I grew up in New England and all the origins of the colonies we studied were the founders of Massachusetts and Rhode Island-- various groups of Protestant rebels who arrived here in flight from oppressive religious practice. They were poor and strait-laced. As is well-understood, Mayflower passengers were mere 'penniless nobodies.' That's how the New England colonies were settled and that's where abolition originally came from. I don't know if this is mentioned in the 1619 Project. I'm too scared to read it, but Puritanism STILL distinguishes us from say, France, Spain and Italy.
When I think of "slaves who loved their masters" I think of Samuel L. Jackson's role in Django Unchained. If such characters did exist, then they were part of the problem, and also bad and ugly. (I know Tarantino's movies are not meant to be documentaries, but he said he did a lot of research for this one, and it has the ring of truth.)
If we agree that "slavery" is not limited to the antebellum South of the USA, but is in fact a feature of Humanity since time immemorial -- i.e., until renaissance humanism and secular liberalism forced "the peculiar institution" to justify itself, which it will eventually fail to do --, then we can begin to have a reasonable discussion.
Was there any good in slavery? I guess that depends on how one defines "good". Does being enslaved ever offer a more favorable outcome than being dead? I suppose for some people, it was the better option, for example, the inhabitants of some conquered city from Antiquity, who faced either immediate slaughter, or life as slaves in the conquerer's fields -- or their homes, if one had such luck. In pre-European America, when warriors from one Nation captured someone from another Nation, then did not enslaving that person for a time offer a way of assimilating said stranger into their new nation of adoption, providing some sort of period of integration to learn the language and customs? Again, was this a fate better than death? That depends on how much one wants to hold on to their culture of birth, I suppose.
Chattel slavery is somewhat into a class all of its own. Hard to find any redeeming qualities in that most abject form of human-on-human disrespect. And yet, if one is compelled to find a silver lining to that nightmare, I suppose one could come up with something. For example, do not many of the descendants of the slaves from the transatlantic trade and now established in the US, today benefit from living conditions and opportunities far better than what is currently offered to the descendants of those that remained in their original continent ? I know, this is a vaste generalization, and a values-based judgement for sure. What I am saying is that, provided the lens of generosity, it is possible to assign benign intent in Garofalo's "good, bad, and ugly" rhetorical ploy. Of course, generosity is not the point of the article above, which is more about the cultural war between Critical Theory Social Justice and conventional Secular Liberalism, is it not?
I went on a plantation tour in Louisiana once; it was part of a press trip for gay journalists. The docent on the tour was a Black woman who had her Masters in history, and she told us things like: the difference between house slaves and field slaves, the "class" system determined by what percentage of non-white blood. How "colored" people could own slaves; how singing spirituals was sometimes a signal to slaves on the run as to when they could safely move.
There was no "up" side to slavery, no matter how many descendants of slave owners (or wannabes) insist that the people who were enslaved were treated well, loved their masters, were part of the family, and didn't have the slightest idea of wanting freedom until "agitators' came from somewhere else.
And yes, you'll still hear it from a state legislator and a lot more people think it.
I am sure this guy read Huck Finn, because it is the Most Taught Book In American High Schools. It shows how there can be genuine good in people despite slavery. Gosh, it makes white people who read it feel good about slavery.
The essential difference between Uncle Tom's Cabin and Huck Finn is that Huck Finn "proves" that it possible to be a good pure white soul in a land of brutal racist slavery and the core point of Uncle Tom's Cabin is that it is impossible to be a good person under such a system. It will fucking kill you if you are a slave, in a brutal way, & you are powerless to enact good if you are white.
Of course that you are powerless to enact good when you are white is the source of most of the humor in Huck Finn. (hahahaha look at N** Jim chained and fearing lynching. Let's bring him snakes & spiders!! hahahahahaha) Also the hate language. And it was written by an actual Confederate who grew up in a slave-owning family. And force high school students to read N*** N*** N** which was a hate word then and is treated as a hate word in Uncle Tom's Cabin (written previously) and in contemporaneous literature.
That a Confederate boy's coming of age is the most taught book about slavery is, imho, incredibly racist. Twain was a Confederate solider, was raised in a slave-owning family, and his extended family owned slaves. Imagine if the most taught book in Germany was by a Nazi soldier about a nice Christian Boy and his friend Kike Yacob, whom nice Christian Boy miraculously saves from the gas chamber while his entire family remains in bondage. People would feel great about how they would be good people, and know that goodness was still possible under that system.
And that is why that book is loathsome. And here are a small part of its wages. It is what is taught by Confederate literature.
I think it's because it's the same amount of value they assign to a life that isn't their own or their families- worthless and only useful for baiting who they despise.
Isn't demanding no increase in minimum wages, and forcing them to work during a pandemic, poor housing options, harsh policing, really just that, writ small.
Huckabay knows what's up, she's 'just asking questions' in her Master Race to the Bottom.
To Hickaby and her bold racist friendos I say: Good luck.
If the punishment for peaceful protest is the same for violent protest, you will pay in other, let's say, more creative ways. Marginalized people don't get mad and confront you: they smile and they get even.
It's the how car tires constantly end up with slow leaks from pinholes, or the windshield wipers stick and then shred, the random piece of pepperoni found on the truck roof in the hot sun. It's the uneasy stomach after a delivered meal (real or imagined), or finding their names added to unseemly mailing lists, and their kids' name/pic showing up in dark chatrooms the have to deny to college admissions, It's the funny smell in the air conditioning, and the shame of a second bedbug infestation this year (from the country club? Maid service? Dog walker? Landscapeing? Carpet cleaner? Car detailer? Home manicurist? Kid's tutor? From the cruise?) During the fumigation you stay in a hotel with traces of dog turds regularly found in certain ice machines that management won't tell you about. Skol, bitches.
And it doesn't take much before these loud-talkers end up in pointless litigation, find the police as ineffective as the rest of the population, get bilked by some fake PI, and are bhatshizz paranoid, with their waking hours spent watching their Ring doorbell and popping Xanies.
I grew up in New England and all the origins of the colonies we studied were the founders of Massachusetts and Rhode Island-- various groups of Protestant rebels who arrived here in flight from oppressive religious practice. They were poor and strait-laced. As is well-understood, Mayflower passengers were mere 'penniless nobodies.' That's how the New England colonies were settled and that's where abolition originally came from. I don't know if this is mentioned in the 1619 Project. I'm too scared to read it, but Puritanism STILL distinguishes us from say, France, Spain and Italy.
Here is a example of a literacy test given out in Louisiana in the 1950's! Scroll down for the test!I doubt many Trumpsters could pass it today!
https://www.ferris.edu/HTML...
Modern Republicans do realise which side their party supported during the American Civil War? They seem confused about their allegiance.
When I think of "slaves who loved their masters" I think of Samuel L. Jackson's role in Django Unchained. If such characters did exist, then they were part of the problem, and also bad and ugly. (I know Tarantino's movies are not meant to be documentaries, but he said he did a lot of research for this one, and it has the ring of truth.)
If we agree that "slavery" is not limited to the antebellum South of the USA, but is in fact a feature of Humanity since time immemorial -- i.e., until renaissance humanism and secular liberalism forced "the peculiar institution" to justify itself, which it will eventually fail to do --, then we can begin to have a reasonable discussion.
Was there any good in slavery? I guess that depends on how one defines "good". Does being enslaved ever offer a more favorable outcome than being dead? I suppose for some people, it was the better option, for example, the inhabitants of some conquered city from Antiquity, who faced either immediate slaughter, or life as slaves in the conquerer's fields -- or their homes, if one had such luck. In pre-European America, when warriors from one Nation captured someone from another Nation, then did not enslaving that person for a time offer a way of assimilating said stranger into their new nation of adoption, providing some sort of period of integration to learn the language and customs? Again, was this a fate better than death? That depends on how much one wants to hold on to their culture of birth, I suppose.
Chattel slavery is somewhat into a class all of its own. Hard to find any redeeming qualities in that most abject form of human-on-human disrespect. And yet, if one is compelled to find a silver lining to that nightmare, I suppose one could come up with something. For example, do not many of the descendants of the slaves from the transatlantic trade and now established in the US, today benefit from living conditions and opportunities far better than what is currently offered to the descendants of those that remained in their original continent ? I know, this is a vaste generalization, and a values-based judgement for sure. What I am saying is that, provided the lens of generosity, it is possible to assign benign intent in Garofalo's "good, bad, and ugly" rhetorical ploy. Of course, generosity is not the point of the article above, which is more about the cultural war between Critical Theory Social Justice and conventional Secular Liberalism, is it not?
What? I mean, seriously, what are you doing? Why are you doing it? What do you want?
I went on a plantation tour in Louisiana once; it was part of a press trip for gay journalists. The docent on the tour was a Black woman who had her Masters in history, and she told us things like: the difference between house slaves and field slaves, the "class" system determined by what percentage of non-white blood. How "colored" people could own slaves; how singing spirituals was sometimes a signal to slaves on the run as to when they could safely move.
There was no "up" side to slavery, no matter how many descendants of slave owners (or wannabes) insist that the people who were enslaved were treated well, loved their masters, were part of the family, and didn't have the slightest idea of wanting freedom until "agitators' came from somewhere else.
And yes, you'll still hear it from a state legislator and a lot more people think it.
Can you cite some sources (other than right-wing) that say the 1619 Project is not truthful?
What the actual fuck is wrong with Louisiana?...
Racists always make things worse whenever they try to defend their hideous stances on things, but this was especially painful.
As a Florida native, I'm always impressed that America's first century of European occupation* is routinely ignored in textbooks because "Hispanic".
*1513 - first documented European expedition lands in Florida1521 - first documented European colony is founded in Florida
Is her spelling really that bad? Or is it meant to be an artistic expression in congruence with her ignorance? Sometimes I get so meta on myself.
I am sure this guy read Huck Finn, because it is the Most Taught Book In American High Schools. It shows how there can be genuine good in people despite slavery. Gosh, it makes white people who read it feel good about slavery.
The essential difference between Uncle Tom's Cabin and Huck Finn is that Huck Finn "proves" that it possible to be a good pure white soul in a land of brutal racist slavery and the core point of Uncle Tom's Cabin is that it is impossible to be a good person under such a system. It will fucking kill you if you are a slave, in a brutal way, & you are powerless to enact good if you are white.
Of course that you are powerless to enact good when you are white is the source of most of the humor in Huck Finn. (hahahaha look at N** Jim chained and fearing lynching. Let's bring him snakes & spiders!! hahahahahaha) Also the hate language. And it was written by an actual Confederate who grew up in a slave-owning family. And force high school students to read N*** N*** N** which was a hate word then and is treated as a hate word in Uncle Tom's Cabin (written previously) and in contemporaneous literature.
That a Confederate boy's coming of age is the most taught book about slavery is, imho, incredibly racist. Twain was a Confederate solider, was raised in a slave-owning family, and his extended family owned slaves. Imagine if the most taught book in Germany was by a Nazi soldier about a nice Christian Boy and his friend Kike Yacob, whom nice Christian Boy miraculously saves from the gas chamber while his entire family remains in bondage. People would feel great about how they would be good people, and know that goodness was still possible under that system.
And that is why that book is loathsome. And here are a small part of its wages. It is what is taught by Confederate literature.
I think it's because it's the same amount of value they assign to a life that isn't their own or their families- worthless and only useful for baiting who they despise.
Isn't demanding no increase in minimum wages, and forcing them to work during a pandemic, poor housing options, harsh policing, really just that, writ small.
Huckabay knows what's up, she's 'just asking questions' in her Master Race to the Bottom.
I don't believe in hell, but if I did, I would point to Hickabay and her evil-minded ilk as proof devils walk amongst us.
To Hickaby and her bold racist friendos I say: Good luck.
If the punishment for peaceful protest is the same for violent protest, you will pay in other, let's say, more creative ways. Marginalized people don't get mad and confront you: they smile and they get even.
It's the how car tires constantly end up with slow leaks from pinholes, or the windshield wipers stick and then shred, the random piece of pepperoni found on the truck roof in the hot sun. It's the uneasy stomach after a delivered meal (real or imagined), or finding their names added to unseemly mailing lists, and their kids' name/pic showing up in dark chatrooms the have to deny to college admissions, It's the funny smell in the air conditioning, and the shame of a second bedbug infestation this year (from the country club? Maid service? Dog walker? Landscapeing? Carpet cleaner? Car detailer? Home manicurist? Kid's tutor? From the cruise?) During the fumigation you stay in a hotel with traces of dog turds regularly found in certain ice machines that management won't tell you about. Skol, bitches.
And it doesn't take much before these loud-talkers end up in pointless litigation, find the police as ineffective as the rest of the population, get bilked by some fake PI, and are bhatshizz paranoid, with their waking hours spent watching their Ring doorbell and popping Xanies.