Month: February 2018

When I was growing up in Rochester, New York, I attended a private school that most would consider to be fairly liberal. The school had a rather diverse student body, and was always proud of the efforts that they made to ensure that every student felt included in the community that they had created. When I think back to how we were first taught of the Civil War, my first memory is of hearing about it in a primary school classroom. We learned about the Civil War in a very basic concept, being told that the slave-owning south wanted to separate from the union, who wanted to end slavery. Abraham leads the heroic north against the evil south, and ultimately got killed by supervillain John Wilkes-Booth. For most of my adolescence, the south was portrayed as the villain during this time period. I believe it was around sixth or seventh grade when the idea that the Civil War was originally about states rights and representation in Congress rather than slavery alone, and that Lincoln was not fully against slavery during his presidency. From then on most students seemed to be mature enough to understand that history isn’t as black and white as we make it seem, but prior to that I can remember me and my classmates all seeing the south as the evilest and immoral group in history, while the north was the morally correct heroes.

It makes sense this is how we were taught, younger kids aren’t always able to understand the intricacies that go into war, so it’s easier to give them a background in something simple before introducing them to more complicated subjects. Growing up in New York probably also helped change our perspectives, as we essentially adopted the union as a sort of a “home team.” In the end, making the union the heroes likely did a lot of help in shaping an accepting community, because of how it made us all realize how important equality, freedom, and fair treatment of all people was. It’s because of this upbringing that I’m always confused when I hear about other regions teaching the Civil War from the opposite perspective. The big story I remember hearing fairly recently was the change happening to AP US History, where slavery was to be downplayed and the curriculum was to be made more pro-American While I understand that it’s hard to accept that your family from that region was on the wrong side of history, it still seems counterintuitive to try and insert your own narrative into history. By trying to mask our mistakes it obviously makes it difficult to move beyond them. So to me, it’s more important to try and improve on what the previous generation failed on, instead to trying to make their failures seem like a success.

This is a very interesting read about how America seems to have a one-sided conversation about slavery, if that.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/08/column-why-america-cant-get-over-slavery-its-greatest-shame/1000524001/

America avoids the discussion of slavery because they know it shows the true ugliness of America’s history. When actually mentioning its slavery past, it seems that America attempts to justify their actions. Saying that there were other countries that started slavery way before America did, and stating that slavery was a gift to African Americans because they were better off in America, making slavery the small price to pay to getting out of Africa.

The lack of education in schools and real discussions about the injustices that occurred in the past regarding slavery is the reason this avoidance of conversation occurs. This subject is something that “forces us to then commit to structural changes that the country has not yet gotten ready to address, changes having to do with discriminatory practices — an unequal education system, unequal employment, unequal housing and how we teach our history without including all Americans.” Clearly, America is not ready to face their past mistakes, but this needs to be done to make America the country that represents the views that it supposedly obtains.

 

“FRED. DOUGLASS has issued another address to the colored men, urging them to come forward and enlist. He says:

The case stands thus: We have asked the nation for a chance to fight the rebels — to fight against Slavery, and to fight for freedom. Well, the chance is now given us. We must improve it, of sink [???]eper than ever in the pit of social and political degradation, from which we have been struggling for years to extricate ourselves. When the nationality of the United States is set in safety, in part by your hands, the whole world would cry shame upon any attempt to denationalize you.

To fight for the Government in this tremendous war is, then, to fight for nationality, and for a peace with all other classes of our fellow-citizens. I know that Congress has been pleased to say, deference to prevailing prejudice, that colored men shall not rise higher than company officers. They might as well have passed a law that black men shall not be brave; that they shall not learn to read; that they shall not shoot straight, and that they shall not grow taller than five feet nine inches and a hall. The law is even more absurd than mean. Enter the army and deserve promotion, and you will be sure to get it in the end. To say you will not go into the army until you can be a Colonel or a General, is about as wise as to say you won’t go into the water until you shall learn how to swim. When the priest told Patrick that he had prayed his father’s head and shoulders out of purgatory, and a little more money was wanted to complete the work, Paddy declined to give it, on the ground that, if his father had been so fortunate as to get his head out, he would risk his getting his whole body out. Pat’s wisdom will be good in our case. Once let colored men be made captains of companies, and demonstrate their capacity for such captaincy, and I will risk their upward progress. The great thing to be done first of all is, to get an eagle on your button and a musket on your shoulder. “It is the first step that costs.” Take it, and all will come right after that first step is well and firmly taken.”

I am a 32-year-old white male. Both of my parents were white. As a child, I remember being rocked to sleep by a negro woman when I had nightmares. I also played with her first son who was about my age. But today, I sold him. That’s how things are here. I saw my father do it, my grandfather, and now, my brothers and me.

This short piece I have authored above is similar to an excerpt from one of the class readings. After reading that portion of the essay, I wondered to myself…

How did slavery survive for more than a century given that black women took care of white children and of course, formed strong bonds with the women over the years? Looking at this question on the surface, one would think that the white children who had been nurtured by black women would grow up and then abolish slavery; that they would treat black people with love and respect. But of course, this was not the case.

White children grew up to understand that slavery was part of the economy, it ran as an institution in the United States. Many white people inherited slaves from their parents, others understood that they had to either rent or buy slaves in order to acquire labour for their plantations, have a name in the society, or live comfortably. For slave societies, every sector of the economy depended on and benefited directly from slavery. For example, the banks accepted slaves as collateral for bank loans, insurance companies insured slaves as property and exports of cash crops like sugar and cotton depended heavily on slave labour.

Black women understood their place as well. They understood that the children they nursed might one day, own them or sell them or whip them. They understood that regardless of the level of intimacy they shared with the children, they were mere property – a means to an end. Society had determined their fate and the change did not lie in the children they carried in their arms.

The system itself was faulty. Many parties (sectors of the economy) were involved and intangible forces like race and history played vital roles.

Not even the bond that black women develop with white children could change how these white children treated black people when they grew up. Everyone’s place in the society has long been predetermined and nothing changed it. The white person – the slaveholder and the negro –the slave. No white person or negro was left out.