Veritas Press racist description of the Civil War

[Sneezyone]

23 hours ago, KSera said:

This thread was already disturbing to me, but it has become increasingly so today. I didn’t expect to see multiple people leaping to the defense of Confederate Pride. That people are continuing to do so today, after the horrific white supremacist crime that occurred yesterday makes it all the more troubling 😢. 

NOTHING about this shocks me anymore. That balloon was popped 6 years ago. This sentiment will NEVER go away. It can only be aggressively disputed/refuted/ridiculed and shamed into silence…for a time. Bigots gonna bigot. The failure to tell that truth to my generation (or me to my kids) is also what’s led us to this point. You can’t recognize or defend against a threat that you don’t know exists/is coming. We cannot sugar coat or downplay the incessant drumbeat of white supremacist ideology without consequence.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Farrar]

I can't really deal with the massive racism in these threads for very long. It's too disturbing and sad. And no one who thinks jumping to the defense of the "good people" of the Confederacy is cool is going to change their minds at this point.

But if you think that these ideologies aren't a part of shaping people like the young man who killed ten people in Buffalo, you're mistaken. 

[Sneezyone]

Just gonna leave these links/breadcrumbs for those interested in truth. 
https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/summer-2020/setting-the-lost-cause-on-fire-protesters-target-the-united-daughters-of-the-confederacy-headquarters

 

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/lost-cause-the/
 

https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/04/twisted-sources-how-confederate-propaganda-ended-souths-schoolbooks

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?507231-1/white-supremacy-lost

 

Don’t take these words for it. Find your own sources/interpretations. Who are the funders and what aims/common causes do they have? 

[Sneezyone]

On 5/12/2022 at 10:43 AM, Janeway said:

It is not cool to quote someone and then change what they said.

Fact is, in the Civil War, some Northern states were allowed to continue slavery and some southern states did not have it. This is proof that the Civil War was not just about slavery.

 

https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

I added facts. FIND THE LIE.

[maize]

The US Civil War WAS about slavery.

Yes it was complicated--everything always is. But it wasn't any of the complicating factors that caused the war. It was the institution of slavery and its fundamental incompatibility with a society and government that claimed to champion liberty and equality.

Slavery had to be excised, like a cancer that would have killed the nation if left to continue.

The civil war was a bloody surgery that chopped out the worst of the cancer, but couldn't catch the metastatic remnants. We're still fighting those, I suppose the analogy could be expanded to compare the civil rights movement and ongoing efforts to combat racism to chemotherapy. Not as brutally bloody as surgery, but difficult and painful necessities.

[Ting Tang]

8 hours ago, maize said:

I don't disagree with any of that.

The poster I quoted was using the statement that good people fought for the wrong side as direct evidence of racism.

That's nonsense.

Acknowledging that people are complicated and life is complicated and that yes, good people do get pulled into fighting for bad causes has nothing to do with being racist.

I think of Russia today. Many of those young men had no choice, they have been lied to, manipulated, brainwashed, etc.   Some figured it out, though. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Ting Tang said:

I think of Russia today. Many of those young men had no choice, they have been lied to, manipulated, brainwashed, etc.   Some figured it out, though. 

But if 150 years from now there are Russians still arguing that this was a just war and Russia was justified in their invasion, that’s a different thing entirely.

[Ellie]

1 hour ago, maize said:

The US Civil War WAS about slavery.

Yes it was complicated--everything always is. But it wasn't any of the complicating factors that caused the war. It was the institution of slavery and its fundamental incompatibility with a society and government that claimed to champion liberty and equality.

Slavery had to be excised, like a cancer that would have killed the nation if left to continue.

The civil war was a bloody surgery that chopped out the worst of the cancer, but couldn't catch the metastatic remnants. We're still fighting those, I suppose the analogy could be expanded to compare the civil rights movement and ongoing efforts to combat racism to chemotherapy. Not as brutally bloody as surgery, but difficult and painful necessities.

Racism would still exist even if there had not been slavery. 

[Sneezyone]

6 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

I think of Russia today. Many of those young men had no choice, they have been lied to, manipulated, brainwashed, etc.   Some figured it out, though. 

And yet, they’re STILL wrong and nothing about their endeavor is worthy of pride or boastful remembrances. Not now and not in the future either.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Sneezyone

[maize]

7 hours ago, Ellie said:

Racism would still exist even if there had not been slavery. 

Probably so; humans are clannish by nature. The particular manifestations of racism against people of African descent in this country however have been very much shaped by slavery, by the arguments made to attempt to justify slavery, and by post-civil-war efforts to keep Black Americans in their place (that is, subject to the control and exploitation of white people).

It looks a lot like what an abusive spouse or parent does in order to justify their unjustifiable behavior: they paint the victims as deserving of and even benefiting from their abuse. In order to justify enslaving Black people, and later to justify continuing discrimination through legislation, the judicial system, extrajudicial mob "justice," and socially sanctioned bias in both explicit and masked forms--we communally perpetuated myths and lies painting Black people as inherently inferior, prone to violence, intellectually and morally lacking, needing and deserving to be treated as second-class citizens, needing white people to guide and control them.

You can't embed and perpetuate those kinds of lies in a culture for several hundred years and then turn and say "oh, that's all in the past; slavery ended a long time ago so it doesn't impact people anymore."

We are absolutely still facing the legacy of slavery in this country. We've made progress--a lot of progress!

But the cancer has not been eliminated.

[elegantlion]

From the Mississippi State secession document 

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

[maize]

As a teenager in Austria, I went to school and church with a lot of African immigrant kids. I found it easy to form friendships with them--we were all foreigners, outsiders in the country we were living in. They spoke English or French, languages I was much more comfortable in than the local German. 

I was surprised, when I came back to the US for college, to find that there was an underlying current of...unease...in many casual interactions with Black Americans. There was a dynamic I wasn't familiar with, a wariness on their side that hadn't been there in interactions with my African immigrant friends. I was only minimally aware of the history of racial interactions in the United States--I didn't grow up here, and only knew what I had picked up from books. I've come to understand that underlying unease and wariness better as I've learned more about racial relations through time in this country.

Racism and ethnic discrimination absolutely exist in Europe--African immigrants in most countries (including Austria) face huge hurdles and massive discrimination. My friends' families faced that in heaps. 

There are particular currents to racial interactions in the US though that are different from what I saw in Europe and tie directly to our history of enslaving and exploiting black people within our own communities.

 

 

[Ting Tang]

11 hours ago, KSera said:

But if 150 years from now there are Russians still arguing that this was a just war and Russia was justified in their invasion, that’s a different thing entirely.

I they become completely isolated from the rest of the world, though, the people may have but no choice to believe the lies, or else--which is what seems to be happening there. 

6 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

And yet, they’re STILL wrong and nothing about their endeavor is worthy of pride or boastful remembrances. Not now and not in the future either.

I agree.  It is not worthy, but I think the government has a lot of power over what influences their thinking.  People's own family members were not believing they were under attack in Ukraine.  And this sort of thing goes on all over the world.

[maize]

6 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

I they become completely isolated from the rest of the world, though, the people may have but no choice to believe the lies, or else--which is what seems to be happening there. 

I agree.  It is not worthy, but I think the government has a lot of power over what influences their thinking.  People's own family members were not believing they were under attack in Ukraine.  And this sort of thing goes on all over the world.

Propaganda is a powerful force.

My brother-in-law gets a lot of criticism from his family back in Russia because he supports Ukraine. At one point early on his parents seemed to be questioning the official government narrative, but they have reverted to believing what they are told.

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

I they become completely isolated from the rest of the world, though, the people may have but no choice to believe the lies, or else--which is what seems to be happening there. 

I agree.  It is not worthy, but I think the government has a lot of power over what influences their thinking.  People's own family members were not believing they were under attack in Ukraine.  And this sort of thing goes on all over the world.

Right, but the relevance to this thread is in the context of Americans today who are not cut off from the outside world arguing that the Confederate cause was noble and defending children’s books celebrating it as such.

[Ting Tang]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

Right, but the relevance to this thread is in the context of Americans today who are not cut off from the outside world arguing that the Confederate cause was noble and defending children’s books celebrating it as such.

I understand, that was a tangent.  If the book was written from the perspective on how people could be influenced to defend the wrong side, it might have more merit to help children understand how that happens, but it doesn't seem to be that kind of history lesson.  

[KSera]

27 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

I understand, that was a tangent.  If the book was written from the perspective on how people could be influenced to defend the wrong side, it might have more merit to help children understand how that happens, but it doesn't seem to be that kind of history lesson.  

Yeah, it's clearly not that kind of book, and then several people chimed in to defend the idea that the Civil War was primarily about states' rights and not slavery.

[Sneezyone]

The nature and power of propaganda is not an elementary topic.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Ting Tang]

57 minutes ago, KSera said:

Yeah, it's clearly not that kind of book, and then several people chimed in to defend the idea that the Civil War was primarily about states' rights and not slavery.

I know.  😞  The south was concerned about the "right" to own slaves. Abolitionists were the true heroes of that time. 

[GoodnightMoogle]

To bring it back to Veritas Press, I remember reading somewhere, when researching their much beloved “Omnibus,” (which looked really cool to me from the outside), that Douglas Wilson was involved in writing most of the material. There was one assignment that made my stomach turn - students have to pretend to be an American slave and write a letter talking about the “propaganda” that slaves are mistreated by their masters. 

This is what the “it was about states rights!” dismissal of slavery leads to. It turns into pretending that “actually slaves weren’t treated so badly, it was all an exaggeration, many loved their masters and didn’t want to be freed” etc etc. The fantasy of racist and egotistical men. 
Here is an excerpt of that assignment:

“Pretend you are a slave who lives far away from your family. Write a letter to your wife/husband/ children. Tell them how you are, how you are doing, what your plans are, etc. Or for variation, pretend that you live in the South. You are a faithful Christian and your family has a couple of servants that help with work around the house. Write a letter to a relative or friend in the North who thinks that all slaves are mistreated and beaten. Explain how your family treats your slaves well and your view of slavery in general.”

This assignment is from omnibus year 3, meant for early high school students. It is absolutely vile. This is supposed to be the “creme de la creme” of Veritas Press, by the way. This is what they stand for. This is what happens when we don’t call out bad history. 

[rbk mama]

21 minutes ago, GoodnightMoogle said:

To bring it back to Veritas Press, I remember reading somewhere, when researching their much beloved “Omnibus,” (which looked really cool to me from the outside), that Douglas Wilson was involved in writing most of the material. There was one assignment that made my stomach turn - students have to pretend to be an American slave and write a letter talking about the “propaganda” that slaves are mistreated by their masters. 

This is what the “it was about states rights!” dismissal of slavery leads to. It turns into pretending that “actually slaves weren’t treated so badly, it was all an exaggeration, many loved their masters and didn’t want to be freed” etc etc. The fantasy of racist and egotistical men. 
Here is an excerpt of that assignment:

“Pretend you are a slave who lives far away from your family. Write a letter to your wife/husband/ children. Tell them how you are, how you are doing, what your plans are, etc. Or for variation, pretend that you live in the South. You are a faithful Christian and your family has a couple of servants that help with work around the house. Write a letter to a relative or friend in the North who thinks that all slaves are mistreated and beaten. Explain how your family treats your slaves well and your view of slavery in general.”

This assignment is from omnibus year 3, meant for early high school students. It is absolutely vile. This is supposed to be the “creme de la creme” of Veritas Press, by the way. This is what they stand for. This is what happens when we don’t call out bad history. 

Unbelievable. Vile does not even begin to describe this. This is a thousand times worse than that book description. Do you know if this assignment is still in there - what year was this from?

[Slache]

34 minutes ago, GoodnightMoogle said:

To bring it back to Veritas Press, I remember reading somewhere, when researching their much beloved “Omnibus,” (which looked really cool to me from the outside), that Douglas Wilson was involved in writing most of the material.

Thank you for sharing this. I had never seen anything like this from him.

[elegantlion]

One of the best letters written by a former enslaved person is this example from Jourdan Anderson whose former enslaver wrote to Jourdan asking to come back to work for him.  The p.s. is particularly telling. 

https://www.facinghistory.org/reconstruction-era/letter-jourdon-anderson-freedman-writes-former-master

 

[wisdomandtreasures]

14 hours ago, GoodnightMoogle said:

To bring it back to Veritas Press, I remember reading somewhere, when researching their much beloved “Omnibus,” (which looked really cool to me from the outside), that Douglas Wilson was involved in writing most of the material. There was one assignment that made my stomach turn - students have to pretend to be an American slave and write a letter talking about the “propaganda” that slaves are mistreated by their masters. 

This is what the “it was about states rights!” dismissal of slavery leads to. It turns into pretending that “actually slaves weren’t treated so badly, it was all an exaggeration, many loved their masters and didn’t want to be freed” etc etc. The fantasy of racist and egotistical men. 
Here is an excerpt of that assignment:

“Pretend you are a slave who lives far away from your family. Write a letter to your wife/husband/ children. Tell them how you are, how you are doing, what your plans are, etc. Or for variation, pretend that you live in the South. You are a faithful Christian and your family has a couple of servants that help with work around the house. Write a letter to a relative or friend in the North who thinks that all slaves are mistreated and beaten. Explain how your family treats your slaves well and your view of slavery in general.”

This assignment is from omnibus year 3, meant for early high school students. It is absolutely vile. This is supposed to be the “creme de la creme” of Veritas Press, by the way. This is what they stand for. This is what happens when we don’t call out bad history. 

😱 Horrific! I had no idea Veritas was like this! 

[Paige]

On 5/16/2022 at 1:33 AM, Ellie said:

Racism would still exist even if there had not been slavery. 

Why do you think that? Race is a relatively modern concept and racism based on skin color seems to have really gained traction as justification for African slavery that existed rather than a primary cause of African slavery. 

[J-rap]

14 hours ago, GoodnightMoogle said:

To bring it back to Veritas Press, I remember reading somewhere, when researching their much beloved “Omnibus,” (which looked really cool to me from the outside), that Douglas Wilson was involved in writing most of the material. There was one assignment that made my stomach turn - students have to pretend to be an American slave and write a letter talking about the “propaganda” that slaves are mistreated by their masters. 

This is what the “it was about states rights!” dismissal of slavery leads to. It turns into pretending that “actually slaves weren’t treated so badly, it was all an exaggeration, many loved their masters and didn’t want to be freed” etc etc. The fantasy of racist and egotistical men. 
Here is an excerpt of that assignment:

“Pretend you are a slave who lives far away from your family. Write a letter to your wife/husband/ children. Tell them how you are, how you are doing, what your plans are, etc. Or for variation, pretend that you live in the South. You are a faithful Christian and your family has a couple of servants that help with work around the house. Write a letter to a relative or friend in the North who thinks that all slaves are mistreated and beaten. Explain how your family treats your slaves well and your view of slavery in general.”

This assignment is from omnibus year 3, meant for early high school students. It is absolutely vile. This is supposed to be the “creme de la creme” of Veritas Press, by the way. This is what they stand for. This is what happens when we don’t call out bad history. 

This is so disgusting.  When I was homeschooling my kids (they're in their 20's and early 30's now), I ordered things now and then from Veritas, and I thought they were a trustworthy company.  I did intentionally never use Christian history curriculum -- from anywhere -- even though we are Christians, because I knew I didn't agree with them on several issues.  But back then, I thought of it more as frustrating and wrong.  Now I realize it is so much more than that.  

[Slache]

1 hour ago, Paige said:

Why do you think that? Race is a relatively modern concept and racism based on skin color seems to have really gained traction as justification for African slavery that existed rather than a primary cause of African slavery. 

I think as long can we can say "I'm better than you because of X," we will do it. Racism was the cause of slavery in the first place, not the other way around.

[maize]

2 hours ago, Paige said:

Why do you think that? Race is a relatively modern concept and racism based on skin color seems to have really gained traction as justification for African slavery that existed rather than a primary cause of African slavery. 

In-group/out-group bias is universal among human cultures. It goes hand-in-hand with our ability to empathize with and sacrifice for people we perceive as being part of our family/clan/nation/etc.

Skin color is a super obvious way to distinguish someone as in-group/out-group; I don't think it is possible that bias based on skin color wouldn't exist where groups with different skin colors come in contact. We aren't actually capable of blinding ourselves to something so obvious.

Whether we label people as different races or not (and yes, there are absolutely aspects to modern racism that derive from or are exacerbated by theories of racial differences that go beyond skin tone) isn't key to whether or not bias and discrimination tied to skin tone exists or would exist in an alternate universe where "race" as understood in the past few hundred years didn't develop as a concept.

I don't think there is any way for biases and discrimination to not exist. Human nature determines that they will.

I personally think that combating racism and other biases requires first acknowledging that biases favoring those we perceive as being more like us or belonging to the same group as us, and dis-favoring those we perceive as being less like us or belonging to a different group from us, are absolutely normal and part of the basic psychology of healthy human individuals and groups. That understanding is necessary in order to consciously pay attention to how such biases affect our choices and interactions. As beings capable of complex reasoning we have the ability to prioritize a chosen or learned ethic over base instincts, but we have to recognize and acknowledge the instincts in order to counter them with any consistency.

Edited May 17, 2022 by maize

[Ting Tang]

6 hours ago, J-rap said:

This is so disgusting.  When I was homeschooling my kids (they're in their 20's and early 30's now), I ordered things now and then from Veritas, and I thought they were a trustworthy company.  I did intentionally never use Christian history curriculum -- from anywhere -- even though we are Christians, because I knew I didn't agree with them on several issues.  But back then, I thought of it more as frustrating and wrong.  Now I realize it is so much more than that.  

 

21 hours ago, GoodnightMoogle said:

To bring it back to Veritas Press, I remember reading somewhere, when researching their much beloved “Omnibus,” (which looked really cool to me from the outside), that Douglas Wilson was involved in writing most of the material. There was one assignment that made my stomach turn - students have to pretend to be an American slave and write a letter talking about the “propaganda” that slaves are mistreated by their masters. 

This is what the “it was about states rights!” dismissal of slavery leads to. It turns into pretending that “actually slaves weren’t treated so badly, it was all an exaggeration, many loved their masters and didn’t want to be freed” etc etc. The fantasy of racist and egotistical men. 
Here is an excerpt of that assignment:

“Pretend you are a slave who lives far away from your family. Write a letter to your wife/husband/ children. Tell them how you are, how you are doing, what your plans are, etc. Or for variation, pretend that you live in the South. You are a faithful Christian and your family has a couple of servants that help with work around the house. Write a letter to a relative or friend in the North who thinks that all slaves are mistreated and beaten. Explain how your family treats your slaves well and your view of slavery in general.”

This assignment is from omnibus year 3, meant for early high school students. It is absolutely vile. This is supposed to be the “creme de la creme” of Veritas Press, by the way. This is what they stand for. This is what happens when we don’t call out bad history. 

Geez, when they try to make stupid and sick twisted things sound "academic" and "intellectual."  I've read a few things or two about this Doug Wilson guy.  He's pretty creepy in a lot of different ways. 

[Clarita]

36 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

I've read a few things or two about this Doug Wilson guy.  He's pretty creepy in a lot of different ways. 

OK I had to read about the guy because I'm a curious person. I stumbled upon his blog ugh. 

[rbk mama]

23 hours ago, GoodnightMoogle said:

To bring it back to Veritas Press, I remember reading somewhere, when researching their much beloved “Omnibus,” (which looked really cool to me from the outside), that Douglas Wilson was involved in writing most of the material. There was one assignment that made my stomach turn - students have to pretend to be an American slave and write a letter talking about the “propaganda” that slaves are mistreated by their masters. 

This is what the “it was about states rights!” dismissal of slavery leads to. It turns into pretending that “actually slaves weren’t treated so badly, it was all an exaggeration, many loved their masters and didn’t want to be freed” etc etc. The fantasy of racist and egotistical men. 
Here is an excerpt of that assignment:

“Pretend you are a slave who lives far away from your family. Write a letter to your wife/husband/ children. Tell them how you are, how you are doing, what your plans are, etc. Or for variation, pretend that you live in the South. You are a faithful Christian and your family has a couple of servants that help with work around the house. Write a letter to a relative or friend in the North who thinks that all slaves are mistreated and beaten. Explain how your family treats your slaves well and your view of slavery in general.”

This assignment is from omnibus year 3, meant for early high school students. It is absolutely vile. This is supposed to be the “creme de la creme” of Veritas Press, by the way. This is what they stand for. This is what happens when we don’t call out bad history. 

Incredible mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty are required to produce this kind of work. In another century we will have people talking about how there were only a handful of Jews who were mistreated by a few bad Germans - but most of the camps were actually quite nice and kept them safe and well-fed. And Christian homeschoolers will be asked to pretend they are a Jew enjoying themselves at camp. Or maybe not since Germany has actually acknowledged their shameful history while an outrageous percentage of Southerners remain in denial.

[Sneezyone]

8 hours ago, Slache said:

I think as long can we can say "I'm better than you because of X," we will do it. Racism was the cause of slavery in the first place, not the other way around.

Bragging rights isn’t the reason this line of reasoning should be/is condemned. 

[Ting Tang]

48 minutes ago, rbk mama said:

Incredible mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty are required to produce this kind of work. In another century we will have people talking about how there were only a handful of Jews who were mistreated by a few bad Germans - but most of the camps were actually quite nice and kept them safe and well-fed. And Christian homeschoolers will be asked to pretend they are a Jew enjoying themselves at camp. Or maybe not since Germany has actually acknowledged their shameful history while an outrageous percentage of Southerners remain in denial.

A teacher in NY got in trouble for bringing cotton and chains to class. The articles said the teacher was white, and the class was predominantly black.  It's hard to believe anyone would think that was a good idea.  

[Slache]

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Bragging rights isn’t the reason this line of reasoning should be/is condemned. 

No kidding.

[Sneezyone]

8 hours ago, Slache said:

No kidding.

It’s hard to tell anymore. One would think open admiration of the confederacy in the year 2022 would be a sick joke but, alas, no. That happened.

[Farrar]

20 hours ago, Slache said:

I think as long can we can say "I'm better than you because of X," we will do it. Racism was the cause of slavery in the first place, not the other way around.

Lots of historians are arguing the exact opposite now, actually. So this is hardly a decided matter. 

Slavery has existed in human records as far back as we can see.

In and out groups have existed in human records as far back as we can see.

Racism as we would conceive of it and bondage slavery/the Atlantic slave trade come into existence around the same time in the historic record. Ancient bias based on skin color was virtually nonexistent - differences had much more to do with religion, culture, language, citizenship, etc. depending on where you look. Medieval racism tends to be very similar to treatments of other out groups that are not based around skin color. As in, things said about foreign, exoticized white groups tend to be just as othering as things said about people from Africa or Asia. And when you look at the Islamic world, it's clear that racism was not a known concept. And you will see some evidence of colorism in those periods in some places - examples of places where lighter skin tones within an ethnic group were more valued for beauty standards (and times and places where they were not). But when the economics of slavery became ensconced in running the Americas, this particular brand of othering, with pseudoscientific underpinnings, rose very quickly in Western writings and attitudes. You can make chicken and egg arguments over it a bit, but these two legacies are undoubtedly intertwined in deep ways. Your statement implies that racism already existed in a relatively recognizable modern form and that's what led to the creation of bondage slavery. That's definitely not true. Racism would not be what it is today without bondage slavery. Bondage slavery would not have been what it was without racism. They're deeply linked in ways that did not exist before and we can't fully conceive of what prejudice or our conceptions of skin color and culture would be like without that history.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Farrar

[Eos]

36 minutes ago, Farrar said:

Your statement implies that racism already existed in a relatively recognizable modern form and that's what led to the creation of bondage slavery. That's definitely not true

I've been reading along from my mother's house, this thread has some shocking posts.  What @Farrarsaid.  If our minds are indeed "well-trained" we can easily find the historical evidence that shows how racism was carefully crafted in law in 17th centry Virginia, following Bacon's Rebellion and starting with the John Punch verdict.  The wealthy white men creating these laws could see how indentured servants banding together to oppose their bond-holders would be potentially too powerful for the bond-holders.  Distinguishing servants by race was a way to splinter their solidarity.  Each new slave law drove this wedge deeper by design.  

https://www.shsu.edu/~jll004/vabeachcourse_spring09/bacons_rebellion/slavelawincolonialvirginiatimeline.pdf

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

Lots of historians are arguing the exact opposite now, actually. So this is hardly a decided matter. 

Slavery has existed in human records as far back as we can see.

In and out groups have existed in human records as far back as we can see.

Racism as we would conceive of it and bondage slavery/the Atlantic slave trade come into existence around the same time in the historic record. Ancient bias based on skin color was virtually nonexistent - differences had much more to do with religion, culture, language, citizenship, etc. depending on where you look. Medieval racism tends to be very similar to treatments of other out groups that are not based around skin color. As in, things said about foreign, exoticized white groups tend to be just as othering as things said about people from Africa or Asia. And when you look at the Islamic world, it's clear that racism was not a known concept. And you will see some evidence of colorism in those periods in some places - examples of places where lighter skin tones within an ethnic group were more valued for beauty standards (and times and places where they were not). But when the economics of slavery became ensconced in running the Americas, this particular brand of othering, with pseudoscientific underpinnings, rose very quickly in Western writings and attitudes. You can make chicken and egg arguments over it a bit, but these two legacies are undoubtedly intertwined in deep ways. Your statement implies that racism already existed in a relatively recognizable modern form and that's what led to the creation of bondage slavery. That's definitely not true. Racism would not be what it is today without bondage slavery. Bondage slavery would not have been what it was without racism. They're deeply linked in ways that did not exist before and we can't fully conceive of what prejudice or our conceptions of skin color and culture would be like without that history.

THIS. Chattel slavery as it existed in the US for 240 years, followed by another 150 years of legal discrimination backed by Christian doctrine, is unparalleled in human history. Yet people stay trying to minimize that, making repeated comparisons to events that lack similar scope, longevity or impact, and celebrating the ideological framework that inspired it.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Paige]

22 hours ago, Slache said:

I think as long can we can say "I'm better than you because of X," we will do it. Racism was the cause of slavery in the first place, not the other way around.

There's lots of evidence that the reverse was true- racism, skin based racism, really took hold after the African slave trade started. The Moors in Spain and throughout Europe were highly regarded and held prominent positions in society. The Romans were also more xenophobic than racist and Africans could assimilate and become in group. Xenophobia existed, religious persecution existed, but Africans and Middle Eastern people were very highly regarded for their education, civility, and skills before 1500s. Once the Europeans started having African slaves in Europe, sentiments changed. 

Racism as we know it is relatively modern. 

[maize]

I really doubt the suggestion that complete assimilation is possible where physically obvious distinctions exist. Members of different groups can absolutely gain respect, but that doesn't prevent them from being perceived as "other." They can be given official citizenship and status while still being perceived as not-really-one-of-us.

My cousin was born and raised in Japan, speaks Japanese as a native language. He's respected by Japanese friends and acquaintances.

He is still, and will forever be, "gaijin"--literally "outsider"--as will his children--because his physical appearance distinguishes him from ethnic Japanese people. The only way his descendants could ever be fully assimilated would be if generations of intermarriage eliminated all obviously European characteristics from their appearance.

The degree to which in-group/out-group bias is expressed often depends on proximity (a closer out-group will be more actively despised than one far away) and areas of friction or competition for resources within a group. So it is absolutely possible for, say, a member of religious group A to feel more hatred for a member of locally competing religious group B (with shared language and physical characteristics) than for person C from far away, or from a different ethnic group but also a member of religious group A. In a sense person C might be more accepted as in-group. But--if someone from religious group B (shared ethnicity, no obvious difference in physical appearance) converts to religion A--a couple of generations down the line their descendants will likely be fully assimilated into group A, and person C's descendants won't be as assimilated if physical appearance still sets them apart.

I'm not sure what this means for an ethnically pluralistic nation like the United States. I think actively cultivating a valuing of diversity can help. I don't think a state where obvious differences in skin tone don't matter at all--true color blindness in perception and interaction--is possible.

Racism as specifically an outgrowth of the pseudo-scientific construct of race, the construct that was largely designed to justify mistreatment and exploitation of people from Africa, and to a significant extent to justify colonialism and exploitation by those of European descent all over world, goes beyond basic in-group out-group bias. The conception of entire groups of people as explicitly genetically inferior is not run-of-the-mill outgroup bias. 

I think however that the idea that this framework is responsible for all bias attached to skin tone is entirely wrong. 

[Sneezyone]

Who suggested ‘assimilation’ was possible, let alone desirable? Concepts like assimilation and replacement theory are particularly galling when applied to people groups who’ve been in the country/on the continent longer than those espousing those theories/concepts. Is the transatlantic, chattel slave trade a primary driver of divide and conquer policies toward outwardly differentiating characteristics in the US? No doubt.

[maize]

1 hour ago, Paige said:

There's lots of evidence that the reverse was true- racism, skin based racism, really took hold after the African slave trade started. The Moors in Spain and throughout Europe were highly regarded and held prominent positions in society. The Romans were also more xenophobic than racist and Africans could assimilate and become in group. Xenophobia existed, religious persecution existed, but Africans and Middle Eastern people were very highly regarded for their education, civility, and skills before 1500s. Once the Europeans started having African slaves in Europe, sentiments changed. 

Racism as we know it is relatively modern. 

 

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Who suggested ‘assimilation’ was possible, let alone desirable? Concepts like assimilation and replacement theory are particularly galling when applied to people groups who’ve been in the country/on the continent longer than those espousing those theories/concepts. Is the transatlantic, chattel slave trade a primary driver of divide and conquer policies toward outwardly differentiating characteristics in the US? No doubt.

See bolded in above quote.

That's the post that prompted mine.

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, maize said:

 

See bolded in above quote.

That's the post that prompted mine.

Yeah, again, THERE IS NO COMPARISON between what transpired prior to the transatlantic chattel slavery model (200+ years) and what transpired before, just as there hasn’t been a historic corollary to the Holocaust (5 years) …yet. In the modern context, assimilation has only ever been espoused as a goal by the dominant people group.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Farrar]

There's something about the concept that racism is natural and normal and has always existed that's so pernicious. I was certainly taught that and made to believe it growing up even as I was also taught that racism was wrong and that judging others by their skin or discriminating was wrong. It was implied that this was a barbaric (but natural) behavior that modern society had somehow fixed. But that's not how it actually went down. And it's an idea that has to be dismantled. It implies that it's beyond our control. That it's human nature to divide humanity by skin tone. But there's plenty of historical evidence to the contrary. 

[Slache]

2 minutes ago, Farrar said:

That it's human nature to divide humanity by skin tone. But there's plenty of historical evidence to the contrary. 

I thought that it was until I had toddlers. All 4 of my children (separate ages and this was not a learned behavior) would get excited when they saw African American men because "He looks just like Daddy!" My husband is 99 percent German and if you're grouping by skin color the shoe doesn't fit, but if you're grouping by hair type and style, yes, absolutely. This makes sense to me because skin color is on a spectrum whereas hair type more easily falls into categories.

[maize]

23 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Yeah, again, THERE IS NO COMPARISON between what transpired prior to the transatlantic chattel slavery model (200+ years) and what transpired before, just as there hasn’t been a historic corollary to the Holocaust (5 years) …yet. In the modern context, assimilation has only ever been espoused as a goal by the dominant people group.

I'm not suggesting assimilation should be a goal.

There is always nuance and complexity to human interactions. It is no more true to claim that prior to the trans-atlantic slave trade physical markers like skin tone that differentiate groups of humans were a complete non-issue than it is to claim that the racism that is interwoven with the slave trade and its aftermath is no different from any other in-group/out-group bias. 

The claim that people in the past didn't care about or discriminate based on obviously different skin tones is not anthropologically, sociologically, or historically valid.

Edited May 18, 2022 by maize

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Slache said:

I thought that it was until I had toddlers. All 4 of my children (separate ages and this was not a learned behavior) would get excited when they saw African American men because "He looks just like Daddy!" My husband is 99 percent German and if you're grouping by skin color the shoe doesn't fit, but if you're grouping by hair type and style, yes, absolutely. This makes sense to me because skin color is on a spectrum whereas hair type more easily falls into categories.

No, no it doesn’t. Hair type is no more easily categorized than skin color.

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, maize said:

I'm not suggesting assimilation should be a goal.

There is always nuance and complexity to human interactions. It is no more true to claim that prior to the trans-atlantic slave trade physical markers like skin tone that differentiate groups of humans were a complete non-issue than it is to claim that the racism that is interwoven with the slave trade and its aftermath is no different from any other in-group/out-group bias. 

The claim that people in the past didn't care about or discriminate based on obviously different skin tones is not anthropologically, sociologically, or historically valid.

The difference is in SCALE and IMPACT and DIRECT FOCUS ON/TARGETING OF A SPECIFIC PEOPLE GROUP. If you insist on equating the two (before vs during/after chattel slavery), we’ll have to agree to disagree. What’s happening in Ukraine is horrific. It isn’t the holocaust.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Slache]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

No, no it doesn’t. Hair type is no more easily categorized than skin color.

I think when you're 2 it does. Long, short, strait, curly. Especially these days when we style our hair to look the way we want. Women with wavy hair often emphasize the curls or straiten it, giving the false illusion that hair only comes in a few types. 

Also, that is the only explanation I can come up with for my kids behavior.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Slache said:

I think when you're 2 it does. Long, short, strait, curly. Especially these days when we style our hair to look the way we want. Women with wavy hair often emphasize the curls or straiten it, giving the false illusion that hair only comes in a few types. 

Also, that is the only explanation I can come up with for my kids behavior.

Good luck with that.