Ending the Slavery Blame-Game

[sidbrown]

Easy, we took all that land by “right” of conquest. We should just say so and quit looking for any other justification – and also not beat ourselves up about it overmuch. Conquest is, historically, how countries are born and die. We wanted the Indians’ land so we went in there and took it. Good for us, bad for the Indians.

In other words, when it come to the American Indian, it is OK for the white Christian European to forget about the Commandments:
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not kill.
There were more than 12 million North American Indians on the continent before the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world, the destruction of the American Indians. The population has been reduced to less than 2% of its original number as hundreds upon hundreds of native tribes with unique languages, learning, customs, and cultures were wiped out and their land stolen from them by the white Christian European.
A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry Lopez, summarizing Las Casas’ report wrote:

“One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. ‘Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight,’ he says, ‘as no age can parallel…’ The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them. They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They loosed dogs that ‘devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.’ They used nursing infants for dog food.”
I don;t see how any of this was good for anyone. It was wrong and it was not “good for us” as you seem to think so.

 

[Roy5]

sidbrown- about Native Americans, African-Americans, and immigration

 What you recall about outrageous mistreatment of Native Americans is doubtless true. Human cruelty has been so pronounced that it's hard to believe that one people could inflict such pain upon another people, and even seem to get satisfaction out of it.

 A few points.

 1. White Europeans could be 'savages' in their dealings with the Native American. There is no other way to put it and no excuse. This doesn't apply to all settlers. There always were some who tried to be just - William Penn and the Quakers, for example. 

  2. I recently finished the book *Champlain's Dream*, a strongly pro-Champlain view of that early explorer. If that book is correct, his dream involved good relations between Native Americans and the European newcomers.

  3. The same book covers some of the intense cruelties of one tribe of Indians to another, how they would torture their captives for as long as possible, to inflict as much pain and terror as possible. So the invading Europeans were not dealing with humane societies in many instances. We know, for example, how the Aztecs and Incas dealt with their prisoners-of war - cutting out their hearts while they were still alive, in some cases.

  4. As to the African-Americans, they seldom were treated with the same degree of cruelty because they were more valuable while alive, of course. They were a commodity, and it was wise to keep them as physically able and useful as possiblle. Still, they were viewed as an inferior people in most of the nation. Sometimes, as in the case of the Amistad situation, abolitionists came to their defense and won their freedom. Often, if they dared defy their masters, they would be cruelly disfigured or, in extreme cases, lynched. 

  5. As I stated in an earlier post, the USA is very fortunate that the key leader in the Freedom Movements of the 60s was a minister who believed in non-violence, who preached the message of love as taught by Christ. Yet Dr. King was a man of such courage that he resisted 'unto death' the continuing racial injustice in our society. Dr. King was not a saint - none of us is - but he was a great, great American, and I become intensely annoyed when some people still view him as some sort of wild radical. If he was a radical, so was Christ! It's the kind of radicalism I certainly endorse.

  6. Racism still persists among too many Americans of different complexions. It disturbs me when I hear it from white people, especially when they pretend to be such 'good Christians'. But it is rampant among Black Americans, too. And among Latinos, Jews, and (to a lesser degree) among Asian-Americans. 

  7. I pray for Obama's success as president, for if he fails it will be a blow to racial equality in our country. He is a brilliant man and I share much of his idealism. Yes, I disagree with him sometimes and do worry about some of his associates - the Chicago gang in particular. Unfortuately, people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are still featured on Fox and elsewhere as spokespersons for the Black community. They are not worthy of such leadership. They tend to be racial hucksters, who make their living off keeping racial antagonism alive, rushing toward every microphone they can find.

 8. On the immigration issue,  why is it that some people don't understand the word illegal. Illegal entry into the USA is simply that - illegal. The best solution is to grant temporary visas or green cards to laborers who are needed in the USA, but not to allow illegal immigrants to jump to the front of the line when it comes to citizenship. They should await their turn like others do. It is a matter of fair play, plain and simple. It is unrelated to racism, even though that charge is voiced continuously. 

 9. By the way, the Old Testament is full of atrocities, supposedly ordered by Jehovah God! God regretted that he had created humankind, so he drowns everybody! God tells Joshua to slaughter all the inhabitants of such conquered cities as Jericho, Ai, etc. God insists that King Saul annihilate every last Amalekite. Personally, I don't believe that God commanded any such atrocities, but millions of Christians take these Biblical accounts literally. I'm inclined to think that these stories have helped provide an excuse for Christians to commit cruelties over the years. They have paid little attention to Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount - love your enemy, etc. Or, even the Ten Commandments - :"thou shalt not kill".
 
10. I share the dream of Dr. King, for an America (and a world) where people of every color and creed dwell together in peace and mutual respect. Religion should serve as a bridge and not as a barrier.

 

[AHapka]

Dr. King was not a saint

I only hope he is now though

 

[bbarrick8383]

Easy, we took all that land by “right” of conquest. We should just say so and quit looking for any other justification – and also not beat ourselves up about it overmuch. Conquest is, historically, how countries are born and die. We wanted the Indians’ land so we went in there and took it. Good for us, bad for the Indians.

You make it sound as if they hit the ground guns blazing. My tribal ancestors actually started building homes, learned the language and tried blending in before they were forced to stop speaking their own language and driven down the trail of tears.

Now, as for African-Americans, Beau is talking about injustices inflicted after

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Got to love ya my Catholic Air Force brother.

Hey, you’re Catholic, you were in an especially fine Army unit, you’re half-Polish, and you like kimchi. What’s not to like?

 

[Ridgerunner]

In other words, when it come to the American Indian, it is OK for the white Christian European to forget about the Commandments:
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not kill.
There were more than 12 million North American Indians on the continent before the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world, the destruction of the American Indians. The population has been reduced to less than 2% of its original number as hundreds upon hundreds of native tribes with unique languages, learning, customs, and cultures were wiped out and their land stolen from them by the white Christian European.
.

I’m not entirely persuaded this is accurate. It appears the vast majority of INdians who died after Europeans landed in the Americas, died of Eurasian diseases. In fact, disease preceded white settlers by 200 years or more in some places, because Indians traveled a great deal and spread it among the tribes before most of them had ever seen a white person or heard tell of one. Blacks were relatively immune to the Eurasian diseases because they had long been exposed to them in Africa through Arab traders and, in some instances, Arab settlers. Europeans and Asians traded deadly diseases back and forth for millenia, and had long shared them with Africa unawares.

Indians’ immune systems were adapted differently than those of Europeans, Asians or Africans, particularly as regards viruses, and the devastation of Indian populations was almost certainly inevitable, no matter who first discovered whom. The Aztecs were, in effect, almost wiped out by one black man with Cortez, who had (and himself survived) smallpox. Deliberate killings were the smallest part of it. Had some Pre-Columbian Aztecs, say, sailed across to 14th Century Spain (or China or Africa) and sailed back, the result would almost certainly have been the same.

Hernando DeSoto’s ill-fated trip into what is now the U.S. undoubtedly killed more Indians inadvertently than were killed in all of the Indian wars put together.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And that is exactly why there is such a strong case for discrimination reparations – the victims are alive, were directly wronged and are still suffering the effects. As I explained, including the fact that I am not a proponent of such reparations.

Or did all minorities get good jobs automatically in 1964?

This still does not make good sense to me.

Did all Ozark or Smoky Mountain hillbillies get good jobs automatically in 1964? No, I can assure you they didn’t. Nor did they benefit from discrimination against blacks in Mississippi or Chicago, either. Have people in the U.S. benefitted from hillbilly labor? Well, you could make an argument for that. Where does anybody think most of the railroad ties, a good part of the lead and coal came from? But there’s no certainty that non-hillbillies benefitted more. This business about white people generally “benefitting from discrimination” against Blacks is largely just theoretical, based on the assumption that somehow their labor generated wealth that someone else got and spread around to every white person. There is no particular reason to believe that.

 

[AHapka]

I’m not entirely persuaded this is accurate. It appears the vast majority of INdians who died after Europeans landed in the Americas, died of Eurasian diseases. In fact, disease preceded white settlers by 200 years or more in some places, because Indians traveled a great deal and spread it among the tribes before most of them had ever seen a white person or heard tell of one. Blacks were relatively immune to the Eurasian diseases because they had long been exposed to them in Africa through Arab traders and, in some instances, Arab settlers. Europeans and Asians traded deadly diseases back and forth for millenia, and had long shared them with Africa unawares.

Indians’ immune systems were adapted differently than those of Europeans, Asians or Africans, particularly as regards viruses, and the devastation of Indian populations was almost certainly inevitable, no matter who first discovered whom. The Aztecs were, in effect, almost wiped out by one black man with Cortez, who had (and himself survived) smallpox. Deliberate killings were the smallest part of it. Had some Pre-Columbian Aztecs, say, sailed across to 14th Century Spain (or China or Africa) and sailed back, the result would almost certainly have been the same.

Hernando DeSoto’s ill-fated trip into what is now the U.S. undoubtedly killed more Indians inadvertently than were killed in all of the Indian wars put together.

What I’ve always wondered, and maybe you know the answer, how come the Europeans were not similarily affected by Indian diseases?

 

[Major_Tom]

What I’ve always wondered, and maybe you know the answer, how come the Europeans were not similarily affected by Indian diseases?

Jared Diamond wrote a wonderful book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, and answers that question. As I recall, he stated that the greater population density in Europe exposed people to many more infectious diseases, and thus built up their immune systems. So they fared a bit better when exposed to North American germs, contrasting with the decimation of North Americans, who were never exposed to smallpox, etc.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Did all Ozark or Smoky Mountain hillbillies get good jobs automatically in 1964? No, I can assure you they didn’t. Nor did they benefit from discrimination against blacks in Mississippi or Chicago, either.

Actually, they did benefit from discrimination against non-whites in the US. As I mentioned, their fortunate relatives sent more money home than was available to non-whites, making those mountain communities more prosperous than they would have been if things were equal. Plus, being a part of the majority in America meant being much more able to find and keep a job. Riddle me this: Do you think any of those mountaineers would prefer to be non-white? Chuck Yeager came out of those mountains. Do you know how many black high school dropouts became pilots and officers in World War II? He managed to do it. Maybe he sent some of his officer pay home.

. This business about white people generally “benefitting from discrimination” against Blacks is largely just theoretical, based on the assumption that somehow their labor generated wealth that someone else got and spread around to every white person. There is no particular reason to believe that.

Actually there are very good reasons to believe that discrimination against non-whites made their communities poorer and, consequently, the communities of the majority folks richer, because they had less competition for scarce resources, like jobs. The question is not if the labor of non-whites produced wealth that others got, its if they got the opportunity to create wealth from their labor that they should have received.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, they did benefit from discrimination against non-whites in the US. As I mentioned, their fortunate relatives sent more money home than was available to non-whites, making those mountain communities more prosperous than they would have been if things were equal. Plus, being a part of the majority in America meant being much more able to find and keep a job. Riddle me this: Do you think any of those mountaineers would prefer to be non-white? Chuck Yeager came out of those mountains. Do you know how many black high school dropouts became pilots and officers in World War II? He managed to do it. Maybe he sent some of his officer pay home.
All of this really is speculation. No proof of it, and you can’t find proof of it. Nor can you quantify it. Up until fairly recently, those communities were so isolated, they were essentially economies all their own. Actually, many of them were non-white, at least to a degree. Google the word “melungeon” and also realize there was a lot of Indian “blood” in many, if not most. “Finding and keeping a job”??? You obviously don’t know much about mountain economies in older times. There weren’t any jobs to speak of. They were subsistence economies almost exclusively. Go ahead and quantify for me how much black discrimination where there were blacks, benefitted them. Also, quantify the money Chuck Yeager sent back to his community. And then tell me specifically how he benefitted from discrimination against blacks.

Actually there are very good reasons to believe that discrimination against non-whites made their communities poorer and, consequently, the communities of the majority folks richer, because they had less competition for scarce resources, like jobs. The question is not if the labor of non-whites produced wealth that others got, its if they got the opportunity to create wealth from their labor that they should have received.

It might be exactly backwards too. If blacks had been allowed to be more productive, but were not, possibly everybody in the communities would have been richer; white and black alike. But the same would be true of a lot of people. When my Italian great-grandfather came to this country, the only work he could get was in the deep mines in Kansas. Blacks in the area would not do that work. Nobody would but recent immigrants, and only those, like Italians at the time, on the very bottom of the socioeconomic scale. So, relative to them, he was worse off, and never did exceed where local blacks were, economically. He eventually saved enough money to make a down payment on a farm. At that time, there were plenty of black farmers in Kansas who owned their (better) land free and clear. So, do they owe him, and do their descendants, therefore, owe me?

 

[Ridgerunner]

What I’ve always wondered, and maybe you know the answer, how come the Europeans were not similarily affected by Indian diseases?

I’m not an epidemiologist and can’t speak authoritatively about it. However, I did read once where Indian immune systems were (and to some degree still are) better designed to combat parasites, whereas European and Asian (and seemingly African, with some exceptions) immune systems were and are better designed to combat bacteria and especially viruses. I can’t tell you the scientific basis for that conclusion, but there is one.

But that’s not to say there was no “trade” involved. There is dispute about this, but many who have written about it believe that syphilis, which is a parasitic disease, was unknown in Europe prior to 1492. There is no question that there was a very severe and devastating plague of it in Europe shortly after early European explorers returned from the Americas; far worse than anything that was evident among the Indians, and continued to devastate the population for centuries thereafter.

Possibly there were other parasitic diseases they brought back as well, but I have not read about it if so.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

What I’ve always wondered, and maybe you know the answer, how come the Europeans were not similarily affected by Indian diseases?

They had built up tolerances and immunities from repeated exposure. That’s the same reason that the rural suthrens in the Civil War suffered much more from diseases like mumps than their northern, more urbanized counterparts who had been exposed to more diseases with more contact with the populace.

 

[estesbob]

1807 Britain passes the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act which outlaws the British Atlantic slave trade.
1811 Slavery is abolished in Spain and the Spanish colonies. Cuba, however, refuses to accept the ban and continues to deal in slaves.
1813 Slave trading is banned by Sweden.
1814 Slave trading is banned by The Netherlands.
1817 Slave trading is abolished by France although it is not made effective until 1826.
1819 Portugal abolishes the slave trade north of the equator.
1819 Britain places a naval squadron off the West African coast to enforce the ban on slave trading.
1833 The Abolition of Slavery Act is passed. It brings into effect the gradual abolition of slavery in all British colonies. Plantation owners in the West Indies receive £20 million in compensation.
1848 Slavery is abolished by France.
1851 Slave trading is abolished by Brazil.

1865 It takes a massive and bloody Civil War to officially abolish slavery in the United States.

One of the reasons Lincoln issued the Eamacipation Proclomation was to keep Britain from entering the war on the Confederates side. Once Lincoln linked the war to slavery it became impossible for Britain to come in.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

All of this really is speculation. No proof of it, and you can’t find proof of it. Nor can you quantify it.

Actually, not at all. A sailor from that region would have been able to be a gunner in World War II. Black sailors were restricted to messmen duty, a lower ranking. Who do you think sent more money home?

Go ahead and quantify for me how much black discrimination where there were blacks, benefitted them. Also, quantify the money Chuck Yeager sent back to his community. And then tell me specifically how he benefitted from discrimination against blacks.

If every black flier would was eligible had been able to move up in the ranks in the Air Force, Chuck Yeager would have never made general. There are only so many open slots and black college graduates were denied them while white high school dropouts like Mr. Yeager were eligible.

If blacks had been allowed to be more productive, but were not, possibly everybody in the communities would have been richer; white and black alike. But the same would be true of a lot of people. When my Italian great-grandfather came to this country, the only work he could get was in the deep mines in Kansas. Blacks in the area would not do that work. Nobody would but recent immigrants, and only those, like Italians at the time, on the very bottom of the socioeconomic scale. So, relative to them, he was worse off, and never did exceed where local blacks were, economically. He eventually saved enough money to make a down payment on a farm. At that time, there were plenty of black farmers in Kansas who owned their (better) land free and clear. So, do they owe him, and do their descendants, therefore, owe me?

There were black miners in Alabama, including prisoners who were worse off than slaves.

As to your forebears, were they forced to work in the mines due to discrimination? Than those who discriminated against them gained illegally and immorally from the practice. And, I can tell you that black folks did not take jobs of Italian immigrants in Kansas which relegated them to the mines. I’m sure you also recognize that your ancestors were able to go to better schools on a desegregated basis than those open to even the more prosperous black farmers? Bad schools make it hard to get a job.

However, Italian construction unions up to the seventies and eighties had restrictions on membership to people related by blood to previous members. That is perpetuating discrimination!

 

[Ridgerunner]

They had built up tolerances and immunities from repeated exposure. That’s the same reason that the rural suthrens in the Civil War suffered much more from diseases like mumps than their northern, more urbanized counterparts who had been exposed to more diseases with more contact with the populace.

I’m sure you’re right about the rural vs urban acquired immunities to a degree. However, that alone doesn’t explain the total disappearance of large Indian cities in the Mississippi Valley after DeSoto but before Marquette. Some immunities are acquired over long periods counted in generations and after countless contagions and deaths; e.g., relative resistance of Africans to acute malaria. So are some tolerances; e.g. Indo-European retention of lactose tolerance into adulthood. But multi-generational exposure can be required for both.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, not at all. A sailor from that region would have been able to be a gunner in World War II. Black sailors were restricted to messmen duty, a lower ranking. Who do you think sent more money home? Who sent more money home? White messmen or black messmen? Do you not realize there were white messmen too?

If every black flier would was eligible had been able to move up in the ranks in the Air Force, Chuck Yeager would have never made general. **How do you know that? Please explain why Yeager could not have made general on his own. ** There are only so many open slots and black college graduates were denied them while white high school dropouts like Mr. Yeager were eligible. Yeager was not promoted because of his superior education, or because of his education at all. He could fly better than everyone else known; a skill you can’t really teach at the upper limits. Maybe some black flier could have surpassed him, but maybe not. You don’t know either way.

There were black miners in Alabama, including prisoners who were worse off than slaves.
**Some of which prisoners were white. I was talking about Kansas, not Alabama. **
As to your forebears, were they forced to work in the mines due to discrimination? Than those who discriminated against them gained illegally and immorally from the practice. And, I can tell you that black folks did not take jobs of Italian immigrants in Kansas which relegated them to the mines. I’m sure you also recognize that your ancestors were able to go to better schools on a desegregated basis than those open to even the more prosperous black farmers? Bad schools make it hard to get a job. **Well, black residents of the area had better jobs than did the Italians. Your argument would lead you to conclude that there is a debt from those blacks to those Italians. And yes indeed it was because of discrimination against Italians. You don’t seem to realize that some people in the history of this country rated lower than blacks in society. But they certainly did. My Italian great grandfather did not go to school at all. My Italian grandfather didn’t get past the third grade. Any blacks who went to school at all got better educated than they did. That part of Kansas wasn’t segregated at the time, except to the extent there were all-black towns made up of freedmen from the South, which there were. But that wasn’t “official”. It was because of affinity where they came from, just as there were all-German, all-Bohemian or all-Norwegian towns in different places, the settlers of which came from very limited areas in their home countries. **

However, Italian construction unions up to the seventies and eighties had restrictions on membership to people related by blood to previous members. That is perpetuating discrimination! ** I would never disagree that unions discriminate in favor of the families of members. That’s well known, still is, and wasn’t limited to “Italian” construction unions. Possibly you are aware, too, that there are “Italians” and “Italians”. Sicilians, for example, do not identify with, say, Alpines. Didn’t back then, and don’t now.**

 

[Major_Tom]

I’m sure you’re right about the rural vs urban acquired immunities to a degree. However, that alone doesn’t explain the total disappearance of large Indian cities in the Mississippi Valley after DeSoto but before Marquette. Some immunities are acquired over long periods counted in generations and after countless contagions and deaths; e.g., relative resistance of Africans to acute malaria. So are some tolerances; e.g. Indo-European retention of lactose tolerance into adulthood. But multi-generational exposure can be required for both.

Building on earlier posts, the Europeans were exposed to a lot germs, diseases, etc., due to the fact that the naturally occurring flora and fauna of Europe were very diverse. In addition, the population density, Europe-wide, was intense, so people were naturally exposed to many diseases. Think of the devestation of the Black Death…

In contrast, Americans were not: less population density to spread disease and acquire an immunity, less diversity of flora and fauna. Thus, their immune systems were much more susceptible to smallpox, which wiped out upwards of 95% of their population.

Europeans were susceptible to syphilis, as someone posted, and also yellow fever and malaria. But the impact of those diseases on Europeans didn’t reach anywhere the scale of smallpox to the Americans.

 

[Scalia]

Here’s what a white priest explained to me: Every white person in America benefitted from racial discrimination against blacks in the US.

Because of various types of subjugation, white folks were able to take home more money (and get better health care) and support their businesses better and educated there families better. Thus the entire white community got a benefit and the minority communities were harmed unfairly. The effects of such discrimination surely did not end in 1964, either. Bad health, bad neighborhoods near toxic wastes and bad living conditions stayed bad.

And, despite the views of Scalia, it does not matter if the whites immigrated here after emancipation or not. European POWs in the US were able to be fed in accommodations which were barred to US soldiers! And it is well-known that unions in our major cities had clauses restricting membership to the relatives and descendants of union members. This perpetuated the relegating of minorities to second class status and kept them in lower paying jobs. So minorities had less money to leave to their children and grandchildren.

What about white who never even met blacks? Chuck Yeager, a high school dropout from WV, became an officer in WWII. He was able to send an officer’s pay home to his relatives in the largely white state. This was a status which largely was unavailable to minorities during that war, so they sent less money home on a enlisted man’s pay. So, it does not matter even if whites here in America had been unfamiliar with black folks, they all benefited.

You could say that since 1865 white Americans had benefited from special treatment which was based on race. A sort of leg up like ‘legacy admissions’ to colleges, or, affirmative action.

Now, when you view history through that sort of lens, and realize that every day racial majorities in the US continue to benefit from racial discrimination, reparations begin to make a lot more sense.

Was the “white priest” Father Pfleger?

 

[Thing]

Whats wrong with slavery?