate. Debra Dickerson has a sad/funny account of when Senator John McCain was informed that his great-grandparents were slaveowners. He was dumfounded. Although McCain often talks about how his ancestors had fought for the Confederacy and that they owned plantations, it had never occurred to him that they owned slaves. (To be honest, I cannot vouch for the tale; Dickerson may have made it up or copied it from someone who did; but I have seen similar cases.)

It is sometimes deliberate, but in more ways than you may think. When non-scholars (like Dickerson) suddenly learn historical facts in adulthood, they assume that their ignorance is the result of a vast White conspiracy, rather than of their own lack of diligence. Dickerson, for instance, explains McCain's ignorance (and her own prior ignorance) by saying that, "whites cannot allow themselves to know their unbowdlerized, unexpurgated history." This is ridiculous since the facts are available in any college text or monograph to anyone who takes the time to read. If she had said that, "not teaching kids historical facts during K-12 is harmful to society," I would have agreed. But there is no excuse for being deliberately ignorant of college level material and then deliberately accusing its authors of White falsification.

Triguy wrote:
It's mystifying that people really don't want to believe that slavery was a horrific institution.

Here is how Mary Lee and I explain the system that U.S. slavery evolved into. When we perform Stephen Foster's "My Old Kentucky Home Goodnight," we tell the audience that it was written in response to Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin (which was written in response to Foster's song "Nelly Was a Lady"). The song, like the novel, focuses on the pivotal problem. Not all slaveowners were cruel. In fact, very few Americans are deliberately cruel. Most were kind, compassionate followers of Christ. But slaves were property. And everyone dies sooner or later. When any business owner dies with unpaid debts, his/her assets must be liquidated--auctioned off to settle probate. If the business owned slaves, they must be auctioned off along with the other property, as livestock. It makes no difference how kind and compassionate the executor, the law requires liquidation. No matter how kind and compassionate the auctioneer, he must sell each slave to the highest bidder. No matter how kind and compassionate the buyers, children will be torn from parents, and husbands from wives. And so, the worst conceivable nightmare that can befall any family unfolds inevitably, step-by-step, despite all the kindness and compassion in the world, because the system demands it. This song is about a slave auction that happens after a kind and compassionate slaveowner dies... [and then we start playing our instruments and singing].

_________________
Frank W. Sweet
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 18:18 
Offline
Experienced User
Experienced User

Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2007 22:07
Posts: 261
Location: Canada
Frank, I realize that you are trying to teach children but is teaching about the "kind compassionate Jesus-loving slave owner" the right thing?

Because I was raised in Canada something that really stands out for me is how American society is such a highly mythologized community, where historical symbols, people and stories take on religious-like meanings.

There is an entire mythical structure around slavery that has always insulated the "white" community from the reality of it. "Gone with the Wind" slavery is a great example.

Maybe I don't understand the fine line you have to walk in your community but if you said that to one of my children, I'd be annoyed at you to say the least.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 18:23 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat 27 Nov 2004 15:11
Posts: 1845
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Check this out. I found out about this guy some years back: H. K. Edgerton, a Black Confederate who marches across the South with the rebel flag!!!

H. K. Edgerton


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 18:49 
Online
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 26 Nov 2004 21:14
Posts: 5517
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Patience wrote:
Frank, I realize that you are trying to teach children but is teaching about the "kind compassionate Jesus-loving slave owner" the right thing?

Religion appears only once in the blub (in the word "Christ") and nowhere else. Yesterday's gig was in a Christian church, and so it seemed appropriate to mention Jesus. Obviously, when we perform for Jewish groups, or for public schools, we leave out that word.

It appears to me, however, that your complaint is not about injecting religion, but about portraying slaveowners as people who were basically as humane as you and me, but who were trapped in a monstrous system. Our portrayal of kindly slaveonwers (copying Stowe and Foster) is deliberate on two counts.

First, all of my reading and all of my experience tells me that most people are good, and that very, very few are deliberately evil. People do evil because of the circumstances in which they find themselves and due to the training that they have received. As children, they are taught to follow society's rules and they try to do so throughout their lives. Evil happens when those rules produce a terrible result. At first, the people causing the terrible result by following rules learned in childhood deny that the results are all that bad. But as evidence mounts that they are actually commiting evil, like it or not, they react in different ways. To see how people react to such conflict, I recommend Leon Festinger, Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford: Stanford University, 1957). To avoid personally falling into such a trap, I recommend any introduction to moral philosophy that includes Kant, Bentham (or Mill), and a selection of reilgious leaders (Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus). In short, we portray slaveowners as otherwise ordinary people trapped within a horrific system because we honestly believe that they were.

The second count is that to portray slaveowners as inherently evil would neutralize our goal. We want to teach. We want our audiences to learn. Any white person (like McCain) who knows deep down that his/her g-grandparents were slaveowners will just tune us out if we suggest that the people listening to us are themselves the spawn of evil people. And any Black person will be re-affirmed that all Whites are blue-eyed devils. Neither is the desired effect.

Our goal is to have our audience come away with an appreciation of just how monstrous the U.S. slave system was -- that if you were trapped in it, then no matter how hard you struggled to avoid it, you would either commit or suffer terrible injustice.

You are correct. Sometimes people are annoyed at learning these facts. Most people prefer to believe that evil is done by evil people. By hugging this childhood fantasy close, Blacks can say that "all Whites are bad." And Whites can say, "those people back then were possessed by demons (like 1936-45 Germans), but I am not like them. I am a good person. I could never do wrong. I follow the rules."

That is why we do it with music. Annoyed or not, they invite us back to hear the music and dance. Eventually, a little at a time, they learn.

_________________
Frank W. Sweet
Image


Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 16 Apr 2007 19:12, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 19:09 
Online
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 26 Nov 2004 21:14
Posts: 5517
Location: Palm Coast, FL
fwsweet wrote:
To avoid personally falling into such a trap, I suggested any introduction to moral philosophy that includes Kant, Bentham (or Mill), and a selection of reilgious leaders (Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus).

It just dawned on me that a college-level course on moral philosophy does not help kids in middle school, when they need it most. To provide a sound moral foundation for kids that age (assuming that they are not already in CCD or the equivalent), you might want to buy them C.S. Lewis's Narnia series. Not as trendy as Harry Potter, but guaranteed to be saved and passed on to their children in turn.

_________________
Frank W. Sweet
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 16 Apr 2007 19:18 
Offline
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: Sat 17 Jun 2006 22:24
Posts: 2420
fwsweet wrote:
Most people prefer to believe that evil is done by evil people. By hugging this childhood fantasy close, Blacks can say that all Whites are bad. And Whites can say, those people back then were possessed by demons (like 1936-45 Germans), but I am not like them. I am a good person. I could never do wrong. I follow the rules.


This is spot on. To your other point on Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory, I can still remember the light bulb flahing in my head after encountering it for the first time in a persuasion theory class as an undergraduate. It changed how I thought about people and what seems like their nonsensical adherence to ideas/concepts that are egregiously false. I have always disliked simple answers and dichotomous thinking (which got me a A LOT of trouble with history teachers and professors), especially because it seems clear to me that most people are and have always been "good" and are socialized to become otherwise. Think of the Stanford prison experiments; the "mob" mentality that starts with the actions of a few and can quickly get out of control; Gladwell's synthesis of various "tipping point" phenomena...there is overwhelming evidence that people are led down paths that, in hindsight, are clearly immoral (even evil) but have benign beginnings or a step-by-step process of justification for the most abhorrent practices. The rise of Nazi Germany is a great example of how the process works. I went to school with people whose living grandparents (nevermind long-deceased ancestors) were card-carrying members of the Nazi party. It's an interesting thing to witness, this cognitive dissonance.

I also recommend a book entitled "The Respectable Trade" by Phillipa Gregory for a nuanced and compassionate yet critical portrayal of the moral gymnastics a society goes through to justify human suffering and profit at all costs. It is the story of a Nigerian nobleman who is captured and sold into slavery in Bristol, England to a family that makes its living as slave traders ("The Trade" is their euphemism). There is also a miniseries that was aired on British television but I can't vouch for it.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group