Spy Car Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 This coming from a professional educational curriculum provider, both private and seeking use for public education. And people wonder why the general population is weary of home education. Before it is removed Mr Holtzman's post should be preserved and disseminated to schoolboards so they we realize what kind of minds they dealing with. It is utterly appalling. I feel sickened inside knowing how many people have entrusted their children's educations to Sonlight. Wow! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Before it is removed Mr Holtzman's post should be preserved and disseminated to school boards so they we realize what sort of people they dealing with. It is utterly appalling. I feel sickened inside knowing how many people have entrusted their children's educations to Sonlight. Wow! Bill I copied the whole thing in my post for a reason. Posts by Sonlight staff disappear on the Sonlight forums, users' comments are edited by staff, and threads are deleted, but they don't have that level of control here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I copied the whole thing in my post for a reason. Smart thinking. Maybe back up a copy as I expect this thread will go "poof." We need the evidence. Please Mods do not delete this thread for the interest of the home education community. People deserve to see this. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorothythomas Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Before it is removed Mr Holtzman's post should be preserved and disseminated to school boards so they we realize what sort of people they dealing with. It is utterly appalling. I feel sickened inside knowing how many people have entrusted their children's educations to Sonlight. Wow! Bill I'm new and am in no way trying to be disrespectful or insulting, just curious. Why is it so horrific to try and allow students to understand why people of the time felt that this institution, which we know now to be revolting, was acceptable? I respected what John had to say because it pointed to me that his curriculum (or what was his curriculum) is interested in helping students understand those hard issues, in helping them get how such atrocities can be seen as the norm. I want my children to learn that because how will they be able to see atrocities that happen in front of their eyes that the world accepts? What am I missing here? Please be gentle with me - I've respected other comments of yours so want to understand where you are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Agreed...with Tracey and Dorothy. It's equally insulting to those of us that descend from these culture and have studied them and taught them to be told that someone might not consider us worthwhile to discuss issues with simply because we don't see it exactly the way certain people do. I don't fall under a broadbrushed whitewashed view nor do I fall under a broadbrushed North was good and South was bad and all people of this or that sort felt this way or that. Not North good, South bad. Slavery bad, ending slavery good. I don't know anyone who thinks the North was all roses. I do have Southern KY family who never once owned a slave (on my Mother's side going back 300 years) and who fought for the Union. My mother called me crying the other day because she thought one of our ancestors owned slaves. She was doing some research (12 years of work so far!) and found a man by her 3rd ggrandfather's name who owned slaves. Turns out, wrong county, wrong man, and even wrongly transcribed name. But man she was devastated. But even if it had been him, that was a long time ago. Don't hang onto ancestral guilt about it. But when we know better, we do better. Many in the South were anti-slavery. Many in the north were pro-secession. In my Northern hometown, there were a number of squirmishes where Union soldiers were attacked and killed because of pro-South sentiment BY fellow Northerners-some of them their own family. These are good things to discuss with our kids. But I find it troubling to try to explain to our kids that not all slavery was bad. That's like going out of our way to say not all Jews were killed in concentration camps. The point is it was wrong to begin with. That's not something new we're looking back and deciding. It was something many people believed even during the 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorothythomas Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 But I find it troubling to try to explain to our kids that not all slavery was bad. That's like going out of our way to say not all Jews were killed in concentration camps. The point is it was wrong to begin with. That's not something new we're looking back and deciding. It was something many people believed even during the 19th century. That's what I'm saying though. Not that I want my kids to learn that not all slavery was bad, it was beyond terrible. I want them to learn and seek to understand that there were people who didn't think it was bad and why. That's where I am and what I got from John's response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 That's what I'm saying though. Not that I want my kids to learn that not all slavery was bad, it was beyond terrible. I want them to learn and seek to understand that there were people who didn't think it was bad and why. That's where I am and what I got from John's response. There is a difference between telling kids why people thought the way they did, and introducing what some may consider apologetics about slavery that is made up of bad facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I'm new and am in no way trying to be disrespectful or insulting, just curious. Why is it so horrific to try and allow students to understand why people of the time felt that this institution, which we know now to be revolting, was acceptable? I respected what John had to say because it pointed to me that his curriculum (or what was his curriculum) is interested in helping students understand those hard issues, in helping them get how such atrocities can be seen as the norm. I want my children to learn that because how will they be able to see atrocities that happen in front of their eyes that the world accepts? What am I missing here? Please be gentle with me - I've respected other comments of yours so want to understand where you are coming from. Because that's not his premise. His premise isn't that some (many?) people supported it for what they considered moral and ethical reasons, his premise is that it was morally and ethically appropriate and justifiable. Further, he encourages this Stockholm Syndrome analysis to be taught as having educational merit, to generations of impressionable students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I'm new and am in no way trying to be disrespectful or insulting, just curious. Why is it so horrific to try and allow students to understand why people of the time felt that this institution, which we know now to be revolting, was acceptable? Well-thinking people understood that torture, enslavement, rape, denial of education, the selling off of children, involuntary servitude and the like were revolting and unacceptable under any form of morality. Analogizing being enslaved to making the career choice of being a "garbage man" is insulting in the extreme. I respected what John had to say because it pointed to me that his curriculum (or what was his curriculum) is interested in helping students understand those hard issues, in helping them get how such atrocities can be seen as the norm. No, I suspect it is because he has a target audience that includes a lot of neo-Confederates, and excusing the horrors of slavery is popular in that quarter. I want my children to learn that because how will they be able to see atrocities that happen in front of their eyes that the world accepts? What am I missing here? Please be gentle with me - I've respected other comments of yours so want to understand where you are coming from. Children should learn to stand against injustice, hatred, and bigotry in the moment, even when it is unpopular and runs against the dominant cultural norms, that is true character. Going along, and then excusing it later as "part of the times" is not a morally defendable position in my mind. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahW Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 That's like going out of our way to say not all Jews were killed in concentration camps. The point is it was wrong to begin with. That's not something new we're looking back and deciding. Yes. I would be quite uncomfortable with an elementary curriculum which segued away from concentration camps to talk about all the Jewish jewelers who were employed by the Nazi's to appraise all of the gold and jewels the Nazi's had "collected." That's what I'm saying though. Not that I want my kids to learn that not all slavery was bad, it was beyond terrible. I want them to learn and seek to understand that there were people who didn't think it was bad and why. That's where I am and what I got from John's response. If you want to study people who didn't think it was bad then read John C. Calhoun, whom I quoted earlier. I very much doubt young kids can wrap their heads around such a complicated subject with so many subtle viewpoints. So I'm not really sure what you're looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 That's what I'm saying though. Not that I want my kids to learn that not all slavery was bad, it was beyond terrible. I want them to learn and seek to understand that there were people who didn't think it was bad and why. That's where I am and what I got from John's response. I have lived my entire life in the state that started the Civil War. I completed my undergraduate and graduate history degrees here. I've had a LOT of instruction in slavery, the antebellum South, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. NOT ONCE did any of my instructors ever feel the need to say that slavery might not have been all that bad in order to help us understand the mindset that allowed slavery to exist. I had ancestors on both sides of the war. My ancestors owned slaves. I don't feel any need to justify the existence of such a disgraceful and inhumane institution. Obviously, by the sheer fact that it existed and so many fought to uphold it, some people didn't think it was bad. In my academic career, why those people didn't think it was bad was often examined, at the same time that the intolerable conditions of slaves were examined (even if the worst was simply the fact that they were humans with owners), and the fact that there were always people who objected to it. But again, no one ever, EVER, would have suggested that "many black slaves were well pleased with their station in life," as Mr. Holzmann did in this thread (I'm unclear on whether or not that was just him speaking here, or if that statement is in the Sonlight Core 100 IG). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TraceyS/FL Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 But I find it troubling to try to explain to our kids that not all slavery was bad. That's like going out of our way to say not all Jews were killed in concentration camps. The point is it was wrong to begin with. That's not something new we're looking back and deciding. It was something many people believed even during the 19th century. And I would never try to convince my children that a person owning another person was EVER right, because it isn't. I am able to see how the cultural aspects justified it in some peoples minds, mainly because I still see that attitude alive and well here in my rural county in Florida. I have weekly contact with a 10yo girl that has some attitudes and feelings about people that are different than her that could only come from her parents (mainly her mom). I will not allow my children to absorb that behavior or way of thinking. I question her on it - I'm not going to blindly let my children hear it. 99% of the time she can't tell me why she feels that way - because she isn't going to bad talk her mom to me. There are things that happen here that make me feel like I am in a time warp... I'm a 4th generation Californian though - and apparently that makes me crazy in the eyes of some here. I just don't "get it" how things are done.... (according to "them). Anyway, I feel like i'm perfectly capable of deciding when something is a horrible act against people, and reading it isn't in a text would just make me think the person was nuts. Which, apparently I am. Oh well, it has been an interesting read and really I hadn't planned on saying anything at all. I suck at articulating what spins around in my brain anyway - and so trying to do so just makes me look more ignorant in the eyes of some here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 On page 132 [sorry, as of 4/19/2013, I don't know what volume of Hakim's 10-volume series I was commenting on--JAH], she says, “No one wants to be a slave.†That is simply not true! That would be like saying, in today’s society, “No one wants to be a factory worker,†“No one wants to be a garbage man,†or, “No one wants to be a coal miner.†Please remember: I am making an analogy here. We have to keep things in perspective, look at them in context. And, in perspective, in context, we have to ask: what other options might a person have? See, the funny thing is that at the end of the week garbage men, factory workers and coal miners get paid. I come from a family where people are factory workers and garbage men and laborers. They can move, choose a different profession and generally go about living their lives as they choose. (ETA: Perhaps most different from being a slave, as the daughter of a family with laborers (my mom was a waitress, a factory worker, a cleaning lady, a babysitter and clerk at various times), I still had the social mobility to go to school, work through college, marry a man from a different background and raise kids who haven't the foggiest idea what the heck I am talking about when I mention scouring the couch for enough change to eat until the end of the week. I was not barred from school or learning, sent to work barely out of toddlerhood or, it goes without saying, ever in risk of forcibly being sold away from my parents. I have aunts and uncles and cousins who also got educations and work in an amazing array of professions, including a fairly famous medical doctor. Working class people are not slaves. Slaves were not just working class people. I find your analogy to be classist in the extreme.) Were some slave owners nicer and more compassionate than the law required? Yes. Did some slave narratives describe a fondness or a kindness towards certain slave owners? Yes. Does that make slavery ok or benign or anything less than a travesty? No. Just plain no. Whitewashing slavery is disgusting and that is precisely what you are doing. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. In the same narratives that you have selectively pulled passages from, there are plenty more passages describing immoral and atrocious crimes against men, women and children who were forced to live in slavery. To say nothing of the immorality of finding it acceptable to own human beings to inflate one's own standard of living. Forgive me if I find the likes of Fredrick Douglass to be more of an authority on the realities of slavery (and in his case, with what some would call a benign or benevolent "master") than I do you. “I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of 'stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.' I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. . . . The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.†“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters." "This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others.†― Frederick Douglass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Who is justifying it as being good? No one that I see. We are saying not to broadbrush. Not every owner was evil. Not every slave was locked up in chains or raped. There were literate slaves (Carolina Clay is about a literate slave potter). btw, I descend from slave owners and slaves...I have both in my ancestry. Not every owner was kind. Again, the institution of slavery was wrong, yes. The people, slaves, owners, and those in the culture but neither were complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Who is justifying it as being good? No one that I see. We are saying not to broadbrush. Not every owner was evil. Not every slave was locked up in chains or raped. There were literate slaves (Carolina Clay is about a literate slave potter). btw, I descend from slave owners and slaves...I have both in my ancestry. Not every owner was kind. Again, the institution of slavery was wrong, yes. The people, slaves, owners, and those in the culture but neither were complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorothythomas Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Thank you all for helping me understand. I am going to reread what John wrote again more carefully. Let me see if I understand. Clearly we don't want to ever give the impression as parents or educators or just plain people that slavery was anything but a terrible injustice. And I am not talking here about young children, I am talking high schoolers who are learning to sift through historical perspectives. But quoting a source that says that some slaves were pleased with their stations in life seems like a way to understand where they were coming from. I completely agree with Bill that children should learn to take a stand against hatred and bigotry however it may be justified at the time, but that's part of why I think it is so important for kids to learn HOW it came to be justified at the time. If they don't know that then I think they will have a harder time seeing the places where our world accepts horrors. I'm not interested in making excuses for the people of the time, I'm interested I figuring out how they justified it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Children should learn to stand against injustice, hatred, and bigotry in the moment, even when it is unpopular and runs against the dominant cultural norms, that is true character. Going along, and then excusing it later as "part of the times" is not a morally defendable position in my mind. Especially when you consider that slavery always had its opposition and that as Washington and Jefferson were inheriting and buying slaves, some of whom they later freed, a few other Virginia heirs were saying "Uh, thanks but no thanks" and freeing their slaves prior to their own death and divesting themselves of their inheritance at the same time. One example is Robert Carter. Yes the ones doing the right thing were in the minority and did not make a loud noise in the annals of history but they were there and eschewing the whole shebang at the same time we ask people to excuse our founding fathers as being "part of the time". Yes, I teach my children that sometimes people who did good things also did bad things but I also teach them to be the one who stands against the grain when it comes to popular but immoral practices. Be Robert Carter. Be Robert Graetz. Don't go along to get along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I think "well pleased" is a gross over exaggeration and this is where Mr. Holzman is shooting himself in the foot. Did some slaves learn to be content (very different than happy or well pleased) where they were at, depending upon their treatment, compared to maybe worse treatment they saw for others, and realizing they had no choice in their position...yes, many sucked it up, made the best of it, and tried to find a place of personal contentment in it. Others would never be able to come to this position either due to personal disposition (some of us are rebellious to any and every injustice, rightfully so) or because circumstances were so bad that just surviving was a hardship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I'm glad the SN are varied. The fault is when we read only certain ones that lean all one direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 kijipt, thank you for those links. The first one will be added to my booklist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Thank you all for helping me understand. I am going to reread what John wrote again more carefully. Let me see if I understand. Clearly we don't want to ever give the impression as parents or educators or just plain people that slavery was anything but a terrible injustice. And I am not talking here about young children, I am talking high schoolers who are learning to sift through historical perspectives. But quoting a source that says that some slaves were pleased with their stations in life seems like a way to understand where they were coming from. You must realize that the WPA sponsored Slave Narrative Project, however well-intentioned, was subject to grave problems of examiner-caused bias, and from being conducted at great remove from the end of slavery. The 70 odd year gap meant (necessarily) that the interviewees were very elderly and young children when slavery ended. There have been many historians who have looked at the slave narratives and consider them "the classic case" of "who is asking the questions" influencing what kind of answers were forthcoming. Elderly African-Americans, who were enslaved in their youth, and were then living under Jim Crow laws in a racially hostile South, were understandably reluctant to share the whole truth of the horrors of slavery with white interviewers. Such reluctance is not difficult to understand. When ther interviewers were black, a very different story often emerged. Again, a phenomenon that is not difficult to understand under the circumstances. Can we imagine the conditions of enslavement were less bad under some slaveholders than others, and that the enslaved were grateful that they diddn't have it worse than they did? Sure. But would anyone really choose this life, as John Holtzman suggests they would? I completely agree with Bill that children should learn to take a stand against hatred and bigotry however it may be justified at the time, but that's part of why I think it is so important for kids to learn HOW it came to be justified at the time. There are alt least two possible ways HOW it came to happen can be treated. One is treating these things as the moral evil they are, and teaching children to stand against hatred, bigotry, and injustice no matter what the majority around them is doing. The other is suggesting people are frail, and that past (or present injustice) can always be excused down the line, it the manner "that we now understand these things were wrong." I'm sure you can guess which of the above two approaches I think is the moral one, and which aids and abets evil in this world. If they don't know that then I think they will have a harder time seeing the places where our world accepts horrors. I'm not interested in making excuses for the people of the time, I'm interested I figuring out how they justified it. Justifications seem to be easy. People, including John Holzman, are still justifying it. I'm more interested in how they failed to see the clear wrongness of their actions and institutions. The rest, it seems to me, is excuse-making. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Who is justifying it as being good? No one that I see. We are saying not to broadbrush. Not every owner was evil. Not every slave was locked up in chains or raped. Every slave was denied his or her freedom. That is the issue, not whether the person was beaten or raped. Enslaving is the offense. Someone who kept people enslaved, but put them up in a nice house, with nice food, and nice clothes, is still committing a wrong against the enslaved person. In my opinion. Anyone who was given emancipation papers and chose to stay on as a paid employee, was no longer a slave. How many of those were there? Not nearly as many as those who were kept in bondage. For the benefit and convenience of their "owners." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I agree, but let's tell the facts as they are, not just the parts that make the most impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Well-thinking people understood that torture, enslavement, rape, denial of education, the selling off of children, involuntary servitude and the like were revolting and unacceptable under any form of morality. Analogizing being enslaved to making the career choice of being a "garbage man" is insulting in the extreme. No, I suspect it is because he has a target audience that includes a lot of neo-Confederates, and excusing the horrors of slavery is popular in that quarter. Children should learn to stand against injustice, hatred, and bigotry in the moment, even when it is unpopular and runs against the dominant cultural norms, that is true character. Going along, and then excusing it later as "part of the times" is not a morally defendable position in my mind. Bill Ya know Bill some days I want to beat you senseless but days like today I lurve ya and your comments on this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Just one more reason that I stopped supporting Sonlight, When the owners have to come over here and sound like lunatics it's time to find a new curriculum (actually I did that previously due to other reasons, but this takes the cake and ensures that catalog will never suck me in again) I read those "notes" several years ago when a friend loaned me her Sonlight to look over. That immediately convinced me to NEVER use anything they publish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Fascinating discussion. And thank you to those who provided alternative sources and critical perspectives on the Slave Narratives. I am particularly grateful to you, Kathryn, for taking the time to provide the detailed sources for good historical method. ... On page 132 [sorry, as of 4/19/2013, I don't know what volume of Hakim's 10-volume series I was commenting on--JAH], she says, “No one wants to be a slave.†That is simply not true! That would be like saying, in today’s society, “No one wants to be a factory worker,†“No one wants to be a garbage man,†or, “No one wants to be a coal miner.†Please remember: I am making an analogy here. We have to keep things in perspective, look at them in context. And, in perspective, in context, we have to ask: what other options might a person have? ... John Holzmann I know someone who wanted to be a garbage collector. He had looked into it carefully and decided to do this (though he did go on to other things) because 1) it paid extremely well, 2) he would have very few hours in which he had to work, very early in the morning--after that he could do other things (the garbage work was to be his "day job" until he could get going with a different career) toward his education, or other work, or just spend the day playing at the beach. I also know that there were English colonists who ran away, so to speak, to join the Native Americans. Could you please tell us, as an equivalent to the person I know who did indeed choose to be a garbage collector, who were the free Africans who chose to go to the United States to become slaves--provided they could be transported on a nice boat with a bit of leg room and turned over to an owner without being on the auction block? Could you please tell us who were the free Northern black Americans who ran away from their free lives to Southern Plantations and asked to be taken on as slaves? And then, I'd like to hear from the historians here as to the credibility of these reports of free Africans who decided willingly to go off to be slaves in America, or free northern Americans, since I have never heard of any such, and while I am not an historian, I would have thought myself well read enough to have learned of this if it existed. I'd also like a sense of the percents. That is, you know, of the total slave population in the USA, ___ % were originally free Africans or free Northern blacks who went to the South and asked for a job as a slave. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorothythomas Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 She said something to the effect of, "I could never understand how ANYONE could sympathize with the Southern cause until I read your notes and heard 'the other side.'" And why did that matter? And why was she thankful to have been provided "the other side" on this and so many other issues for which Ms. Hakim provides only one perspective? I thought she hit the nail on the head: As long as we are taught a straw man version of what "the other side" looks like, we are able to deride it and hold ourselves up as great moral heroes: "I would have never supported slavery! I would have done the right thing!" But once you see how "the other side" thinks, things become a bit more complicated. And you have to think a little more and dig a little deeper and ask yourself, in some serious humility: "Oh, really? Would I really avoid going in that direction if I had been brought up on that side of the fence? . . . If so, what would have clued me in to the fault of that viewpoint? And how would I have stood up against the social pressure of all of 'my people'?" I expect history would say most of our prideful confidence is misplaced. The realities of life are quite a bit less clear than traditional histories pretend they are. And many, many of us would--and probably will--find ourselves on the "wrong" side of history in some conflict or another. One of the reasons I wrote the notes I did was to provide reason for (at least most of us) to carry ourselves a bit more humbly. To realize maybe we're not such clear thinkers and know-it-alls as we would like to believe. So I reread it all again and again and I still find nothing overly objectionable in this response because it largely comes down to the part I quoted above. Wrong is wrong, heinous is heinous BUT how would I have fared had I been brought up in a family with slaves? Would I have recognized what was so integral and everyday in my life as the horror it was against someone's humanity? What if I had been brought up in Germany to believe that I was superior and Jews were the reason my nation was suffering? We know what we are taught and eventually many of us have the capability to see outside what we are taught to right and wrong. But I am not so swift to say that I surely would have seen right in every moral outrage that has ever happened if I were on the wrong side of it. Understanding is not making excuses or justifying. It is learning to guard against such narrowness of vision in our own lives. If I understand that there truly were slaves who were content with their lot in life then you know what? That teaches me that people can be so beaten down so far that they can't envision an alternative. It teaches me that the whole society was so broken that that might have been someone's best option. It makes me ask what do I accept today because I was born into it? What injustices am I missing? And I don't think we can answer those questions as effectively if everything is so starkly on one side of the line or the other and we have no understanding of those who came before. We can abhor their actions and still strive to understand what motivated them. Honestly I felt that after the 9/11 attacks. I felt tremendous grief at the actions that were taken and there was never any question that they were horrifying. But understanding the motives and the pain that would cause someone to do those things was necessary, but some called it unpatriotic to have any sympathy for the causes of our attackers. And I did sympathize. Life is not so black and white. Some things are just plain wrong, that doesn't mean we don't have lessons to learn from those who perpetrated the wrong. Having humility enough to wonder what I would do helps make me strong enough to stand up to injustices of all kinds. For better or worse those are my thoughts after chewing on this awhile. Flame away if you must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellydon Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 So I reread it all again and again and I still find nothing overly objectionable in this response because it largely comes down to the part I quoted above. Wrong is wrong, heinous is heinous BUT how would I have fared had I been brought up in a family with slaves? Would I have recognized what was so integral and everyday in my life as the horror it was against someone's humanity? What if I had been brought up in Germany to believe that I was superior and Jews were the reason my nation was suffering? We know what we are taught and eventually many of us have the capability to see outside what we are taught to right and wrong. But I am not so swift to say that I surely would have seen right in every moral outrage that has ever happened if I were on the wrong side of it. Understanding is not making excuses or justifying. It is learning to guard against such narrowness of vision in our own lives. If I understand that there truly were slaves who were content with their lot in life then you know what? That teaches me that people can be so beaten down so far that they can't envision an alternative. It teaches me that the whole society was so broken that that might have been someone's best option. It makes me ask what do I accept today because I was born into it? What injustices am I missing? And I don't think we can answer those questions as effectively if everything is so starkly on one side of the line or the other and we have no understanding of those who came before. We can abhor their actions and still strive to understand what motivated them. Honestly I felt that after the 9/11 attacks. I felt tremendous grief at the actions that were taken and there was never any question that they were horrifying. But understanding the motives and the pain that would cause someone to do those things was necessary, but some called it unpatriotic to have any sympathy for the causes of our attackers. And I did sympathize. Life is not so black and white. Some things are just plain wrong, that doesn't mean we don't have lessons to learn from those who perpetrated the wrong. Having humility enough to wonder what I would do helps make me strong enough to stand up to injustices of all kinds. For better or worse those are my thoughts after chewing on this awhile. Flame away if you must. I agree with you. Completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 So I reread it all again and again and I still find nothing overly objectionable in this response because it largely comes down to the part I quoted above. Wrong is wrong, heinous is heinous BUT how would I have fared had I been brought up in a family with slaves? Would I have recognized what was so integral and everyday in my life as the horror it was against someone's humanity? What if I had been brought up in Germany to believe that I was superior and Jews were the reason my nation was suffering? We know what we are taught and eventually many of us have the capability to see outside what we are taught to right and wrong. But I am not so swift to say that I surely would have seen right in every moral outrage that has ever happened if I were on the wrong side of it. I don't think anyone has suggested anything to the contrary. Instead, the focus is on finding modern era rationalizations for not interpreting the systematic, and state-sanctioned enslavement of people as immoral and unethical based on those variables that contribute to one's understanding of morality. Holzman explains, It is unfair and unrighteous for us to generalize from the abusive slave masters and the abused slaves to all slave masters and all slaves. [FOOTNOTE: Just as it is unfair and unrighteous for modern social workers to generalize from abusive husbands and boyfriends to all men; from abusive parents to all parents; or from abusive employers to all employers.] Neither the testimony of former slaves nor statistical measures will support such generalizations. [FOOTNOTE: Please note: despite the common attempt to argue the merits of slavery on the basis of human happiness or pain, I am not at this point seeking to argue about the legitimacy of slavery. I am seeking merely to point out that true history is more complex than Ms. Hakim’s comments would lead us to believe.] He is seeking to point out a possible, logical explanation of events based on one subset of personal experiences, seemingly ignoring the fundamental ethical issues associated with enslaving people against their will, doing so systematically, formalizing legislation to support it by the State, and punishment inflicted on those who disagreed. It would be like implying priestly sexual abuses can't really be all that bad when many kids never do come forward to complain. It is a matter of historic record that “returns from the 1850 census show that of white Northerners and Southerners, one person in every thousand was either deaf, dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic. For the free blacks of Yankeedom, one in every 506 was afflicted with one of these conditions. [FOOTNOTE: In other words, free blacks in the North were almost twice as likely to suffer from one of these conditions than was a white person.—JAH] . . . [Among Southern blacks, however,] only one in 1,464 had a condition as previously described.†[FOOTNOTE: In other words, black slaves were less likely than whites, and far less likely than their Northern brothers, to suffer similar debilities. [i then provided the proper source reference for my statistics.]] The absurdity of this statistic is mind-boggling to me. The implication offered is that black Americans enslaved against their wills were healthier than their free counterparts. This supposed causation (enslaved quarters = better health care) patently absurd and professionally irresponsible, and should never be offered as instruction for students to learn American history, or critical thinking skills. Not only that, but a deaf, blind, physically or mentally disabled slave infant was an economic liability to a slave owner. Why spend the resources like food and shelter on a body that cannot contribute efficient work? I don't think it's a stretch to assume these children were "taken care of" before any census taker ever came by. Understanding is not making excuses or justifying. This is exactly what this white washing does. By introducing the idea (with bona-fide personal letters and real statistics!) that blacks were better off enslaved, the justification has been made. The argument is supported, the excuse has been implanted into the student's mind. If Holzman has notes to the contrary, it's a wonder he didn't provide them as well, considering this thread questions that very intent. That teaches me that people can be so beaten down so far that they can't envision an alternative. It teaches me that the whole society was so broken that that might have been someone's best option. While I disagree with the premise that a society can be "broken" (what is the "fixed" state of society?), I agree with you that the letters do show a human tendency to not only find a positive outlook in an otherwise traumatic environment, but to find sympathy for the abuser. Generally, we call this Stockholm Syndrome, not "well pleased with their station in life." Would we promote that argument against sexual abuse of children today? It makes me ask what do I accept today because I was born into it? What injustices am I missing? And I don't think we can answer those questions as effectively if everything is so starkly on one side of the line or the other and we have no understanding of those who came before. We can abhor their actions and still strive to understand what motivated them. Honestly I felt that after the 9/11 attacks. I felt tremendous grief at the actions that were taken and there was never any question that they were horrifying. But understanding the motives and the pain that would cause someone to do those things was necessary, but some called it unpatriotic to have any sympathy for the causes of our attackers. And I did sympathize. Life is not so black and white. Some things are just plain wrong, that doesn't mean we don't have lessons to learn from those who perpetrated the wrong. Having humility enough to wonder what I would do helps make me strong enough to stand up to injustices of all kinds. For better or worse those are my thoughts after chewing on this awhile. Flame away if you must. A timely point in light of today's success in capturing the suspect behind the Boston Marathon bombing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 We can abhor their actions and still strive to understand what motivated them. Honestly I felt that after the 9/11 attacks. I felt tremendous grief at the actions that were taken and there was never any question that they were horrifying. But understanding the motives and the pain that would cause someone to do those things was necessary, but some called it unpatriotic to have any sympathy for the causes of our attackers. And I did sympathize. Life is not so black and white. Some things are just plain wrong, that doesn't mean we don't have lessons to learn from those who perpetrated the wrong. Having humility enough to wonder what I would do helps make me strong enough to stand up to injustices of all kinds. For better or worse those are my thoughts after chewing on this awhile. Flame away if you must. I actually agree with this. Still, I don't think that analyzing motives, cultural forces and context means that it is ok to whitewash or make excuses or postulate that slavery was a social good. That is what slavery apologists searching selectively for quotes that make slavery sound like a preference or a nice way of life try to do and it falls flat with me every time. In my opinion, I saw a lot of that in what I read from Holzman's post. Even just using a word like "yankeedom" makes me go "umm?" People can do good things while also doing bad things. Remarkable, amazing people like Thomas Jefferson can still be capable of great moral failings. Doing bad things does not mean that someone is or was evil. While not everyone can or will stand against the grain, some do. Clearly many did. We fought a huge war over this issue. While I may or may not have been among those I consider to be heros (it would be hubris for me to claim that I would know what I would do in that situation as I have never lived it), I can still admire them for being ahead of their time. And I can still wish that other, more famous and influential people were more fairly minded and had made better decisions with regards to slavery when founding this country. Like most Americans whose family has moved around a lot in the 20th century, I have both confederate and union veterans in my family tree. My objection is not a knee jerk "slavery is bad and there is no explanation for why it happened". But under these circumstances I do not think explanation and context = excuse. Slavery as a whole was not just being working class by a different name. It is and was unequivocally a tragedy and morally unacceptable. ETA: I see it like this: Holtzman's rebuttal of Joy Hakim's statement "No one wanted to be a slave" sounds awfully similar to refuting the statement "No wife wants to be beaten up" by finding quotes from a few women who do want to be beaten or who accept that their spouses beat them. And then...not considering the context that might make a woman think being beaten is ok, be it Stockholm's or a twisted religion/culture or whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pod's mum Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 ETA: I see it like this: Holtzman's rebuttal of Joy Hakim's statement "No one wanted to be a slave" sounds awfully similar to refuting the statement "No wife wants to be beaten up" by finding quotes from a few women who do want to be beaten or who accept that their spouses beat them. And then...not considering the context that might make a woman think being beaten is ok, be it Stockholm's or a twisted religion/culture or whatnot. This is the problem I have with Plato. That man (Plato) annoys me. He takes an argument to the extreme and says, if you say this, then that could not be so, ...therefore you must think this... Anyway, not well argued. Not enough coffee. But choosing an extreme example to bring down a sound belief, doesn't hold. According to pure logic it might, but not to common sense. I don't think Plato would be bothered by my 'dissing' him. (Especially as I'm only a woman anyway.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 I found a link to the Hakim pages John refers to in his post (below) - it is from Making Thirteen Colonies, page 132. The link is here. It's worth reading Hakim's statement ("No one wants to be a slave.") in context. By the way - For those interested in Hakim's books, there are some quite good teacher's guides, from the publisher, to go with them, with background info, discussion questions, ideas for assignments and projects, vocab words, general themes, etc. I found them to be quite helpful. HUS is also available as a series of audio books, and the reader is *excellent*. We listened to them in the car during family trips. ...This is how I introduced the note in which my first quotes from the Slave Narratives appears: I am not writing these notes in order either to justify the institution of slavery as it was practiced, nor to suggest that either you or I would have liked being a slave. However , Ms. Hakim keeps making comments that need to be corrected or clarified. On page 132 [sorry, as of 4/19/2013, I don't know what volume of Hakim's 10-volume series I was commenting on--JAH], she says, “No one wants to be a slave.†That is simply not true! That would be like saying, in today’s society, “No one wants to be a factory worker,†“No one wants to be a garbage man,†or, “No one wants to be a coal miner.†Please remember: I am making an analogy here. We have to keep things in perspective, look at them in context. And, in perspective, in context, we have to ask: what other options might a person have? Ms. Hakim says that “visitors from Europe will say [that slaves] live better than most peasants in the Old World.†—If that is true (and there is no reason to question its truth), then on what grounds can we say that slave life was so bad? [4/19/2013: I provide elsewhere in the Instructor's Guide lots of reasons to believe that the institution of slavery--and the racist laws of the United States--both South AND North--were DEEPLY egregious! After all, I am, here, merely attempting to respond to comments about a snippet of one note in a multi-hundred-page book of notes. --JAH] For people today who do not either have the ability or desire to finish high school, on what grounds can we say that working in a factory, or driving a garbage truck, or being a coal miner is so bad? Clearly, no one I can think of would want to be kidnapped from his or her village (as the about-to-be-slaves were kidnapped from their villages in Africa); no one would want to go through the “Middle Passage†(the packed-like-sardines voyage across the Atlantic Ocean that all about-to-be slaves were forced to endure). And I can’t imagine anyone wanting to go through the fearsome process of being auctioned as a slave. There can be no doubt: many slaves were unhappy in their lot, and for just cause: they were beaten mercilessly and forced to endure terrible privations by inhumane masters. And even without “just cause,†some (many?) black slaves desired to live in an open, competitive environment rather than slavery. However , many others— many others—had very different experiences (they were never beaten and never feared being beaten). And many held different values or simply saw things from a different perspective. Many black slaves were well pleased with their station in life. It is unfair and unrighteous for us to generalize from the abusive slave masters and the abused slaves to all slave masters and all slaves. [FOOTNOTE: Just as it is unfair and unrighteous for modern social workers to generalize from abusive husbands and boyfriends to all men; from abusive parents to all parents; or from abusive employers to all employers.] Neither the testimony of former slaves nor statistical measures will support such generalizations. [FOOTNOTE: Please note: despite the common attempt to argue the merits of slavery on the basis of human happiness or pain, I am not at this point seeking to argue about the legitimacy of slavery. I am seeking merely to point out that true history is more complex than Ms. Hakim’s comments would lead us to believe.] It is a matter of historic record that “returns from the 1850 census show that of white Northerners and Southerners, one person in every thousand was either deaf, dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic. For the free blacks of Yankeedom, one in every 506 was afflicted with one of these conditions. [FOOTNOTE: In other words, free blacks in the North were almost twice as likely to suffer from one of these conditions than was a white person.—JAH] . . . [Among Southern blacks, however,] only one in 1,464 had a condition as previously described.†[FOOTNOTE: In other words, black slaves were less likely than whites, and far less likely than their Northern brothers, to suffer similar debilities. [i then provided the proper source reference for my statistics.] ] It is also a matter of historic record—hard as it may be for most of us to imagine—that many slaves loved their masters and, following emancipation, looked back with wistfulness at their period of enslavement. Thus we find such statements as these. . . . --And from there I included some--what to me were startling and, until I thought about them, frankly unimaginable--statements about life under slavery taken from the Slave Narratives... <snip> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorothythomas Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 I suppose I find there to be an important but fine distinction between suggesting that from a 21st century perspective slaves were better off enslaved (which is clearly beyond wrong in several ways) and suggesting with letters and other sources that some slaves of the time believed that they were better off enslaved or that masters, seeing the alternatives for their slaves, felt that they were providing the best alternative. There are two perspectives here that matter, as I see it - our perspective now that recognizes the intrinsic, abhorrent immorality of owning another human and the perspectives of the time which were many and varied and likely did include slaves who were content (for reasons we know were a result of an awful institution) with their lot in life. Discussing that, and why that was, and what we would have done is some of the richness of history to me. Also I had to laugh at albeto's comment about a broken vs. fixed society. Of course, there has not yet been a "fixed" society. But the brokenness of that society as seen in slavery and overt, accepted racism is what I was referring to. Anyway. All this has been quite interesting and is exercising my brain, which needed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightflash Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Yesterday morning, when only albeto and Tara had replied to my earlier post/response, I read their replies and found myself both disappointed and deeply troubled. Is it even possible for me to break through the mini-cultural cloud of prejudiced and prejudicial views expressed about me here on a forum of supposedly well-trained minds? But since my sanity is being questioned, I figure I should at least attempt to mount a small defense. Let me first note the phrase to which I objected in Joy Hakim's book. She said, “No one wants to be a slave.†And I replied, "That is simply not true!" In everything that follows, I would like to urge you to keep that basic quibble in mind. I will attempt to remind you of the concern I had--and have--about Ms. Hakim's statement at various points in what I say below. But I do believe it ought to color my entire post, here. I think albeto's post provides about as good a launch pad as any for me to attempt to defend myself against charges of lunacy, etc. Albeto writes, So... enslaved people report being grateful for what they had (such as, a lack of immediate threat to life and limb), and from this you conclude they were "well pleased with their station in life"? My response: No. However ex-slaves' testimonies--flawed and questionable as they may be--ought to be considered. Beyond that, while it may be true that every one of these reports was a result of feeling grateful because the speakers lacked an immediate threat to life and limb, I believe (I may be wrong, but I believe!) that some of their testimonies arose out of true, heart-felt, sincere appreciation for their masters, and in the midst of being fully aware of the implications--and horrific realities for others of the implications--of what you call, in your next paragraph, "the asymmetric control of power." In addition, I believe that we, today, who live in a different place and time and in far different circumstances: We may properly benefit from viewing ex-slaves' lives from their perspective. We do neither ourselves nor our children any great service to pretend any every happy/satisfied slave's perspective is wholly invalid and unworthy of consideration. Indeed, in responding to proponents of social and legal institutions like slavery, we need to be prepared to respond to issues that arise from these kinds of testimonies. Finally, while we are on the subject, I should probably note that there are plenty of people--indeed, hundreds of millions of people--around the world today who live in similar circumstances to those of slaves in the United States and Confederate States of America back in the mid-19th century. And recognizing that fact, I believe it does neither us nor our children any good to completely dismiss (i.e., refuse to consider) statements such as those from the Slave Narratives if and when we will dismiss similar statements made by contemporary domestic servants in such places as Latin America and India [where I have heard such statements] or, possibly, even, such places as Saudi Arabia [from whose domestic servants I have heard only very different statements]. --Somehow, I believe, we need to learn how to distinguish "Stockholm Syndrome" statements from statements arising from other motives. And we need to sort out and think through proper/appropriate responses to abuse, whether it is legitimated by the legal or social system or not. The fact that this is offered as valid education is offensive to me as a citizen of the United States, and appalling as a member of the human race. I read from your post the same Stockholm Syndrome you fail to recognize in enslaved peoples. Being conditioned to be grateful for not suffering more at the hands of one with an asymmetric control of power ought never be confused with being "well pleased." My response: albeto (and others): First, I recognize my own need to be cautious about assuming I understand what the "this" is to which you are referring when you speak of being offended. I believe it is quite valuable for all of us to recognize Stockholm Syndrome. Thank you and the others, here, who mentioned the syndrome. (I was unfamiliar with the term until I read it here in this thread--though the concept is no more difficult for me to grasp than it is for you.) Moreover, when you wrote, "Being conditioned to be grateful for not suffering more at the hands of one with an asymmetric control of power ought never be confused with being 'well pleased'": I couldn't agree more. HOWEVER, therefore, While I believe there is much to be gained from recognizing Stockholm Syndrome for what it is; While I can readily imagine many—indeed, perhaps most—slaves suffered from what sociologists now call Stockholm Syndrome; I would argue that it is valid education when we, as parents and educators, help our children look at the historical record, as best we can, “from the inside.†And, I am unwilling, without strong evidence, to assume that every statement in favor--either of slavery as it was practiced in the United States/Confederate States (which, as I noted, and would want to note again, here, I am not interested in defending!) or of slaveholders or of persons who fought on the side of the Confederacy or of persons who, even today, would seek to "defend the Confederate cause" [whatever they may mean by that phrase]-- . . . I am unwilling, without strong evidence, to assume that every such statement is--and dismiss every such statement as--a result of Stockholm Syndrome or benighted lunacy. Why am I unwilling to make such assumptions? Why do I believe such discussions are part of valid education? Why do I believe it is important to help our kids read the record? Because if we fail to read the record, if we fail to discuss these matters with our kids, we—and, more importantly, they—will find ourselves/themselves just as blind to similar circumstances in our own society. (Let me remind you, here, of my statement up top: This discussion arises from my objection to Ms. Hakim's assertion that “No one wants to be a slave.†--I object to that assertion.) The fact is--as I attempted to communicate in my previous post--it is easy from our position in history today to view slavery as a gross injustice. It is easy for us today to dismiss any and all statements showing any support of any type for any of the items I listed above (slavery as it was practiced in the United States/Confederate States, slaveholders; persons who fought on the side of the Confederacy; persons who, today, would seek to "defend the Confederate cause" in any manner whatsoever) . . . --It is easy for us today to dismiss all such statements as "offensive" or "not worthy of examination," etc. HOWEVER, again, because I agree with you, albeto, that "Being conditioned to be grateful for not suffering more at the hands of one with an asymmetric control of power ought never be confused with being 'well pleased,'" therefore I believe that if we dismiss any and all statements showing any support of any type for any of the items I listed above, and especially if we dismiss such statements too quickly or too out-of-hand, we will fail to help ourselves (or our kids) understand How or why anyone ever did support those now, to us, patently offensive positions. How or why slavery was accepted in America and elsewhere in the Western world for so many decades (or centuries)? Why was it only the wild and wacky, radical social misfits known as Quakers (a dismissive term at the time) and the equally derided evangelical "Clapham sect" who initiated, and, for so many decades, had to lead the fight against slavery? Why were these two largely marginal groups so hard-pressed to extinguish the practice? Why were these groups' campaigns against slavery so costly (costly not only in terms of money, but in terms of life and limb and social status)? Why did it take nearly 50 years for Wilberforce to finally push through Parliament his bill for the abolition not only of the slave trade but of the institution of slavery itself? And why--most importantly-- . . . Why, among so many other equally valid and perplexing questions . . . --Why were North American--Yankee, Massachusetts- and New York City-registered--vessels at the forefront of the North American slave trade all the way up to, and even through, the American Civil War? How or why people today--even, possibly, some of the participants here on the WTM forum--might refuse to express the same kind of revulsion you expressed against slavery . . . --how or why some people today might not express the same vehement revulsion against (just by way of example) every aspect of the modern s*x trade (not only pr*stitution [both local and international], but the production and dissemination of p*rnography). When "s*x workers" express their satisfaction and even pleasure in what they do, are we to take at least some of them seriously? Or should we always assume--and dismiss all of their statements as arising from--Stockholm Syndrome at work? . . . I don't think so! If we refuse to discuss with our kids the kinds of statements I have placed in my notes, I am concerned that we will fail to discuss with our kids or help ourselves (or our kids) to understand How or why modern forms of state-enforced and state-sponsored servitude are right or wrong. (When I speak of state-enforced and state-sponsored servitude, I am referring to such things as America's [my opinion: over-populated] prison system, military conscription, what various members of Congress [and, I understand, various presidents] have proposed as mandatory public service, and (personally, as a libertarian) the entire range of federal "subsidies"--whether personal (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc.) or corporate (FDA, USDA, FDIC, FHA, [not to mention the quasi-governmental/quasi-"private" Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc., etc.].) [Once more: "No one wants to be a slave"? --I vehemently object to the assertion!] How or why the institution of heteros*xual marriage--let alone heteros*xual relations of any type--is/are (or is/are not) valid. [i imagine you--as I--have heard arguments for the position that heteros*xual relations are, virtually by definition, asymmetric in terms of power and control of power. Are they? And if they are, are they, therefore, virtually by definition, illegitimate? Is any person's attempt to defend marriage between a man and a woman, virtually by definition, either a perpetrator of violence against women or a casualty of Stockholm Syndrome?] How or why any relationship of unequal power may--or may not--be valid. (I am referring here--as I noted in my previous post--to such relationships as obtain between parents and children or employers and employees.) I am unwilling to dismiss all of the ex-slaves' positive statements about life under slavery as the result of Stockholm Syndrome every bit as much as I am unwilling to dismiss every married woman's positive statement about marriage, or every child's positive statement about his or her parents, or every employees' positive statement about his or her employer, or every participant in what I would call state-sponsored servitude as a result of Stockholm Syndrome. . . . ********* I have read the remainder of thread participants' posts. I think I have presented, here, the primary concerns on my mind and heart. Thank you to any and all who have listened. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorothythomas Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Why am I unwilling to make such assumptions? Why do I believe such discussions are part of valid education? Why do I believe it is important to help our kids read the record? Because if we fail to read the record, if we fail to discuss these matters with our kids, we—and, more importantly, they—will find ourselves/themselves just as blind to similar circumstances in our own society. (Let me remind you, here, of my statement up top: This discussion arises from my objection to Ms. Hakim's assertion that “No one wants to be a slave.†--I object to that assertion.) The fact is--as I attempted to communicate in my previous post--it is easy from our position in history today to view slavery as a gross injustice. It is easy for us today to dismiss any and all statements showing any support of any type for any of the items I listed above (slavery as it was practiced in the United States/Confederate States, slaveholders; persons who fought on the side of the Confederacy; persons who, today, would seek to "defend the Confederate cause" in any manner whatsoever) . . . --It is easy for us today to dismiss all such statements as "offensive" or "not worthy of examination," etc. Yes. This is what I am saying that I agree with and find merit in. We have to get inside the history to learn from it and guard against such atrocities in our own times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightflash Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 I see a lot of people "woke up" in the few minutes between when I had ALMOST finished my immediately preceding post and when I actually posted it! So. A few replies. I know someone who wanted to be a garbage collector. He had looked into it carefully and decided to do this (though he did go on to other things) because 1) it paid extremely well, 2) he would have very few hours in which he had to work, very early in the morning--after that he could do other things (the garbage work was to be his "day job" until he could get going with a different career) toward his education, or other work, or just spend the day playing at the beach. I also know that there were English colonists who ran away, so to speak, to join the Native Americans. Could you please tell us, as an equivalent to the person I know who did indeed choose to be a garbage collector, who were the free Africans who chose to go to the United States to become slaves . . . Your question, here, caused me to realize an issue I had not seen before now. Ms. Hakim said--and I objected to her statement--that "No one wants to be a slave." I see where I could have--and, if given the opportunity, I now will--radically revise my notes. Before I continue down the path I have just now begun, let me state that I find my own education a work in progress. Always. I try to listen to all sides--those who "support" "my" view, and those who don't. I find I need the bracing input of those who object either to what I say or how I express myself. And so I am offering my thanks to those who attack and deal with concepts and ideas. (I am not so thankful for those who make ad hominem attacks.) . . . Back to the subject at hand. With the input of those who have stuck to the problems associated with the Slave Narratives, and, now, with the insight I just gained from recognizing the problem of verb tense, I see that I would radically rewrite what I wrote however many years ago (and for which my most recent copy came from 2006). Key point: I expect in a future revision I would concentrate attention on the modern-day equivalents (or proposed equivalents) to slavery that I discussed in my immediately preceding post: Modern state-enforced, state-sponsored servitudes. S*x "workers." Heteros*xual relations of all kinds. Any and all relationships of unequal power. I haven't had time to think through whether I would still quote from the Slave Narratives as exemplars of the kinds of things one might hear from modern-day equivalents to slaves of old. But I would certainly modify my introduction to such statements/quotes if I did include them. Thanks for your question(s)! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorothythomas Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 This sort of academic semantic game is a waste of time with your average student the appropriate age for core 100. It reminds me a lot of when Pope Benedict insulted all of Islam by quoting some thousand year old documents. its just unnecessary and silly to refute a single phrase from hakim with this amount of energy. I kind of feel like the discussion has evolved from whether a refutation of a single statement by Hakim was appropriate into a question of how to teach history. I am unfamiliar with Core 100. Is it high school level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightflash Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 [Holzmann] is seeking to point out a possible, logical explanation of events based on one subset of personal experiences, seemingly ignoring the fundamental ethical issues associated with enslaving people against their will, doing so systematically, formalizing legislation to support it by the State, and punishment inflicted on those who disagreed. It would be like implying priestly sexual abuses can't really be all that bad when many kids never do come forward to complain. In this one note, and my attempt in one post to respond to what I believe were mischaracterizations both of my note and of me as a person, I agree that it would seem to be true that I ignore a lot of fundamental ethical issues associated with slavery and racial relations as legislated and practiced in the United States and the Confederate States of America. It would seem that way. But I believe it would be very unfair of you or anyone else here to assume that I do not address a tremendous range of issues related both to slavery and to racial relations in the United States (and its predecessor social organizations) before and after the Civil War, from the time of the Pilgrims pretty much down to the present day. . . . The implication . . . that black Americans enslaved against their wills were healthier than their free counterparts. This supposed causation (enslaved quarters = better health care) patently absurd and professionally irresponsible, and should never be offered as instruction for students to learn American history, or critical thinking skills. Really, albeto? "Patently absurd and professionally irresponsible" . . . i.e., therefore, apparently, not worth thinking about or discussing? No! Obviously, you don't actually believe your own rhetoric . . . because you actually attempt to address the apparent anomaly: [A] deaf, blind, physically or mentally disabled slave infant was an economic liability to a slave owner. Why spend the resources like food and shelter on a body that cannot contribute efficient work? I don't think it's a stretch to assume these children were "taken care of" before any census taker ever came by. I like your proposed "solution" to the vexing statistics! By introducing the idea (with bona-fide personal letters and real statistics!) that blacks were better off enslaved, the justification has been made. The argument is supported, the excuse has been implanted into the student's mind. If Holzman has notes to the contrary, it's a wonder he didn't provide them as well, considering this thread questions that very intent. I thought my post was already too long. And I had certainly spent more time on the subject than I really wanted to spend. [T]he letters do show a human tendency to not only find a positive outlook in an otherwise traumatic environment, but to find sympathy for the abuser. Generally, we call this Stockholm Syndrome, not "well pleased with their station in life." I refer you to my questions and comments in my other posts this morning about "s*x workers," female participants in heteros*xual relationships, recipients/dependents on what I call state-sponsored servitude, etc. Would we promote that argument against sexual abuse of children today? No. I certainly wouldn't! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahW Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 I am flabbergasted that someone who writes a curriculum dealing with social studies in any form had never heard of Stockholm Syndrome before. And that he thinks it is "easy to understand" enough to be flippant about it. I am also flabbergasted that he would ask "How or why slavery was accepted in America and elsewhere in the Western world for so many decades (or centuries)?" Scholars have studied this question, and come up with very good answers. None of them have to do with what child slaves said about their life seventy years later in the early 20th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahW Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Mr. Holzmann, in your previous post you said: No! Obviously, you don't actually believe your own rhetoric . . . because you actually attempt to address the apparent anomaly: albeto, on 20 April 2013 - 12:32 AM, said: [A] deaf, blind, physically or mentally disabled slave infant was an economic liability to a slave owner. Why spend the resources like food and shelter on a body that cannot contribute efficient work? I don't think it's a stretch to assume these children were "taken care of" before any census taker ever came by. I like your proposed "solution" to the vexing statistics! Are you saying that you believe that "deaf, blind, physically or mentally disabled" infants who "cannot contribute efficient work" should be "taken care of"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightflash Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 I don't think that analyzing motives, cultural forces and context means that it is ok to whitewash or make excuses or postulate that slavery was a social good. Agreed. earching selectively for quotes that make slavery sound like a preference or a nice way of life . . . falls flat with me every time. In my opinion, I saw a lot of that in what I read from Holzman's post. Sorry. That was not my intent, but I think I understand now why you would view my post that way. Even just using a word like "yankeedom" makes me go "umm?" Yeah. I saw that yesterday and wondered about it myself. And I realized I was a fool, back whenever I first created that note, not to edit the source's use of that word. The source: a book--one of the few I had ever read (and had only read a few days or weeks before I first wrote my note)--that was, as you suggest, specifically designed to argue in favor of "the South." NOTE: I had never read such a book (much less ever heard any arguments) in favor of anything other than a straight-on "the North was right, the North was righteous; the South was wrong, the South was wicked" perspective. Now, Perhaps you-all here on TWTM are far more educated than I was. Perhaps you-all have heard and thought through all the arguments. You have considered the different sides and you have not only come to your wise and considered conclusions based on all of the extensive data you have digested. Indeed, it is possible that you-all have taught (or are planning to teach) your children all of the arguments and to see through the way "the other side" attempts to present its case. REALITY: I was totally shocked that I had never even heard such perspectives, never even been confronted with such statistics. Like most Americans whose family has moved around a lot in the 20th century, I have both confederate and union veterans in my family tree. FWIW: I have neither Union nor Confederate blood in me, and I have never lived "down South." My father is an immigrant, and my mother's parents and/or grandparents were immigrants. Indeed, based on my understanding of statistics, the vast majority of Americans today are descendants of immigrants who came subsequent to the Civil War. Yet that doesn't make the questions of the Civil War irrelevant to many issues we face today. My objection is not a knee jerk "slavery is bad and there is no explanation for why it happened". But under these circumstances I do not think explanation and context = excuse. Agree. Slavery as a whole was not just being working class by a different name. It is and was unequivocally a tragedy and morally unacceptable. Easy for us to say today. Not at all easy, apparently, from the perspective of most Northerners or Southerners back at the time of the Civil War. Holtzman's rebuttal of Joy Hakim's statement "No one wanted to be a slave" sounds awfully similar to refuting the statement "No wife wants to be beaten up" by finding quotes from a few women who do want to be beaten or who accept that their spouses beat them. And then...not considering the context that might make a woman think being beaten is ok, be it Stockholm's or a twisted religion/culture or whatnot. You may be right. Or, rather, I should say, obviously, from your perspective, that is how my comments sound[ed]. That was certainly not my intention . . . and I hope my responses, here, this morning, have at least begun to clear up what my intention was. Thanks. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 In everything that follows, I would like to urge you to keep that basic quibble in mind. quib·ble /ˈkwibÉ™l/ Noun A slight objection or criticism: "the only quibble about this book is the price". Verb Argue or raise objections about a trivial matter: "they are always quibbling about the amount they are prepared to pay". Sorry, I don't see this as a quibble. Your overblown and semantically slippery explanations aside, you are still promoting a "some people liked being slaves; sometimes slavery wasn't so bad" viewpoint. It's not prejudice on my part to call shenanigans on that. Tara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightflash Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 This sort of academic semantic game is a waste of time with your average student the appropriate age for core 100. . . . its just unnecessary and silly to refute a single phrase from hakim with this amount of energy. Calandalsmom: As you well know, Sonlight's programs are designed for use with a wide range of ages. And Core 100 students do go up through high school. After this discussion, however, I think you are right: My note missed my intended target . . . which (intended target) was mentioned in this note primarily in the parenthetical remark about abusive husbands and boyfriends, parents, and employers . . . and here, in this thread, in my further comments about s*x workers, dependents upon the state, etc. Foolish me. I never, in this particular note (I did get back to it later), got back around to the primary target . . . probably because, at the time, I was so wide-eyed astonished at the revelations to which I had recently been introduced about a whole "other" side of slavery about which I had been wholly unaware until only a few months or weeks before writing my note. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Foolish me. I never, in this particular note (I did get back to it later), got back around to the primary target . . . probably because, at the time, I was so wide-eyed astonished at the revelations to which I had recently been introduced about a whole "other" side of slavery about which I had been wholly unaware until only a few months or weeks before writing my note. Are you trying to be funny here, or are you actually admitting that you got so wrapped up in some new (and to you, shiny) viewpoint that you recently encountered that you forgot the process of serious scholarship and were just carried away by your emotions in your enthusiasm to share it? Tara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junepep Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 The WPA project had many flaws, but ultimately we are left with a series of narrative accounts that indicate that some former slaves preferred slavery to freedom. This goes beyond the poor methodolgy used to record their narratives. Instead of further denegrating the narratives why don't we take a critical look at what "freedom" entailed for these men and women. The Civil War had decimated the local and state economies of every southern state. Additionally, what little industrialization and infrastructure had sprung up prior to the war was pretty much destroyed. Fortunes had been lost and enormous tracts of land confiscated, not to be given to former slaves, but to white northerners to purchase at incredibly low prices. Black southerners made up 40-50% of the populations of those states and although education efforts were made, they were universally weak. So, now we've got a uneducated, marginalized, skilless segment of the population looking for work in a depressed economy. What we don't tend to talk about is how many of these people had to watch friends and family slowly starve or become sick and be unable to pay for any medical care whatsoever. Although black southerners had legal rights, these rights were systematically stolen from them over the course of 'reconstruction' -- but worse, it's debatable (beyond a few touted examples) how much their 'rights' were respected prior to the jim crow laws going into effect... What I'm trying to say is that if you're going to use the WPA project narratives, please for the love of God, make sure that you put their words in the proper historical perspective. Might a woman who had been raised in a household where there was plenty of food and no one beat or raped her miss those days if after the war she had watched her parents die to an unknown illness, married a shareholder & starved while working 14-16 hour days and then been gang raped by a group of white men out for kicks one night, with no legal recourse? This isn't stockholm syndrome people, it's the reality of life in the south after the civil war. It was actually worse for many black people. I am not appologizing for slavery, I believe that it is an abomination, but please don't act like "Freeing" the slaves was a kindness. I would argue that true freedom didn't happen until the Civil Rights movement -- and that movement needed to happen in both the South and the North. Racism is pervasive, and I will not accept the idea that telling someone that they are free and then leaving them to rot in the chains of hatred and oppression, is acceptable. When we say - well they were free, so their lives were better, we are implicitly condoning the treatment of blacks after the war and marginalising their complaints of unequal treatment post-civilwar and today. (edited - spelling and narrative errors) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahW Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 junepep - I totally agree with you. But I would expect a history curriculum to deal with the Jim Crow laws in a section after the discussion of slave life in antebellum South. With older students you could watch A Birth of A Nation and have a good discussion about how blacks were viewed after the Civil War. If the IG for Core 100 had just said what you said I don't think this thread would have even been started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 If the IG for Core 100 had just said what you said I don't think this thread would have even been started. I agree. It's well-documented that the lives of some/many slaves were actually worse, materially, after Emancipation. I don't think that is a secret or something that's hard to find out. I learned about that in 4th grade when we learned about the lives of the freedmen during Reconstruction and beyond. I distinctly remember learning that some slaves were better off than others in terms of status, power, and comfort. This is what I consider to be common knowledge, not some astonishing revelation. Somehow John Holzman managed to take this factual bit of evidence and spin it into something completely different, something that smacks of apologetics. I can certainly talk to my kids about how former slaves felt about their lives without rhapsodizing about how awesome slavery was for some slaves and how misunderstood some benevolent slave owners were, and I certainly don't need a set of bizarre notes to guide me in such a discussion. My kids come from a country where people still enslave each other. I know several children who were slaves before they were adopted. Their parents have told me that their kids considered themselves lucky to be sold into slavery rather than shipped off to orphanages. I completely appreciate that that is their perspective. It is not, however, evidence that slavery is good thing. Tara (edited for spelling) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightflash Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Sarah: You asked if I was saying that I believe "'deaf, blind, physically or mentally disabled' infants who 'cannot contribute efficient work' should be 'taken care of'?" Your question came as a result of the following interchange between albeto and me: The implication . . . that black Americans enslaved against their wills were healthier than their free counterparts. This supposed causation (enslaved quarters = better health care) patently absurd and professionally irresponsible, and should never be offered as instruction for students to learn American history, or critical thinking skills. Really, albeto? "Patently absurd and professionally irresponsible" . . . i.e., therefore, apparently, not worth thinking about or discussing? No! Obviously, you don't actually believe your own rhetoric . . . because you actually attempt to address the apparent anomaly: [A] deaf, blind, physically or mentally disabled slave infant was an economic liability to a slave owner. Why spend the resources like food and shelter on a body that cannot contribute efficient work? I don't think it's a stretch to assume these children were "taken care of" before any census taker ever came by. I like your proposed "solution" to the vexing statistics! My response: I think, in context, it is pretty obvious I wasn't attempting to say anything about infants or their care. I was attempting to address albeto's proposed explanation for (i.e., "solution" to) what, to my mind, seem rather vexing statistics. However, seeing how someone might want to correlate my comment about statistics to a legal and social policy that a well-known sociopath termed "the Final Solution," and since you seem to be interested in my opinions about the care of those with handicaps, let me state without equivocation: I believe that we, the able, have a responsibility toward those who are unable, both born and unborn. And I have put my money and my body on the line for that principle. (But lest anyone charge me with taking credit for more than I deserve, let me hasten to add I have made no great personal sacrifices for that principle. I have merely participated in certain forms of civil disobedience in behalf of those who are unable to speak for themselves; and I have merely donated several thousands of dollars to the cause of handicappers and toward those who work in behalf of otherwise unwanted children. I hold in far higher esteem than myself those who deal, on a daily basis, with parents and/or children who are deaf, blind, physically or mentally disabled. And I hold in far higher esteem than myself those moms and dads who have actually adopted and cared for the otherwise unadoptable--children who have been abandoned by their own parents. Sarita and I have never made the kinds of sacrifices such people have made.) John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 I just want to make one small point but I think it speaks to the bigger point of taking care in reading primary sources and always understanding the context in which they written. I can't quote on my phone but John quoted narratives with terms like "always" and "never" and thought them more compelling and sincere because of the use of those "all encompassing terms". I was obsessively reading a couple of blogs on statement analysis awhile back. I'd never claim that gives me any authority on the matter but one thing that was often mentioned was that the use of just those terms is often a red flag indicating that a statement may not be truthful or reliable. They often show a need to reassure or sell another party on the claim, an impulse people generally don't feel when they're simply relating events as they remember them. It's not a huge stretch to imagine that a former slave, being questioned by a white person in authority might tend to tell that person whAt he or she imagines they want to hear and so feel the need to resort to terms like "never" in order to reinforce their claim. Which is why reading primary sources is.never as simple as some seem to think. There are ALWAYS external pressures and internal biases working on people. No account, none, is free of those. Pretending they are and interpretting them without understanding those forces and context is useless and misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts