AllyWork
Helping White people fight White Supremacy
Recent Comments
- Dawn Reed on Racism Prevention 101: Parenting With the Natural Healing Process
- ben on Why There is a BET and There isn’t a WET
- ben on Why There is a BET and There isn’t a WET
- TheRightChoice on Why There is a BET and There isn’t a WET
- SFAlly on Unlearning Racism Pt.3: Just Lists
- Learner on Unlearning Racism Pt. 2: getting to know ourselves
- M johnson on Why There is a BET and There isn’t a WET
Archives
More on Slavery Apologists
Published by rachels | Filed under Portraying Race, Slavery and Racism Denial
A few weeks ago I posted a link to this piece about slavery denial in the US. Professor Miller argued that those who minimize and or deny the impact of slavery are trying to rewrite history:
Similarly, slavery- and segregation-denial seeks to create a counter-myth of America, one that reconstructs the South, the Klan, and the Confederate flags as the culture-blind symbols of a distinct region with its own traditions. Slavery- and segregation-denial is an attempt to rewrite history in a manner that minimizes whites’ active or passive participation in the state-sponsored violence that lasted will into the 1960s (some would say much later).
Such a critique makes clear that in celebrating the “heroes” or symbols of the Confederacy or a variety of other institutions, without acknowledging their racism and the violence that they perpetrated, promoted, or permitted.
Well, it seems that slavery apologists decided to show their true colors. Republic of T and my co-blogger fournier are both blogging about an article that apparently has been taken down (Native Alien has reposted it here.). The article by Adele Ferguson argues African Americans should be grateful for slavery because it was their ticket to America. Ferguson goes on to talk about how teachers unions, the democratic party, and Black leaders have lead African Americans astray.
Of course, the whole condescending and paternalistic tone is nothing new for slavery apologists. In fact, I saw a similar argument a few years ago when David Horowitz decided to run this ad in the University of Connecticut newspaper. Horowitz lists 10 reasons why slavery reparations are “bad for Blacks and racist, too.” Horowitz includes this argument as point #9,
“Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans — created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?
Sounds familiar doesn’t it.
So what is wrong with this argument? Let’s start with the comparison between African American Blacks and Blacks in other countries. The major problem with this argument is that it is the wrong comparison. Black Americans should be compared with White Americans because African Americans live in the US and work here. Could you imagine a business owner telling a Black worker, “You should be happy because I pay you more than Africans make.” Or for that matter, could the same business owner say that the Irish American employee should be happy because they are paid more than people in Ireland? Moreover, the poverty in many predominantly Black countries can and often is connected directly to slavery and colonialism. Many African countries are poor because the resources flow straight out of the country to multinational corporations located in places like the US or Britain.
Another problem with this view is that it makes White racists the good guys. Unlike Europeans, Africans were involuntary migrants, and no matter how complicit Africans leaders were in the slave trade, there would be no slave trade if European Americans (later to be called Whites) did not use slaves. It is that simple. Moreover, because Whites created slavery and held all of the political power in the US, they were also responsible for ending slavery. They had to right a wrong that they and their ancestors created. The Horowitz and Ferguson arguments are akin to me assaulting someone; then driving them to the hospital, and turning around and telling the person they should be grateful that I took them to the hospital to get life saving treatment.
One other major problem with such arguments is that they Whitewash (pun intended) the brutality and force of slavery. Millions of people died in slave ships coming from Africa. Once in the US, enslaved Africans were not allowed to marry or read. Families were often separated when children and parents were sold. Enslaved women were routinely raped and forced to “breed.” Slavery was a brutal institution, and the United States government, which has always been run by White men, has never apologized for slavery, and the reparations promised, 40 acres and a mule, were never distributed. Even after slavery ended, it was replaced by its surrogate sharecropping. This was followed by White racist violence, rapid disfranchisement of Black men, and the establishment of Jim Crow segregation. Let’s not pretend this didn’t happen. While a select few Whites did engage in the abolitionist movement, the majority of Whites sat idly by or actively participated in slavery, and nobody should be grateful for that.
This is cross posted at Rachels Tavern
March 17th, 2006 at 9:11 pm Let's see... by this same "logic," Holocaust deniers can - and do - argue that the Jews are better off because of the Holocaust. No wholesale slaughter of six+ million Jews, then there's no Israel.
And the result is the same. If you can deny the Holocaust, you take away the single biggest strike against favoring fascism as an acceptable system. Those bad old Nazis don't sound so bad after all. Same here: The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights, so Confederate soldiers can still be called heroes. If slavery isn't so bad, then there's no real reason to feel bad about racism...
or about being a racist.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:21 pm Yeah, they definitely can reduce some of the racism guilt by using this tactic.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:25 pm This totally reminds me of Barbara Bush's comments on how "lucky" the Katrina victims are. Or, farther back, the idiotic "lucky ducky" argument for poverty.
March 19th, 2006 at 7:39 am aldahlia, That's a good comparison.
March 19th, 2006 at 7:19 pm [...] Ally Work: Refuting the Slavery Apologists [...]
March 20th, 2006 at 8:35 am Horowitz just plainly misrepresents Lincoln's behaviour throughout his political career with regard to slavery amd blacks.
As Lerone Bennett's "Forced Into Glory" chronicles, Lincoln's racial beliefs and his actions toward blacks and slavery were not that of the Great Emancipator:
"* Lincoln publicly referred to blacks by the most offensive racial slur. In one speech, Lincoln said he opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because he didn't want the West "to become an asylum for slavery and n-----s."
* Lincoln was, in the words of one friend, "especially fond of Negro minstrel shows," attending blackface performances in Chicago and Washington. At an 1860 performance of Rumsey and Newcomb's Minstrels, Lincoln "clapped his great hands, demanding an encore, louder than anyone" when the minstrels performed "Dixie." Lincoln was also fond of what he called "darky" jokes, Mr. Bennett documents.
* Lincoln envisioned and advocated an all-white West, declaring at Alton, Ill., in 1858, that he was "in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home ... as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over."
* Lincoln supported his home state's law, passed in 1853, forbidding blacks to move to Illinois. The Illinois state constitution, adopted in 1848, called for laws to "effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state."
* Lincoln blamed blacks for the Civil War, telling them, "But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another."
* Lincoln claimed that "the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white."
* Repeatedly over the course of his career, Lincoln urged that American blacks be sent to Africa or elsewhere.
In 1854, Lincoln declared his "first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia; to their own native land." In 1860, Lincoln called for the "emancipation and deportation" of slaves."
Of course, these facts raise a compelling question for ally work. Namely, why do so many white folks refuse to acknowledge the truth of Lincoln. Even liberal white folks think of Lincoln as driven by some belief that blacks were equal.
Chalk another one up to the Racist Imagination.
Regards,
Jay
March 20th, 2006 at 12:25 pm Of course, these facts raise a compelling question for ally work. Namely, why do so many white folks refuse to acknowledge the truth of Lincoln. Even liberal white folks think of Lincoln as driven by some belief that blacks were equal.
I think that's because it allows us to view the Civil War as an anti-racist struggle for the soul of the country--a revolution with Lincoln at its head--rather than as a conflict over, well, the governance of the country by and for certain groups of white people. The US (approximately half of it, anyway) went to war for the emancipation of the slaves, goes the logic, therefore the US certainly cannot be said not to give a flying fuck about slavery or racism or any of their ramifications. To extend the analogy above, it'd be like arguing that the US's decision to join WWII is prima facie proof that the US was and is committed to ending anti-semitism abroad _and_ at home.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:34 pm And! That would _also_ explain why Lincoln is lionized as opposed to, say, Grant: because Lincoln was murdered, he can become a martyr for the revolution he wasn't actually fighting.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:04 am The Humane Slave-driver...
Up top of a good post from AllyWorks on some of the idiot arguments favored by slavery apologists, there’s an excellent quote from Eric Miller......
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:26 am "Namely, why do so many white folks refuse to acknowledge the truth of Lincoln."
Honestly, because most white folks don't *know* all that stuff about Lincoln. Kind of like no one seems to know that Hellen Keller was a very vocal Communist. And at this point, if you bring any of those things up, you get labled a "Revisionist." Never mind that the Vision your Revisioning was inaccurate to begin with. It's kind of like the Alamo... it's been totally washed out of the story that Crockett, etc, were fighting for Slavery, not freedom.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:28 am I'd like to quibble with a few points raised above.
"Black Americans should be compared with White Americans because African Americans live in the US and work here." Why do you say this? What makes one comparison more valid than the other? Of course, everyone in the U.S. should be glad they make more than what the average African does. I know I am. I'm glad I make more than the average Irishman, too, if that's, in fact, the case.
You say "no matter how complicit Africans leaders were in the slave trade, there would be no slave trade if European Americans (later to be called Whites) did not use slaves. It is that simple." But it isn't: this statement requires some kind of qualification to become true. There would be less slavery if fewer people used slaves. But there was local slavery in West Africa and a slave trade with the Middle East for a long time before Europeans got involved.
I think the question of whether black Americans are better off for slavery is sometimes oversimplified by both sides. Thomas Sowell had it right when he said that he himself was better off because his ancestors were enslaved, but they, during their lives, were of course much worse off because of it. I don't think he meant this to justify slavery.
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:23 pm “Black Americans should be compared with White Americans because African Americans live in the US and work here.” Why do you say this? What makes one comparison more valid than the other? Of course, everyone in the U.S. should be glad they make more than what the average African does. I know I am. I’m glad I make more than the average Irishman, too, if that’s, in fact, the case.
Because the one that controls for nationality is relevant to a discussion of income disparity resulting from racism. The one that doesn't, isn't.
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:00 pm otto - i don't think the argument is simply boiled down to "there would be less slavery if less people used slaves". I think the point being made is that it was Europeans and the sequential colonists/colonizers that turned slavery from a relatively small result of warfare and power-grabbing to a nation-building tool of oppression that was essentially the basis for race as we know it today. European Americans took slavery and turned into an international market based on racial hierarchy (where before it was pretty much localized and had little-to-nothing to do with race). Its true that West Africa had slave rings and a slave market. And its true that Kush had what would be defined today as White slaves. And its true that slavery still exists today (we shouldn't forget or ignore that). But it wasn't slavery that gave those nations power - slavery was a result of power/force. For the US, power was derived from the enslavement of millions. Without it, we probably wouldn't exist. Certainly not in the terms that we do today.
I'd agree that the arguements are often over-simplified; this is a common problem when we are caught up in trying to get our point across in sound bites, which is the only way that so many people will listen. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a side. I'm not going to try and beat down someone who feels that they are better off because of what happened to them or their ancestors in the past. But i'm not about to make a sweeping generalization that millions of people are better off today because their cultures, heritages, languages, privileges, and power were stripped from them before they were even conceived.
I'm not saying that you are arguing that slavery in the US was permissible because of how great Black people have it here today. But when we begin to make such an arguement, we are saying that slavery is ok today because of its potential to create higher wages centuries down the road. Or, for that matter, that sweatshops are permissible because at least the workers are making seventy cents an hour when before they were making nothing (leaving out the fact that you can't put a price on the cultures, communities, and families that are being destroyed by such an economic system). We can't take historical events out of context and assume that they mean nothing today but as something to be studied. How we view the past determines the now we create.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:15 am Honestly, because most white folks don’t *know* all that stuff about Lincoln. Kind of like no one seems to know that Hellen Keller was a very vocal Communist. And at this point, if you bring any of those things up, you get labled a “Revisionist.” Never mind that the Vision your Revisioning was inaccurate to begin with. It’s kind of like the Alamo… it’s been totally washed out of the story that Crockett, etc, were fighting for Slavery, not freedom.
"Never mind that the Vision your Revisioning was inaccurate to begin with."
I love this line.
Thanks!
March 24th, 2006 at 7:46 am Otto, I think it is important to make comparisons within their culture when we are talking about earnings or income (I think piny is also saying that). If you have two people socialized in the same culture and you want to make claims about the fairness of that culture that you should compare within the culture.
Simply put, why not compare Blacks in the US to Whites in the US? In this case, they don't want to compare those two because it points out that African Americans still don't have the same chances as similarly situated whites.
The other big problem I have is that this argument also ignores how European countries and to a lesser extent the US have crippled the economies of these West African countries. Take Nigeria as the prime example. It is a very oil rich country, and companies like Shell make big bucks their. The Europeans who run these companies get rich, and almost nothing goes back to the people of Nigeria. These countries do have other internal problems like corruption, but it pales in comparison to the effects of these multinational corporations. Simply put, Africans are in bad shape in large part because of the West.
April 26th, 2006 at 3:10 pm dogg slavery was way worst than the holocaust
June 6th, 2006 at 2:13 pm I read that Lincoln said he won't have abolished slavery if it would have kept the Union together. Didn't know that he was a homosexual either, until quite recently. Yesterday I read about a "black" indentured slave from Maryland. That was interesting to me, because I never thought about "blacks" having been edentured, but just the ones that were taken without their consent. I think the reason their is no empathy is that type of person truly believes the other isn't a real live human being. Look at the faces of those smiling US soldiers with their "trophy" Iraqi prisoners. None of the people involved in that era are alive today. I think we'd need to concentrate on the racism that's being done here and now. The only thing I can say for sure, if all Europeans were cruel, and racist, agreeable to treating humans inhumanly, the US might still have unpaid slaves today.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:31 pm Whites simply joined in on a lucrative slavery business run by Africans, who developed the concept over hundreds of years. And regardless of your spin, it did take the will of white people to stop much of the slavery in the world. Yet, at least twice as many people remain in bondage today than in the entire 400 years of Western-European slavery --- and incredibly, many of those countries still practicing slavery are in none other than mother Africa.
July 8th, 2007 at 2:45 pm I agree with the substance of the post but also think the black American issue is problematic. if you are going to address a "Mr. X. has benefited from slavery" claim, then you need to compare X's status now (post slavery) to X's hypothetical status now if slavery hadn't happened.
Because many (I believe 'most' but I'm not sure) American blacks are here only because their ancestors were brought here involuntarily, and because most black people worldwide are not in America, there seems little reason to assume that any particular person would be here. Rather it is almost certainly more accurate to assume they would be in Africa.