Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Black Law Students => Topic started by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 01:17:00 PM

Title: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 01:17:00 PM
I decided to create this thread because the white man and woman needs a place to repent for past sins of slavery, rape, murder, colonialism, lies, genocide, and a myriad of things that will get you put in hell. If you want to avoid hell you should apologize to African-Americans for things that you did or didn't do. You should apologize for things that your family did. Just say you are sorry for being white. Andrew should be the first poster. HBCU.EDU can make sure that you get a free pass to heaven. Please come in and free your soul. White man....tell us something that you, your family, or your race did to black people that you want to repent for. Open up to HBCU. You can even cry about it. Keep a smile in your heart. 
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 01:23:48 PM
I'm sorry, wait a minute I didn't do anything.  Nope I take it back I don't care.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 01:27:27 PM
I'm sorry, wait a minute I didn't do anything.  Nope I take it back I don't care.

Well, I was going to accept your apology for thinking that you needed to apologize. However, you must burn in hell. I will not give you a free pass.  Tell me something that you did and I'll forgive you. I have that power. Ask HBCU for forgiveness. You can do it. you are white so you must have done something wrong.   
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: PSUDSL08 on June 23, 2005, 01:30:15 PM
I decided to create this thread because the white man and woman needs a place to repent for past sins of slavery, rape, murder, colonialism, lies, genocide, and a myriad of things that will get you put in hell. If you want to avoid hell you should apologize to African-Americans for things that you did or didn't do. You should apologize for things that your family did. Just say you are sorry for being white. Andrew should be the first poster. HBCU.EDU can make sure that you get a free pass to heaven. Please come in and free your soul. White man: Tell us something that you, your family, or your race did to black people that you want to repent for. Open up to HBCU. You can even cry about it. Keep a smile in your heart. 


Isn't getting into law school with sub-par scores enough repentance for ya?
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 01:31:55 PM
I decided to create this thread because the white man and woman needs a place to repent for past sins of slavery, rape, murder, colonialism, lies, genocide, and a myriad of things that will get you put in hell. If you want to avoid hell you should apologize to African-Americans for things that you did or didn't do. You should apologize for things that your family did. Just say you are sorry for being white. Andrew should be the first poster. HBCU.EDU can make sure that you get a free pass to heaven. Please come in and free your soul. White man: Tell us something that you, your family, or your race did to black people that you want to repent for. Open up to HBCU. You can even cry about it. Keep a smile in your heart. 


Isn't getting into law school with sub-par scores enough repentance for ya?

no. just say "i'm sorry hbcu"
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 01:34:28 PM
I'm sorry, wait a minute I didn't do anything.  Nope I take it back I don't care.

Well, I was going to accept your apology for thinking that you needed to apologize. However, you must burn in hell. I will not give you a free pass.  Tell me something that you did and I'll forgive you. I have that power. Ask HBCU for forgiveness. You can do it. you are white so you must have done something wrong.   

HBCU, I had a dirty thought about a black girl and an indian girl one time does that count?
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 01:41:35 PM
I'm sorry, wait a minute I didn't do anything.  Nope I take it back I don't care.

Well, I was going to accept your apology for thinking that you needed to apologize. However, you must burn in hell. I will not give you a free pass.  Tell me something that you did and I'll forgive you. I have that power. Ask HBCU for forgiveness. You can do it. you are white so you must have done something wrong.   

HBCU, I had a dirty thought about a black girl and an indian girl one time does that count?

yes. indeed it does. say you are sorry and I will forgive you on behalf of the AA community.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 01:44:08 PM
I'm sorry HBCU, but I'm afraid I'm going to continue having these thoughts.  But wait their's another, one time a group of black guys tried to rob me and I ran away.  Should I have stayed and let them have their way with me on account of our ancestors and all?
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 01:48:42 PM
I'm sorry HBCU, but I'm afraid I'm going to continue having these thoughts.  But wait their's another, one time a group of black guys tried to rob me and I ran away.  Should I have stayed and let them have their way with me on account of our ancestors and all?

Yes. You should have let them rob you. I mean, your people have taken so much from us. So, why are you so stingy with your assets? Apologize to HBCU for not allowing those black guys to rob you and stop thinking bad thoughts aobut our women.  Say you are sorry.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 01:50:27 PM
I'm sorry HBCU, but I'm afraid I'm going to continue having these thoughts.  But wait their's another, one time a group of black guys tried to rob me and I ran away.  Should I have stayed and let them have their way with me on account of our ancestors and all?

Yes. You should have let them rob you. I mean, your people have taken so much from us. So, why are you so stingy with your assets? Apologize to HBCU for not allowing those black guys to rob you and stop thinking bad thoughts aobut our women.  Say you are sorry.


I'm sorry.  If a black guys wants to stab me should I let him.  If so where?
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 01:51:52 PM
I'm sorry, wait a minute I didn't do anything.  Nope I take it back I don't care.

Well, I was going to accept your apology for thinking that you needed to apologize. However, you must burn in hell. I will not give you a free pass.  Tell me something that you did and I'll forgive you. I have that power. Ask HBCU for forgiveness. You can do it. you are white so you must have done something wrong.   

HBCU, I had a dirty thought about a black girl and an indian girl one time does that count?

yes. indeed it does. say you are sorry and I will forgive you on behalf of the AA community.

I'll only apologize if you can find the Africans who sold your ancestors in the first place and have them repent too.  And after you apologize for Oprah's Book Club, Bobby Brown and the UPN network.  I think it can be a very cathartic experience for us all.  

Let's stay on task. This is the "White Guilt Thread". We all know the history of slavery and that Africans sold their own people into slavery. But, Africans are not on LSD. African-Americans and white people are. Soooo....Apologize to HBCU for YOUR involvment for past sins. Sing amazing grace.  
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 23, 2005, 01:53:39 PM
Point of information- the chattel slavery practiced in the Americas was far different than the system of 'slavery' in Africa--which was very similar to the system of indentured servitude practiced in Europe.  The key to understanding the difference in treatment is clearly one based on the belief that the servant shared a common humanity, thus you did not see the gross abuse of human rights that manifested itself in the Triangle Trade with for a lack of better term 'White' slavemasters perceiving Africans as subhuman beasts.  Moreover one should note that the African slave trade was usually carried out by Muslim invaders who themselves were the first colonizers of African and even they did not treat their slaves in the manner of their European counterparts.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 01:54:14 PM
I'm sorry HBCU, but I'm afraid I'm going to continue having these thoughts.  But wait their's another, one time a group of black guys tried to rob me and I ran away.  Should I have stayed and let them have their way with me on account of our ancestors and all?

Yes. You should have let them rob you. I mean, your people have taken so much from us. So, why are you so stingy with your assets? Apologize to HBCU for not allowing those black guys to rob you and stop thinking bad thoughts aobut our women.  Say you are sorry.


I'm sorry.  If a black guys wants to stab me should I let him.  If so where?

Thank you for your question white man. You should simply allow them to stab you where they like. We all have our own personal preference you know. Now apologize.  
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 02:06:34 PM
HBCU, I've been thinkin' since I have a terribly small penis and my ancestors were in Ireland picking potato's during the time of slavery, doesn't that make us even?  Now when I saw terribly small I mean I probably have some kind of record.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 02:09:16 PM
HBCU, since all is forgiven now can I use the "N" word?  Not in a bad way, but in a way that gives me some form of street cred.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 02:13:53 PM
One other thing HBCU, since I'm just poor white trash, who's gonna feel guilty over that? 
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Abevigoda on June 23, 2005, 02:15:48 PM
Some of my ancestors were so busy in Ireland oppressing the Catholics that they had no time for you guys.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Omegaman on June 23, 2005, 02:24:39 PM
Do you think white women, should be included in this? in the midwest they've done alot to show that they have repented, towards Black Males, anyway.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 02:28:51 PM
Do you think white women, should be included in this? in the midwest they've done alot to show that they have repented, towards Black Males, anyway.

lol :D
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 02:32:03 PM
HBCU, I've been thinkin' since I have a terribly small penis and my ancestors were in Ireland picking potato's during the time of slavery, doesn't that make us even?  Now when I saw terribly small I mean I probably have some kind of record.

Yeah. Now that I think about it you are right :D That's what you get for being white you bad bad white man.  You get a small penis for life. I think that's in the bible right? :-\

HBCU, since all is forgiven now can I use the "N" word? Not in a bad way, but in a way that gives me some form of street cred.

Sure, you can say the N word. Say it to a few black guys that you see on the street today.

Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Abevigoda on June 23, 2005, 02:33:58 PM
Some of my ancestors were so busy in Ireland oppressing the Catholics that they had no time for you guys.

heh.  After I learned that the English referred to the Irish as "White N------s", I got a whole lot more sympathy for them.

Of course, then a lot of the Irish came over here and got plantations and bought slaves, which is kind of ironic.  Power corrupts.


Actually, the Irish who came over here and bought plantations/slaves were mostly from the Protestant ruling class in Ireland (aka the Scot/English imports who had been oppressing the Catholics for years).  When all the poor Catholics immigrated in the late 1840s, they settled mostly in the urban areas of the Northeast and Midwest.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Omegaman on June 23, 2005, 02:35:46 PM
Do you think white women, should be included in this? in the midwest they've done alot to show that they have repented, towards Black Males, anyway.

 >:(  Yeah, all they have to do is apologize to the Black men. 

Hmm. It seems like they've gone way beyond a mere apology. But your right, something needs to done to the sistas. But most sistas i know dont pay to much attention to what white women  say,anyway. But i guess it couldn't hurt. By the way lets keep this only needing to give an apology under wraps, at least until a few more of us get through law school ;) you know we cant work as a 1L.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 23, 2005, 02:36:58 PM
Some of my ancestors were so busy in Ireland oppressing the Catholics that they had no time for you guys.

heh.  After I learned that the English referred to the Irish as "White N------s", I got a whole lot more sympathy for them.

Of course, then a lot of the Irish came over here and got plantations and bought slaves, which is kind of ironic.  Power corrupts.


Actually, the Irish who came over here and bought plantations/slaves were mostly from the Protestant ruling class in Ireland (aka the Scot/English imports who had been oppressing the Catholics for years).  When all the poor Catholics immigrated in the late 1840s, they settled mostly in the urban areas of the Northeast and Midwest.

where they became firemen and defecated in the backseat of Coalhouse Walker's brand new Ford
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 02:42:08 PM
Some of my ancestors were so busy in Ireland oppressing the Catholics that they had no time for you guys.

heh.  After I learned that the English referred to the Irish as "White N------s", I got a whole lot more sympathy for them.

Of course, then a lot of the Irish came over here and got plantations and bought slaves, which is kind of ironic.  Power corrupts.


Actually, the Irish who came over here and bought plantations/slaves were mostly from the Protestant ruling class in Ireland (aka the Scot/English imports who had been oppressing the Catholics for years).  When all the poor Catholics immigrated in the late 1840s, they settled mostly in the urban areas of the Northeast and Midwest.

Yup, this is true...eh, kills the irony a bit, huh?  Those Protestants were just oppressive people, I guess. ;)

Mobell is so cool. She is like the BLSD bell hooks man.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 23, 2005, 02:49:37 PM
Some of my ancestors were so busy in Ireland oppressing the Catholics that they had no time for you guys.

heh.  After I learned that the English referred to the Irish as "White N------s", I got a whole lot more sympathy for them.

Of course, then a lot of the Irish came over here and got plantations and bought slaves, which is kind of ironic.  Power corrupts.


Actually, the Irish who came over here and bought plantations/slaves were mostly from the Protestant ruling class in Ireland (aka the Scot/English imports who had been oppressing the Catholics for years).  When all the poor Catholics immigrated in the late 1840s, they settled mostly in the urban areas of the Northeast and Midwest.

Yup, this is true...eh, kills the irony a bit, huh?  Those Protestants were just oppressive people, I guess. ;)

see above.  I hope y'all aren't trying to say Irish Catholics didn't do their part in oppressing blacks in the country...
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 02:51:01 PM
I'm Irish Protestant, to hell with the Catholics.  They touch little boys you know. 
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 02:56:41 PM
Some of my ancestors were so busy in Ireland oppressing the Catholics that they had no time for you guys.

Catholics oppressed? 
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Abevigoda on June 23, 2005, 03:02:36 PM
In the early history of this country and in Ireland, yes the Catholics were oppressed, savagely so.  I'm not saying that Irish Catholics have not contributed to racial bigotry in this country, quite to the contrary.  I was just making a separate point.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 23, 2005, 03:03:48 PM
Some of my ancestors were so busy in Ireland oppressing the Catholics that they had no time for you guys.

heh.  After I learned that the English referred to the Irish as "White N------s", I got a whole lot more sympathy for them.

Of course, then a lot of the Irish came over here and got plantations and bought slaves, which is kind of ironic.  Power corrupts.


Actually, the Irish who came over here and bought plantations/slaves were mostly from the Protestant ruling class in Ireland (aka the Scot/English imports who had been oppressing the Catholics for years).  When all the poor Catholics immigrated in the late 1840s, they settled mostly in the urban areas of the Northeast and Midwest.

Yup, this is true...eh, kills the irony a bit, huh?  Those Protestants were just oppressive people, I guess. ;)

see above.  I hope y'all aren't trying to say Irish Catholics didn't do their part in oppressing blacks in the country...

Sarcasm, E. (I almost typed your gubment name!) :o

 >:( you would have been wrong for that
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Abevigoda on June 23, 2005, 03:06:11 PM
Judging from the emoticon, it appears you would have been angry with that.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 23, 2005, 03:22:24 PM
I'm sorry, wait a minute I didn't do anything.  Nope I take it back I don't care.

Well, I was going to accept your apology for thinking that you needed to apologize. However, you must burn in hell. I will not give you a free pass.  Tell me something that you did and I'll forgive you. I have that power. Ask HBCU for forgiveness. You can do it. you are white so you must have done something wrong.   

HBCU, I had a dirty thought about a black girl and an indian girl one time does that count?

yes. indeed it does. say you are sorry and I will forgive you on behalf of the AA community.

I'll only apologize if you can find the Africans who sold your ancestors in the first place and have them repent too.  And after you apologize for Oprah's Book Club, Bobby Brown and the UPN network.  I think it can be a very cathartic experience for us all.  

Let's stay on task. This is the "White Guilt Thread". We all know the history of slavery and that Africans sold their own people into slavery. But, Africans are not on LSD. African-Americans and white people are. Soooo....Apologize to HBCU for YOUR involvment for past sins. Sing amazing grace.  

Sorry, I never had any guilt, although if I did it would have been wiped out by the fact a black dude with a 3.0 and 155 can get into Harvard and I'd be iffy with a 3.8 and 165.  And Chingy, he sucks, apologize for him. 

strangely enough I know I guy with an LSAT score even lower than that who is heading to Harvard Law...he also happens to be white.  Imagine that.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 23, 2005, 03:26:13 PM
In the early history of this country and in Ireland, yes the Catholics were oppressed, savagely so.  I'm not saying that Irish Catholics have not contributed to racial bigotry in this country, quite to the contrary.  I was just making a separate point.

Apparently no other group has ever suffered as much as African Americans so we should all just stop trying to pretend. 

suffered in this country as much as African Americans and Native Americans.  correct.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Abevigoda on June 23, 2005, 03:29:20 PM
In the early history of this country and in Ireland, yes the Catholics were oppressed, savagely so.  I'm not saying that Irish Catholics have not contributed to racial bigotry in this country, quite to the contrary.  I was just making a separate point.

Apparently no other group has ever suffered as much as African Americans so we should all just stop trying to pretend. 

I was not comparing the two so quit acting like I was or saying one group suffered more than the other, so quit acting like I did.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 23, 2005, 03:38:35 PM
Where do we sign up for the 40 acres and a mule?
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Abevigoda on June 23, 2005, 03:45:48 PM
Can't we all just get along?
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 23, 2005, 03:47:31 PM
once I get my reparations.  NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE.   :D ;)
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 23, 2005, 03:57:21 PM
Sorry, I never had any guilt, although if I did it would have been wiped out by the fact a black dude with a 3.0 and 155 can get into Harvard and I'd be iffy with a 3.8 and 165.  And Chingy, he sucks, apologize for him. 

 :o :o Who is that Negro with the low LSAT?!

I think y'all need to apologize for Anna Nicole Smith while we're apologizing for Chingy.

And E, tru dat.

OK, I will, but I think she is more than annoying enough to affect us all equally. 

Ha. Chingy probably annoys me more than he does you, so we get a pass on that one?

Stop trying to pull Abe into your web of flame.  He's cool and is bringing up interesting points.

We can send Chingy and Anna both off someplace to live the rest of their days together.  I don't know what Abe's deal is.  I was trying to give him some help with his European-Catholics being persecuted thing and he seems to have gotten upset. 

He's upset because you implied that he was comparing the experiences of Irish Catholics to African-Americans, and he wasn't.  You also implied that because Black people acknowledge racism against ourselves, we are unable to acknowledge it in other people.  He pointed out that Irish Catholics were oppressed in America.  I, an African-American, definitely acknowledge that.  No one was comparing the two.

Um, no I didn't imply that.  I made a joke because your friend E seemed unable to process any other type of racial or cultural discrimination unless it was viewed in context of the African American experience.  She then reiterated this with her comment that no other group has been discriminated against like African and Native Americans.  

I never once said that Abe was making a comparison between anyone, because I don't think it serves any purpose to do so.  Individual experiences are going to vary, and it does little good to look at enormous sections of various outcasts throughout history and say this group had it worse or had it better than this other group.    

The only person making a comparison was your girl E.  

you seem to be unable to understand E's sarcasm, but then again you are a lurker so I guess I shouldn't expect much from you.
point 2--why is my name all up in your mouth? do you see me having a side convo with abe talking about how "his boy" Fuego was straight up trippin' ? ::)

I would be more than happy to go through the discursive process of studying which group had it worst in this country, but in the end that accomplishes little.  Several groups have been marginalized in our history, some perpetually so that it makes some sense to distinguish them.  
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Abevigoda on June 23, 2005, 04:02:11 PM
Well, I am going home and since I'm sans computer this will have to be it for me.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 23, 2005, 04:03:04 PM
No one is trying to demean the experience of any other group. However, it's a historical fact that slavery in America was one of the most dehumanizing and demeaning chapters in human history. The Motherland was stripped of some of it's best and finest and the continent is STILL suffering the effects of slavery.  African Americans and Native Americans are still dealing with the effects of slavery, look at our economies, schools, crime, alcholism, drug rate. We are still subjected to racism. Any other minority group can come to this country and be treated better than Black Americans. Whether they be Asian, Hispanic, etc.

How many groups came to this country, were sold as chattel, raped, worked from sun up to sun down, whipped and treated as less than animals? Our families were torn apart and the black community TODAY still suffers from the division of the family that occurred during slavery.  

Native Americans were also forced to leave their home lands, treated as savage and ravaged by war and disease all in the name of Manifest Destiny.  The Asian population that came to the West Coast to work the railways was also treated badly, but they were not treated like slaves.

I did my Senior Seminar Paper in Law School on Reparations. It's interesting how America has seen fit to compensate other groups except for the descendents of slaves.  I think that Black Americans whose ancestors toiled this soil deserve a piece of the pie. So we have no reparations, affirmative action, minority scholarships, etc. I guess the general thinking is after 100s of years, we are supposed to be on a level playing field???  Give me a break.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 23, 2005, 04:23:46 PM
Any other minority group can come to this country and be treated better than Black Americans. Whether they be Asian, Hispanic, etc.

How many groups came to this country, were sold as chattel, raped, worked from sun up to sun down, whipped and treated as less than animals? Our families were torn apart and the black community TODAY still suffers from the division of the family that occurred during slavery.  

I think you would get an argument from other minority groups that came and are coming to this country.  I think you'd especially get an argument from hispanics on that first point.

In general every group has had trials and tribulations to go through, and each group is going to think their own is just as important as the next.  The Asians who built the railroads, the Irish and Italian immigrants who turned America into an industrialized nation, and of course the blacks who fought in the Union army and in every war since I'm sure all feel they deserve something for their mistreatment. 



Difference is Africans were bought here against their will. Difference is no one sold those other groups like they were dogs. No one raped their women repeatedly. No group suffered from lynchings and Jim Crow.

You can choose to ignore the history, but read some of the accounts taken from slave narratives...quite chilling stuff.

Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 23, 2005, 04:26:09 PM
From the Department of Labor's site: http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/moynchapter3.htm

Slavery

The most perplexing question abut American slavery, which has never been altogether explained, and which indeed most Americans hardly know exists, has been stated by Nathan Glazer as follows: "Why was American slavery the most awful the world has ever known?"12 The only thing that can be said with certainty is that this is true: it was.

American slavery was profoundly different from, and in its lasting effects on individuals and their children, indescribably worse than, any recorded servitude, ancient or modern. The peculiar nature of American slavery was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville and others, but it was not until 1948 that Frank Tannenbaum, a South American specialist, pointed to the striking differences between Brazilian and American slavery. The feudal, Catholic society of Brazil had a legal and religious tradition which accorded the slave a place as a human being in the hierarchy of society -- a luckless, miserable place, to be sure, but a place withal. In contrast, there was nothing in the tradition of English law or Protestant theology which could accommodate to the fact of human bondage -- the slaves were therefore reduced to the status of chattels -- often, no doubt, well cared for, even privileged chattels, but chattels nevertheless.

Glazer, also focusing on the Brazil-United States comparison, continues.

"In Brazil, the slave had many more rights than in the United States: he could legally marry, he could, indeed had to, be baptized and become a member of the Catholic Church, his family could not be broken up for sale, and he had many days on which he could either rest or earn money to buy his freedom. The Government encouraged manumission, and the freedom of infants could often be purchased for a small sum at the baptismal font. In short: the Brazilian slave knew he was a man, and that he differed in degree, not in kind, from his master."13

"[In the United States,] the slave was totally removed from the protection of organized society (compare the elaborate provisions for the protection of slaves in the Bible), his existence as a human being was given no recognition by any religious or secular agency, he was totally ignorant of and completely cut off from his past, and he was offered absolutely no hope for the future. His children could be sold, his marriage was not recognized, his wife could be violated or sold (there was something comic about calling the woman with whom the master permitted him to live a 'wife'), and he could also be subject, without redress, to frightful barbarities -- there were presumably as many sadists among slaveowners, men and women, as there are in other groups. The slave could not, by law, be taught to read or write; he could not practice any religion without the permission of his master, and could never meet with his fellows, for religious or any other purposes, except in the presence of a white; and finally, if a master wished to free him, every legal obstacle was used to thwart such action. This was not what slavery meant in the ancient world, in medieval and early modern Europe, or in Brazil and the West Indies.

Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 23, 2005, 04:27:04 PM
Part II

"More important, American slavery was also awful in its effects. If we compared the present situation of the American Negro with that of, let us say, Brazilian Negroes (who were slaves 20 years longer), we begin to suspect that the differences are the result of very different patterns of slavery. Today the Brazilian Negroes are Brazilians; though most are poor and do the hard and dirty work of the country, as Negroes do in the United States, they are not cut off from society. They reach into its highest strata, merging there -- in smaller and smaller numbers, it is true, but with complete acceptance -- with other Brazilians of all kinds. The relations between Negroes and whites in Brazil show nothing of the mass irrationality that prevails in this country."14

Stanley M. Elkins, drawing on the aberrant behavior of the prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, drew an elaborate parallel between the two institutions. This thesis has been summarized as follows by Thomas Pettigrew:

"Both were closed systems, with little chance of manumission, emphasis on survival, and a single, omnipresent authority. The profound personality change created by Nazi internment, as independently reported by a number of psychologists and psychiatrists who survived, was toward childishness and total acceptance of the SS guards as father-figures -- a syndrome strikingly similar to the '#%@!' caricature of the Southern slave. Nineteenth-century racists readily believed that the '#%@!' personality was simply an inborn racial type. Yet no African anthropological data have ever shown any personality type resembling #%@!; and the concentration camps molded the equivalent personality pattern in a wide variety of Caucasian prisoners. Nor was #%@! merely a product of 'slavery' in the abstract, for the less devastating Latin American system never developed such a type.

"Extending this line of reasoning, psychologists point out that slavery in all its forms sharply lowered the need for achievement in slaves... Negroes in bondage, stripped of their African heritage, were placed in a completely dependent role. All of their rewards came, not from individual initiative and enterprise, but from absolute obedience -- a situation that severely depresses the need for achievement among all peoples. Most important of all, slavery vitiated family life... Since many slaveowners neither fostered Christian marriage among their slave couples nor hesitated to separate them on the auction block, the slave household often developed a fatherless matrifocal (mother-centered) pattern."15

Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 23, 2005, 04:28:01 PM
Part III

The Reconstruction

With the emancipation of the slaves, the Negro American family began to form in the United States on a widespread scale. But it did so in an atmosphere markedly different from that which has produced the white American family.

The Negro was given liberty, but not equality. Life remained hazardous and marginal. Of the greatest importance, the Negro male, particularly in the South, became an object of intense hostility, an attitude unquestionably based in some measure of fear.

When Jim Crow made its appearance towards the end of the 19th century, it may be speculated that it was the Negro male who was most humiliated thereby; the male was more likely to use public facilities, which rapidly became segregated once the process began, and just as important, segregation, and the submissiveness it exacts, is surely more destructive to the male than to the female personality. Keeping the Negro "in his place" can be translated as keeping the Negro male in his place: the female was not a threat to anyone.

Unquestionably, these events worked against the emergence of a strong father figure. The very essence of the male animal, from the bantam rooster to the four-star general, is to strut. Indeed, in 19th century America, a particular type of exaggerated male boastfulness became almost a national style. Not for the Negro male. The "sassy n-word[sic]" was lynched.

In this situation, the Negro family made but little progress toward the middle-class pattern of the present time. Margaret Mead has pointed out that while "In every known human society, everywhere in the world, the young male learns that when he grows up one of the things which he must do in order to be a full member of society is to provide food for some female and her young."16 This pattern is not immutable, however: it can be broken, even though it has always eventually reasserted itself.

"Within the family, each new generation of young males learn the appropriate nurturing behavior and superimpose upon their biologically given maleness this learned parental role. When the family breaks down -- as it does under slavery, under certain forms of indentured labor and serfdom, in periods of extreme social unrest during wars, revolutions, famines, and epidemics, or in periods of abrupt transition from one type of economy to another -- this delicate line of transmission is broken. Men may founder badly in these periods, during which the primary unit may again become mother and child, the biologically given, and the special conditions under which man has held his social traditions in trust are violated and distorted."17

E. Franklin Frazier makes clear that at the time of emancipation Negro women were already "accustomed to playing the dominant role in family and marriage relations" and that this role persisted in the decades of rural life that followed.

Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Omegaman on June 23, 2005, 04:44:56 PM
Any other minority group can come to this country and be treated better than Black Americans. Whether they be Asian, Hispanic, etc.

How many groups came to this country, were sold as chattel, raped, worked from sun up to sun down, whipped and treated as less than animals? Our families were torn apart and the black community TODAY still suffers from the division of the family that occurred during slavery. 

I think you would get an argument from other minority groups that came and are coming to this country.  I think you'd especially get an argument from hispanics on that first point.

In general every group has had trials and tribulations to go through, and each group is going to think their own is just as important as the next.  The Asians who built the railroads, the Irish and Italian immigrants who turned America into an industrialized nation, and of course the blacks who fought in the Union army and in every war since I'm sure all feel they deserve something for their mistreatment. 



Difference is Africans were bought here against their will. Difference is no one sold those other groups like they were dogs. No one raped their women repeatedly. No group suffered from lynchings and Jim Crow.

You can choose to ignore the history, but read some of the accounts taken from slave narratives...quite chilling stuff.



Another key issue that many always quietly ignore. is the fact that slavery was specifically mentioned in the US constitiution  stating that Slavery COULD NOT be abolished as long as the US government was paid $10 per slave.

Article 1. Section 9.
The Migration or Importation ofsuch persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
 
There is no other ethnic group impacted by the US constitution from this article like blacks were.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 04:52:13 PM
Can we please get back on subject, which is me.  Appalachian white Irish, with a small penis.  Absolutely nobody has had it worse than me.  Not to mention I'm ugly as sin.  Come on now where's the sympathy?
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 23, 2005, 04:54:26 PM
Can we please get back on subject, which is me.  Appalachian white Irish, with a small penis.  Absolutely nobody has had it worse than me.  Not to mention I'm ugly as sin.  Come on now where's the sympathy?

Don't you know there's no love for men who aren't "gifted" below.....You'd have to look like Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, etc to compensate for that..even then....that still wouldn't make up for your, er, issue... :D
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 04:56:56 PM
Can we please get back on subject, which is me.  Appalachian white Irish, with a small penis.  Absolutely nobody has had it worse than me.  Not to mention I'm ugly as sin.  Come on now where's the sympathy?

Don't you know there's no love for men who aren't "gifted" below.....You'd have to look like Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, etc to compensate for that..even then....that still wouldn't make up for your, er, issue... :D

HA HA, that's my point.  Who's got it worse than me.  Man I tell you what, I'm tired of intimate nights by myself.  That's why I want to be a lawyer, not to help people, but to have enough money to get that puppy enlarged.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 23, 2005, 05:00:46 PM
Can we please get back on subject, which is me.  Appalachian white Irish, with a small penis.  Absolutely nobody has had it worse than me.  Not to mention I'm ugly as sin.  Come on now where's the sympathy?

Don't you know there's no love for men who aren't "gifted" below.....You'd have to look like Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, etc to compensate for that..even then....that still wouldn't make up for your, er, issue... :D

If you have a lot of money, you can always find some woman willing to "deal" with your problem.

HA HA, that's my point.  Who's got it worse than me.  Man I tell you what, I'm tired of intimate nights by myself.  That's why I want to be a lawyer, not to help people, but to have enough money to get that puppy enlarged.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 05:02:22 PM
Can we please get back on subject, which is me.  Appalachian white Irish, with a small penis.  Absolutely nobody has had it worse than me.  Not to mention I'm ugly as sin.  Come on now where's the sympathy?

Don't you know there's no love for men who aren't "gifted" below.....You'd have to look like Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, etc to compensate for that..even then....that still wouldn't make up for your, er, issue... :D

If you have a lot of money, you can always find some woman willing to "deal" with your problem.

HA HA, that's my point.  Who's got it worse than me.  Man I tell you what, I'm tired of intimate nights by myself.  That's why I want to be a lawyer, not to help people, but to have enough money to get that puppy enlarged.

I would be so lucky to find such a woman.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 05:04:10 PM
Well elegantpearl, I've gone and got myself depressed.  Now I'm going to go cry myself to sleep.  Later
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Omegaman on June 23, 2005, 05:04:32 PM
Can we please get back on subject, which is me.  Appalachian white Irish, with a small penis.  Absolutely nobody has had it worse than me.  Not to mention I'm ugly as sin.  Come on now where's the sympathy?

Don't you know there's no love for men who aren't "gifted" below.....You'd have to look like Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, etc to compensate for that..even then....that still wouldn't make up for your, er, issue... :D

HA HA, that's my point.  Who's got it worse than me.  Man I tell you what, I'm tired of intimate nights by myself.  That's why I want to be a lawyer, not to help people, but to have enough money to get that puppy enlarged.

Like my frat said in UG, related to anotha cat who it was said that he lacked skillz:
 "Id rather have a woman say Im the ugliest guy in the world, rather than I say I cant F---k!"
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: _BP_ on June 23, 2005, 05:42:12 PM
Okay, this was a funny thread... :D

elegant, good call on the 40 acres and the mule.  They can keep the mule, but if white folks give me 40 acres anywhere near DC, we're cool for life!
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 06:29:57 PM
Okay, this was a funny thread... :D

elegant, good call on the 40 acres and the mule.  They can keep the mule, but if white folks give me 40 acres anywhere near DC, we're cool for life!
BP, do I not get any credit for the funnies. Come on I ripped myself to pieces, even made myself cry.  I'm darn near suicidal now.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 23, 2005, 07:16:50 PM
Okay, this was a funny thread... :D

elegant, good call on the 40 acres and the mule.  They can keep the mule, but if white folks give me 40 acres anywhere near DC, we're cool for life!
BP, do I not get any credit for the funnies. Come on I ripped myself to pieces, even made myself cry.  I'm darn near suicidal now.


You are not as funny as I am swordfish. Don't try to use my style. I am the only funny guy on this board with a true twisted internet persona >:(  Intimate nights by yourself? You have a small gold member? Very sophomoric comedy indeed. I am the only one that knows how to use sarcastic self-deprecating humor with efficiency. Please review the "ask hbcu" thread to get a taste of my true Rodney Dangerfield like comedic genius. I've watched enough ben stiller movies to know how to play the role of a romantic loser. There is something sexy and endearing about it. How do you think I got blk_reign? Hell, you don't even have a catch phrase. Keep a smile in your heart....
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 09:07:40 PM
Okay, this was a funny thread... :D

elegant, good call on the 40 acres and the mule.  They can keep the mule, but if white folks give me 40 acres anywhere near DC, we're cool for life!
BP, do I not get any credit for the funnies. Come on I ripped myself to pieces, even made myself cry.  I'm darn near suicidal now.


You are not as funny as I am swordfish. Don't try to use my style. I am the only funny guy on this board with a true twisted internet persona >:(  Intimate nights by yourself? You have a small gold member? Very sophomoric comedy indeed. I am the only one that knows how to use sarcastic self-deprecating humor with efficiency. Please review the "ask hbcu" thread to get a taste of my true Rodney Dangerfield like comedic genius. I've watched enough ben stiller movies to know how to play the role of a romantic loser. There is something sexy and endearing about it. How do you think I got blk_reign? Hell, you don't even have a catch phrase. Keep a smile in your heart....


Well that's just cold blooded to stomp a man while he's down.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 23, 2005, 09:08:40 PM
Okay, this was a funny thread... :D

elegant, good call on the 40 acres and the mule.  They can keep the mule, but if white folks give me 40 acres anywhere near DC, we're cool for life!
BP, do I not get any credit for the funnies. Come on I ripped myself to pieces, even made myself cry.  I'm darn near suicidal now.

You were funny.

Thank you Mobell, a compliment from a lady is always welcomed.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on June 24, 2005, 04:07:47 PM
HBCU, with all due respect, this thread is offensive.  What do you intend to accomplish but perpetuate the separation, hatred and misunderstanding between the races.

Personally, while I feel what happened to your ancestors is truly terrible, I will NEVER apologize for being white, a woman, a Russian or any other imutable characteristic.  MY people NEVER oppressed yours.  Russians never owned Black slaves, never colonized any African countries and never participated in any sort of genocide. 

Blatant categorization of people based upon nothing other than skin color is the underlying premise of racism.  Not all whites currently residing in the US have ancestors who participated or acquiecsed to slavery.  We are not a monolith, just like you aren't.  Don't generalize or categorize us like we are -- unless of course, you are ready to admit that you have committed the same sin you so passionately preach against.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: J D on June 24, 2005, 09:14:15 PM
From the Department of Labor's site: http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/moynchapter3.htm


Elegant,

Interesting reading, but I would note that most of the references are from the 1960s at the latest (and many, like Tannenbaum, are from the 1940s).  His argument that Brazilian slavery was (and I'm grossly oversimplifying I know) somehow a kinder, gentler version of our peculiar institution struck me as suspect, however.  In the first place, as a historian I generally don't think this kind of investigation (Who treated their slaves worse, or which slaves had it the worst?) is all that productive or useful, especially since we're dealing with two very different contexts here. 

I haven't done a heck of a lot of reading in Latin American history, but I have read some (translated) accounts of what a typical day was like for slaves in Brazil and Cuba (which, of course, didn't abolish slavery until two decades after the US did); it was certainly no walk in the park (and race relations in those countries are still a serious concern, just as it is here, and to a large extent just as it is throughout the hempisphere).  I found the following article on JSTOR (you can read it if you have access to it through school, or you can use the citation to find the print copy.  Yes, it is still rather old scholarship (1970), but I haven't really been digging that hard and it provides a very interesting counterpart on the whole US-Brazil comparison vis-à-vis slavery (and based on what I've skimmed he seems to come to the conclusion, I think, that the two institutions really were not so dissimilar, either in theory or practice).

Slavery in Brazil and the United States: An Essay in Comparative History

    Carl N. Degler

    The American Historical Review, Vol. 75, No. 4. (Apr., 1970), pp. 1004-1028.

Also, since the articles you have cited (as well as Degler's response) deal heavily with the issue of how religion intersected with the institution of slavery and with slave life, I thought you might enjoy, for further reading (assuming you haven't already read it) "He Shall Go Out Free: The Lives of Denmark Vesey" by Douglas R. Egerton.  One of the big themes in his examination of how the slave society in Charleston seemed to allow for the Vesey conspiracy to take root, because masters in urban Charleston gave their slaves the kind of autonomy (i.e. allowing slaves to hire themselves out, to practice a trade, to read the Bible, to earn their own money, to join the African Methodist Episcopal Church, etc.) put their slaves in a better position to plan a revolt than would be the case on the rural, heavily regulated plantation.  Egerton also has a very interesting discussion about how the Bible (especially the Old Testament) seemed to provide a moral justification for rebellion; while masters used other sections of it to support the Peculiar Institution, slaves relied on Biblical passages to justify its violent destruction.  I thought it was a very well-written book, though it was once the subject of a bitter debate in the William and Mary Quarterly.  Another historian (I forget his name at the moment) contended that Egerton had fundamentally misinterpreted the sources, and that there really was no Vesey conspiracy, that it was all fabricated by the authorities in Charleston to scare the crap out of slaveowners and persuade them to stop the more liberal practices mentioned above.  Since I haven't really done much primary research here, nor have I read the debate in the Quarterly, I really can't form an opinion on whether his claims have merit.  But I stand by my opinion that Egerton's discussion is fascinating and illuminating.

Sorry for the length.  Take care, and happy reading.  :)
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 25, 2005, 07:11:16 AM
HBCU, with all due respect, this thread is offensive.  What do you intend to accomplish but perpetuate the separation, hatred and misunderstanding between the races.

Personally, while I feel what happened to your ancestors is truly terrible, I will NEVER apologize for being white, a woman, a Russian or any other imutable characteristic.  MY people NEVER oppressed yours.  Russians never owned Black slaves, never colonized any African countries and never participated in any sort of genocide. 
Blatant categorization of people based upon nothing other than skin color is the underlying premise of racism.  Not all whites currently residing in the US have ancestors who participated or acquiecsed to slavery.  We are not a monolith, just like you aren't.  Don't generalize or categorize us like we are -- unless of course, you are ready to admit that you have committed the same sin you so passionately preach against.

does the word pogrom sound familiar?   ???
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 25, 2005, 07:14:02 AM
HBCU, with all due respect, this thread is offensive.  What do you intend to accomplish but perpetuate the separation, hatred and misunderstanding between the races.

Personally, while I feel what happened to your ancestors is truly terrible, I will NEVER apologize for being white, a woman, a Russian or any other imutable characteristic.  MY people NEVER oppressed yours.  Russians never owned Black slaves, never colonized any African countries and never participated in any sort of genocide. 

Blatant categorization of people based upon nothing other than skin color is the underlying premise of racism.  Not all whites currently residing in the US have ancestors who participated or acquiecsed to slavery.  We are not a monolith, just like you aren't.  Don't generalize or categorize us like we are -- unless of course, you are ready to admit that you have committed the same sin you so passionately preach against.


This thread is vintage HBCU. I would probably listen to you if you voted for me to be MOD. You are one of the 3 who didn't so your opinion doesn't count  :o

jk :D or am I ?:-\

Keep a smile in your heart........
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 25, 2005, 08:05:24 AM
I know the article is from the 60s, I thought it was interesting because it's on the Department of Labor's website..lol...I love John Hope Franklin's Book on the topic, from Slavey to Freedom....it was actually our text book for African American History at FAMU (a class that everyone was required to take). JD, I was actually a history major in undergrad (always good to see someone else who is interested in that topic).

 I had a chance to study with Dr. Larry Rivers at FAMU, he's the author of the Rosewood report.  Professor Eaton was there too, he established the Black Archives here in the State Capitol.  It's a very jarring experience to go there and see the slave chains and the relics from that area, jim crow, etc. I could talk about history for days. My focus though, in college wasn't African American History, it was ancient history, but we had some phenomenal professors on the topic. 

I do think it's important to look at the differences in the slave trade in the United States versus other countries, I think its very relevant in understanding the race problems in this country.

Funny in law school, in one of my classes during the Virgil Hawkins Summer Institute, we had a white professor (who has adopted a black child) basically argue the point that racism/sexism/sexual orientation were all the same struggle...I think she was in tears by the time students explained to her the differences in the struggle...good hearted lady, just a bit misguided...

Is vintage HBCU back??? That neo-soul HBCU is scary.

Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: J D on June 25, 2005, 09:01:15 AM
I know the article is from the 60s, I thought it was interesting because it's on the Department of Labor's website..lol...I love John Hope Franklin's Book on the topic, from Slavey to Freedom....it was actually our text book for African American History at FAMU (a class that everyone was required to take). JD, I was actually a history major in undergrad (always good to see someone else who is interested in that topic).

 I had a chance to study with Dr. Larry Rivers at FAMU, he's the author of the Rosewood report.  Professor Eaton was there too, he established the Black Archives here in the State Capitol.  It's a very jarring experience to go there and see the slave chains and the relics from that area, jim crow, etc. I could talk about history for days. My focus though, in college wasn't African American History, it was ancient history, but we had some phenomenal professors on the topic. 

I do think it's important to look at the differences in the slave trade in the United States versus other countries, I think its very relevant in understanding the race problems in this country.

Funny in law school, in one of my classes during the Virgil Hawkins Summer Institute, we had a white professor (who has adopted a black child) basically argue the point that racism/sexism/sexual orientation were all the same struggle...I think she was in tears by the time students explained to her the differences in the struggle...good hearted lady, just a bit misguided...

Is vintage HBCU back??? That neo-soul HBCU is scary.



Elegant,

I studied history at FIU in Miami.  My focus was primarily in Ealry Modern Europe (by choice and by default, class selection is very limited in a small department), but I also took a couple classes in Roman Britain and Ancient Greece (VERY GOOD STUFF).  I never really had the chance to take any courses in Afircan-American History, per se (those were always at the North Campus; too far for me), but we did address many of these issues in classes like The Age of Jefferson, and one of my lit classes focused entirely on issues of race in the South (Faulner, Baldwin, and *ick* Gone with the Wind).  Unfortunately, we recently lost our specialist in African-American History, Clarence Taylor, to Case Western, and we haven't been able to hire a direct replacement for him.  But we have hired a specialist in the Caribbean African Diaspora (but I didn't get the chance to take anything with her).

As far as the comparative slavery issue, please don't misunderstand me.  Comparing the experience of slavery in the US and that of other countries is useful, but one has to be careful with what one is comparing.  What I'm really uncomfortable with is when the comparison is based on a more normative kind of issue (i.e., who had it the worst?  which slavery was the most horrible?), because it's hard to make that kind of comparison with precision.  Even if you could determine who "had it the worst" in their slave experience, I don't like the tendency this has to devalue the experiences of other slave cultures, who still had it very bad, but maybe not "the worst" (whatever that means.  This seems to me like a kind of "victim snobbery" (e.g. Who suffered more, the Chinese in the Great Leap forward, or the Soviet population during the Stalin years?).  Also, I think in a way it can lead too easily to the kind of ridiculous stuff they try to explore on the History Channel (or as I call it, the Hitler Channel, because every time I turn it on, I am confronted with SS troops marching through Brussels), like "Who was the most *evil* ruler of the last 2000 years?"  Comparisons are wonderful.  Compare mortality rates, compare importation rates, compare legal rights and rememdies for slaves, etc. all you like.  I would just like the comparison to be made with precision, and I think we should stay away from purely normative terms like "better" and "worse," in general (at least as far as history is concerned).  The comparison in itself isn't bad, but I think care is required in the conclusions drawn from the comparison.

As far as the one prof you mentioned, I might have heard a similar type of argument from an early colonial specialist at FIU.  Basically his big idea is that the battle over abolition, civil rights, women's rights, and now GLBT rights is all a part of the continuing process of the American Rveolution.  Whatever its real motives may have been (and I personally think it was in large part economically motivated) the rhetoric of the Revolution "unleashed" the ideas of liberty and equality, even though those ideas weren't really put into practice in the aftermath.  That disconnect, he postulates, was siezed upon by these disaffected groups who stood up and said "WTF? What about us?  What about our freedom, our equality?"  They were, and are, he says, merely taking the arguments of the Revolution to their logical conclusion.  A country ostensibly founded upon freedom cannot be true to that principle if it maintains a system of bondage and apartheid.  A country founded on equality cannot be true to that principle if one half its population are relegated to the private sphere merely because they have different reproductive organs.  And now, the argument is that a country ostensibly founded upon liberty and equality cannot be true to those principles if people's private sexual choices are a matter of criminal law and civil discrimination.  Is this similar to what she was trying to say?  I'm not sure how I feel about it.  On the one hand, it sounds very nice, but on the other I think it is more than a little oversimplified.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 25, 2005, 09:19:35 AM
I know the article is from the 60s, I thought it was interesting because it's on the Department of Labor's website..lol...I love John Hope Franklin's Book on the topic, from Slavey to Freedom....it was actually our text book for African American History at FAMU (a class that everyone was required to take). JD, I was actually a history major in undergrad (always good to see someone else who is interested in that topic).

 I had a chance to study with Dr. Larry Rivers at FAMU, he's the author of the Rosewood report.  Professor Eaton was there too, he established the Black Archives here in the State Capitol.  It's a very jarring experience to go there and see the slave chains and the relics from that area, jim crow, etc. I could talk about history for days. My focus though, in college wasn't African American History, it was ancient history, but we had some phenomenal professors on the topic. 

I do think it's important to look at the differences in the slave trade in the United States versus other countries, I think its very relevant in understanding the race problems in this country.

Funny in law school, in one of my classes during the Virgil Hawkins Summer Institute, we had a white professor (who has adopted a black child) basically argue the point that racism/sexism/sexual orientation were all the same struggle...I think she was in tears by the time students explained to her the differences in the struggle...good hearted lady, just a bit misguided...

Is vintage HBCU back??? That neo-soul HBCU is scary.



Elegant,

I studied history at FIU in Miami.  My focus was primarily in Ealry Modern Europe (by choice and by default, class selection is very limited in a small department), but I also took a couple classes in Roman Britain and Ancient Greece (VERY GOOD STUFF).  I never really had the chance to take any courses in Afircan-American History, per se (those were always at the North Campus; too far for me), but we did address many of these issues in classes like The Age of Jefferson, and one of my lit classes focused entirely on issues of race in the South (Faulner, Baldwin, and *ick* Gone with the Wind).  Unfortunately, we recently lost our specialist in African-American History, Clarence Taylor, to Case Western, and we haven't been able to hire a direct replacement for him.  But we have hired a specialist in the Caribbean African Diaspora (but I didn't get the chance to take anything with her).

As far as the comparative slavery issue, please don't misunderstand me.  Comparing the experience of slavery in the US and that of other countries is useful, but one has to be careful with what one is comparing.  What I'm really uncomfortable with is when the comparison is based on a more normative kind of issue (i.e., who had it the worst?  which slavery was the most horrible?), because it's hard to make that kind of comparison with precision.  Even if you could determine who "had it the worst" in their slave experience, I don't like the tendency this has to devalue the experiences of other slave cultures, who still had it very bad, but maybe not "the worst" (whatever that means.  This seems to me like a kind of "victim snobbery" (e.g. Who suffered more, the Chinese in the Great Leap forward, or the Soviet population during the Stalin years?).  Also, I think in a way it can lead too easily to the kind of ridiculous stuff they try to explore on the History Channel (or as I call it, the Hitler Channel, because every time I turn it on, I am confronted with SS troops marching through Brussels), like "Who was the most *evil* ruler of the last 2000 years?"  Comparisons are wonderful.  Compare mortality rates, compare importation rates, compare legal rights and rememdies for slaves, etc. all you like.  I would just like the comparison to be made with precision, and I think we should stay away from purely normative terms like "better" and "worse," in general (at least as far as history is concerned).  The comparison in itself isn't bad, but I think care is required in the conclusions drawn from the comparison.

As far as the one prof you mentioned, I might have heard a similar type of argument from an early colonial specialist at FIU.  Basically his big idea is that the battle over abolition, civil rights, women's rights, and now GLBT rights is all a part of the continuing process of the American Rveolution.  Whatever its real motives may have been (and I personally think it was in large part economically motivated) the rhetoric of the Revolution "unleashed" the ideas of liberty and equality, even though those ideas weren't really put into practice in the aftermath.  That disconnect, he postulates, was siezed upon by these disaffected groups who stood up and said "WTF? What about us?  What about our freedom, our equality?"  They were, and are, he says, merely taking the arguments of the Revolution to their logical conclusion.  A country ostensibly founded upon freedom cannot be true to that principle if it maintains a system of bondage and apartheid.  A country founded on equality cannot be true to that principle if one half its population are relegated to the private sphere merely because they have different reproductive organs.  And now, the argument is that a country ostensibly founded upon liberty and equality cannot be true to those principles if people's private sexual choices are a matter of criminal law and civil discrimination.  Is this similar to what she was trying to say?  I'm not sure how I feel about it.  On the one hand, it sounds very nice, but on the other I think it is more than a little oversimplified.

J D,
I agree with you.  While I find the discursive practice of identifying discriminatory practices as a continuum in the long process of elaborating the freedoms inscribed as part of the revolutionary act intellectually persuasive,  a varigated approach is necessary in order to truly delve into the historical and socioeconomic realities of minority  experiences in this country.  Even in imagining a collective struggle for equality, we can acknowledge that the processes of marginalization have varied, and thus a meticulous researcher would do well to render the opaque, clear by instead focusing on dialogue concerning struggle.  How do we perceive the other in reference to ourselves?  How do we delineate patterns of reasoning within the discourse of similar groups?  In searching for such lucidity, I think we make the foundation for a community struggle much more apparant, even if in the end it cannot be embraced by all parties.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 25, 2005, 09:21:24 AM
Side note: we basically had the same emphasis of study that's sorta cool..

My problem with ignoring the brutual nature of slavey in the US is that the majority's argument is often "my grandparents or great grandparents came over from ____ country and they were able to do well, so Black Americans should be able to do the same." I think that argument is intellectually dishonest and ignores the psychological scars that the Black community still bears to this day from the brutality suffered by slaves hundreds of years ago.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: seu2002 on June 25, 2005, 09:26:12 AM
E, put that thesaurus down!   >:(

(tag)
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 25, 2005, 09:29:16 AM
Side note: we basically had the same emphasis of study that's sorta cool..

My problem with ignoring the brutual nature of slavey in the US is that the majority's argument is often "my grandparents or great grandparents came over from ____ country and they were able to do well, so Black Americans should be able to do the same." I think that argument is intellectually dishonest and ignores the psychological scars that the Black community still bears to this day from the brutality suffered by slaves hundreds of years ago.

pearl,
I definitely agree.  I also find it disturbing when someone makes the statement like "my grandparents or great grandparents came over from ____ country, they didn't oppress anyone."  In benefitting from the legacy of discrimination in this country, they became party to the oppression.  Here we are not talking about of collective guilt, but collective responsability.  These are the same people who will wave the American flag and sing the anthem.  In choosing to become a part of this society they must accept the legacy, both positive and negative, of what belonging to a collective American imaginary means.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 25, 2005, 09:30:11 AM
E, that's on point there..totally co-signing that.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: J D on June 25, 2005, 09:53:21 AM
Side note: we basically had the same emphasis of study that's sorta cool..

My problem with ignoring the brutual nature of slavey in the US is that the majority's argument is often "my grandparents or great grandparents came over from ____ country and they were able to do well, so Black Americans should be able to do the same." I think that argument is intellectually dishonest and ignores the psychological scars that the Black community still bears to this day from the brutality suffered by slaves hundreds of years ago.

I'm not advocating ignoring the brutality of slavery, either.  I just think we should shy away from "purely" normative terms and queaions of comparative "evil," because these terms aren't exactly conducive to precision  (how do you tell which was the greater or greatest "evil" or "horror" anyway?).  There will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts and in our ideas.  If someone were to just recite the cold, hard facts of slave life in, say, South Carolina in the early republic and before, just the empirical evidence would speak for itself; anyone with two neurons to rub together would be able to tell how awful it was.  Normativity will still come into play when dealing with the empirical evidence, and we can certainly compare who had more economic agency, more legal rights and remedies, more mobility (social and otherwise), who was more helped or harmed by certain actions.  But the way I see it, we're mostly in the business of reconstructing and interpretinf the past; pronouncing moral judgment on it should always come second or third if it comes into play at all.  The article from the DOL you cited seemed to close to something the History Channel would do for my personal comfort level.  But, I don't know, maybe that's because I'm just quirky.  ;)

Regarding the argument you've heard from many second- and third generation White Americans:  I am a third-generation white American.  I don't think that's any excuse to shut my eyes to the social problems that still plahue our country, which constitutes the heritage of the "color line" as DuBois called it.  The way I see it, even white immigrants benefited, at least indirectly, from slavery.  There was an argument made in British history a while back (very controversial at the time) that basically, but for Britain's participation in the slave trade there would have been no industrial revolution.  Basically the slave trade provided Britons with the capital needed to support industrialization.  I think a similar argument can be made in the US, from the demand side.  The slave-based economy of the South (in cotton, most significantly) provided the impetus for the establishment of insdustrial textile plants in the North.  The North benefited indirectly, because they took the raw agricultural product from the south and turned it into manufactured product in their factories, which then entered interstate (and international) commerce.  Slavery contributed to the economic growth of the entire country, which allowed for the creation of all those jobs that immigrants in the nineteenth (and later, twentieth) century came oer to fill.  I know the argument isn't especially refined, and is a little shaky, but I have a pretty good feeling that there is more than a little evidence to support the spillover economic benefits of slavery which establish this country's economic foundations, and allowed everyone else (including immigrants) to prosper.  But I should probably do more research and see if anyone has come up with a better version of this, first.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 25, 2005, 10:04:02 AM
Side note: we basically had the same emphasis of study that's sorta cool..

My problem with ignoring the brutual nature of slavey in the US is that the majority's argument is often "my grandparents or great grandparents came over from ____ country and they were able to do well, so Black Americans should be able to do the same." I think that argument is intellectually dishonest and ignores the psychological scars that the Black community still bears to this day from the brutality suffered by slaves hundreds of years ago.

I'm not advocating ignoring the brutality of slavery, either.  I just think we should shy away from "purely" normative terms and queaions of comparative "evil," because these terms aren't exactly conducive to precision  (how do you tell which was the greater or greatest "evil" or "horror" anyway?).  There will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts and in our ideas.  If someone were to just recite the cold, hard facts of slave life in, say, South Carolina in the early republic and before, just the empirical evidence would speak for itself; anyone with two neurons to rub together would be able to tell how awful it was.  Normativity will still come into play when dealing with the empirical evidence, and we can certainly compare who had more economic agency, more legal rights and remedies, more mobility (social and otherwise), who was more helped or harmed by certain actions.  But the way I see it, we're mostly in the business of reconstructing and interpretinf the past; pronouncing moral judgment on it should always come second or third if it comes into play at all.  The article from the DOL you cited seemed to close to something the History Channel would do for my personal comfort level.  But, I don't know, maybe that's because I'm just quirky.  ;)

Regarding the argument you've heard from many second- and third generation White Americans:  I am a third-generation white American.  I don't think that's any excuse to shut my eyes to the social problems that still plahue our country, which constitutes the heritage of the "color line" as DuBois called it.  The way I see it, even white immigrants benefited, at least indirectly, from slavery.  There was an argument made in British history a while back (very controversial at the time) that basically, but for Britain's participation in the slave trade there would have been no industrial revolution.  Basically the slave trade provided Britons with the capital needed to support industrialization.  I think a similar argument can be made in the US, from the demand side.  The slave-based economy of the South (in cotton, most significantly) provided the impetus for the establishment of insdustrial textile plants in the North.  The North benefited indirectly, because they took the raw agricultural product from the south and turned it into manufactured product in their factories, which then entered interstate (and international) commerce.  Slavery contributed to the economic growth of the entire country, which allowed for the creation of all those jobs that immigrants in the nineteenth (and later, twentieth) century came oer to fill.  I know the argument isn't especially refined, and is a little shaky, but I have a pretty good feeling that there is more than a little evidence to support the spillover economic benefits of slavery which establish this country's economic foundations, and allowed everyone else (including immigrants) to prosper.  But I should probably do more research and see if anyone has come up with a better version of this, first.

JD good points and we are in agreement for the second paragraph.  I would like to come back to the question of normative analysis that you mentioned in your first paragraph.  I agree with you that there will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts, but I don't think trying to purge those ideas is the role of the historian or social scientist.  In fact I would argue on the contrary that such normative aspects are the foundation of such scholarship, that the personal vision colors the perspective to an extent that it becomes the heart of the discipline.  Empirical evidence certainly lends the process more scientifically credible, but in choosing which statics have value we are inherently making normative judgments.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 25, 2005, 10:14:01 AM
Is vintage HBCU back???

God I hope so.


vintage HBCU has returned.  I will replace “Keep a smile in your heart” with “get me a soda”. I am back by popular demand. no more  flowers. I hated being gay. It did't feel good :o. I'm an a-hole again! I'm happy about that. Get me a soda Mobell you yale monkey face! >:(
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: seu2002 on June 25, 2005, 10:34:35 AM
HBCU, u pick on mobell too much.   >:(
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: J D on June 25, 2005, 10:38:53 AM

JD good points and we are in agreement for the second paragraph.  I would like to come back to the question of normative analysis that you mentioned in your first paragraph.  I agree with you that there will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts, but I don't think trying to purge those ideas is the role of the historian or social scientist.  In fact I would argue on the contrary that such normative aspects are the foundation of such scholarship, that the personal vision colors the perspective to an extent that it becomes the heart of the discipline.  Empirical evidence certainly lends the process more scientifically credible, but in choosing which statics have value we are inherently making normative judgments.

I agree that we cannot purge our analysis of all normativity.  One will always be intorducing a certain set of biases and assumptions into one's analysis and discussion.  You may want to get rid of some (because they're unreasonable or unwarranted), others not (becuase they're reasonable, or in some cases, because without those assumpions or biases you can't accomplish anything), but in any event you should be AWARE that you ARE introducing those biases and assumptions.  This is why historians, in my experience, agonize so much over how to call things, or how to periodize things, etc.  You can't purge all the normativity out; you have to be ware of what of it remains.  However, I don't think we should go so far as outright embracing normativity in all its aspects, because that usually leads to the production of panegyric and polemic rather than history.  That's what mostly concerns me here.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 25, 2005, 10:44:11 AM

JD good points and we are in agreement for the second paragraph.  I would like to come back to the question of normative analysis that you mentioned in your first paragraph.  I agree with you that there will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts, but I don't think trying to purge those ideas is the role of the historian or social scientist.  In fact I would argue on the contrary that such normative aspects are the foundation of such scholarship, that the personal vision colors the perspective to an extent that it becomes the heart of the discipline.  Empirical evidence certainly lends the process more scientifically credible, but in choosing which statics have value we are inherently making normative judgments.

I agree that we cannot purge our analysis of all normativity.  One will always be intorducing a certain set of biases and assumptions into one's analysis and discussion.  You may want to get rid of some (because they're unreasonable or unwarranted), others not (becuase they're reasonable, or in some cases, because without those assumpions or biases you can't accomplish anything), but in any event you should be AWARE that you ARE introducing those biases and assumptions.  This is why historians, in my experience, agonize so much over how to call things, or how to periodize things, etc.  You can't purge all the normativity out; you have to be ware of what of it remains.  However, I don't think we should go so far as outright embracing normativity in all its aspects, because that usually leads to the production of panegyric and polemic rather than history.  That's what mostly concerns me here.

Frankly I find that historians claim to agonize while they clearly perpetuate panegyric and polemic histories.  In my opinion a pure history is an ideal that will never be attained, if we work from that premise, ultimately I think we come closer to creating a historical body in allowing different narratives to come into play.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 25, 2005, 10:49:07 AM
HBCU, u pick on mobell too much.   >:(

What are you gonna do about it SEU? Get RBG? I don't think so. Mob is an easy target because she is soft.....liberal...and sappy. I never liked her anyway. I'm going to smash her back to Yale. I'm going to smash everyone on this board in fact. I need to get use to verbally bashing people. I like to hurt feelings and get PMs like "why did you talk to me that way?" I'm better than everyone on this board. I'm better than you SEU. Get me a soda.   
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 25, 2005, 10:51:34 AM
This thread has gotten off topic again, it was supposed to be about me.  I'm white, it's all about the white man for cryin' out loud.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 25, 2005, 10:52:35 AM
HBCU--

you know all these personality changes are 'getting so tired, it's narcoleptic.'  we said be yourself, not an angry, bitter, #%@! face.  @#!* your soda.  Get back to us when you are ready to be real.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: blk_reign on June 25, 2005, 10:53:24 AM
u aren't better than I am... ::)


HBCU, u pick on mobell too much.   >:(

What are you gonna do about it SEU? Get RBG? I don't think so. Mob is an easy target because she is soft.....liberal...and sappy. I never liked her anyway. I'm going to smash her back to Yale. I'm going to smash everyone on this board in fact. I need to get use to verbally bashing people. I like to hurt feelings and get PMs like "why did you talk to me that way?" I'm better than everyone on this board. I'm better than you SEU. Get me a soda.   
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: J D on June 25, 2005, 10:54:47 AM

JD good points and we are in agreement for the second paragraph.  I would like to come back to the question of normative analysis that you mentioned in your first paragraph.  I agree with you that there will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts, but I don't think trying to purge those ideas is the role of the historian or social scientist.  In fact I would argue on the contrary that such normative aspects are the foundation of such scholarship, that the personal vision colors the perspective to an extent that it becomes the heart of the discipline.  Empirical evidence certainly lends the process more scientifically credible, but in choosing which statics have value we are inherently making normative judgments.

I agree that we cannot purge our analysis of all normativity.  One will always be intorducing a certain set of biases and assumptions into one's analysis and discussion.  You may want to get rid of some (because they're unreasonable or unwarranted), others not (becuase they're reasonable, or in some cases, because without those assumpions or biases you can't accomplish anything), but in any event you should be AWARE that you ARE introducing those biases and assumptions.  This is why historians, in my experience, agonize so much over how to call things, or how to periodize things, etc.  You can't purge all the normativity out; you have to be ware of what of it remains.  However, I don't think we should go so far as outright embracing normativity in all its aspects, because that usually leads to the production of panegyric and polemic rather than history.  That's what mostly concerns me here.

Frankly I find that historians claim to agonize while they clearly perpetuate panegyric and polemic histories.  In my opinion a pure history is an ideal that will never be attained, if we work from that premise, ultimately I think we come closer to creating a historical body in allowing different narratives to come into play.

True to some extent.  But I think (hope?) that it's more true in fields like bigraphy.  At lteast the historians that trained me have always been very big on getting me to think about, and admit to assumptions I am making in my analysis, to biases inherent in the sources (i.e. if all the evidence you have is about elites, it's kind of difficult to say as much about poor schlubs on the street).  I agree that the "pure history: is an ideal that we work toward, rather than a realistic goal.  But I also think that different narratives already play a very important role.  I think the real meat of the discipline comes from the debate and the competing interpretations and re-interpretations in the discourse.  That's a large part of the reason why I'm not really bothered by so-called "revisionist" history (so long as the actual scholarship has merit in its own right, is based on a fair reading of the sources, etc.).  Frankly there is a lot of history (back in the days when the ONLY kind of history was panegyric and polemic; think Tacitus, 19th century racist theorists, etc.) that DESERVES to be revised.  Put it this way: the historians I respect the most carefully and deliberately try to avoid the sins of panegyrists and polemicists, and, most of the time I think, succeed.  ;)
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 25, 2005, 10:57:11 AM
HBCU--

you know all these personality changes are 'getting so tired, it's narcoleptic.'  we said be yourself, not an angry, bitter, #%@! face.  #@!* your soda.  Get back to us when you are ready to be real.

get me a soda and get off HBCUs d*ck! >:(
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 25, 2005, 10:58:40 AM
This thread has gotten off topic again, it was supposed to be about me.  I'm white, it's all about the white man for cryin' out loud.

say you are sorry! Say it!
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 25, 2005, 11:07:53 AM

JD good points and we are in agreement for the second paragraph.  I would like to come back to the question of normative analysis that you mentioned in your first paragraph.  I agree with you that there will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts, but I don't think trying to purge those ideas is the role of the historian or social scientist.  In fact I would argue on the contrary that such normative aspects are the foundation of such scholarship, that the personal vision colors the perspective to an extent that it becomes the heart of the discipline.  Empirical evidence certainly lends the process more scientifically credible, but in choosing which statics have value we are inherently making normative judgments.

I agree that we cannot purge our analysis of all normativity.  One will always be intorducing a certain set of biases and assumptions into one's analysis and discussion.  You may want to get rid of some (because they're unreasonable or unwarranted), others not (becuase they're reasonable, or in some cases, because without those assumpions or biases you can't accomplish anything), but in any event you should be AWARE that you ARE introducing those biases and assumptions.  This is why historians, in my experience, agonize so much over how to call things, or how to periodize things, etc.  You can't purge all the normativity out; you have to be ware of what of it remains.  However, I don't think we should go so far as outright embracing normativity in all its aspects, because that usually leads to the production of panegyric and polemic rather than history.  That's what mostly concerns me here.

Frankly I find that historians claim to agonize while they clearly perpetuate panegyric and polemic histories.  In my opinion a pure history is an ideal that will never be attained, if we work from that premise, ultimately I think we come closer to creating a historical body in allowing different narratives to come into play.

True to some extent.  But I think (hope?) that it's more true in fields like bigraphy.  At lteast the historians that trained me have always been very big on getting me to think about, and admit to assumptions I am making in my analysis, to biases inherent in the sources (i.e. if all the evidence you have is about elites, it's kind of difficult to say as much about poor schlubs on the street).  I agree that the "pure history: is an ideal that we work toward, rather than a realistic goal.  But I also think that different narratives already play a very important role.  I think the real meat of the discipline comes from the debate and the competing interpretations and re-interpretations in the discourse.  That's a large part of the reason why I'm not really bothered by so-called "revisionist" history (so long as the actual scholarship has merit in its own right, is based on a fair reading of the sources, etc.).  Frankly there is a lot of history (back in the days when the ONLY kind of history was panegyric and polemic; think Tacitus, 19th century racist theorists, etc.) that DESERVES to be revised.  Put it this way: the historians I respect the most carefully and deliberately try to avoid the sins of panegyrists and polemicists, and, most of the time I think, succeed.  ;)

the statement above is where we perhaps have some disagreement, because I do think we are feeling the particular ramifications of an incomplete history because of surpressed or forgotten voices. 
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: blk_reign on June 25, 2005, 11:13:51 AM
u should apologize to E for that comment... it wasn't very nice

HBCU--

you know all these personality changes are 'getting so tired, it's narcoleptic.'  we said be yourself, not an angry, bitter, #%@! face.  #@!* your soda.  Get back to us when you are ready to be real.

get me a soda and get off HBCUs d*ck! >:(
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 25, 2005, 11:16:30 AM
vintage

u should apologize to E for that comment... it wasn't very nice

HBCU--

you know all these personality changes are 'getting so tired, it's narcoleptic.'  we said be yourself, not an angry, bitter, #%@! face.  #@!* your soda.  Get back to us when you are ready to be real.

get me a soda and get off HBCUs d*ck! >:(
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: blk_reign on June 25, 2005, 11:17:31 AM
i usually discard most vintage things...
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 25, 2005, 11:21:39 AM
i usually discard most vintage things...

and someone else will pick it up...
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: blk_reign on June 25, 2005, 11:24:03 AM
go for it  :D



i usually discard most vintage things...

and someone else will pick it up...
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: J D on June 25, 2005, 11:44:10 AM

JD good points and we are in agreement for the second paragraph.  I would like to come back to the question of normative analysis that you mentioned in your first paragraph.  I agree with you that there will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts, but I don't think trying to purge those ideas is the role of the historian or social scientist.  In fact I would argue on the contrary that such normative aspects are the foundation of such scholarship, that the personal vision colors the perspective to an extent that it becomes the heart of the discipline.  Empirical evidence certainly lends the process more scientifically credible, but in choosing which statics have value we are inherently making normative judgments.

I agree that we cannot purge our analysis of all normativity.  One will always be intorducing a certain set of biases and assumptions into one's analysis and discussion.  You may want to get rid of some (because they're unreasonable or unwarranted), others not (becuase they're reasonable, or in some cases, because without those assumpions or biases you can't accomplish anything), but in any event you should be AWARE that you ARE introducing those biases and assumptions.  This is why historians, in my experience, agonize so much over how to call things, or how to periodize things, etc.  You can't purge all the normativity out; you have to be ware of what of it remains.  However, I don't think we should go so far as outright embracing normativity in all its aspects, because that usually leads to the production of panegyric and polemic rather than history.  That's what mostly concerns me here.

Frankly I find that historians claim to agonize while they clearly perpetuate panegyric and polemic histories.  In my opinion a pure history is an ideal that will never be attained, if we work from that premise, ultimately I think we come closer to creating a historical body in allowing different narratives to come into play.

True to some extent.  But I think (hope?) that it's more true in fields like bigraphy.  At lteast the historians that trained me have always been very big on getting me to think about, and admit to assumptions I am making in my analysis, to biases inherent in the sources (i.e. if all the evidence you have is about elites, it's kind of difficult to say as much about poor schlubs on the street).  I agree that the "pure history: is an ideal that we work toward, rather than a realistic goal.  But I also think that different narratives already play a very important role.  I think the real meat of the discipline comes from the debate and the competing interpretations and re-interpretations in the discourse.  That's a large part of the reason why I'm not really bothered by so-called "revisionist" history (so long as the actual scholarship has merit in its own right, is based on a fair reading of the sources, etc.).  Frankly there is a lot of history (back in the days when the ONLY kind of history was panegyric and polemic; think Tacitus, 19th century racist theorists, etc.) that DESERVES to be revised.  Put it this way: the historians I respect the most carefully and deliberately try to avoid the sins of panegyrists and polemicists, and, most of the time I think, succeed.  ;)

the statement above is where we perhaps have some disagreement, because I do think we are feeling the particular ramifications of an incomplete history because of surpressed or forgotten voices. 

I wholeheartedly agree with you there.  There are many stories that have not been told, either because of a deliberate bias against them, or because there aren't as many good sources (or the ones that are there are too difficult to use, like archaeology), or because some historians would rather focus on some other grouping (the rise of the bourgeoisie, the rise of the proletariat, the rise of the state, the rise of the samurai, etc.  All these things tend to have a high helium content: all they do is rise).  ;) 

In a class I took on the history of Japan, the prof made a special habit of going beyond the texts she had assigned in order to give a voice back to those who had been ignored (for whatever reason) by much of the scholarship, for example, peasants, women in the age of the samurai (who lost basically all agency they had ever had, even at the elite level), "non-humans" (bokuramin, the members of a religiously "unclean" caste), etc.  There has been more of a shift (towards social and cultural history), since the 1980s and 1990s, I think, to focus less on elites (or on European peasants and factory workers, in the case of the Marxists) and start finding these lost voices from "normal" people and other large segments of the population.  This is also, I think, a part of some needed revision, in addition to debunking previous fictions and manipulations of our historical memory (e.g. during WWII in Britain, there was equality of sacrifice and class divisions disappeared; the samurai were noble, selfless creatures, willing to sacrifice themselves in the cause of their masters at a moment's notice out of pure loyalty, etc.).
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: blk_reign on June 25, 2005, 11:52:42 AM
mob i'm cracking up


I am soft, liberal and sappy.  So in the spirit of the "gay" people, the chewing stick progressives, I offer HBCU.EDU this natural ginseng soda:

(http://www.ginsengup.com/images/original1.gif)

This is what my people drink.  Next time, I'll give you a yummy wheatgrass smoothie!
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: One Step Ahead on June 25, 2005, 01:54:46 PM
Side note: we basically had the same emphasis of study that's sorta cool..

My problem with ignoring the brutual nature of slavey in the US is that the majority's argument is often "my grandparents or great grandparents came over from ____ country and they were able to do well, so Black Americans should be able to do the same." I think that argument is intellectually dishonest and ignores the psychological scars that the Black community still bears to this day from the brutality suffered by slaves hundreds of years ago.

pearl,
I definitely agree.  I also find it disturbing when someone makes the statement like "my grandparents or great grandparents came over from ____ country, they didn't oppress anyone."  In benefitting from the legacy of discrimination in this country, they became party to the oppression.  Here we are not talking about of collective guilt, but collective responsability.  These are the same people who will wave the American flag and sing the anthem.  In choosing to become a part of this society they must accept the legacy, both positive and negative, of what belonging to a collective American imaginary means.

So does this mean black people who have made it big need to take collective responsibility for their actions?  Do Colin Powell and Oprah need to repent because they've waved the flag and benefitted enormously from the American economic system?  What about the descendants of white abolitionists, and those who fought and died for the Union cause?  Are they excused?  No one living now is in any way responsible for slavery, and the problems with race in this country are not just focused on the black community.  We ALL need to take a good hard look at the natural human desire to categorize people and to shy away from people, places and things that are different than ourselves or our own experiences and work for equality and understanding from that point. The problems in the black community cannot continue to be blamed on slavery, or they will never be properly addressed and corrected.  The breakdown of the family is not something specific to the black community, nor are the trials of urban life.  It's absoultely ridiculous to say that immigrants who came to this country well after the end of slavery need to take responsiblity for it because they chose to seek a new life (an enormously difficult and taxing process with its own enormous tribulations and roadblocks) in a country that at one time practiced slavery. 
fuego, call down.  Yes the black community does need to accept collective moral responsability--that is to say a willingness to evaluate what one has done in the past and work towards eradicating the vestiges of said past--that is why it is a collective rather than communitarian problem.  It isn't a question of guilt or repentance as much as one of atonement--how can we make whole of a situation that left a sizeable portion of the country shattered?  it is not just about slavery, or even about Jim Crow, or even about Northern industrialists encouraging immigration to maintain a subservient black underclass, it is a series of actions in this country.  BTW nothing that I said should make you assume that I am only talking about collective responsability for discrimination against African Americans here; it just happened to be the context of the particular article we were discussing. 
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on June 25, 2005, 02:48:16 PM
mob i'm cracking up


I am soft, liberal and sappy.  So in the spirit of the "gay" people, the chewing stick progressives, I offer HBCU.EDU this natural ginseng soda:

(http://www.ginsengup.com/images/original1.gif)

This is what my people drink.  Next time, I'll give you a yummy wheatgrass smoothie!

I started the "chewing stick progressive" thing just to let you know. Wheatgrass smoothie is pretty funny as well  :D I can't wait for blk to take me to the wheatgrass smoothie store ::)
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Muse on June 25, 2005, 04:08:44 PM
Tag from Switzerland.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 25, 2005, 04:54:53 PM
Hey Muse...you having a good time Soror?

Fuego, I don't see anything with going back to the past. Especially when this country has done little to acknowledge it's past sins in the area of African slavery. With the interment of the Japanese, you had studies, reparations.  The government has done little for Black Americans, afirmative action isn't cutting it, since we know the greatest beneficiaries of afirmative action aren't black folks.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 25, 2005, 05:59:34 PM
So you saying Black Americans were not directly effected by slavery?? Since the government never saw fit to "do right" by former slaves, wouldn't it make sense that their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren inherit those benefits??? In the case of the reparations for the Japanese, their family members also had inheritance rights.

I respect your entitlement to your view, but I don't think its correct. I think its very easy for folks, other minority groups to marginalize the effects of slavery in this country.

I'm glad you think folks shouldn't be "handed" something they didn't earn, first who is advocating that...but if we are on that subject, its arguable that the countries who benefited from slavery and their residents benefited from labor they didn't pay for....maybe I'm just a little militant in my view point, but I so don't believe in the concept of everyone pulling themselves up by their bootstraps stuff. The United States is a great country, BUT it has a long way to go in race relations.

Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Muse on June 25, 2005, 06:18:26 PM
I'm having a fantastic time...but slightly homesick. Geneva is an amazing (and expensive) city but I'm happy to be here. I've had a lot of time to reflect on my life and just enjoying the nice atmosphere. The city is very diverse as well. Right now it's 3:14am on Sunday and I can't sleep. After a week I have not adjusted to the time change.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: _BP_ on June 25, 2005, 06:28:32 PM
So you saying Black Americans were not directly effected by slavery?? Since the government never saw fit to "do right" by former slaves, wouldn't it make sense that their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren inherit those benefits??? In the case of the reparations for the Japanese, their family members also had inheritance rights.

I respect your entitlement to your view, but I don't think its correct. I think its very easy for folks, other minority groups to marginalize the effects of slavery in this country.

I'm glad you think folks shouldn't be "handed" something they didn't earn, first who is advocating that...but if we are on that subject, its arguable that the countries who benefited from slavery and their residents benefited from labor they didn't pay for....maybe I'm just a little militant in my view point, but I so don't believe in the concept of everyone pulling themselves up by their bootstraps stuff. The United States is a great country, BUT it has a long way to go in race relations.



Oh your views as outlined here are not even militant per se.  They just make sense. Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent; 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else (Roger Wilkins).  All the while being the back bone of this country's economy (imagine an entire workforce that worked for free..no benefits, no pay, no 401Ks', no social security).  Now some white folks would have us believe that it's all good...we should be caught up.  Oh, and is there another group of people that were "handed something they didn't earn" more than white folks in this country?  Let's get real.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: _BP_ on June 25, 2005, 07:04:54 PM
So you saying Black Americans were not directly effected by slavery?? Since the government never saw fit to "do right" by former slaves, wouldn't it make sense that their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren inherit those benefits??? In the case of the reparations for the Japanese, their family members also had inheritance rights.

I respect your entitlement to your view, but I don't think its correct. I think its very easy for folks, other minority groups to marginalize the effects of slavery in this country.

I'm glad you think folks shouldn't be "handed" something they didn't earn, first who is advocating that...but if we are on that subject, its arguable that the countries who benefited from slavery and their residents benefited from labor they didn't pay for....maybe I'm just a little militant in my view point, but I so don't believe in the concept of everyone pulling themselves up by their bootstraps stuff. The United States is a great country, BUT it has a long way to go in race relations.



Oh your views as outlined here are not even militant per se.  They just make sense. Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent; 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else (Roger Wilkins).  All the while being the back bone of this country's economy (imagine an entire workforce that worked for free..no benefits, no pay, no 401Ks', no social security).  Now some white folks would have us believe that it's all good...we should be caught up.  Oh, and is there another group of people that were "handed something they didn't earn" more than white folks in this country?  Let's get real.

Um, yeah, actually, not all white people have been handed things because they are white.  Not only uninformed, but insulting.  An enormous number of this country's European immigrants went through hell for everything they had, which was nothing much, and while not slaves, were to the industrial age what slaves were to southern agriculture.  You think living in a New York City tenanment was fun in the sun?  You think being literally shot down by the corporations you worked for when you tried to get those benefits you mentioned (that were also held back from whites, FYI) was fun?  You think being denied employment and being attacked in the streets for being the wrong religion was any different from being ostracized because of the color of your skin?  How about the Jews in this country who were denied basically everything, and the ones in Europe who were allowed to die in the Holocaust while the rest of the world, black, white and purple, basically sat and did nothing? 

Why don't we REALLY get real and not act like a good number of white people in this country don't know what discrimination or unfairness is.  At the same time, let's not forget that there were an awful lot of white people in this country who fought for an end to slavery, and who fought and continue to fight for civil rights when more ignorant segments of the country weren't and aren't interested.     

AA is not the solution to injustice.  It does nothing to truly level the playing field and it allows the systems that permit inequality and lack of opportunity to continue existing.  It will take a real commitment to changing those systems to really eliminate racism, bigotry, sexism and classism from the American vocabulary, and nothing else. 

I wrote: Oh, and is there another group of people that were "handed something they didn't earn" more than white folks in this country?

Ofcourse this does not apply to every single individual, that is why I phrased it like I did.  So let me know again how I am uninformed.  As far as my being insulting let's think about that.  In your world there would be no A.A and no reperations.  Nothing! Nothing! Nothing!  No one pays.  "Just forgive and forget black folks.  It was so long ago, just let it go.  Yeah, we made ourselves rich off of you, but you're dead now!  So f*ck it.!"
Obviously not insulting right?
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Intuition on June 25, 2005, 07:43:56 PM
Reparation for slavery is civil rights? Equality? Equal opportunity for prosperity and achievement? I'm just curious here. So are you saying that if slavery never happened, that these claims for civil rights and equality would be unfounded? I hope that's not the argument you're making. But it comes across like that.

As a middle class white kid with good social/business contacts that I believe will help me immensely in life, I do feel guilty somewhat for the past of this country. I don't feel as though I am personally to blame, but it hurts to know that I live in a country that sanctioned all that darn back in the day. And is even still sanctioning it today, albeit much more subtely. I firmly believe that our government, past and present, does some darn that is absolutely outrageous. My problem is that I have yet to find a suitable large-scale answer to all the problems.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: _BP_ on June 25, 2005, 08:04:47 PM
The reperation for slavery is civil rights.  The reperation for slavery is tolerance.  The reperation for slavery is equality.

This probably renders any further debate futile.  Be easy.

Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 26, 2005, 06:31:26 AM
Who has said reparations is the "cure" for everything? I think Randall Robinson makes a very good argument on this topic, I recommend that anyone interested in the topic read "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks". http://www.randallrobinson.com/debtexc.html

I do think its a bit naive not to think that slavery plays a part into racism in this country...how else do you explain the fact that any person of color from any other country doesn't carry the same stigma that blacks carry? 

I think Mobell makes great points, you cannot separate race from class in this country.  It simply cannot be done.  This isn't a color blind society.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: _BP_ on June 26, 2005, 06:48:43 AM
So the compensation for slavery and Jim Crow is simply putting things the way they should have been in the first place?  None of the consequences have to be undone?

Ok Fuego, since AA is bad and reparations are bad, but you acknowledge that racism and classism are big problems, what would be good solutions?  What do you suggest?

Slavery in America is not the cause of racism.  It's not the cause of classism.  Racism existed between Irish and Italian immigrants to this country in the same way it existed between blacks and whites.  Catholics and Protestsants continue to murder each other in Northern Ireland.  The British repressed the Irish for generations.  Differences of religion have led to the worst conflicts in the history of the world, including our own current terrorism concerns.  Women were treated as second class citizens throughout the world, until relatively late in this century, and still are, in some parts of the world.  A madman was able to convince the people of his country that Jews were responsible for all the problems of Europe.  Racism and classism, sexism and religious intolerance are not problems native to this country, and we can't deal with them by using our own experience with slavery as a springboard. 

I was not trying to say that tolerance and equality and civil rights are reperations for slavery in the sense that all of those things have been accomplished, and that we should all be content with the way things stand.  I was saying that handing out some cash donation to every black family as some kind of compensation is not going to solve the problem.  Is that really the proper response to something like slavery, go take this money and buy a big screen TV?  It's not investing in our urban centers, it's not providing equal education and thus equal opportunity for everyone?  The ultimate solution for dealing with our past and moving towards a united future is to throw money and energy at history and not at our present? 

A great many brave individuals of all colors have stood up to fight for civil rights in this country, and considering we still haven't reached the point we should, I would never assume to know the solution to the problem.  I know, however, that we aren't going to solve the problems of intolerance and bigotry, sexism and religious persecution by throwing money at the descendants of those who endured the harsher times in our history, and we aren't going to accomplish anything by handing out freebies without dealing with the problems that lead us to contemplate them.   


Do you think this is the way the reperation push is to be implemented? It's not about blacks buying big screen tv's with a reperations check.  And you call me uninformed!  Here is one of my previous post on the subject. HTH :

The atonement for individual criminals and criminal companies is commonly accepted as jail and fines respectively.  So I'm all for money being "thrown at the problem" if these companies contributed to the problem itself.  Todays' incarnation of the problem is a lack of healthcare, lower quality education, discrimination in the workplace, housing inequalities..and so on.  These are things that can be practically addressed with money.  Who would pay whom? Companies that have contributed in any way to the slave trade should pay money into a managed fund (the model worked on by Johnny Cochran before he passed) and that fund be used to start a perpetual fellowship that could be used to focus on the lingering inequalities that face us..some of which I mentioned above.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 26, 2005, 11:54:14 AM
This thread has gotten off topic again, it was supposed to be about me.  I'm white, it's all about the white man for cryin' out loud.

say you are sorry! Say it!

I am so so sorry!
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on June 26, 2005, 07:31:06 PM
What's the saying:

If you are right, you are alright
If you are brown, you can stick around,
But if you are black, get back....

I mean come on, while there was discrimination towards other groups, I don't recall seeing in history other groups being lynched, having poll taxes imposed on them or getting their heads bashed in for knowing how to read.  I don't think during Jim Crow, other ethnic groups were subjected to "separate but equal."   There's a difference in saying "Irish need not apply" and having your granddaddy lynched for "looking" at a white woma.  I don't think any Irish towns were burned down to the ground like Rosewood, Florida. 

I simply don't buy the argument that the discrimination that blacks have received is the same as that experienced by other ethnic groups. Blacks are not accepted as simply being "Americans"...I mean come on....not even September 11th changed the perception amongst many in the majority that Blacks are inferior. 
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 26, 2005, 08:08:56 PM
I've been clowning on this thread the entire time, but on a serious note.  Do black people actually want whites to feel guilty?
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 26, 2005, 09:00:13 PM
I've been clowning on this thread the entire time, but on a serious note.  Do black people actually want whites to feel guilty?

I can't speak for all Black people.  But I'd guess the answer from many of us would be, "No, but we do want you to acknowledge your privilege and realize that 40 years can't undo 400."

I see, but you would have to address that to particular people.  I live in the coal fields of Southern West Virginia, there's not much privilege here.  Looks more like a third world country in some parts.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 26, 2005, 09:11:17 PM
I've been clowning on this thread the entire time, but on a serious note.  Do black people actually want whites to feel guilty?

I can't speak for all Black people.  But I'd guess the answer from many of us would be, "No, but we do want you to acknowledge your privilege and realize that 40 years can't undo 400."

I see, but you would have to address that to particular people.  I live in the coal fields of Southern West Virginia, there's not much privilege here.  Looks more like a third world country in some parts.

Agreed.  But you're still White and you can still pass for one of those privileged Whites.  We don't have that luxury.

I know, but when black people rant about whites (privileged).  We (po' folk) sit there and scratch our heads wondering what we did.  To the ignorant poor whites that creates a bit of resentment, then that just makes things worse.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 26, 2005, 09:18:10 PM
I've been clowning on this thread the entire time, but on a serious note.  Do black people actually want whites to feel guilty?

I can't speak for all Black people.  But I'd guess the answer from many of us would be, "No, but we do want you to acknowledge your privilege and realize that 40 years can't undo 400."

I see, but you would have to address that to particular people.  I live in the coal fields of Southern West Virginia, there's not much privilege here.  Looks more like a third world country in some parts.

Agreed.  But you're still White and you can still pass for one of those privileged Whites.  We don't have that luxury.

I know, but when black people rant about whites (privileged).  We (po' folk) sit there and scratch our heads wondering what we did.  To the ignorant poor whites that creates a bit of resentment, then that just makes things worse.

The tension between poor Whites and African-Americans is much deeper than that.  It's rooted in economic competition, which is the same thing that irks me about the way some African-Americans treat Chicanos nowadays.

Let the poor fight amongst themselves so the rich can keep on gettin' richer
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Rudy Huckleberry on June 26, 2005, 09:20:18 PM
I've been clowning on this thread the entire time, but on a serious note.  Do black people actually want whites to feel guilty?

I can't speak for all Black people.  But I'd guess the answer from many of us would be, "No, but we do want you to acknowledge your privilege and realize that 40 years can't undo 400."

I see, but you would have to address that to particular people.  I live in the coal fields of Southern West Virginia, there's not much privilege here.  Looks more like a third world country in some parts.

Agreed.  But you're still White and you can still pass for one of those privileged Whites.  We don't have that luxury.

I know, but when black people rant about whites (privileged).  We (po' folk) sit there and scratch our heads wondering what we did.  To the ignorant poor whites that creates a bit of resentment, then that just makes things worse.

The tension between poor Whites and African-Americans is much deeper than that.  It's rooted in economic competition, which is the same thing that irks me about the way some African-Americans treat Chicanos nowadays.

Let the poor fight amongst themselves so the rich can keep on gettin' richer

heh, I know right.  Sounds like divide and conquer to me!
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: swordfish on June 26, 2005, 09:21:20 PM
Got to hand it to the rich folk they know how to hold us down.  Damn BUSH!!!
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: asdf on July 01, 2005, 10:31:19 PM
What's the saying:

If you are right, you are alright
If you are brown, you can stick around,
But if you are black, get back....

I mean come on, while there was discrimination towards other groups, I don't recall seeing in history other groups being lynched, having poll taxes imposed on them or getting their heads bashed in for knowing how to read.  I don't think during Jim Crow, other ethnic groups were subjected to "separate but equal."   There's a difference in saying "Irish need not apply" and having your granddaddy lynched for "looking" at a white woma.  I don't think any Irish towns were burned down to the ground like Rosewood, Florida. 

I simply don't buy the argument that the discrimination that blacks have received is the same as that experienced by other ethnic groups. Blacks are not accepted as simply being "Americans"...I mean come on....not even September 11th changed the perception amongst many in the majority that Blacks are inferior. 

The treatment of other minorities was not as bad as slavery, but I don't think it's as light as I think you see it.

Lynching: In California people more or less killed Chinese people arbitrarily, such as if they wanted their spot of land during the gold rush or if they didn't want to pay their laundry bill. What was horrible was Chinese people weren't allowed to testify in courts, so these crimes were not prosecutable.

Poll taxes, voting: Well, this didn't happen to Asians becuase they didn't have the right to vote. The Chinese couldn't naturalize until WWII, and the rest not until the 1950's. Their children were allowed to vote though, due to a Supreme Court ruling around 1900. I'm sure if Asians could vote back then, they'd have been treated similarly. Equal protection did not cover people who were ineligible for citizenship.

Segregation: In the south, it wasn't as important to be white as it was to not be black, so other races weren't hurt as much. But in the west, it didn't matter what race you were if you weren't white. Asians had the same employment and housing discrimination as blacks, they went to the same segregated schools, they sat in the same colored sections of movie theaters, and used the same colored restrooms.

Towns being burned down: I don't know if the towns were burned down, but every few decades the white people would go into Asian settlements with rifles and force them to leave. I can look up the details if anyone wants.

Anyway, I wandered onto here as I was looking for information on law schools. I have been wondering, what do blacks generally think about Asians? Do they see them as threats, unfairly receiving economic success before them? It's not a huge comfort, but Asians aren't as rich as you think they are. While they have high average incomes, they tend to live in places with a high cost of living (CA, HI, NY, etc.), and as they have the highest education rates, they must be more educated than their white counterparts to earn the same money, and the people who work the stores may work 15-20 hours a day. Regarding law firms, most have more openly gay partners than Asian ones.

I'm guessing from what I read here that they don't see them as fellow minorities. But the two groups do have more in common than you might think. Did you know that after slavery was abolished the slaveships were rerouted to Asia, and Asians were indentured servants in the west? A few plantations even tried to replace their slaves with Chinese. After the British outlawed slavery they replaced them with Indians, and all around the world in European colonies black slave and Asian coolies worked side by side.

In the US, the only senator to vote against the Chinese Exclusion Act was black. Frederick Douglas even said in the mid 1800's that "the Chinese were the most mistreated group in the state (CA) and that blacks were the only people who did not abuse them."

Unfortunately, relations lately have been bad. In the 80's, two white guys who were unemployed or laid off or something from the auto plants in Detroit killed a Chinese American. I guess they thought he was Japanese, as they were venting their frustations regarding the rise of the Japanese auto industry. Anyway, the black groups only helped the Asian groups because he was Chinese. They said if the guy who was killed was Japanese, he'd have deserved to die.

As Asians started replacing Jews as the owners of businesses in the inner cities, hostilities were high, as the Asians didn't treat blacks well because of cultural problems. The climax was the LA riots, which the media turned into a black versus Asian thing, despite how a lot of the rioters weren't black.

Someone else mentioned the thing about blacks being perceived as more American than other minority groups. I'll elaborate a little. Blacks are not considered foreigners in the US. While they arguably have the most discrimination, no one tells them to go back to China (like they did to Gary Locke, the former Chinese-American governor of WA, or Daniel Inouye, who lost an arm in WWII, both of whom were born in the US and speak perfect English). Blacks aren't asked where they're "from" the way Asians are, implying they can never be true Americans because they look different.

While it won't compensate for everything, blacks have that advantage, and they have the attention of the media. If you go to www.msnbc.com and go to the section about "Race in America," you'll notice MSNBC only considers blacks to be minorities.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Harrahs on July 02, 2005, 09:53:10 AM
interesting thread. 

i want to clear up a few issues with regard to blacks in brazil, which were, until recently, relatively misunderstood.  while it can be argued that the slavery experience in brazil was more benign that that of its counterpart in the united states, afro-brazilians have since lagged well behind african americans in terms of progress, rights, and a definitive place in society. 

there was no jim crow era in brazil; after slavery was abolished, blacks, much in the same way as in the united states, continued working on the planations (fazendas) and for their former owners with few to no laws prohibiting their "freedom."  in the years that followed, brazil, which has the largest population of african descendents outside of africa, explored ways to "better" its place in the global society, and was largely influenced by charles darwin's theory of evolution and europe's dominance.  many thought that a "whitening" (branquiamento, or embranqamento) of brazilian society was a solution to its perceived "jungle" status in the world, that soceities with large numbers of blacks were inferior to white societies, i.e., social darwinism.  in short, white immigration was encouraged, and brazilians were informally encouraged to copulate with those of a darker or lighter skin tone, thus one day creating a society of tan-skinned people.  brazil came to be known as a "racial democracy."  afro-brasileiro, or any other variety of the term, is not common usage in brazil.  brazilians are, in general, called brazilians, regardless of their descent and/or skin tone.

unfortunately, brazilian blacks hold a dismal place in society, and are often made to believe that their plight is due to classism (which brazilians generally admit to be a grave problem in their society), and not racism, which brazilians, of all colors, do not like to admit exists.  however, affirmative action does not exist, the numbers of black brazilians in public universities (the best) are insignificant, and blacks are the poorest and least mobile members of society. 

i mentioned this before in the "mulato" thread, but jim crow and subsequent segregation, despite how horrible they were, worked to unify african american society.  it was black and white.  although it is true -- to this day -- that lighter skinned african americans got better treatment than darker african americans, the general segregation of american society led to the civil rights movement of the sixties, and the subsequent progress since.  because brazilian blacks never went through a similar process, they never gained the rights, progress, and definitive place in society that their counterparts in this country have today. 

the point i am trying to make it two-fold: 1) while valuable, we cannot simply compare the slavery experience across countries in determining which overall experience has been worse, or better and 2) the experience of the african diaspora has been difficult for all, regardless of country.

casino
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: J D on July 02, 2005, 10:32:46 AM
Thanks, Casino.

I remember reading about the racial theories (such as "whitening") that drove social policy in the late nineteenth century during my Latin America in the National Period survey.  But I couldn't remember if it was limited to Brazil or part of a broader trend, for example in other racially diverse Latin American states (say, Cuba, Peru, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.), and I also couldn't remember the source (it was an excerpt from a larger monograph or journal article that appeared in a reader for our class, along with primary documents), so I didn't bring it up.  But it's definitely true that race has played a very significant role in the social history of Latin America in general, and of Brazil in particular (it's one of the major themes in the late nineteenth-century classic, Aluisio Azevedo's "The Slum (O Cortiço)," which unfortunately I didn't get to finish and don't really remember that well).  It still does, as is obvious from reading "Child of the Dark" by Carolina Maria de Jesus.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: LSorbust on July 05, 2005, 01:26:56 PM
"Racism" has turned into an excuse for blacks to act however they wish without repercussions.  Reality check: It doesn't matter what happened in the past, if you are black and a white person reacts warily to you, you better than anyone else knows why.  If not, turn on BET.  White people will be allowed to have standards in this society which they have created.  And I do not advocate the traditional view of society.  I am against religion and pro gay rights, for example.  But I am also pro-intelligence.  A society that is geared towards pleasing the average is not a desirable society, and the majority of blacks in this country at this point in time are average at best.  (note: majority = more than half, which in this case is certainly incontestable).  A worthy society should be geared in every way towards exemplifying the "cream of the crop".  And by that I don't mean who was born with the most money already in their bank accounts, etc.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: _BP_ on July 05, 2005, 01:41:14 PM
"Racism" has turned into an excuse for blacks to act however they wish without repercussions.  Reality check: It doesn't matter what happened in the past, if you are black and a white person reacts warily to you, you better than anyone else knows why.  If not, turn on BET.  White people will be allowed to have standards in this society which they have created.  And I do not advocate the traditional view of society.  I am against religion and pro gay rights, for example.  But I am also pro-intelligence.  A society that is geared towards pleasing the average is not a desirable society, and the majority of blacks in this country at this point in time are average at best.  (note: majority = more than half, which in this case is certainly incontestable).  A worthy society should be geared in every way towards exemplifying the "cream of the crop".  And by that I don't mean who was born with the most money already in their bank accounts, etc.

Thanks for your insight! ;D

Dear Sir, it has been great reading this discourse from a dignified member of the Crop (cream of, to be precise). We appreciate your sage words. I will be sure to forward this to all of my average friends.
Yours
B.P
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Lawprofessor on July 05, 2005, 01:44:23 PM
"Racism" has turned into an excuse for blacks to act however they wish without repercussions.  Reality check: It doesn't matter what happened in the past, if you are black and a white person reacts warily to you, you better than anyone else knows why.  If not, turn on BET.  White people will be allowed to have standards in this society which they have created.  And I do not advocate the traditional view of society.  I am against religion and pro gay rights, for example.  But I am also pro-intelligence.  A society that is geared towards pleasing the average is not a desirable society, and the majority of blacks in this country at this point in time are average at best.  (note: majority = more than half, which in this case is certainly incontestable).  A worthy society should be geared in every way towards exemplifying the "cream of the crop".  And by that I don't mean who was born with the most money already in their bank accounts, etc.

Thanks for your insight! ;D

Dear Sir, it has been great reading this discourse from a dignified member of the Crop (cream of, to be precise). We appreciate your sage words. I will be sure to forward this to all of my average friends.
Yours
B.P

 :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: LSorbust on July 05, 2005, 07:07:37 PM
"Racism" has turned into an excuse for blacks to act however they wish without repercussions.  Reality check: It doesn't matter what happened in the past, if you are black and a white person reacts warily to you, you better than anyone else knows why.  If not, turn on BET.  White people will be allowed to have standards in this society which they have created.  And I do not advocate the traditional view of society.  I am against religion and pro gay rights, for example.  But I am also pro-intelligence.  A society that is geared towards pleasing the average is not a desirable society, and the majority of blacks in this country at this point in time are average at best.  (note: majority = more than half, which in this case is certainly incontestable).  A worthy society should be geared in every way towards exemplifying the "cream of the crop".  And by that I don't mean who was born with the most money already in their bank accounts, etc.

Thanks for your insight! ;D

Dear Sir, it has been great reading this discourse from a dignified member of the Crop (cream of, to be precise). We appreciate your sage words. I will be sure to forward this to all of my average friends.
Yours
B.P



Mockery, yet no intelligent refutation... tsk tsk tsk
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on July 05, 2005, 07:15:37 PM
Dude, don't you get it?  He's a Negro.  Negroes are too stupid to refute your very lucid and awe-inspiring arguments.

Mo, perhaps we should give him a little soft-shoe?? We are good at that ...
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: mxpocc on July 05, 2005, 07:16:23 PM
Europeans committed genocide on American Indians--that's as bad as it gets.

At least they found you blacks to be somewhat useful; they had no use for the indian, so they discarded him.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: LSorbust on July 05, 2005, 07:21:39 PM
Dude, don't you get it?  He's a Negro.  Negroes are too stupid to refute your very lucid and awe-inspiring arguments.

As are you, apparently, for you did the same thing.  What I said is impossible to refute.  In any case, you wouldn't want to, because then you would have nothing to complain about.  The same negative things about black people that black people themselves complain about (and claim that someone made them do...) are the things white people react negatively to.  We're all on the same side as far as understanding what the shortcomings of blacks in this society are.  Only black people are in the position to change it.  
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: LSorbust on July 05, 2005, 07:35:10 PM
Dude, don't you get it?  He's a Negro.  Negroes are too stupid to refute your very lucid and awe-inspiring arguments.

As are you, apparently, for you did the same thing.  What I said is impossible to refute.  In any case, you wouldn't want to, because then you would have nothing to complain about.  The same negative things about black people that black people themselves complain about (and claim that someone made them do...) are the things white people react negatively to.  We're all on the same side as far as understanding what the shortcomings of blacks in this society are.  Only black people are in the position to change it. 

And what things would those things be? That Blacks complain about?  Gee golly whiz, my head hurts.  Your post made me think too hard. :-\


Um, everything blacks complain about on this board and in society in general... surely you're not saying blacks have no problems just because they're black...  If you are, PROBLEM SOLVED!
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: LSorbust on July 06, 2005, 05:22:17 AM
Dude, don't you get it?  He's a Negro.  Negroes are too stupid to refute your very lucid and awe-inspiring arguments.

As are you, apparently, for you did the same thing.  What I said is impossible to refute.  In any case, you wouldn't want to, because then you would have nothing to complain about.  The same negative things about black people that black people themselves complain about (and claim that someone made them do...) are the things white people react negatively to.  We're all on the same side as far as understanding what the shortcomings of blacks in this society are.  Only black people are in the position to change it. 

And what things would those things be? That Blacks complain about?  Gee golly whiz, my head hurts.  Your post made me think too hard. :-\


Um, everything blacks complain about on this board and in society in general... surely you're not saying blacks have no problems just because they're black...  If you are, PROBLEM SOLVED!

I think maybe the OP meant that black popular culture often promotes and perpetuates stereotypes that end up denegrating the community rather than enhancing it. Or so I assume from the BET comment.  I think maybe they were also alluding to personal responsibility, although I think that's something that applies to all races, not just blacks.  At a certain point you have to put down the crack pipe all on your own, or seek the help you need to put it down, whether you're black, white or a lovely shade of magenta. 

Of course, this is all just speculation because they decided to be abrasive and less than coherent and lord knows what they were really getting at.   




I was attempting to be as plainspoken as possible. Most people today refute any comments about race as inherently incorrect if it does not sound akin to the politicaly correct rhetoric one normally hears which bolsters their viewpoint.  This happens no matter how obvious the logic.   

Blacks say "We're poor."  Whites says "Yes, blacks are poor." Blacks says "You're racist."  I am not claiming that you on this board are immune from this lack of logic any more than other blacks are.  It is too deeply ingrained. 

I am saying that no matter what has happened in the past, and no matter what SHOULD be, this is the situation:
Whites are above you in society (you don't doubt this yourselves).  The people above do not have to give up their power. They may abdicate some, but as we see today, we retain our societal status no matter how many Woolworth's counters you sit at.  Whites don't care about your skin color anymore.  We care about your actions.  As long as the society-degenerating behaviour continues, no matter what the root, we will not allow you to enter our ranks.  Correct or not, it is ours to allow, as evidenced by the past 40 years.  Not your fault individually?  Sucks.  Not my fault that the poor blacks who are virtually the sole perpetrators of violence in my community (statistically, not some unfounded nebulous comment to which you would claim "misreporting" by the media) chose not to avail themselves of what I as a poor white (growing up at least...) availed myself of (by struggle, not by right). 

I expect vitriol, sarcasm and the like, but I do not expect a defense on the merits.  There is none.  Stop blaming whites, slap yo' mamma for not learning English correctly (maybe she shouldn't have, since the language is the invention of her former captors....wait a second, so is her clothing, her electricity, most everything else she seeks to have access to...wait, whites are priviledged?  Maybe it's because our ancestors made this society ((not talking about the grunt work)).  This stuff didn't just exist, you know... oh, and don't bother reponding by posting some anemic list of black inventors.  The fact that you can even begin to list them proves my point), and correct yourselves.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: LSorbust on July 06, 2005, 05:28:10 AM
Mobell says "The idea that there aren't things that Black people suffer just on the basis of being Black in a predominantly White society...utterly ridiculous."  Lsorbust originally said "surely you're not saying blacks have no problems just because they're black."  She's going to law school, yet is having problems not only with a double negative, but with following the general flow of a statement.  So much for her admission not being due to her URM status.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on July 06, 2005, 07:08:34 AM
Thank LSorbust for taking time out of your busy schedule to educate us dumb ignorant folks on what we need to do in order to better ourselves in American society. You have solved the problems that have plagued our community for hundreds of years in a mere few minutes. I  guess I should be grateful that someone saw fit give a colored girl a law degree and bar membership.  My LSAT score was obviously given to me unfairly (as was Mobell's) and my grade point average/extra-curriculars were unearned. I guess I got my clerkship at my state's highest court because I'm colored too.

Seriously, you sound really salty..I think what you said to Mobell was rude and crass. You basically implied that she got into her law school of choice because she is a minority.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: _BP_ on July 06, 2005, 07:25:47 AM
Whoever said this was on point: Never argue with fools.  They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: LSorbust on July 06, 2005, 08:04:45 AM
Lsorbust said: "I expect vitriol, sarcasm and the like, but I do not expect a defense on the merits."

Check.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Muse on July 06, 2005, 08:12:41 AM
So let me get this straight, are you implying that Mobell's merits weren't taken into consideration bc she is a URM?

Damn must suck to be black. Adcoms just look at our shade of brown before giving us the okay. I love the man. He treats us negros so good. Thanks massa!
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: _BP_ on July 06, 2005, 08:20:44 AM
Lsorbust said: "I expect vitriol, sarcasm and the like, but I do not expect a defense on the merits."

Check.

Maybe if you came with a thought that were more original, interesting, and coherent, people would be moved to engage you, but alas....
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: LSorbust on July 06, 2005, 08:29:31 AM
Lsorbust said: "I expect vitriol, sarcasm and the like, but I do not expect a defense on the merits."

Check.

Maybe if you came with a thought that were more original, interesting, and coherent, people would be moved to engage you, but alas....

Checkmate, and I'm done.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: HBCU.EDU on July 06, 2005, 08:32:29 AM
Whoever said this was on point: Never argue with fools.  They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

LOL :D That is some funny *&^% BP.
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Intuition on July 06, 2005, 10:08:43 AM
I feel guilty for being the same race as LSorbust.  :-[
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: elegantpearl01 on July 06, 2005, 10:35:44 AM
So let me get this straight, are you implying that Mobell's merits weren't taken into consideration bc she is a URM?

Damn must suck to be black. Adcoms just look at our shade of brown before giving us the okay. I love the man. He treats us negros so good. Thanks massa!

We sho' have it good don't we soror?
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Muse on July 07, 2005, 05:39:28 AM
yes suh! massa treats us real goods. no needs to knows how to read. massa can dos eeervery thang fur us!
Title: Re: The White Guilt Thread
Post by: Lawprofessor on July 07, 2005, 04:11:52 PM
yes suh! massa treats us real goods. no needs to knows how to read. massa can dos eeervery thang fur us!

YOU ARE IGNORANT!!!! ::) ;)