RACISM SOLVED on IIDB! "This whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing."

[Gospel]

FFS: Not at all what I meant!
Slavery and genocide practiced in the US was an abomination and worse. There are not enough words to express just how horrific that was and it is foolish to not call out those horrors, that shame —even if the US did good things as well, including much that was in fact done by enslaved and oppressed peoples—often acknowledged by white people and ‘history.’

Murder, rape, abuses of power and many other heinous crimes are no less horrific because the perpetrators have to the poor or wrote good music or discovered something or wrote a good book or were kind to animals or whatever.

On a personal level, I knew that my stepgrandfather was a particularly nasty racist before I knew what that word was or how much it harmed people. At the same time, I also knew that he donated apples to local elementary schools, including one with black students—even though he had little money and for many of those years, did not have indoor plumbing. I was horrified at things he said and drew away from him because of things I heard him say. He died when I was still a kid so I actual opportunity to confront —or even real ability to process that the same man who was kind and affectionate to me also was a member of the Klan. I loved him but I put as much distance between myself and him as I could as a child. I cannot think of him without feeling e raged and disgusted and ashamed—which I felt at 6 years old. But as a 6 year old, I was powerless to do anything other than put distance between us so would not have to hear the disgusting things he said, even when I did not understand them. Likewise, I still lived the member of my extended family who at various times, sexually assaulted me and once tried to kill me—because the human mind has a great ability to compartmentalize, to sequester strong feelings in order to survive. I am want able to fully comprehend the gravity or the nature of those attacks until years had added and I was safe from him. Yeah, I can remember some good things about him and no, they don’t come close to wiping out the abuses he committed against me and others.

I am not grateful for slavery became sachet brought us jazz or soul or Jane’s Baldwin or Maya Angelou or Beyoncé or the many many brilliant black Americans whose keen intellect and drive, despite terrible oppression and even enslavement propelled forward our understanding of math and science and medicine and more.

But if we want change—real and lasting change—we need to look for and acknowledge and nurture what good does exist. Even if we cannot allow some people into polite society and we sure as hell cannot elect them to office.

I appreciate your acknowledgment of the horrors of slavery and the continued oppression faced by African Americans. Your story about your step-grandfather is powerful, and I can see how complex and painful that must have been for you.

I want to clarify a few points from my perspective. While it's important to recognize the good that can emerge from challenging circumstances, it’s equally important not to conflate the cultural contributions of oppressed people with the injustices they endured. African American music, literature, and achievements are indeed remarkable, and some of it was born out of resilience and resistance to systemic oppression. However, it is entirely inappropriate to attribute any of that success to the oppressive environment or to those who created that environment.

Black people, like all other people, were never inherently slaves despite being treated as such. Historically, Black people have thrived and achieved greatness without the presence of oppression. This is evident when (if) you look at the rich histories of some African nations.

For example, the Kingdom of Mali during the 13th and 14th centuries was a wealthy and influential empire known for its advanced trade networks, centers of learning, and impressive architectural feats. Timbuktu, a city in Mali, was a significant cultural and intellectual hub where scholars from various regions gathered to study. Similarly, the Kingdom of Kush, located to the south of ancient Egypt, was a powerful and prosperous civilization that thrived from around 1070 BCE to 350 CE. It was known for its monumental pyramids, sophisticated art, and influential trade connections with other great civilizations of the time. The Benin Empire in present-day Nigeria, which flourished from the 13th to the 19th century, is another example. The Benin Empire was renowned for its highly skilled craftsmanship in bronze and ivory, its complex political structure, and its powerful military.

My disdain for those who affiliate strongly with the Confederacy is rooted in the painful legacy of racism and discrimination that continues to affect my community today (even those on the African Continent). Your comment about needing to acknowledge and nurture the good that exists is true. How else do you think our people made it through what was done to us? But, It's important to take serious care not to diminish the significance of the pain and trauma that gave rise to those cultural contributions VIA erroneous thinking like "well, yawl made some great music!".

 

[Gospel]

And, btw, just to add some weird controversy to this thread. Do any of you know there was also a small percentage of Black people in the US who owned slaves? I learned that recently. A lot of what happened was as much due to class as it was to race. Poor white people may have been racist, but they didn't own slaves. If you want to learn more about that, read the book, "Poor White Trash, the 400 year history of Classism in America. ( I might not have the title exact, but you can find it on Amazon ) it's another good book about how the British treated poor white people and sent them to this country where they were often involuntary indentured servants. In fact, one part of the book discusses how some Black folks, thought these poor white people were being treated worse then they were. Humans are tribal and they often treat those outside their groups poorly, assuming they have the wealth and power to do so.

Are you suggesting that the system of slavery in America was driven more by classism than by racist ideologies? There are people flying Confederate flags down here who would eagerly embrace that narrative. While I haven't read the book you mentioned, my understanding of Black people who owned slaves is that many of them did so to protect family members and friends, often purchasing them to secure their freedom. Your statement seems to imply that all these individuals were motivated by the same intentions as white supremacists, which disregards the reality of millions of people being forcibly taken from Africa because they were PROPERTY, not because they were poor.

Edit: Classism was for white people bruh. Poverty sucks, but being in poverty with the added bonus of being someone else's property because you're not seen as a human (by law) is some other shit.

 

[Toni]

FFS: Not at all what I meant!
Slavery and genocide practiced in the US was an abomination and worse. There are not enough words to express just how horrific that was and it is foolish to not call out those horrors, that shame —even if the US did good things as well, including much that was in fact done by enslaved and oppressed peoples—often acknowledged by white people and ‘history.’

Murder, rape, abuses of power and many other heinous crimes are no less horrific because the perpetrators have to the poor or wrote good music or discovered something or wrote a good book or were kind to animals or whatever.

On a personal level, I knew that my stepgrandfather was a particularly nasty racist before I knew what that word was or how much it harmed people. At the same time, I also knew that he donated apples to local elementary schools, including one with black students—even though he had little money and for many of those years, did not have indoor plumbing. I was horrified at things he said and drew away from him because of things I heard him say. He died when I was still a kid so I actual opportunity to confront —or even real ability to process that the same man who was kind and affectionate to me also was a member of the Klan. I loved him but I put as much distance between myself and him as I could as a child. I cannot think of him without feeling e raged and disgusted and ashamed—which I felt at 6 years old. But as a 6 year old, I was powerless to do anything other than put distance between us so would not have to hear the disgusting things he said, even when I did not understand them. Likewise, I still lived the member of my extended family who at various times, sexually assaulted me and once tried to kill me—because the human mind has a great ability to compartmentalize, to sequester strong feelings in order to survive. I am want able to fully comprehend the gravity or the nature of those attacks until years had added and I was safe from him. Yeah, I can remember some good things about him and no, they don’t come close to wiping out the abuses he committed against me and others.

I am not grateful for slavery became sachet brought us jazz or soul or Jane’s Baldwin or Maya Angelou or Beyoncé or the many many brilliant black Americans whose keen intellect and drive, despite terrible oppression and even enslavement propelled forward our understanding of math and science and medicine and more.

But if we want change—real and lasting change—we need to look for and acknowledge and nurture what good does exist. Even if we cannot allow some people into polite society and we sure as hell cannot elect them to office.

I appreciate your acknowledgment of the horrors of slavery and the continued oppression faced by African Americans. Your story about your step-grandfather is powerful, and I can see how complex and painful that must have been for you.

I want to clarify a few points from my perspective. While it's important to recognize the good that can emerge from challenging circumstances, it’s equally important not to conflate the cultural contributions of oppressed people with the injustices they endured. African American music, literature, and achievements are indeed remarkable, and some of it was born out of resilience and resistance to systemic oppression. However, it is entirely inappropriate to attribute any of that success to the oppressive environment or to those who created that environment.

Black people, like all other people, were never inherently slaves despite being treated as such. Historically, Black people have thrived and achieved greatness without the presence of oppression. This is evident when (if) you look at the rich histories of some African nations.

For example, the Kingdom of Mali during the 13th and 14th centuries was a wealthy and influential empire known for its advanced trade networks, centers of learning, and impressive architectural feats. Timbuktu, a city in Mali, was a significant cultural and intellectual hub where scholars from various regions gathered to study. Similarly, the Kingdom of Kush, located to the south of ancient Egypt, was a powerful and prosperous civilization that thrived from around 1070 BCE to 350 CE. It was known for its monumental pyramids, sophisticated art, and influential trade connections with other great civilizations of the time. The Benin Empire in present-day Nigeria, which flourished from the 13th to the 19th century, is another example. The Benin Empire was renowned for its highly skilled craftsmanship in bronze and ivory, its complex political structure, and its powerful military.

My disdain for those who affiliate strongly with the Confederacy is rooted in the painful legacy of racism and discrimination that continues to affect my community today (even those on the African Continent). Your comment about needing to acknowledge and nurture the good that exists is true. How else do you think our people made it through what was done to us? But, It's important to take serious care not to diminish the significance of the pain and trauma that gave rise to those cultural contributions VIA erroneous thinking like "well, yawl made some great music!".

A slight clarification: I do not think that the many accomplishments of black Americans ( and indigenous Americans, etc) was because of slavery but in spite of the atrocities of slavery. It should never have happened. I was never a fan of history class, in part because it focused almost exclusively on the accomplishments of white men and there was clearly a lot of other people in the world who had wished, hopes, dreams, talents, intellect, ambition, genius. It is beyond arrogant and ignorant to not recognize this.

Whatever I felt as my grandfather’s horrible overt racism was revealed to me was so incredibly minuscule and trifling compared to even the horrors of Jim Crow, much less slavery. I only mentioned because even as a young child, I was horrified when I had to see my grandfather’s horrific behavior. It seems absolutely correct that I reacted that way and I cannot understand why every white person was not similarly outraged and repulsed. My thoughts and feelings were very less clear when I was six. I had only known my grandfather as a sweet grandpa who doted on us. But it does make me realize that people are complicated. I do not know what made him the way he was—so kind in one way, and despicable in another. I lived in a pretty segregated area abd one that was filled with bigotry and racism. I won’t lie and say I recognized it all at the time but what I recognized angered and repulsed me. And was confusing because it conflicted with how I knew individual people

 

[southernhybrid]

And, btw, just to add some weird controversy to this thread. Do any of you know there was also a small percentage of Black people in the US who owned slaves? I learned that recently. A lot of what happened was as much due to class as it was to race. Poor white people may have been racist, but they didn't own slaves. If you want to learn more about that, read the book, "Poor White Trash, the 400 year history of Classism in America. ( I might not have the title exact, but you can find it on Amazon ) it's another good book about how the British treated poor white people and sent them to this country where they were often involuntary indentured servants. In fact, one part of the book discusses how some Black folks, thought these poor white people were being treated worse then they were. Humans are tribal and they often treat those outside their groups poorly, assuming they have the wealth and power to do so.

Are you suggesting that the system of slavery in America was driven more by classism than by racist ideologies? There are people flying Confederate flags down here who would eagerly embrace that narrative. While I haven't read the book you mentioned, my understanding of Black people who owned slaves is that many of them did so to protect family members and friends, often purchasing them to secure their freedom. Your statement seems to imply that all these individuals were motivated by the same intentions as white supremacists, which disregards the reality of millions of people being forcibly taken from Africa because they were PROPERTY, not because they were poor.

Edit: Classism was for white people bruh. Poverty sucks, but being in poverty with the added bonus of being someone else's property because you're not seen as a human (by law) is some other shit.

No, I never implied that. I was just saying that people of different backgrounds have been treated poorly throughout. history, and that I learned that many poor white people were forced here to become indentured. servants, similar but likely not as brutal as absolute slavery. I've read the outstanding book of Frederick Douglas three times, so I've read first hand what slavery was about, written by a man who was enslaved and who detailed a lot of how he was treated. To me, he was a true American hero, a talented writer and an intellectual, who was able to escape the cruelty of slavery and then go on to become an influence on government.

Despite our country's failing these days, let's all be glad that we have moved on since the 19th Century.

 

[southernhybrid]

I found a link about Black people who owned slaves. It's more complicated than mentioned by Gospel. OF course, wealthy white people were the dominate slave owners but cruelty comes in all shades of skin.



https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War. For me, the really fascinating questions about black slave-owning are how many black “masters” were involved, how many slaves did they own and why did they own slaves?

RELATED CONTENT​

White Kentucky Republican Says Her Dad Was a White Slave...We Have Questions
Harvard's $100 Million, 134-page Mea Culpa for Slavery
The answers to these questions are complex, and historians have been arguing for some time over whether free blacks purchased family members as slaves in order to protect them — motivated, on the one hand, by benevolence and philanthropy, as historian Carter G. Woodson put it, or whether, on the other hand, they purchased other black people “as an act of exploitation,” primarily to exploit their free labor for profit, just as white slave owners did. The evidence shows that, unfortunately, both things are true. The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: “The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property.” But, he admits, “There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status.”

In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves “in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

And for a time, free black people could even “own” the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler “regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,”

 

[Gospel]

Forgive me for not caring about the 1% of slave owners who were black, and within that 1%, there was 1% who didn't own black people to secure their freedom, when it's brought up in a discussion about cultural differences among black people that devolved into a discussion about the Confederacy. This argument is a familiar deflection, often used by exaggerating revisionists to suggest, "teh, cOnFeDeRaTeS wErEn'T tHe oNlY oNeS!". When discussing the Confederacy, their legacy, and the meaning behind their statues, I have no interest in entertaining any fantasies aimed at making the Confederacy look less reprehensible.

To share my opinion on black slave owners (those who did it for profit, not those who did it to secure freedom), they were just as much pieces of shit as the white supremacists. A difference is they likely didn't view their black slaves as not human.

As for white slaves, I consider that horrible as well. However, let's not forget that it was legally codified that black people were considered property. The members of the Confederacy, whom you seem to be defending due to their association with the South, actually gave their lives and took lives in greater numbers than any other group to uphold that code.

 

[Gospel]

I've read the outstanding book of Frederick Douglas three times, so I've read first hand what slavery was about, written by a man who was enslaved and who detailed a lot of how he was treated. To me, he was a true American hero, a talented writer and an intellectual, who was able to escape the cruelty of slavery and then go on to become an influence on government.

Despite our country's failing these days, let's all be glad that we have moved on since the 19th Century.

You've done Frederick Douglass a disservice by claiming we've moved on since the 19th century, as if saying, "Well, we aren't whipping your backs, hanging you, raping your children, and splitting your families while treating you like objects anymore. So you ought to be glad for police brutality, mass incarceration, racial profiling, economic disparities & voter suppression."

 

[Gospel]

Forgive me, but I must return to the topic of African American entertainment. We made remarkable music despite the hardships we faced, not because of them. The struggle and adversity didn't inspire our art; rather, our talent and determination to express our humanity shone through in spite of the oppressive circumstances. I celebrate the achievements and contributions of African American musicians as triumphs over adversity, not as products of it.

 

[Politesse]

I've read the outstanding book of Frederick Douglas three times, so I've read first hand what slavery was about, written by a man who was enslaved and who detailed a lot of how he was treated. To me, he was a true American hero, a talented writer and an intellectual, who was able to escape the cruelty of slavery and then go on to become an influence on government.

Despite our country's failing these days, let's all be glad that we have moved on since the 19th Century.

You've done Frederick Douglass a disservice by claiming we've moved on since the 19th century, as if saying, "Well, we aren't whipping your backs, hanging you, raping your children, and splitting your families while treating you like objects anymore. So you ought to be glad for police brutality, mass incarceration, racial profiling, economic disparities & voter suppression."

Douglass himself would be horrified at the equivocation to white indenture. He was well aware of the complex history of involuntary servitude in the US, and equally clear that slavery of Africans was of a wholly different class. From his masterful analysis of the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause and its implications:

"I answer, that when adopted, it applies to a very large class of persons — namely, redemptioners — persons who had come to America from Holland, from Ireland, and other quarters of the globe — like the Coolies to the West Indies — and had, for a consideration duly paid, become bound to “serve and labour” for the parties two whom their service and labour was due. It applies to indentured apprentices and others who have become bound for a consideration, under contract duly made, to serve and labour, to such persons this provision applies, and only to such persons. The plain reading of this provision shows that it applies, and that it can only properly and legally apply, to persons “bound to service.” Its object plainly is, to secure the fulfillment of contracts for “service and labour.” It applies to indentured apprentices, and any other persons from whom service and labour may be due. The legal condition of the slave puts him beyond the operation of this provision. He is not described in it. He is a simple article of property. He does not owe and cannot owe service. He cannot even make a contract. It is impossible for him to do so. He can no more make such a contract than a horse or an ox can make one. This provision, then, only respects persons who owe service, and they only can owe service who can receive an equivalent and make a bargain. The slave cannot do that, and is therefore exempted from the operation of this fugitive provision. In all matters where laws are taught to be made the means of oppression, cruelty, and wickedness, I am for strict construction. I will concede nothing. It must be shown that it is so nominated in the bond. The pound of flesh, but not one drop of blood. The very nature of law is opposed to all such wickedness, and makes it difficult to accomplish such objects under the forms of law. Law is not merely an arbitrary enactment with regard to justice, reason, or humanity. Blackstone defines it to be a rule prescribed by the supreme power of the State commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong. The speaker at the City Hall laid down some rules of legal interpretation. These rules send us to the history of the law for its meaning. I have no objection to such a course in ordinary cases of doubt. But where human liberty and justice are at stake, the case falls under an entirely different class of rules. There must be something more than history — something more than tradition. The Supreme Court of the United States lays down this rule, and it meets the case exactly — “Where rights are infringed — where the fundamental principles of the law are overthrown — where the general system of the law is departed from, the legislative intention must be expressed with irresistible clearness.”

 

[southernhybrid]

I've read the outstanding book of Frederick Douglas three times, so I've read first hand what slavery was about, written by a man who was enslaved and who detailed a lot of how he was treated. To me, he was a true American hero, a talented writer and an intellectual, who was able to escape the cruelty of slavery and then go on to become an influence on government.

Despite our country's failing these days, let's all be glad that we have moved on since the 19th Century.

You've done Frederick Douglass a disservice by claiming we've moved on since the 19th century, as if saying, "Well, we aren't whipping your backs, hanging you, raping your children, and splitting your families while treating you like objects anymore. So you ought to be glad for police brutality, mass incarceration, racial profiling, economic disparities & voter suppression."

Did you not understand the phrase, despite our country's failing? All I meant when I said we've moved on since the 19th Century was that people no longer enslave others like they did prior to the civil war and the worst of the Jim Crow days are over. It took a long time to get as far as we are now. Have you ever read the book "White Rage", by Carol Anderson. She goes into detail of the things that happened during the Jim Crow era. We've certainly move on quite a bit since those days and a lot of what happened was in the North, not just the South. I visited the South once as a little girl and was shocked at what I saw. While we still have lots of problems, it's certainly not as horrible as it was during my youth.

I am well aware of how prisoners are treated and how some Black folks are treated by the police. The police make me nervous and I'm an old white woman, so I can only imagine how Black folks feel when they are stopped for a minor traffic violation. It's heartbreaking. We drastically need prison reform but nobody in power is talking about that, afaik. Please stop reading things into my posts that aren't there. I am well aware of what happens these days. I'm not and have never said that racism has ended or that Black folks aren't often treated unfairly in many situations. Just because we have a way to go, doesn't mean that we haven't moved on from some of the worst things that were done by humans to other humans in the past. Sorry, you misunderstood me. This happens frequently on this board. A person posts something and another person totally misunderstands, and then makes assumptions about what that person meant. It can be very frustrating. I keep telling myself to stay out of the political forum due to some of this shit.

 

[southernhybrid]

I've read the outstanding book of Frederick Douglas three times, so I've read first hand what slavery was about, written by a man who was enslaved and who detailed a lot of how he was treated. To me, he was a true American hero, a talented writer and an intellectual, who was able to escape the cruelty of slavery and then go on to become an influence on government.

Despite our country's failing these days, let's all be glad that we have moved on since the 19th Century.

You've done Frederick Douglass a disservice by claiming we've moved on since the 19th century, as if saying, "Well, we aren't whipping your backs, hanging you, raping your children, and splitting your families while treating you like objects anymore. So you ought to be glad for police brutality, mass incarceration, racial profiling, economic disparities & voter suppression."

Douglass himself would be horrified at the equivocation to white indenture. He was well aware of the complex history of involuntary servitude in the US, and equally clear that slavery of Africans was of a wholly different class. From his masterful analysis of the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause and its implications:

"I answer, that when adopted, it applies to a very large class of persons — namely, redemptioners — persons who had come to America from Holland, from Ireland, and other quarters of the globe — like the Coolies to the West Indies — and had, for a consideration duly paid, become bound to “serve and labour” for the parties two whom their service and labour was due. It applies to indentured apprentices and others who have become bound for a consideration, under contract duly made, to serve and labour, to such persons this provision applies, and only to such persons. The plain reading of this provision shows that it applies, and that it can only properly and legally apply, to persons “bound to service.” Its object plainly is, to secure the fulfillment of contracts for “service and labour.” It applies to indentured apprentices, and any other persons from whom service and labour may be due. The legal condition of the slave puts him beyond the operation of this provision. He is not described in it. He is a simple article of property. He does not owe and cannot owe service. He cannot even make a contract. It is impossible for him to do so. He can no more make such a contract than a horse or an ox can make one. This provision, then, only respects persons who owe service, and they only can owe service who can receive an equivalent and make a bargain. The slave cannot do that, and is therefore exempted from the operation of this fugitive provision. In all matters where laws are taught to be made the means of oppression, cruelty, and wickedness, I am for strict construction. I will concede nothing. It must be shown that it is so nominated in the bond. The pound of flesh, but not one drop of blood. The very nature of law is opposed to all such wickedness, and makes it difficult to accomplish such objects under the forms of law. Law is not merely an arbitrary enactment with regard to justice, reason, or humanity. Blackstone defines it to be a rule prescribed by the supreme power of the State commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong. The speaker at the City Hall laid down some rules of legal interpretation. These rules send us to the history of the law for its meaning. I have no objection to such a course in ordinary cases of doubt. But where human liberty and justice are at stake, the case falls under an entirely different class of rules. There must be something more than history — something more than tradition. The Supreme Court of the United States lays down this rule, and it meets the case exactly — “Where rights are infringed — where the fundamental principles of the law are overthrown — where the general system of the law is departed from, the legislative intention must be expressed with irresistible clearness.”

Again, I was not equating it with slavery. I was just pointing out that people have been treated inhumanely by other people in many ways. A lot of indentured servitude was involuntary, at least that's what I've read, but of course slavery is much worse. Enough already!

 

[Gospel]

My apologies if I misinterpreted your mention of "there were white slaves too" during a discussion about black people.

Edit: And also "there were black slave owners too" when I'm talking about the confederacy.

 

[Elixir]

Forgive me, but I must return to the topic of African American entertainment. We made remarkable music despite the hardships we faced, not because of them. The struggle and adversity didn't inspire our art; rather, our talent and determination to express our humanity shone through in spite of the oppressive circumstances. I celebrate the achievements and contributions of African American musicians as triumphs over adversity, not as products of it.

As a musician, I think that post is rife with understatement and gross “lumping”.

I’ve been picking apart some pieces lately that are offered as “Jazz Rock Fusion”. Years ago I might have been impressed with the intellect that was able to see and exploit the common grounds of those genres, but it really dawned on me the other day - the only reason there IS common ground is because of common roots, and they’re 90-something percent African or African American.
I have no idea what cultural or intellectual uniqueness gave rise to that, but there it is.

 

[thebeave]

Getting back to the OP of this thread, let's examine the self-contradiction in thebeaves arguments.

The OP quote has him stating that any interest in knowing the historical facts about which people were enslaved is "ridiculous. It means NOTHING".

Yet, in the discussion of the past two days he claims that it is essential to preserve Confed monuments in order to know the history, including the history of slavery behind it, and he even pretends to agree that they should be preserved in a holocaust style museum where not only the facts of slavery and the Confed are detailed, but the white supremacy that motivated the creation of the monuments.

So, either he is now being dishonest about acknowledging the realities of the monuments, or he is undermining his own initial claim that history of who was a slave is meaningless nothing and ridiculous to even talk about. Slavery is recent, not ancient history. There are people alive today whose basic human rights were not acknowledged by US law until 1964, and even then and since denied by the Confed States who voted against those rights. Those living people's parents and grandparents were around when most of these monuments were built as part a general white supremacist effort exemplified by rise and influence of the KKK, the total lack of enforcement against their violence by southern law, and the enactment of Jim Crow laws. And all of these things were voted for and endorsed by the vast majority of whites in the South. In turn, those people were raised with grandparents who were themselves enslaved.

IOW, not only is it just two grandparent generation to get to slaves, there has been a continuous unbroken chain of pro slavery white supremacy that has dominated and been the majority white culture of the south throughout the 20th century. In fact, directly appealing to that white supremacy immediately after the passage of the Civil Rights Act is how the GOP went from never winning the South in a century, to never losing it since, except to Carter, and only b/c Ford (who the south never voted for) was a northern yankee with a longer track record of sincere civil rights than Carter.

So, how could it possibly be that a current person being a former slave is so meaningless that it's ridiculous to bring up?

There is so much faulty logic and misrepresentation of what I said, that I don't know how to even start replying. I will give you kudos for efforts in comedy, though, on your last line:

So, how could it possibly be that a current person being a former slave is so meaningless that it's ridiculous to bring up?

First of all, the fact that this thread even still exists and was not immediately deleted or sent to Dumpster Fire is a little mind boggling. Its title is taken out of context from a post I made here regarding a discussion of Kamala Harris' slave/slave owner ancestral background. Then, a few posts later, I got this unhinged response where I was called a white supremecist (I thought insults were against the TOU?), followed by a purposeful and malicious attempt at public shaming by giving it its own thread where it can get maximum attention and visibility. In my 20+ years on this forum that has had thousands of threads, I think this is the first time I have seen such a thing occur. Fortunately, it does seem MOST people who have commented in this thread so far have realized the OP was an absurd smear attempt and have ignored that part of it. And I still stand by what I said regarding the relevance of someone's slave or slave owner background. And I say this as a guy who is hardly what you would call a member of the Kamala Harris Fan Club. And how anyone could claim what I said qualified as "white supremacy" is beyond me.

With regard to the second part, where I discuss the idea of a museum for the confederate statues, my first, actual comment was this. I was merely responding to Bullmoose Too, who came up with the idea in the first place. I stated it was a "decent idea" and offered some additional remarks and suggestions. Others chimed in with very reasonable suggestions on how it could be made to work. I particularly liked Gospel's idea right after I posted mine and gave hime a . It struck me as a case of "sweet revenge" whereby money made by the museum could be put to use in underserved black neighborhoods. And the money any bigots pay to enter the museum and gush over their confed heroes goes straight to help the very people they hate. Talk about making lemonade out of lemons. Maybe the whole idea wouldn't fly at all for one reason or another, but it serves no purpose to completely condemn it outright, or try to insult people who are really just toying with ideas.

 

[Gospel]

As a musician, I think that post is rife with understatement and gross “lumping”.

Whatever. Blues, Jazz, Gospel, R&B, Rock and Roll, Soul, Funk, and Hip Hop all emerged from a group of people who were considered outsiders at the time of their creation, despite the challenging environment. And because African Americans are people, they have always been capable of creating diverse and innovative music in various settings and for different reasons. Jazz Rock Fusion, for example, is a testament to their creativity and versatility. The "lumping" you're seeing is probably the result of a head injury suffered as an infant.

 

[southernhybrid]

Forgive me for not caring about the 1% of slave owners who were black, and within that 1%, there was 1% who didn't own black people to secure their freedom, when it's brought up in a discussion about cultural differences among black people that devolved into a discussion about the Confederacy. This argument is a familiar deflection, often used by exaggerating revisionists to suggest, "teh, cOnFeDeRaTeS wErEn'T tHe oNlY oNeS!". When discussing the Confederacy, their legacy, and the meaning behind their statues, I have no interest in entertaining any fantasies aimed at making the Confederacy look less reprehensible.

To share my opinion on black slave owners (those who did it for profit, not those who did it to secure freedom), they were just as much pieces of shit as the white supremacists. A difference is they likely didn't view their black slaves as not human.

As for white slaves, I consider that horrible as well. However, let's not forget that it was legally codified that black people were considered property. The members of the Confederacy, whom you seem to be defending due to their association with the South, actually gave their lives and took lives in greater numbers than any other group to uphold that code.

I consider our white founders to be among the worst people. They were hypocrites and they wrote a document that doesn't even make sense. I agree that Black slave owners were a tiny minority, it was just something I never knew before, and was surprised to read about it. We have no idea how they treated their slaves, so I make no assumptions about that.

The founders knew that slavery was wrong, but that didn't stop them from keeping slaves. They considered Black folks to be less than human. They were scoundrels in my opinion, even if slavery was common in all parts of the world, that's no excuse.

My apologies if I misinterpreted your mention of "there were white slaves too" during a discussion about black people.

Edit: And also "there were black slave owners too" when I'm talking about the confederacy.

So, we can't mention that other humans were also treated inhumanely? My bad. I thought this thread was about racism, not specifically racism directed against Black people. I guess threads never go off topic, even a bit at IIDB. /s Don't worry. I'm done. Find someone else to judge and misinterpret.

 

[Gospel]

So, we can't mention that other humans were also treated inhumanely? My bad. I thought this thread was about racism, not specifically racism directed against Black people. I guess threads never go off topic, even a bit at IIDB. /s Don't worry. I'm done. Find someone else to judge and misinterpret.

Oh please. I didn't come close to judging you. I addressed your posts directly. The thread is about, in Thebeave's words, "the relevance of someone's slave or slave owner background." You can mention whatever you want & yes, derails like yours happen. You are always welcome (at least by me) to add details.

It just so happens that your choice of when and how to share those details coincidentally aligns with how and when Confederate sympathizers share those details.

 

[Elixir]

because African Americans are people

I reject that. Lots of groups from lots of places are “people”. There’s something different… maybe culturally, maybe talent, inclination or circumstance, but the prolific creation of sounds that are so addictive and appealing to such a broad swath of humanity, and can be traced to a common origin? Hmmm. I think it’s currently unique.

 

[Harry Bosch]

But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so.

I don't agree. In the first place, the civil war was not really a civil war it was a war against succession from the union for economic tariff reasons. Lincoln was ambivalent about slavery other than the sympathy that it helped his cause. If George Bush would have been president at that time, he would have told us "we were spreading democracy!" But Lincoln used the slavery card instead to spread his cause. Since he knew black slavery was going out of style anyway. This is more than obvious when you consider every other country (at the time) having slavery got rid of the practice even though they had no war of succession like the US did. Furthermore Lincoln wanted to ship all the black southern slaves back to Africa after the civil war and would have done so had he not been assassinated. That does not sound like someone coddling black people to me. Should we tear down or put Lincolns statue in a museum as well?

There were a lot of Americans killed during this conflict. It just was not really about slavery. It was about money.

Wrong. According to the founders of the succession themselves:

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-state

This part is copied from the State of Texas:


“Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.”

The South attempted succession because they wanted to keep slaves.

Correct. The Constitution of the Confederacy mentions slavery several times including the requirement that every state in the confederacy and any newly acquired territories or states by the Confederacy must always keep slavery legal and protected, which completely undermines the States Rights bullshit since they took away state's rights to not have slavery.

"In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected"

Also note the clear specification that it isn't just "slavery" but "negro slavery", because it was a particular sort of slavery deeply rooted in white supremacy and belief that negros were inherently made to be slaves of whites.

Also, while Lincoln was not himself morally committed to ending slavery, he had politically committed himself and the nation to do so. It was the centerpiece of his campaign. All other supposed "causes" of the war had been around for a long time and preceded Lincoln. Slavery was THE issue that the south had with Lincoln, and THE reason they published the Constitution of the Confederacy just 1 week after Lincoln's inauguration.

Claims that the preservation of slavery was not THE primary reason for the Confederacy are nothing but racism based denial of fact.

Of course you are correct that the civil war was about slavery. It's interesting to me that so many on the right hand on this false meme that it was about "states rights". I'd be curious from someone with a good theory that explains this? As an aside, I was taught that the civil war was over states rights in grade school and high school.

 

[Toni]

But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so.

I don't agree. In the first place, the civil war was not really a civil war it was a war against succession from the union for economic tariff reasons. Lincoln was ambivalent about slavery other than the sympathy that it helped his cause. If George Bush would have been president at that time, he would have told us "we were spreading democracy!" But Lincoln used the slavery card instead to spread his cause. Since he knew black slavery was going out of style anyway. This is more than obvious when you consider every other country (at the time) having slavery got rid of the practice even though they had no war of succession like the US did. Furthermore Lincoln wanted to ship all the black southern slaves back to Africa after the civil war and would have done so had he not been assassinated. That does not sound like someone coddling black people to me. Should we tear down or put Lincolns statue in a museum as well?

There were a lot of Americans killed during this conflict. It just was not really about slavery. It was about money.

Wrong. According to the founders of the succession themselves:

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-state

This part is copied from the State of Texas:


“Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.”

The South attempted succession because they wanted to keep slaves.

Correct. The Constitution of the Confederacy mentions slavery several times including the requirement that every state in the confederacy and any newly acquired territories or states by the Confederacy must always keep slavery legal and protected, which completely undermines the States Rights bullshit since they took away state's rights to not have slavery.

"In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected"

Also note the clear specification that it isn't just "slavery" but "negro slavery", because it was a particular sort of slavery deeply rooted in white supremacy and belief that negros were inherently made to be slaves of whites.

Also, while Lincoln was not himself morally committed to ending slavery, he had politically committed himself and the nation to do so. It was the centerpiece of his campaign. All other supposed "causes" of the war had been around for a long time and preceded Lincoln. Slavery was THE issue that the south had with Lincoln, and THE reason they published the Constitution of the Confederacy just 1 week after Lincoln's inauguration.

Claims that the preservation of slavery was not THE primary reason for the Confederacy are nothing but racism based denial of fact.

Of course you are correct that the civil war was about slavery. It's interesting to me that so many on the right hand on this false meme that it was about "states rights". I'd be curious from someone with a good theory that explains this? As an aside, I was taught that the civil war was over states rights in grade school and high school.

Yeah, I was also taught that the Civil War was over states’ rights. I think the particular state right to enslave other human beings was the ‘quiet part.’ I wonder why….