Peculiar Apologies
Is a perfunctory apology enough to atone for slavery? Connecticut—along with several other states—seems to think so. From the Hartford Courant:
The state Senate unanimously gave final legislative approval late Wednesday night to a joint resolution with the House that formally apologizes for slavery in Connecticut…
Even today, [state Sen. Toni Harp, D-New Haven,] said, "many African-Americans, as myself, wear the brand of slavery internally," she said, and an apology "is something that will go a long way to making things different." She said she hoped the "symbolic move" reflects "a renewed commitment" to eliminating racially related disparities in society.
The Old South's "peculiar institution" was hardly limited to the Old South. Until the mid-nineteenth century, northerners were holding slaves, transporting and milling slave-picked cotton, and (until 1808) profiting from the international slave trade. Perhaps, then, it makes sense for states like Connecticut (or institutions like Brown University) to say something about their historical involvement in slavery. New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, and Maryland have all done the same.
We can complain that symbolic apologies are just that—symbolic, and therefore probably worthless. If the alternative, though, is a state legislature approving more "proactive" measures of atonement, then please, give us us empty symbolism.
As a bonus, this line from the Courant article reads like an inadvertent jab at the slavery reparations movement:
The resolution did not allow for reparations or payments to anyone who might have been harmed by events during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
Check out Jonathan Rauch's take on what African Americans should get reparations for, if not slavery.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Reparations by the United States government? Great idea. Of course, there would have to be a setoff for all the expenditures incurred in fighting the Civil War and in occupying the South during Reconstruction, as well as a setoff for the monetary value of each Union soldier's life given in order to abolish slavery.
If there was any amount still owing after those setoffs, the United States should collect it from the governments of the descendants of those West Africans who captured their fellow Africans and sold them to the white slave-traders.
"We can complain that symbolic apologies are just that-symbolic, and therefore probably worthless. If the alternative, though, is a state legislature approving more "proactive" measures of atonement, then please, give us us empty symbolism."
You know damn weil that the former is merely an attempt to set the stage for the latter.
"Is a perfunctory apology enough to atone for slavery?"
First, it is the duty of black men to judge the South discriminatingly. The present generation of Southerners are not responsible for the past, and they should not be blindly hated or blamed for it. Furthermore, to no class is the indiscriminate endorsement of the recent course of the South toward Negroes more nauseating than to the best thought of the South. The South is not "solid"; it is a land in the ferment of social change, wherein forces of all kinds are fighting for supremacy; and to praise the ill the South is today perpetrating is just as wrong as to condemn the good. Discriminating and broad-minded criticism is what the South needs, -- needs it for the sake of her own white sons and daughters, and for the insurance of robust, healthy mental and moral development.
Today even the attitude of the Southern whites toward the blacks is not, as so many assume, in all cases the same; the ignorant Southerner hates the Negro, the workingmen fear his competition, the money-makers wish to use him as a laborer, some of the educated see a menace in his upward development, while others -- usually the sons of the masters -- wish to help him to rise. National opinion has enabled this last class to maintain the Negro common schools, and to protect the Negro partially in property, life, and limb. Through the pressure
Through the pressure of the money-makers, the Negro is in danger of being reduced to semi-slavery, especially in the country districts; the workingmen, and those of the educated who fear the Negro, have united to disfranchise him, and some have urged his deportation; while the passions of the ignorant are easily aroused to lynch and abuse any black man. To praise this intricate whirl of thought and prejudice is nonsense; to in-veigh indiscriminately against "the South" is unjust; but to use the same breath in praising Governor Aycock, exposing Senator Morgan, arguing with Mr. Thomas Nelson Page, and denouncing Senator Ben Tillman, is not only sane, but the imperative duty of thinking black men.
Whole thing here:
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DubSoul.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all
SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!
We can table the discussion of reperations temporarily. A donation of $200,000 to the Rainbow Coalition may help acheive that end.
Seamus, how on earth do you figure that the cost of fighting the Civil War should count as compensation for slavery?
The Civil War wasn't fought in order to end slavery, and Union soldiers didn't enlist in order to fight against slavery--they didn't even know whether the Union would end slavery after the war. The North was deeply divided over slavery (which was, after all, the main engine of economic growth in the North), and the Union didn't even decide that slavery would end after the war until early in 1865.
Even if the war had been fought to end slavery, however, since when is merely ending an evil practice the same as compensating its victims? Do we tell crime victims that they have been compensated when a criminal merely agrees to stop committing crimes in the future?
I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13 when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingraciating myself to whites.
[from Dreams of My Father]
While I personally find apologies to be symbolic and, therefore, worthless, the fact that many institutions have been beyond reluctant in issuing them suggests not everybody feels the same way.
James, ending slavery was a consequence of the war, so yes, the war should get some credit. World War II wasn't fought to end the Holocaust, either, but surely the Allies get some credit for that?
Any living American who wears "the brand of slavery internally" needs to just get over it.
Gradually, it is dawning on mainstream America that the issue of reparations for slavery is not going away. -- September 1, 2001
Actually, it kind of did go away, just a few days later. Just like Gary Condit.
I'm gonna side with DuBois here and go with a big no on reparations.
But if we do end up paying reparations, how much does Obama get? How much does Morgan Freeman get? How about Kenneth I. Chenault, CEO of American Express get?
In another thread, you all are saying that property should not be owned in perpetuity? How is wages for spent labor more than 150 years old any different?
And will the people who label themselves Korean-american or Hispanic be willing to see their tax dollars going for reparations?
"Any living American who wears "the brand of slavery internally" needs to just get over it."
I agree. There was a black program on our local black radio station some years ago that basically said that some blacks just can't seem to shake the slave mentality.
Whenever I see a black male teen walking down the street with his pants literally down to his knees I can't help but think -- still a slave.
yes, because the manner of one's dress determines that he has...a slave mentality?
you're a retard, CD.
James:
The war didn't start out as one to abolish slavery, but by January 1, 1863, it was one. (No, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't affect the loyal slave states, but they pretty quickly fell into line and began to abolish slavery all on their own. Delaware (where there were hardly any slaves to speak of anyway) and Kentucky were the only slave states left by 1865.)
Also, considering that the United States wasn't responsible for the existence of slavery (which was already well in place when the United States was founded), but was the cause of its destruction, I would say that the expenditure of blood and treasure it made to abolish the institution should count to its credit.
But if you want to give the equivalent of 40 acres and a mule to every black American whose ancestors were slaves (which I guess means Obama has to live on this presidential salary), can we put an end to affirmative action and all the other ongoing efforts we keep making to "remedy the harm caused by 400 years of slavery"?
Seamus, how on earth do you figure that the cost of fighting the Civil War should count as compensation for slavery?
Mitigation of damages. By expending resources to bring the institution of slavery to an end, the Union mitigated the damage caused by slavery.
The present value analysis of resources expended 140 years ago is going to be a bitch. It could wind up with the descendants of slaves owing a pretty penny to the Union.
"yes, because the manner of one's dress determines that he has...a slave mentality?"
No, it's because I have to slow up my car and go around him as he looks at me with a ghetto glare that says, "Yeah, I'm in your way, motherfucker."
But just like a slave, it's statistically likely that he can't read or write and will likely die violently at a young age.
I agree with reparations! A billion dollars to anyone alive who was once enslaved under US law!
CD - you are one stupid son of a bitch. He has a "slave mentality" because he's blocking your car. You peddle in stereotypes and racism, fuckmeat. Go away.
"You peddle in stereotypes and racism, fuckmeat. Go away."
Right. Because in your little world, the existence of Gangster Disciples and Vice Lords are just too scary to acknowledge. They don't fit your happy little stereotypes. That's why you want me to leave.
Love the ad hominems tough. Fuckmeat? Subconsciously you see me as meat you would fuck? How oddly revealing.
Ironically, CD he is engaging in civil discourse when he blocks your car. He's like Tank Man...in a sense.
No, CD, in my world, you don't prejudge people based on the actions of some of them in violent groups. Unless I should assume that you're a cracker redneck in the KKK just because some white people happen to be in the KKK?
Or perhaps I should assume you're a violent mobster, because some white people are violent mobsters? Or perhaps I should assume that you're a Nobel-Prize Winning Economist, because Nobel-Prize Winning Economists in the past have been white?
Are you getting it yet?
Anyway, I want you to leave because you're an ignorant racist.
In another thread, you all are saying that property should not be owned in perpetuity?
I think everyone was arguing against it in that thread.
In another thread, you all are saying that property should not be owned in perpetuity?
I think everyone was arguing against it in that thread.
Nevermind, I cant read.
Reparations punish people (non-black taxpayers) collectively for the sins of some of their ancestors. What a total piece of shit idea. Collective punishment, from the past.
That's like Israelis justifying an air attack on a house containing the descendant of someone who was in the same room as a suicide bomber once.
"Ironically, CD he is engaging in civil discourse when he blocks your car. He's like Tank Man...in a sense."
Funny. I liked that.
Look, a significant number of black kids are told from early on that they will not be able to succeed in America. That the deck is stacked against them. Like the comedian (it wasn't Chris Rock, so I think TAO will allow it) about his old uncle that sees racism in everything, right down to the canning of black olives (green olives come in jars). They internalize racism.
Of course TAO won't accept this because he internalizes racism as well. That's why he's so quick to lash out at me. It's a knee-jerk reaction. He just can't help it. Of course he doesn't want to help it, because he's comfortable with it. Sad really. Especially since in the posts above I have said nothing racist.
I work with black youth. Have for years. I have seen first hand the insidious self-limitations blacks place on themselves and their communities. Look at that cop-killer in Oakland. Guy kills four cops. He also raped a 14-year-old as well as others. And yet the black community in Oakland came out and marched through the streets and rallied in support of this guy. Said he was a victim (oh, and a really nice guy if ever you got to know him) That's just mental illness on a community scale.
Funny when one considers that at least one of the murdered cops was black.
I have a black friend too, am I cool?
"No, CD, in my world, you don't prejudge people based on the actions of some of them in violent groups."
I was discussing one kid in the street, TAO. Not all black folk. One kid.
"Anyway, I want you to leave because you're an ignorant racist."
I guess Eric Holder was right.
What would be great... I mean, really really great? If Barack Obama apologized for slavery on behalf of the federal government. I'd pay to see that.
There needs to be another word for when you apologize for something you didn't do because it's just so fucking sincere: "I'm sorry that other people that are not me were assholes".
If Barack Obama apologized for slavery on behalf of the federal government.
I would be very surprised if he hasn't already apologized for America's slave-owning history.
Who do I apply to for reparations for the minority kid who robbed grandma, knocked her down and broke her hip?
"""""The resolution did not allow for reparations or payments to anyone who might have been harmed by events during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries."""""
So the resolution does not allow all those 150, 200, 300 year old former slaves to get reparations?
"Who do I apply to for reparations for the minority kid who robbed grandma, knocked her down and broke her hip?"
Racist. ;0)
Oh Christ, CD, I just bet you work with black people. Really, no, I believe you. I bet you call certain ones "niggers" too, not 'cause your racist, of course, oh no, it's because certain black people "act like niggers", right, CD? And I am sure that at these mythical black youth homes, you tell them to stop "acting like niggers".
Wow, you're so COOL, CD.
Bullshit you were. This is what you said:
Unless you only ever saw one fitting that description in your life, you were talking about more than "one kid".
You basically stated that every person who dresses like that has a "slave mentality" because they stop your car...
You're like some kind of nervous cracker joke, you know that? Do you clutch your purse tighter when black people walk near you, you giant walking pussy?
So, CD, when you said this:
you weren't being racist then? Stating that all blacks and all Hispanics are inferior test-takers? Oh, I know you didn't say all, but you sure didn't rush to add "statistically more likely, in the context of America" either, did you?
Hm, wonder why?
My ancestor suffered a bayonet wound on July 3, 1863. For next thirty years, he could only work sporadically when the wound wasn't acting up. So, let's say $10 less per week for thirty years, compounded from 1895. What am I owed?
I bet you call certain ones "niggers" too, not 'cause your racist, of course, oh no, it's because certain black people "act like niggers", right, CD?
Hmm. Isn't it racist to say that black people can use a word but white people can't? Just wondering...
The whole black community? Did they really? Every report I saw said "dozens". I wouldn't let that stop you from proclaiming that an entire black community has a "mental illness".
I would never say just that. What I would say is that you have a lot of white people who think it's funny to be "nonracist" and say "nigger" in the Dave Chapelle/Chris Rock sense, but not really mean it in the narrow sense that word is used.
In other words, I hear some white people say "I like black people...but I hate niggers! Just like Chris Rock!", and then, of course, they define every black person they meet as a "nigger", which is awfully fucking convenient.
In other words, I hear some white people say "I like black people...but I hate niggers! Just like Chris Rock!", and then, of course, they define every black person they meet as a "nigger", which is awfully fucking convenient.
I find it easier to just leave the book out on the coffee table. Gets the point across without me having to actually say anything.
"Oh Christ, CD, I just bet you work with black people."
I work in a major US City with kids trying to get out of gangs. Homeless kids to. In my city blacks comprise 89% of all homeless kids. So I see this shit up close. I know the kids who have been gunned down and the kids that shot them.
I know you don't like my positions, TAO, because they make you uncomfotable. But ya know, that's not my problem to sort out.
"You're like some kind of nervous cracker joke"
Cracker? Thanks for showing your racist stripes.
"So, CD, when you said this:
They should have known at the outset that blacks and Hispanics are inferior test takers. It is common knowledge.
you weren't being racist then?"
It was sarcasm.
Seamus,
I agree with you about the Emancipation Proclamation, except for one key issue: it didn't determine what would be done about slavery after the war. Congress debated whether or not it would abolish slavery until January 1865; Lincoln's wartime steps didn't enter into it.
Your argument that the U.S. wasn't responsible for the existence of slavery is a highly technical one, don't you think? It's true that slavery started before the U.S. existed, but the U.S. wouldn't even have come into existence with slavery. Moreover, the U.S. permitted and encouraged slavery until the Civil War, and indeed made slavery the backbone of its economy until that time
PapayaSF, the U.S. fought an internal war, and ended up abolishing slavery as a result. So, yes, the U.S. "gets credit" for having finally stopped practicing slavery, but that hardly means the nation did anything to atone for it.
You can say that blacks need to "just get over it," but the plain fact is that black families are affected by the legacy of slavery every day, regardless of their attitude.
R C Dean, "mitigation of damages" doesn't apply when the responsible party takes costly action to end its own behavior. Just think about it: you suggest that the math could mean that the descendants of the victims could end up owing money to the nation which perpetrated the wrong. Now *that* would be a racket.
DJF, I hope you don't seriously believe that no one alive today has been harmed by Connecticut's involvement in slavery. Just look around you.
CD - which American city would that be?
And it's not that I don't like your positions because you don't have any. I know you think you're some kind of modern version of H.L. Mencken, saying shocking things and dressing it up like you're some kind of race-based version of Dr. House..."I may be a dick but I'm good with the races, dammit. My controversial nature proves how smart I am!", but the truth of the matter is, is that you're just a pissing-in-your-pants-at-the-sight-of-black-teens racist. See, you have this confirmation bias: the more people react to me, the more I must be telling the truth. Well, we react to your because you're fucking repugnant.
I'll note that you tried to claim you weren't talking about all black people, just "one kid", and I put paid to that. No response, eh?
"It was sarcasm."
Because the piece itself said as much. You know, how it said the test should be given with pictures and toy trucks and such.
Regardless of who has been harmed, no one living today was ever a slaveholder, a slave, or a politician who permitted slavery to go on. Ergo, no one is entitled to reparations. At some point, you have to stop using the state to fuck each other over.
I'm sorry, so that means that the piece was saying that blacks and Hispanics are inferior test-takers? Or is the more benign interpretation that the writing test was wholly irrelevant to the job at hand anyway?
Hmmm, which could it be? And which one did you latch onto?
"The whole black community?"
Look TAO, unlike Tony (a self-professed elegant writer) I don't always write so clearly.
"You can say that blacks need to "just get over it," but the plain fact is that black families are affected by the legacy of slavery every day, regardless of their attitude."
Please tell us how. Thanks in advance.
"CD - which American city would that be?"
It's on the Mississippi River.
It's not unclear writing that's your problem, CD. You said "community mental illness", and you meant it, even though the Mixon supporters came from some obscure group called the "International Uhurus" or something. It was "a few dozen" at "one rally" that mostly consisted of "friends and family", and yet, you insisted on painting the picture like all the blacks in Oakland were out supporting a murdering child-rapist.
Do you see how clarity is WAY down at the bottom of the list?
"I know you think you're some kind of modern version of H.L. Mencken, saying shocking things and dressing it up like you're some kind of race-based version of Dr. House"
Nothing I have written is shocking, unless the reader suffers from internalized racism.
"I'll note that you tried to claim you weren't talking about all black people, just "one kid", and I put paid to that. No response, eh?"
No. You were correct. See my "I don't write as pretty as Tony disclaimer (ibid).
"I'm sorry, so that means that the piece was saying that blacks and Hispanics are inferior test-takers? Or is the more benign interpretation that the writing test was wholly irrelevant to the job at hand anyway?
Hmmm, which could it be? And which one did you latch onto?"
Having never seen the test, neither you nor I can say if the written test was relevant.
Even "I don't write so good" doesn't cut it there, CD. Either you knew you meant more than one black person, or you didn't. Which did you mean?
Having not met the blacks or Hispanics in question, neither you nor I can say that they are inferior test-takers...which you went ahead and said anyway.
5:00 pm CDT. Quiting time. I have to catch the bus. It's full of black folks, so I'll be shaking the whole way home.
We can pick this back up at any time.
Best,
CD
Angry Optimist, whether or not reparations would be a good idea, we all benefit from what this country took from slavery. It doesn't matter that no one alive today was personally responsible for slavery, as long as we aren't talking about holding anyone accountable for their actions.
Civil Discourse, I said that "black families are affected by the legacy of slavery every day," and you responded by saying "Please tell us how. Thanks in advance."
Do you really not know that there is still racial prejudice being acted out in this country, every day, as a result of our centuries of slavery and Jim Crow discrimination? It's better, but it's hardly gone.
The bigger effect, however, comes from the fact that black families were left, after slavery, with absolutely nothing. They were then subject to massive, violent discrimination for more than a century afterward ... while huge government aid programs built the white middle class. If one generation of a family has less, then the next generation will almost always have less. It usually takes many generations to become prosperous, especially without those vast federal government programs that provided such a boost to white families (far more than blacks have received since that time).
"Either you knew you meant more than one black person, or you didn't. Which did you mean?"
I meant all of the young black males caparisoned in gang colors. In my neighborhood, you don't wear colors unless you are gang affiliated. And no, not all gang kids are a threat, but a good many are.
BTW, the bus ride home was scarier than shit. One black man said hello to me. I nearly shit my pants.
Look, TAO, I normally don't post at home. So as soon as the opportunity presents itself I will provide a carefully worded representation of my views on racism in America. But for starters, here's two points I firmly hold:
- In 21st century America (that would be USA specific), institutional racism no longer exists.
- The root cause of the socio-economic disparity between black folks and white folks is self-inflicted by blacks themselves.
Looking forward to our next chat.
BTW, By Any Means Necessary = Civil Discourse.
It did, however, allow for an apology on behalf of people who have never participated in slavery to people who have never been enslaved. Now, that is inspirational!
CD/BYNM, I don't have anything to quibble about with your first point, but your second point (that blacks "did it to themselves") is so breathtakingly collectivist! "They" did it to "themselves"? No. Individuals do things, they do not do things. Black people are not monolithic.
James - so your point is, as white people in the past did to black people in the past, so too should we do in reverse, FOR GREAT JUSTICE?
Wayne, the apology wasn't issued on behalf of anyone who wasn't involved in slavery.
It was issued on behalf of the state legislature, which as an institution was heavily involved in slavery.
You may not approve of this, and I respect that. It is, however, a perfectly reasonable action, and I find it inspirational that the state is finally acknowledging the full extent of what happened, who was responsible, and what the consequences have been.
Angry Optimist, I'm not suggesting any such action. For starters, like you, I wouldn't want anyone to be treated well or badly on the basis of race.
I do, however, think that we need to be honest about what happened, and about how it affects lives today. This isn't about whether white people today are responsible for slavery; they aren't. White people do, however, benefit from slavery to this day, while most black families still suffer significant ill effects from that history.
The first step is acknowledging this awkward consequence of our shared history, and this is why I applaud the General Assembly's willingness to speak out now.
what's the "next step", then?
"but if we do end up paying reparations, how much does Obama get?"
Actually, he pays reparations. None of his father's ancestors were slaves, but someone way back in his mother's family owned slaves.
"Angry Optimist, whether or not reparations would be a good idea, we all benefit from what this country took from slavery."
How much, really? The majority of the country's industrial base grew after the Civil War. The majority of antebellum Southern cotton was exported. The Civil War destroyed many of the planter fortunes amassed through slavery. So how much benefit, really, do white Americans benefit from slavery? My own assessment is that there was very little, and possibly negative net benefit to the bulk of white Americans today from slavery.
Obama also owes me money. Someone in his mom's family took Indian land, too. Not sure which tribe, but we'll just assume it was mine.
Why on Earth does Conneticut need to apologize for slavery?
Thousands of Conneticut soldiers died fighting the civil war. That ought to be sufficient.
since when is merely ending an evil practice the same as compensating its victims? Do we tell crime victims that they have been compensated when a criminal merely agrees to stop committing crimes in the future?
When the state executes the criminals, that's usually considered compensation. The North punished the south quite a lot for slavery, and killed quite a lot of southerners over it.
Many notherners gave their lives to end it.
You logic would imply that society in general should pay reparations to the families of murder victims out of tax dollars, on the grounds that society is collectively guilty for crimes commited by individual criminals.
The North effectively repudiated slavery, along with the vast majority of it's residents.
Out of the majority of Americans alive today, only a tiny fraction have fourth or fifth generation ancestors who owned slaves or fought for the South. The vast majority of Americans aren't even related to anyone who was involved in the civil war. Most of us are descendant of post-Civil-War immigrants.
In order to justify reparations, you have to subscribe to the notion of collective social guilt.
White people do, however, benefit from slavery to this day
Fuck you.
Blacks are descended from slaves should pay the descendants of white people. They have a much higher standard of living than if they were back in Africa.
And let's not forget who sold them into slavery in the first place: black Africans.
Economist asks how much we all benefit today from the impact of slavery. I think it's a good question, and one that's at the heart of the issue.
In fact, while most of our industrial base did develop after the Civil War, economists have concluded that the foundations of our industrial economy were laid prior to the Civil War, and depended quite heavily on slavery. In particular, we transformed from an agrarian to an industrial economy in the antebellum period, and we did so by developing a cotton textile industry which depended on cheap, slave-produced cotton and on the surplus profits from slavery and the slave trade.
Hazel, I appreciate your thoughtful arguments (aside from the last one, of course, which denies a simple historical fact you don't like with a four-letter word). However, I think you aren't aware of some of this history.
For instance, the legislature apologized this week because Connecticut had a terrible record on slavery, for more than 200 years. And while soldiers from here did participate in the Civil War, that conflict involved slavery, but those soldiers were fighting to preserve the Union, not to end slavery (which didn't even become a war aim until 1865).
As for the state having executed the criminals responsible, Hazel, those in Connecticut were just as complicit in slavery as the Confederate soldiers who lost their lives. In any event, executing criminals isn't compensation to the victims. It might be considered a measure of justice, or vengeance.
In response to your argument about society paying the families of murder victims and collective guilt, we aren't talking about collective guilt here. I've simply been pointing out that (unlike in the case of murder), our society chose to engage in slavery and still benefits enormously from the wrongs of slavery. I'm not arguing for reparations, but the benefits of slavery aren't in the hands of dead slavers or living wealthy southerners. They're in the hands of everyone who enjoys a U.S. standard of living, rather than what we would have if slavery hadn't existed here.
Hazel, you also write that the "North effectively repudiated slavery, along with the vast majority of it's residents."
Connecticut, for instance, only repudiated slavery within the state in 1848, and then continued to profit enormously from doing business with slave plantations in the south. Cotton from the South was the North's primary commodity for export in the antebellum years, as well as the key component of its industrial base.
Finally, Hazel, it's not true that most Americans aren't descended from those who benefited from the slavery and discrimination which were the subject of the apology. Most Americans have ancestors who were here before the Civil War, and virtually every one of those was complicit in slavery in one way or another. Even those who immigrated here after the Civil War benefited enormously from the effects of slavery and discrimination; I can explain further if that's not clear to you.
"Black people are not monolithic."
So you don't believe there is such a thing as distinct, identifiable black culture in America? Because I do. And from what I have experienced, it puts a drag on many, many black folk.
Consider the following two scenarios.
One, would be the two black kids that ride my city bus every morning. Good kids. About fifteen or sixteen. They are both in their high school band. Both are drummers. They practice stick tricks and talk about girls and what not. I was tghe drum major in my high school band and also talked about girls and whatnot at that age, so I can't help but like them. As I said, good kids.
The second, would be the gangster disciple kid I referenced above, who by the way was accompanied by another GD kid a year or two younger. They were clearly GD because as mentioned previously, in my neighborhood, you don't wear colors if you're not affiliated. And as I said, the older kid had his pants to his knees. Not just sagging, to his knees. He was hitting on three girls at a bus stop. And as I said, he was in the middle of the street. And this was not a residential street, but rather a busy four-lane road with interior turn lanes, so effectively, it's a five-lane road. Very busy. Just a block from the interstate. And this kid and his younger friend are in the middle of the street and not the lane by the curb, the middle lane. In heavy traffic, strutting like a rooster at a cockfight. Very black ghetto culture.
Now tell me, TAO, of these four kids, which two are most likely to succed in life and which two are going to die or end up in prision? And what effect does the behavior of the latter two have on folks perceptions of the former two?
Anyway, I'd like to continue this discussion, but will wait until the next H&R topic regarding race comes up, which will give us both time to better consider our own beliefs and misconceptions.
And to James, how do you reconcile yuor reparations beliefs with what WEB DuBois (actually me) posted at the beginning of the thread?
Oh, and I like that you don't name-call.
And to anyone offended by TAO's use of the N-word, if it helped him to better express himself, than he -- as well as eveyone -- should be free to use it.
Free markets
Free minds
free speech
Hey, sorry about that whole slavery thing. My bad!
Sincerely,
Sam
I'm not arguing for reparations, but the benefits of slavery aren't in the hands of dead slavers or living wealthy southerners. They're in the hands of everyone who enjoys a U.S. standard of living, rather than what we would have if slavery hadn't existed here.
Would that everyone include blacks as well?
Are you so sure that slavery was a net economic benefit to the country as a whole? I'm not. There's a reason why no country has ever gotten poorer after eliminating slavery, and a reason why slavery is still found today only in those countries most mired in poverty - morality aside, it is a terrible economic system.
Civil Discourse, I appreciate your question about reconciling reparations with DuBois.
I'm not a supporter of reparations, but I admire DuBois's focus on judging people as individuals and not making blanket assumptions about them. Perhaps this is why I'm not a supporter of reparations, and instead prefer to focus on dispelling myths about slavery and race, so that we can at least acknowledge how we got where we are. I think that many of the comments here indicate that people can be deeply reluctant to abandon cherished views about their ancestors, their society, and themselves, even when those views color how they approach critical social issues.
R C Dean, you ask whether blacks in the U.S. today benefit from the historical legacy of slavery and discrimination as well. Yes, indeed they do ... although, of course, on average they benefit far less than whites, because of that same history.
You also ask whether I'm sure "that slavery was a net economic benefit to the country as a whole."
Not only am I sure of this, but I'm sure that slavery amounted to a *huge* net benefit to the country. The colonial economy (north and south) was largely based on slavery, and this is how the colonies became rich enough and strong enough to rebel against Great Britain.
After independence, slavery provided the single greatest source of economic strength in both north and south. Moreover, slavery made it possible for the U.S. to build the foundations of its industrial economy in the antebellum years, making possible all which followed afterward.
Now, it's true that slavery has disadvantages as an economic system. It's not that slavery isn't economically useful in the short term; it is, and historians have noted that slavery always emerges where it will be economically useful, and never otherwise. However, slavery does tend to leave societies stuck as agricultural or commodity-producing economies.
If the southern U.S., therefore, had been a separate nation, we might be able to say that it was harmed, long-term, because of slavery. Slavery, because of its huge profits, kept the south an agrarian economy for long enough that, had it been a separate nation, it probably would have remained an agricultural or commodity-producing nation for generations (much as the slave-owning societies of the West Indies did).
However, American slavery had a different impact in the north, where it caused the north to develop a robust colonial economy, and then to explode as a commodity exporter and to become an industrial powerhouse. Without slavery as a key ingredient, the northern U.S. would almost certainly have been unable to industrialize until the 20th century, and then would likely have suffered the same fate as other nations which waited until then to do so.
James,
Ever read "The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817-1914"? Great book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0819561886/reasonmagazinea-20/
James,
I repeat "Fuck You" is the only appropriate response to your arrogant, priggish, assholish insistence that all white people collectively benefit from slavery to this day.
You are so amazingly full of shit, and you don't even realize it.
Nearly every statement in your last couple of posts is a baseless assertion thrust forward as if it were incontrovertible fact.
All white people benefit from slavery? Really? Prove it.
The US colonial economy was based on slavery? Prove it.
You havn't got shit. All you have are the equally baseless assertion and conjectures by a bunch of equally arrogant empty-headed leftist assholes, who don't have any more of a shred of evidence for any of this than you do.
When confronted with a dick who states completely unfounded bullshit as factual analysis, the only correct answer is "Fuck You".
Without slavery as a key ingredient, the northern U.S. would almost certainly have been unable to industrialize until the 20th century,
Example. Total, baseless, horseshit, advanced as fact.
Fuck you, James.
Hazel, I respect that you're reluctant to believe the historical claims I'm making. However, I don't see how that justifies such foul language, as if I were behaving terribly.
"Nearly every statement in your last couple of posts is a baseless assertion thrust forward as if it were incontrovertible fact."
I can back up everything I've said, Hazel, with detailed historical facts and figures. These aren't wild historical claims, but are standard interpretations of these periods.
This isn't the place to start dumping pages and pages of analysis, but I'll try to respond briefly to each of the points you've raised, and I'd encourage you to challenge me on any specific points that you believe you can contest.
"All white people benefit from slavery? Really? Prove it."
How do all white Americans benefit from slavery, Hazel? Well, virtually every single American has a higher standard of living by virtue of living in the largest economy in the world.
Why is the U.S. the largest, and one of the most advanced, economies in the world, rather than mired in the development problems of most former colonies in the hemisphere?
The short answer is that we were able to industrialize early, when most other colonies and former colonies could not. How did we pull this off? By having vast quantities of cheap, slave-produced cotton, at a time when industrializing meant developing a cotton textile industry, and by having the surplus capital from slavery and the slave trade to invest in such a huge enterprise.
This ignores other ways in which most, but not all, white families in this country continue to benefit from the legacy of slavery and discrimination. For instance, plenty of research has shown that the massive federal aid programs of the 20th century, which largely built the white middle class through money for education, housing, job training, and small businesses, continues to pay huge dividends to the white population, while the black families which were shut out of these programs still face the impact of that treatment, generations later.
"The US colonial economy was based on slavery? Prove it."
I assume you know that the southern economy was largely based on slave labor for most of the colonial period.
As for the northern economy, the single greatest source of its development prior to the American Revolution was supplying slave plantations in the south and in the West Indies. Slave labor was so profitable in the West Indies, in particular with sugar production, that planters would pay high prices to import food and other resources rather than devote precious labor and land to domestic production. So merchants were able to export food and resources like timber from throughout our northern colonies, bringing high profits to everyone involved, from ordinary farmers and trappers to those involved in the maritime trade itself.
This is why John Quincy Adams said that this trade to slave-owning regions was an "essential ingredient in our independence," because this economic development was crucial to being able to rebel successfully.
James,
You are always welcome to provide links to support your positions. It'll save you some typing time.
I greatly appreciate you input and hope that you participate in future threads on this or any other subject.
I agree with you about the Emancipation Proclamation, except for one key issue: it didn't determine what would be done about slavery after the war.
It determined what would be done about slavery in the seceding states (which is to say, almost everywhere that slavery existed). It says that those held in slavery would be "forever free." Given that importation of slaves had been outlawed in 1808, and given that both the U.S. and Royal Navies were enforcing the prohibition of the slave trade as a form of piracy, the only way slavery could be reestablished in the former Confederacy would have been by importation from Kentucky and Delaware. I don't think that would have worked very well. So I'd say that the Proclamation pretty much *did* determine what the fate of slavery after the War was going to be.
How do all white Americans benefit from slavery, Hazel? Well, virtually every single American has a higher standard of living by virtue of living in the largest economy in the world.
Why is the U.S. the largest, and one of the most advanced, economies in the world, rather than mired in the development problems of most former colonies in the hemisphere?
The short answer is that we were able to industrialize early, when most other colonies and former colonies could not. How did we pull this off? By having vast quantities of cheap, slave-produced cotton, at a time when industrializing meant developing a cotton textile industry, and by having the surplus capital from slavery and the slave trade to invest in such a huge enterprise.
Yeah, it's good that we had slavery and were able to industrialize early, unlike countries like Brazil that didn't have slavery.
Oh, wait. . . .
And now that I think of it, Britain industrialized before us. I guess it must have been because slavery was flourishing there. And Germany's industrialization in the 19th century was probably also fueled by its successful employment of slave labor.
IActually, he pays reparations. None of his father's ancestors were slaves, but someone way back in his mother's family owned slaves.
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if some of this father's ancestors *owned* slaves, or even sold slaves (though probably to Arabs rather than to Americans, given that he lived in East Africa).
It determined what would be done about slavery in the seceding states (which is to say, almost everywhere that slavery existed).
Actually, Seamus, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by President Lincoln, using his authority as a wartime president. It didn't settle anything permanently.
Congress deliberated long and hard before deciding whether to end slavery, and only decided on the Thirteenth Amendment, after much discussion, in January 1865.
Was the handwriting on the wall at that point, and Congress wasn't smart enough to realize it (or wanted to seem important)? Possibly, I don't know. The point is that this was a live political issue right up until the final months of the war, and not a settled war aim at all.
Yeah, it's good that we had slavery and were able to industrialize early, unlike countries like Brazil that didn't have slavery.
That's exactly my point, Seamus.
Brazil had slavery, but wasn't able to capitalize on it to build an industrial base, and so it wasn't able to industrialize at all. Not under slavery, and not afterward. This is true of countries that never had large-scale slavery, too. They have been stuck with "Third World" economies ever since.
The U.S., on the other hand, was able to industrialize because the north didn't find it economically advantageous to have widespread slavery by the 19th century, but was able to take advantage of domestic slave plantations in the south (via slave trading, financing, supplying, the carrying trade, etc.) in order to industrialize.
If you can conceive of a way in which the U.S. could have developed the cotton textile industry without slavery, or could have industrialized without the textile industry, I'd be very interested to hear it.
now that I think of it, Britain industrialized before us.
Again, that's precisely the point. Britain pioneered industrialization, which limited opportunities for all other nations. I'm not saying that slavery is necessary to industrialize, but that it happened to allow the U.S. to industrialize when it otherwise couldn't (and, indeed, most nations simply weren't able to).
Great Britain was the first country in the world to industrialize, and it did so primarily with cotton textiles. Once it had that "first-mover" advantage, it was extremely difficult for other Western European nations to industrialize, even though they should have had similar advantages to Britain. Meanwhile, almost no other nations, anywhere else in the world, were able to do so.
It's about timing. It was barely possible to industrialize then, with the right preconditions, and wasn't possible later, in almost all cases.
I can back up everything I've said, Hazel, with detailed historical facts and figures. These aren't wild historical claims, but are standard interpretations of these periods.
Really? Who are these people advancing these "standard" interpretations.
I suspect you got most of this from a freshman "sensativity training" class during your college orientation. Where these historial interpretations were picked up from a bunch left wing identity politics screeds.
The short answer is that we were able to industrialize early, when most other colonies and former colonies could not. How did we pull this off? By having vast quantities of cheap, slave-produced cotton, at a time when industrializing meant developing a cotton textile industry, and by having the surplus capital from slavery and the slave trade to invest in such a huge enterprise.
The cotton textile industry is specific to the south, and is not the only aspect of industrialization that matters. The North was MORE industrialized than the south, because it relied on manufacturing, without slave labor.
It is pure conjecture to connect the two. You can come up with a million different theories about what permits, or does not permit, industrialization. But only in your slavery-centric universe is slavery the key ingredient to industrialization.
Britain pioneered industrialization, which limited opportunities for all other nations. I'm not saying that slavery is necessary to industrialize, but that it happened to allow the U.S. to industrialize when it otherwise couldn't (and, indeed, most nations simply weren't able to).
Say what? Britain pioneered industrialization, therefore NOBODY ELSE could industrialize without slavery? This is pure nonsense. You're just making things up. There is ZERO connection between one country's industrialization, and another's ability to do the same. You have not established this at all, and nobody else has.
It sounds like some crazy bullshit derived from "dependency theory", a 1960s Marxist concept.
I'd be willing to bet your entire economic analysis goes back to some 60s-70s Marxist economic and historical analysis. Despite the fact that Marxist economics has been discredited for over a century, that's never stoped leftist intellectuals from using it to interpret economic history.
Who are these people advancing these "standard" interpretations.
Well, let's start with Douglass North, for example, in his landmark work, The Economic Growth of the United States, 1790-1860.
North is hardly a "Marxist" or anything of the kind. His economic analysis is mainstream and he is a winner of the Nobel prize in economics for his work as an economic historian.
Can you cite any mainstream economic historian who disagrees with this understanding of U.S. economic history?
The cotton textile industry is specific to the south, and is not the only aspect of industrialization that matters.
The cotton textile industry was almost exclusively in the NORTH, not the SOUTH.
While the textile industry is hardly the only aspect of industrialization which matters, it happens to be the particular industry with which Britain pioneered the industrial revolution, and the particular industry with which the U.S. was able to industrialize. Our later economic development in other areas was the result of the groundwork laid by this first industry.
The North was MORE industrialized than the south, because it relied on manufacturing, without slave labor.
The North was more industrialized because it wasn't reaping huge profits directly from agricultural labor. As a result, the North found a way to make additional profits in the North from that slave labor. What else was the cotton textile industry?
only in your slavery-centric universe is slavery the key ingredient to industrialization.
Take a look at any economic history of the U.S. that you'd like. Prior to the Civil War, the northern economy was dominated by businesses dependent on slavery, as was the southern economy.
In fact, the U.S. did industrialize through the textile industry, which was dependent upon slavery for its funding and inexpensive raw inputs.
Can you suggest how the U.S., unlike almost any other country, might have industrialized in those years? Was there another way to create a cotton textile industry in those years? Was there another industry to be built at that time? Was there a way to industrialize later, if the U.S. had remained an agrarian nation at that time?
Britain pioneered industrialization, therefore NOBODY ELSE could industrialize without slavery? This is pure nonsense. You're just making things up.
I suppose I didn't spell out the argument in sufficient detail.
Industrialization isn't a process in which each nation can engage in turn, without regard to what has already occurred in other nations.
Once Britain had developed an industry around textiles, it was able to dominate the global market for textiles. Its prices were far too good for homemade textiles to compete.
As a result, no other nation could simply begin to duplicate the complicated industrial processes and be competitive enough to continue the process to its conclusion. The only solution for the few nations in western Europe which were able to do it was to take an already advanced economic base and apply vast sums of money to build an entire industry out of whole cloth (so to speak), while spending additional money to keep out British textiles with protectionist measures to allow the domestic industry to begin to flourish and grow.
How could a new, agrarian nation across the ocean possibly accomplish the same thing, without such resources? In practice, what the U.S. did was to take the surplus profits from slavery and the slave trade (the only such source of funding available to it) to build an industry, while using its privileged access to cheap, slave-produced cotton to become competitive early on.
It sounds like some crazy bullshit derived from "dependency theory", a 1960s Marxist concept.
This is nothing like dependency theory, which postulates that underdeveloped nations are held back not because of the timing and sequencing of industrial development, but because of the way they are integrated into the international economic system.
thanks