Of course there was lots of attempts to end-run around the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that amounted to de jure segregation.
I think a better benchmark is this: public opposition to interracial marriage flipped (from being the majority view to the minority view) between when Yahoo! was founded in 1994 and Google in 1998. Clinton was President, Seinfeld was on the air, and Quake was out.
> CASHIN: In 1954, 0 percent of black children in this country attended a majority white school. By 1988, 43 percent of black kids did. So we were fulfilling the promise of Brown. We were increasing in integration every year from the mid-'60s to the late '80s. We were closing the achievement gap between black and white kids.
> And then, in 1988, we begin to retreat. And in the '90s, the Supreme Court threw three opinions - signaled to lower courts that it was time for federal courts to get out of the business of policing schools' desegregation. And school segregation levels are about where they were in 1968. So we kind of lost 50 years of progress.
In practice, school district gerrymandering has effectively recreated "separate but equal". There is research (cited in the article linked below) that school districts are doing this.
Am I reading this wrong or does the article you cite in fact make a point that's exactly the opposite of your claim?
The graph of school district shapes' effect on educational vs residential racial segregation shows that the net effect is to _reduce_ segregation (though not very significantly), and that at the district level, this is true of a fairly substantial majority of districts.
The thesis of the article seems to be that educational racial segregation is overall largely a consequence of residential racial segregation, and that district shapes mitigate this to a minor degree. The article is saying that districts _should_ be gerrymandered, in order to make districts less segregated than the residential areas around them.
I get why you might have interpreted it otherwise: the article is typically poorly-written for Vox and pretty much designed to trick readers into exactly the misunderstanding you fell into. Mentioning that "some" district shapes increase segregation relative to residential, showing multiple cherry-picked examples of same, and then smoothly seguing into advocacy for gerrymandering to reduce segregation relative to the residential baseline is pretty much designed to trap readers that aren't paying attention or actually looking at the graphs. Regardless of your view on the topic, framing the data in the graph the way they did without clarifying that the examples they emphasized are in the minority by far is just dishonest journalism (if you can call what Vox does "journalism"...)
The Richards paper, on the other hand, claims in the abstract that gerrymandering "generally exacerbates segregation". I wasn't sure how to reconcile this claim with Monarrez's paper, the graph from my comment, as well as https://mobile.twitter.com/alv9n/status/950388285318328321 (from the articles author).
So I read the Richards paper, and now I can't reconcile why it explicitly contradicts its abstract (and your claim) in multiple places:
> Interestingly, gerrymandering was
inversely related to segregation, such that districts with higher levels of segregation were less gerrymandered than less segregated districts.
> Indeed, in the only direct
examination of the effects of educational gerrymandering, Clark (1987) con-
cluded that gerrymandering of attendance zone boundaries in Topeka in the
1950s and 1960s were either neutral or desegregative in nature.
The results of her paper show a minuscule mean effect on school segregation due to gerrymandering: between 0.001% (ie 0.00001)and 0.003% mean increase in the level of segregation, with an outlier of 0.006% for Asian-White segregation.
As I mention above, this contradicts the findings from the other papers discussed. But even if we take this paper as our source of truth, it still seems like residential segregation is responsible for the vast majority of district segregation, and that the total magnitude of the gerrymandering effect is tiny.
"White-Flight" is a well-known concept. Also of note, the onus is on the accuser in most Western societies...
Yes, decades of redlining and other less explicit policies have created a situation in which residences are somewhat segregated.
That's not an argument against the goal of desegregation; it's a statement of what the causes of the current problem are.
People just won't click through, give it a skim, and see he's only giving an extensive history and suggesting a study to identify and (if needed) correct lingering effects of slavery and ongoing effects of racism. I learned so much about the past and present of racism back when it was published.
And then of course there is always the discussion about how to calculate the fair amount.
Did you know Haiti was paying back it's "debt" to France for Haitian bodies "expropriated" from French slavery until 1947?
That's because you downthread hazarded the argument that perhaps (compared, implicitly, to Africans on the African continent) African Americans were better off as a result of slavery.
That's a reprehensible argument, but at least it puts you on the hook for points like these.
This is simple reasoning; nothing reprehensible here. However, it would be reprehensible if I used this one positive outcome to justify slavery, which I’m very clearly not doing. Slavery is bad even if it did have a positive outcome.
Of course, none of this “puts me on the hook” for other other unrelated arguments, nor do they make Haitian slavery relevant to the subject of US reparations.
What is ridiculous is you trying to detract from this history by pointing to an Africa that has _also_ been obviously and inarguably harmed by imperialism. It is absolutely indefensible.
Consider the problems Jackie Robinson, first black player in Major League Baseball, had in trying to buy a house in the suburbs of Manhattan (Westchester County, NY and in Connecticut)
For these things, the perpetrators and/or their children are likely still alive, as are the beneficiaries.
Good or bad, homeownership is a major way people build wealth in our society. Being excluded from it prevents you from building wealth.
Take the outrage that many younger people feel about generational exclusion from homeownership and then realize that until relatively recently blacks were systematically excluded in much more explicit ways: exclusion from loans, red lining, etc. The effects were the same: no equity, no ability to escape increasing rent, family instability.
Yes. To add to that: the mere fact that the current European economy cannot exist but for the spoils of centuries of imperialism and exploitation should itself give us pause.
You cannot separate the effects of the Industrial Revolution on Europe from their imperialist practices.
The Industrial Revolution was principally fueled by resource extraction, labor extraction and genocide committed in the colonies.
> and of course European colonialism also drove industrialization in its colonies.
This is literally a standard white supremacist talking point. So I'm not really going to engage with it further, other than to point that out, and to mention that "trickle down" industrialization of the colonies doesn't justify the massive exploitation that European colonialism hinged on.
This is patently false, and we know it’s false because the end of slavery and colonialism didn’t slow the pace of industrialization. Certainly some of the initial investment came from wealth created by slavery and colonialism, but it was by no means the principal fuel however much activist revisionist historians might like us to believe otherwise.
> This is literally a standard white supremacist talking point.
Maybe so, but “white supremacy” doesn’t logically follow, so the point remains valid. I’m not content to yield the truth to white supremacists, since their conclusion is incompatible with the truth. Of course this one benefit doesn’t justify colonization; injustices can have some positive outcomes—we can recognize this while acknowledging that the positive outcome doesn’t justify the injustice.
Very heavy reparations were demanded from France after the 1870-1871 war. Guess by who? Germany. France paid in full, quite quickly, despite the reparations being very large and the French economy being smaller than the German one in 1918.
Germany didn't really want to pay and it also fell into disarray due to other reasons, not related to the reparations.
I know this is a sort of twisted morality, like not punishing a bully because he might beat you up, but as many have discovered, the moral high ground is not a shield.
It is controversial, but not a myth:
This problem of discrimination and a lack of opportunity is not racial, it extends beyond those lines, I feel like if it was approached from a broader perspective like that, it would have much more possibility of working. Politics based on race only end up dividing people and used by those in power. The biggest problem in this country isn't racial (though it is an issue), it is social. There's the haves and the have nots. The haves continually use racial and other issues to divide the have nots, and the have nots remain with nothing.
The response to Kanye's latest stuff has been really enlightening. The following is also from Coates.
Similarly, this was really great, as it shows the outlash King got when he tried to approach wider social issues as well as the outright hostility against him in places we don't usually consider "racist".
> Politics based on race only end up dividing people and used by those in power.
This is very, very easy for people who have never been victims of racism to say. The self-serving backwardness of this logic doesn't just violate basic moral precepts it also ignores the most basic legal precepts. If a group of people are subjected to centuries of abuse they should be awarded redress. It doesn't get more basic than that. To say that now is the time to "look beyond race" and ignore the the many crimes is just abhorrent.
(Ironically the whole situation does highlight that the worst crimes evade justice. If the slaves had been part of a foreign country that was conquered and enslaved then there would be no question about reparations. But because the slaves were themselves "Americans," where slavery was conviently not a crime, they will likely never be awarded justice.)
America has already paid a very high and bitter price to end slavery, in the usual currency for freedom - blood.
It's a pretty high price any way you want to look at it.
WW1 is a notable exception.
Reparations have been argued for throughout the world, with very limited success. See:
In 1999, the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for the West to pay $777 trillion to Africa within five years.
Needless to say, that's not going to happen any time soon.
My point is that an action such as reparations is very, very difficult. There are other ways of righting those wrongs, such as through political action which sees proper funding go to inner city schools in minority areas, and better social/economic support for the lower class. This can be a racial argument, but these are issues for all races (even those in the rural majority demographic), which is why that's a broader strategy with a better chance of winning than dying on the hill that is reparations.
This is emotional reasoning to make me look like I'm immoral because I don't support dividing people up. I believe we have more in common than we have different. That's the opposite of racism. It's not that I don't support African Americans fighting for their rights, it is that I believe the most effective way of doing so is by banding together with other people with similar concerns and needs. That's more effective, it's always been more effective. It's the basis of winning coalitions in politics.
I just have a different viewpoint than you, it doesn't mean I'm "self-serving", "backwards" or "violating basic moral precepts". I care about this issue,I consider myself a humanist, I just believe there are more effective strategies than fighting a racial conflict. Casting out others becuase they are more moderate is not a winning strategy. I'm all about reality in politics. You too?
This is by no means universally true regarding conflicts, and in the case of reparations in regards to slavery, it certainly isn't true (see the above Wiki link).
Your feelings and beliefs are irrelevant to the question of reparations. Again, this may be an abstract issue that can be dismissed with platitudes to you but many people -- especially the victims -- do not feel this way. Whose feelings merit greater consideration?
> But reparations for the crimes against them aren't incoming, nor do I believe they should be.
Not sure what this has to do with anything. I guess because some criminals escape justice it's not worth pursuing any justice?
> Get off your high horse.
Your argument boils down to "Get over it." You might dance around with it platitudes about common goals (in fact African Americans are still subject to systemic oppression in many states) but, just to be clear, this is what you are advocating.
Again, it's the sort of argument which is only possible from an extraordinary position of privilege and the goal is not justice but rather to perpetuate that privilege.
> I care about this issue,I consider myself a humanist, I just believe there are more effective strategies than fighting a racial conflict.
I'd suggest that more often than not, thinking in terms of some monolithic "racial conflict" is not an effective way to initiate change. Focus on real people, their lives, and their struggles. Name names. Get concrete. Otherwise you risk glossing over the crucially important details and perpetrating the very injustices you might seek to fight.
 Though there are some who suggest slavery wasn't a crime before the 13th amendment. This argument is at least honest though it leads to the conclusion that all state-sanctioned genocides aren't illegal. Then you've got those who suggest the Federal government wasn't the perpetrator of said crimes. This is actually a position I think is quite tenable. But it's all the more reason to let the courts do what they do best. Investigate the evidence, compel discovery, establish clear chains of evidence and harm, rule on the facts, identify the perpetrators and deliver justice.
What's truly extraordinary is not just that the USA never offered redress slaves and their children but that there has never even been any kind of official commission to establish the facts.
Unfortunately, feelings are irrelevant to real world politics and legal issues in many cases. I'm only trying to explain to you why I feel this way. If the feelings of victims were enough, that Wiki page would have at least one example of reparations.
It's not saying "get over it". It's saying let us address this another way. You don't know who I've helped in the last months or year or during my life, so please don't patronize me. You are intentionally or not distorting what I'm saying.
Which is why I study politics for a living and why I cited sources in my post, you know, concrete things. Would you do the same?
If you're just going to castigate and isolate people who have different view than you (but maybe have the same goal as you), what's the point?
If you want to get concrete, let's do it, but you're mainly saying stuff like I'm "devoid of basic moral precepts" which is insulting and absurd. I'd like to discuss this, but not if its just going to turn into that.
Certainly not my intention. I apologize. I try to separate the ideas from the person. Alas, it's an emotional topic. It's interesting to note that the proposition, "racial crimes require racial justice" is not on its face so controversial. If the victims are all of one race then surely any legitimate response would be similarly focused, right? But as you point out such race-based thinking frightens and divides people. But, I maintain, these feelings of fear and division are not sufficient to deny the cause of justice. I belabor this point precisely because very often in modern democracies -- though it's true of all governments -- the majority will do not do the right thing. In the face of great injustice there will always be calls to accept the political reality. Such calls are calls to accept injustice. The great injustices of slavery and systemic racism were not eliminated by accepting political realities. It's doubtful that any great injustice can be eliminated in such a manner.
We should not accept inequality nor injustice. We've just gotta find the best way (or ways) of combating it, which we may disagree about.
I linked an HBO doc about King in another comment. It's really interesting to see how strongly other civil rights leaders disagreed with his view on nonviolence, so there are probably many valid approaches.
If that kind of action was possible 50 years ago, certainly there's a lot of possibilities today.
I get that you feel strongly about your opinions, but you’re coming off as rude. Apologies if I’m mistaken.
"The Truth Behind ’40 Acres and a Mule’"
from the article:
'And what happened to this astonishingly visionary program, which would have fundamentally altered the course of American race relations? Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor and a sympathizer with the South, overturned the Order in the fall of 1865, and..."returned the land along the South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts to the planters who had originally owned it” — to the very people who had declared war on the United States of America.'
And if you look at household wealth the disparity is even greater--much greater.
But let's also remember that fixing an evil eventually means that we are committing an evil repeatedly in the interim. Generations of African-Americans lived and died under slavery and segregation; that it was stopped eventually did them no good, and more generations continue to face discrimination right now. It's similar to when a person is freed after decades of imprisonment for an unjust conviction: It's better than leaving them in prison, but a great evil was committed.
MLK put it well:
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate ... who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
 Letter From a Birmingham Jail by MLK, the most valuable words you can read about the subject of oppression and the response to it: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
Tick, tick - 4 people were just born. 250 people will be born in the next minute. 360k people will be born today. And also tomorrow. 2.5M this week. 130M this year. In about 6 years, almost all of them will hit school. School. Schools that are pervasively wretched. Can you make them less wretched? You have six years to change the world. For each 4 years your improvements are delayed, your window misses half a billion people. Good luck. Tick, tock.
One thing I took away from working on One Laptop Per Child, is that few appreciate the breathtakingly high cost of time.
People seem to have difficulty thinking about, and empathizing with, large numbers of people. The "one death is a tragedy, but ten thousand deaths is a statistic" observation. So it's a challenge to craft descriptions that provide some sense of scale, while retaining an emotional connection. Narrowing scope can help.
Sort of? The major European powers "ended" it at home by outsourcing it to their colonies. It's not like Britain, France, Belgium, etc. weren't still practicing explicit chattel slavery well into the 20th century.
What's strange is the common insistence that segregation has ended, and what's remaining is somehow by the choice of the participants, even the ones who lose out: the strangeness is that that argument is no different from the arguments made during legal segregation, when the claim was that the law was just a representation and reflection of values held in common.
If today you stood on the corner of the block I grew up on in Chicago for a year, you'd never see a white person.
It’s a shame that this is a widely accepted explanation for the segregated neighborhoods we live in today. There were proactive policies — some promoted by the federal government — that made it this way.
To add to your point, they can see it now: Even though it's not the law, schools are highly segregated and, IIRC articles I read awhile go, funding to schools that are predominantly African-American is much lower.
Remember? You can see it now. Not just in the South, but in every state. In fact, Oregon is probably the state where segregation and its effects are the most visible today.
There is no room for 'sides to the story'. It was a statement made and countered by this source. We can take issue with the source if you like, but I looked them up and didn't see anything partisan about them.
When MTV debuted on Aug. 1, 1981, at least one black face on the network was a mainstay. It belonged to J.J. Jackson, the sole African American on MTV's roster of video jockeys, or VJs as they became known.
Despite Jackson’s presence on MTV through 1986, the network faced allegations of racism for giving scant airtime to videos featuring people of color. MTV executives have denied that racism was at the root of the network’s “blackout,” saying that black artists received little airplay because their music didn’t fit the channel’s rock-based format.
“MTV was originally designed to be a rock music channel,” said Buzz Brindle, MTV’s former director of music programming, to Jet magazine in 2006. “It was difficult for MTV to find African American artists whose music fit the channel’s format that leaned toward rock at the outset.”
With so few black rockers, adding African Americans to MTV’s roster proved difficult, according to the network’s co-founder Les Garland, whom Jet also interviewed.
“We had nothing to pick from,” Garland explained. “Fifty percent of my time was spent in the early days of MTV convincing artists to make music videos and convincing record labels to put up money to make those videos…”
To quote, either start each paragraph with ">", or put asterisks (sans spaces) before and after the text.
“We have to try and do what we think not only New York and Los Angeles will appreciate, but also Poughkeepsie or the Midwest. Pick some town in the Midwest which would be scared to death by … a string of other black faces, or black music.”
Which is more like saying, "we're not racists, we just have to appease racists to make our profits".
My dad remembered watching the parades as a young boy for both Marshall Foch (French WW1 general) and Charles Lindberg. He knew friends of his family who fought in the Civil War.
The last surviving American veteran of WWI died in 2011.
Whenever I hear stuff like that, I always have the same reaction you did that we're more connected to these historical events than we think we are.
It's been going on way too long. I think about it every time I see a cop.
It's 10x worse than when I was growing up because municipalities realized no one was keeping track of the amounts of the fees/fines, and they just raised them.
Along with making everything against some law?
I really think the only way to stop it is to tie Fees/fines to income.
He did share a couple anecdotes about being moved by the government for a book report I wrote in grade school
Not very far removed from that bullshit either
But yeah American wealth was generated by free enterprise as the story goes, right?
What a shithole country
An anecdote: I grew up close by the Oneida Indian Nation and one of the town seals for an area village (the aptly named Whitesboro) had a white man choking an Oneida. The seal was depicting a good-natured wrestling match from the 18th century that led to a decent long-lasting relationship between the Oneidas and early settlers, but at first glance it looked very terrible. Someone at the Daily Show discovered this, descended upon Whitesboro and strongarmed them into changing the seal (and honestly they probably should have anyways since it isn't obvious what it meant without more context). What I found ironic was that they interviewed a Lenape (a.k.a. the sworn enemy of the Iroquois) who dutifully informed them how terrible the seal was.
In the meantime, more serious issues that the Oneida actually care more about were ignored by the Daily Show. Namely, the Daily Show completely glossed over the fact that the Oneida Indian Nation is essentially a puppet state run by Ray Halbritter, who was illegally elected and essentially does/did the bidding of Sherwood Boehlert (a former white congressman from the area). It probably wouldn't have made for as sexy of a segment, but it still annoys me that of all the white-native issues from my area, they chose to highlight the Whitesboro seal.
 There's also the question of Iroquois-Iroquois relations after the Revolutionary War, when some tribes in the confederacy sided with the British and had to flee to Canada and other tribes stayed in New York.
Disclaimer: Fact check my statements because I'm not totally sure I understand the Ray Halbritter issue myself / don't think about it on a daily basis.
The idea of a fascist takeover of Europe or the world was a very real threat for them.
The oldest surviving human writings date back to about 5000 years ago.
The classic Greek philosophers and mathematicians (Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras) lived about 2500 years ago.
Ptolemy lived about 2000 years ago.
Copernicus lived about 500 years ago.
Newton published Principia 331 years ago.
Darwin published Origin of Species 159 years ago.
Slavery in the U.S. formally ended 153 years ago.
The Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk 115 years ago.
Einstein published general relativity 103 years ago.
Alan Turing published "On computable numbers" 82 years ago.
The first atomic bomb was detonated 73 years ago.
Bell's theorem was published 54 years ago.
The Apple II was introduced 41 years ago.
The Aspect experiment (the first experimental test of Bell's theorem) took place 36 years ago.
The Macintosh was introduced 34 years ago.
The first exoplanet was discovered 26 years ago.
Y Combinator graduated its first class of startups 13 years ago.
The iPhone was introduced 11 years ago.
Gravity waves were first detected 3 years ago.
But nothing at all interesting has happened since then. ;-)
This one makes me feel old.
With "we" you mean the "united states"? There are millions of people the world over in slavery right now, so "we" in terms of humanity have still not overcome this problem. [1,2]
And similarly the only reason I post this is because I think people are mostly ignorant of the past and present. We often view history like a Hollywood movie with good guys, bad guys, and a happy ending. Reality is rarely so kind.
This is haunting.
I imagine it would be a blend of his probable native language in Benin, Yoruba, with the English of 1860s Alabama, Older Southern American English. My best guess for the sound would be to listen to a Beninese speaker of English and imagine it with more of what’s now considered an old-fashioned sophisticated Southern accent, and perhaps less French influence. The closest living relative would probably be African American Vernacular English.
It’s important to note that the features of the transcription hint at both his and her accent: she was transcribing the sounds as best she knew how to make someone with her accent pronounce them as he did.
Transcribing his pronunciation of “what” as “whut”, for example, points to the fact that “what” was likely pronounced with [ɑ] in her accent, rhyming with “cot”, but he pronounced it more or less as we do now, rhyming with “cut”. Transcribing “like” as “lak” implies he had /aɪ/ glide weakening (to “ah”, as in “ah do declayuh”) where she didn’t, at least in some contexts—“my” is still transcribed as such, not “ma”. It’s also likely that he didn’t diphthongise vowels, so he’d pronounce “maybe” as something like /meːbi/ instead of /meɪbi/. “Can’t” as “cain” suggests he rhymed it with “cane”, like some AAVE speakers now. And so on.
> “Oh!” she exclaimed toward the end [of a letter to Langston Hughes], “almost forgot”: she had found another survivor of the Clotilda living on the Tombigbee River, two hundred miles north of Africatown. The woman was older than Kossola, and, according to Hurston, a better storyteller. But there can’t be two lasts or more than one only, so Hurston, perhaps believing that Kossola’s story would be more valuable if people thought it was unique, told Hughes that she planned to keep this other survivor secret: “No one will ever know about her but us.”
> Tragically, that proved true. Abandoning her training by Boas, and ignoring the dictates of both honesty and history, Hurston forsook the opportunity to record the story of another survivor. Later scholars have determined that the person Hurston “almost forgot” was most likely a woman named Allie Beren, but no film footage records her face, no known photographs document her home, no oral histories capture her memories.
The loss of Ms. Beren's story is tragic; that its loss occurred through Hurston's intentional neglect is infuriating.
> "The loss of Ms. Beren's story is tragic; that its loss occurred through Hurston's intentional neglect is infuriating."
The comment is about the tragedy of the loss of the 2nd survivor's story itself.
King Tegbesu made £250,000 a year selling people into slavery in 1750. King Gezo said in the 1840's he would do anything the British wanted him to do apart from giving up slave trade:
"The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…"
Other African Kings were making bank as well. After the British made slave trade illegal in 1807, a distraught King of Bonny complained :
"We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself."
After you understand this, its not hard to imagine that white slave traders would naturally leverage African tribes at constant wars with each other to capture other party's members for money. What's better than killing your enemy? Make them disappear permanently while becoming rich and powerful!
I also doubt if African tribes actually understood this as part of war against their own race. The white salve traders would have surely treated their helpers very nicely and respectfully while introducing themselves as service providers to take their enemies away in exchange of money. People in Africa would at that time have little means to know what these white slave owners in Western world really thought about them and how they treated them because of their skin color.
So the slave traders systematically exploited same trick that colonials used to dominate vast populations with extremely small number of their own people: identify factions, take sides, wait till one faction gets weakened in economic and military strength from wars, load them up with debts and fear, and finally submit them to obedience. The classic divide and conquer strategy works every time through out the history in all kind of different problems.
There were fairly notorious slave trading outposts up and down the African coast. Eg.
David Livingstone came across Arab slave traders in the 1870s deep in the interior:
We often talk about slavery in the West, but many don't realize how endemic slavery was to the Arab world and how late it lasted:
Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924 when the new Turkish Constitution disbanded the Imperial Harem and made the last concubines and eunuchs free citizens of the newly proclaimed republic. Slavery in Iran was abolished in 1929. Among the last states to abolish slavery were Saudi Arabia and Yemen, which abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman in 1970, and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007.
Finally, the reach of slavery is pretty incredible. During the Great Game period between Russia and Britain in Central Asia, both sides would come across Russian slaves who had been taken by Turkic raiders. This was at least 1840 or so.
But again, to circle back around to the point, nobody was really unaware of this stuff going on. Slavery unfortunately has been a pretty common feature of history. We all played divide and conquer. The West weren't the only people smart enough to figure out that strategy.
It takes some agency from those peoples when we see them as unknowing, ignorant victims who were tricked by outsiders. They in reality made brutal and tactical decisions about their local enemies. They weren't dumb, they knew what they were doing.
> There was concern among “black intellectuals and political leaders” that the book laid uncomfortably bare Africans’ involvement in the slave trade, according to novelist Alice Walker’s foreword to the book, which is finally being published in May. (...) As Walker writes, “Who would want to know, via a blow-by-blow account, how African chiefs deliberately set out to capture Africans from neighboring tribes, to provoke wars of conquest in order to capture for the slave trade. This is, make no mistake, a harrowing read.”
I agree, though, if we want to be more closer to the truth in terms of what really happened back then we need to also focus on how the African slaves really got to become slaves in the first place (most probably as a result of war or rapines).
Even repeating a sentence about this that appeared in the original article gets downvoted and reported. Why is this such a sensitive thing to talk about?
It seems this man was still in early twenties when he was freed after the civil war. Further, he was a new arrival and not descendant of generations of slaves who had been Americanized and had made the new place their home just as their owners had.
So my question is: why he and other new arrivals like him didn't try to return home? Wasn't there any support and means for new arrivals to return? FYI, I know about Liberia, and I specifically want to know about new arrivals like Cudjo.
"...Know how we gittee free? Cudjo tellee you dat. De boat I on, it in de Mobile. We all on dere to go in de Montgomery, but Cap’n Jim Meaher, he not on de boat dat day. It April 12, 1865. De Yankee soldiers dey come down to de boat and eatee de mulberries off de trees. Den dey see us and say, “Y’all can’t stay dere no mo’. You free, you doan b’long to nobody no mo.’ ”
Oh, Lor’! I so glad. We astee de soldiers where we goin’? Dey say dey doan know. Dey told us to go where we feel lak goin’, we ain’ no mo’ slave.
After dey free us, we so glad, we makee de drum and beat it lak in de Affica soil. We glad we free, but we cain stay wid de folks what own us no mo’. Where we goin’ live, we doan know.
We want buildee de houses for ourselves, but we ain’ got no lan’. We meet together and we talk. We say we from cross de water so we go back where we come from. So we say we work in slavery five year and de six months for nothin’, now we work for money and gittee in de ship and go back to our country. We think Cap’n Meaher dey ought take us back home. But we think we save money and buy de ticket ourselves. So we tell de women, “Now we all want go back home. Derefo’ we got to work hard and save de money. You see fine clothes, you must not wish for dem.” De women tell us dey do all dey kin to get back, and dey tellee us, “You see fine clothes, don’t you wish for dem neither.”
But it too much money we need. So we think we stay here.
He was lucky enough to be accepted since he was from Africa. Many more weren't from Africa. They. like their parents, were American. Slaves, but still American - complete with conversion to Christianity and the English language. Even if you were lucky enough to have money, this would have made it a tougher decision.
> After the Civil War, the people had asked the U.S. government to repatriate them, but they were refused.
This one in particular still sends shivers down my spine whenever I listen to it:
Journalists make this decision all the time: Do they take out the wrong words, grammatical errors, the 'umms' and 'ahhs', or vernacular, and make the speaker look less intelligent (for errors) or simply look like they are trying to characterize the speaker (vernacular), or do they insist on total accuracy? Note that most quotes in print are in perfect English.
Anyway, the article addresses your comment:
[Zora Neale] Hurston’s use of vernacular dialogue in both her novels and her anthropological interviews was often controversial, as some black American thinkers at the time argued that this played to black caricatures in the minds of white people. Hurston disagreed, and refused to change Lewis’ dialect—which was one of the reasons a publisher turned her manuscript down back in the 1930s.
Note that Hurston was a leading African-American intellectual of that era.
It's unlikely that this is a true reflection of the phonetics of what he said.
As a Scot who has been to southern US, I strongly disagree. There are a number of accents and dialects in Scotland, and not one of them is even remotely reminiscent of a southern US accent or dialect.
But really even without the journalistic [corrections], the tone is still very different from Hurston's original transcription:
> “We were very sorry to be parted from one another,” Lewis told Hurston. “We went seventy days crossing the water from the African soil, and now they part us from one another. Therefore we cry. Our grief was so heavy it looked like we can't stand it. I think maybe I will die in my sleep when I dream about my mama.”
That case was made particularly egregious when the last administration wanted to get the TPP trade agreement passed. Malaysia's rating, on human trafficking and slavery, was upgraded exclusively to allow them to participate even though they had made absolutely no progress on the issue whatsoever.
It looks like what they first thought of was to find a place to live, and to try to go back home.
What makes you think that he did not ask for compensation from his owners?
If you read a bit more you will see that they did ask their former owners for compensation indeed.
"Because Cudjo “always talkee good,” the Africans selected him to approach their former owners and ask for land in exchange for their years of free labor."
The quote is from another site linked by Joeboy further down in the comments: https://www.vulture.com/2018/04/zora-neale-hurston-barracoon...
Ummm... Are you serious? The economy of the early usa was heavily dependent on slavery. It has had a far reaching impact on our demography, our culture, and our politics to this day. Every american, even today, feels that impact.(black people are still facing discrimination, unequal treatment by police, generational poverty, and the lingering effects of white flight and urban decay) The existence of abolitionists alone does not erase the stain of slavery, as you say. You can't tell the story of America without slavery. And if youre american, its part of your history.
Just a couple of references I found with a quick search.
Your second link has this paragraph
"The answer is "0"; slavery did not create a major share of the capital that financed the European industrial revolution. The combined profits of the slave trade and West Indian plantations did not add up to five percent of Britain's national income at the time of the industrial revolution."
So I am confused about what I am supposed to take away from the links you gave.
The quote you cite explicitly talks about the _European_ industrial revolution. The _very next sentence_ says:
>. Nevertheless, slavery was indispensable to European development of the New World. It is inconceivable that European colonists could have settled and developed North and South America and the Caribbean without slave labor
Even more to the point, a couple sentences later:
> In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers.
Given that we're talking precisely about "the economy of the early usa", this is the relevant perspective.
Again, shame on you
The demographics are not in dispute: at no point in time did the US have more than 23% of the population be African Americans.
So even assuming they all worked exactly as hard as all others (and that 100% were enslaved), the share is "23%".
So is that "heavily dependant" given that 77% of the output is not from that source? I would point out that cotton was a raw material crop, while the Northern development was a mix of agriculture and industry.
>thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers.
These two quotes prove my claim. Slave grown crops were a large part of the usa's exports and even in states without slaves, industry depended on the plantation system in some way. I think its reasonable to say the us economy heavily depended on slavery for that reason. Either you are expending an extraordinary amount of effort nitpicking the semantics of "heavily" or you're knowlingly deluding yourself to avoid facing the truth.
As an american, who lives in an area where enslaved people once walked, i know its hard to accept that the country i love was founded on opression. But it's something we all must acknowledge. It's a dark chapter of our history, and it continues to impact us today.
Maternal side: has been in the USA since 1727. In those nearly 300 years, no one ever owned slaves or benefited from slavery. In fact, it is possible that they were even harmed by it; because as free farmers they had to compete against slave labor.
Paternal side: arrived in 1920s, well after slavery ended.
Edit: of course I realize that another way to interpret the statement "black lives matter" is to see it as more of a slogan and a constant reminder to address the issue as opposed to an accusation that someone or some group of people thinks otherwise. The fact that this statement is open to alternative interpretations is a problem for this movement, though.
All white people as individuals were not responsible for slavery, and some even opposed it, but all still benefited from slavery by virtue of being born into the race, society and class that the slave system was designed to benefit. That is unfair, but nonetheless true.
This is false. Many benefited, true, but not all. And even if it was true, I don't see why people should be made responsible for the actions of others that under some definition are from their same "group", even if they benefited from them. This is collectivism/racism at its finest, it bothers me tremendously and I'm not even white.
There are indirect benefits and direct benefits to an unjust system - implicit as well as explicit power that comes from membership in a privileged class. Having legal rights and protections that other classes don't enjoy is a benefit. Being allowed to read, having autonomy over your own children, being able to walk freely, being allowed to maintain a connection to one's ancestors, religion and emigrant homeland... these are all benefits granted to white people as a group during slavery.
> I don't see why people should be made responsible for the actions of others that under some definition are from their same "group", even if they benefited from them.
Well... I did concede that they shouldn't, and weren't. But if one group of people are considered property, and another group of people are legally capable of owning the first, then the latter group benefits from that system if only because they aren't the former.
It just happens that, at that time and place, the necessary selector for privilege was "whiteness." In another time, it might have been religion, or ethnicity or culture or following the wrong King. There were plenty of societies that practiced slavery that discriminated along many lines.
Irish Catholics and many other groups had no special place as immigrants, they didn't get positive points for not being African. That's the unfortunate truth with all forms of discrimination, it's hardly something limited by class, race or time.
Sure, slavery didnt literally benefit every white person. But youd be hard pressed to find a white person today who never experienced any form of white privellage
I find nothing ahistorical about what I said.
If you go further back and see what Cromwell and others did to the Irish (the first British colonization was in Ireland), and then extend that to the US, where that kind of hatred was shared by Nativists, it is certainly not inaccurate, even if the discrimination is of a different from than what Africans faced.
I dislike the notion that because people aren't African they weren't victims, too, which gets bandied around a lot. We all have tragedies and I see no reason to ignore the plight of one to make the point about another (which the parent post does, wrongly).
Maybe "whites are responsible for slavery" is a deceptive statement for all i know. But nobodys saying that.
That’s the feature though, not a bug.