San Fran renaming schools

[byco42]

the two sides to this story are:


1) Hey, a lot of our American myths and legends gloss over appalling treatment and slaughter of Native Americans and also the extent and duration of the practice of slavery. We never accepted responsibility for these things; we still think we're exceptionally moral among nations, and use that myth to justify further atrocities and aggressive conduct toward the rest of the world.



vs.



2) No none of that happened, shut the fuck up, you just hate America. HATER.

No, that?s not quite accurate.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Every single state that seceded listed the defense of the practice of slavery first and foremost, and in some cases as the only reason, for their secession.

Is that true? I knew it was listed in some, but I didn't think it was all.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Well, in that area of history, I don't see any shades of gray there: If you committed armed treason in defense of the practice of slavery, you should not have a monument.

It doesn't matter if you were a likable guy, or told funny stories, felt bad about it later, or just felt really loyal to your state: you committed armed treason in defense of slavery.

I think some can be kept and contextualized. A lot of them shouldn't and still serve as sources of pride for racists. Each one should be evaluated separately based on it's history, the intent of building it (by who and when) and how it is viewed today.

 

[byco42]

Well, in that area of history, I don't see any shades of gray there: If you committed armed treason in defense of the practice of slavery, you should not have a monument.

It doesn't matter if you were a likable guy, or told funny stories, felt bad about it later, or just felt really loyal to your state: you committed armed treason in defense of slavery.

Every single state that seceded listed the defense of the practice of slavery first and foremost, and in some cases as the only reason, for their secession.

If you read the actual secession declaration documents of the states that seceded, you learn that North Carolina?s, Louisiana?s, Tennessee?s, and Florida?s make no mention of slavery.

So, clearly, you didn?t read them, which makes me wonder how you made this conclusion:

?Every single state that seceded listed the defense of the practice of slavery first and foremost, and in some cases as the only reason, for their secession.?

 

[byco42]

Is that true? I knew it was listed in some, but I didn't think it was all.

It is not true.

 

[Michchamp]

Is that true? I knew it was listed in some, but I didn't think it was all.

I read through them a while ago. Maybe some are a little more couched in legalese than others. I was surprised SC's buries slavery so far down their declaration, which is very wordy for a bunch of hotheaded slave-owning psychos. Maybe they weren't quite as a sure about being the first to secede as they thought



I found 5 of them here (original texts); I guess Virginia's is a little more vague, they just say:

"...the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."
​

this site went through an highlighted slavery as the basis in each. It didn't include some portions in the first link where some states buried the word "slavery" elsewhere in their articles of secession.

 

[Michchamp]

It is not true.

yeah, you're right. I guess I hadn't read through all of them.

According to the second link I posted, Florida for example basically just says "We're done, it wasn't working, bye."

 

[Michchamp]

So maybe for 1/3 of the confederacy it really was about states rights, HURR?!?!

 

[byco42]

I read through them a while ago. Maybe some are a little more couched in legalese than others. I was surprised SC's buries slavery so far down their declaration, which is very wordy for a bunch of hotheaded slave-owning psychos. Maybe they weren't quite as a sure about being the first to secede as they thought



I found 5 of them here (original texts); I guess Virginia's is a little more vague, they just say:

"...the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."
​

this site went through an highlighted slavery as the basis in each. It didn't include some portions in the first link where some states buried the word "slavery" elsewhere in their articles of secession.

You would make a very poor historian. But, a very popular one in this day and age.

 

[Michchamp]

You would make a very poor historian. But, a very popular one in this day and age.

Not among at least full half of the US population!

 

[byco42]

So maybe for 1/3 of the confederacy it really was about states rights, HURR?!?!

Suggested reading:

Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, by Eric Foner
Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, by J. Mills Thornton
The Peculiar Institution, by Kenneth Stamp
American Negro Slavery, by UB Phillips
Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives From the Federal Writers Project
Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made, by Eugene Genovese

I mean, as I?ve said, history is a complex pursuit. These offer varying viewpoints on the nature and rationale of slavery, none of which are in any way apologetic, though Phillips is clearly a proponent of the social order that slavery, in his opinion, supported and endorsed.

This is a baseline, and by no means meant to be the only books I?d recommend.

 

[byco42]

Not among at least full half of the US population!

Which would make very poor students of history.

 

[Michchamp]

Suggested reading:

Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, by Eric Foner
Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, by J. Mills Thornton
The Peculiar Institution, by Kenneth Stamp
American Negro Slavery, by UB Phillips
Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives From the Federal Writers Project
Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made, by Eugene Genovese

I mean, as I?ve said, history is a complex pursuit. These offer varying viewpoints on the nature and rationale of slavery, none of which are in any way apologetic, though Phillips is clearly a proponent of the social order that slavery, in his opinion, supported and endorsed.

This is a baseline, and by no means meant to be the only books I?d recommend.

I've read enough in my life to know that slavery is grotesque. I'm not interested in reading anyone else who tries to defend it, downplay the evil inherent in it, or offer rationales for it, unless it's to compile a list of "people on the wrong side of history." People were not better off as slaves, and picking and choosing one case or another is a lot of revisionist history that never actually looks at the big picture here, namely that the fact that humans were more openly & insanely cruel and oppressive to eachother in the past doesn't mean we should view that as the acceptable state of affairs, or a moral rule to judge ourselves today, in the 21st century. I don't have the time.



I get that in 1859, a lot of people - even in the North - didn't think so. I'm not saying they need to be condemned, just that we shouldn't build monuments to them, honor them, or find their views instructional

 

[Michchamp]

In a dark way, it's hilariousThomas Jefferson wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
​

...while owning over 600 slaves throughout his adult life, living way beyond his means even on their labors, and freeing only a few (6 or 7), most of which were slaves he fathered through an illicit relationship with another of his slaves.

Finding a way to resolve this extreme moral ambiguity, and fully accounting for it should have been a priority for us at some point in our history... I don't think that would be a purely academic exercise. We'd be a better country for it in every possible way.

I liked this contemporary response to the complaints underlying the Declaration of Independence:

how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?

?Samuel Johnson, Taxation No Tyranny An Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress, 1775.
​

 

[byco42]

I've read enough in my life to know that slavery is grotesque. I'm not interested in reading anyone else who tries to defend it, downplay the evil inherent in it, or offer rationales for it, unless it's to compile a list of "people on the wrong side of history."

None of these books do what you claim in the above, with the exception of Phillips, whom I recommended for historiographical purposes.

People were not better off as slaves, and picking and choosing one case or another is a lot of revisionist history that never actually looks at the big picture here, namely that the fact that humans were more openly & insanely cruel and oppressive to eachother in the past doesn't mean we should view that as the acceptable state of affairs, or a moral rule to judge ourselves today, in the 21st century. I don't have the time.

None of these recommended books can be considered as ?revisionist.? And all but one is highly critical of the practice of slavery. I recommended them as a way to learn more about what people at the time were thinking and doing to either resist or preserve the institution and how doing so helped to advance the Civil War, perpetuate some assumptions about especially southern society, or dispel them, and to consider that in an overall understanding of the ante-bellum era, which, based on your comments, seems to be rather incomplete.

I get that in 1859, a lot of people - even in the North - didn't think so. I'm not saying they need to be condemned, just that we shouldn't build monuments to them, honor them, or find their views instructional

Perhaps the solution then is to remove all reference to our history prior to 1865, including our own flag, from existence, since very few people in the antebellum period were opposed to slavery. And I expect that there are many other objectionable postbellum public figures we ?honor? as well that we need to address and determine if they are worthy of our collective esteem, us being We The People.

 

[byco42]

In a dark way, it's hilariousThomas Jefferson wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
​

...while owning over 600 slaves throughout his adult life, living way beyond his means even on their labors, and freeing only a few (6 or 7), most of which were slaves he fathered through an illicit relationship with another of his slaves.

Finding a way to resolve this extreme moral ambiguity, and fully accounting for it should have been a priority for us at some point in our history... I don't think that would be a purely academic exercise. We'd be a better country for it in every possible way.

I liked this contemporary response to the complaints underlying the Declaration of Independence:

how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?

—Samuel Johnson, Taxation No Tyranny An Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress, 1775.
​

While I do not disagree that Jefferson failed to live up to his own ideals, You then need to extend that contempt to every American citizen who lived from 1783 to 1877 and beyond who took no measures to abolish slavery, or who abandoned or opposed the policy of Reconstruction.

 

[Michchamp]

None of these books do what you claim in the above, with the exception of Phillips, whom I recommended for historiographical purposes.

None of these recommended books can be considered as ?revisionist.? And all but one is highly critical of the practice of slavery. I recommended them as a way to learn more about what people at the time were thinking and doing to either resist or preserve the institution and how doing so helped to advance the Civil War, perpetuate some assumptions about especially southern society, or dispel them, and to consider that in an overall understanding of the ante-bellum era, which, based on your comments, seems to be rather incomplete.

Perhaps the solution then is to remove all reference to our history prior to 1865, including our own flag, from existence, since very few people in the antebellum period were opposed to slavery. And I expect that there are many other objectionable postbellum public figures we ?honor? as well that we need to address and determine if they are worthy of our collective esteem, us being We The People.

I don't know... maybe just teaching the history more accurately would be enough.

I mean, even growing up in Michigan, I was left with the understanding that from 1865 - 1880, Reconstruction was bad, Grant was a nice guy but his administration was hopelessly corrupt, and things kinda just got better once federal troops left.

I didn't know until years later, more or less by seeking out and studying on my own, how slavery continued in practical effect, if not form, in much of the South, how much political pressure there was to withdraw federal troops from the South, and once gone, the KKK used straight up mob violence to roll back any progress on desegration.

And I sure as shit didn't learn anything about this, or this, which would've helped me understand a lot better why Detroit was one way, and the suburbs we lived in were another. At least a lot better than the explanations I was given... which never held up to scrutiny, and were tough to square with the "America is exceptional" stories I was fed in school. It took me years to straighten all this out.

 

[byco42]

I don't know... maybe just teaching the history more accurately would be enough.

I mean, even growing up in Michigan, I was left with the understanding that from 1865 - 1880, Reconstruction was bad, Grant was a nice guy but his administration was hopelessly corrupt, and things kinda just got better once federal troops left.

That was the polar opposite of my experience, from High School through Graduate School.

I didn't know until years later, more or less by seeking out and studying on my own, how slavery continued in practical effect, if not form, in much of the South, how much political pressure there was to withdraw federal troops from the South, and once gone, the KKK used straight up mob violence to roll back any progress on desegration.

None of this was covered at Brother Rice, or whatever American History you may have taken at Michigan?

And I sure as shit didn't learn anything about this, or this, which would've helped me understand a lot better why Detroit was one way, and the suburbs we lived in were another. At least a lot better than the explanations I was given... which never held up to scrutiny, and were tough to square with the "America is exceptional" stories I was fed in school. It took me years to straighten all this out.

Wow. This was common knowledge in the 60s and 70s. I was never offered that ?American Exceptionalism? yarn. It was sorta hard to promote in the years I attended PS, anyway.

 

[Michchamp]

That was the polar opposite of my experience, from High School through Graduate School.


None of this was covered at Brother Rice, or whatever American History you may have taken at Michigan?

I don't remember it at all. Things I remember learning from that time period:

"It was complicated" - These words are now always a red flag for me. Quantum physics is complicated. Brain surgery is complicated. Rocket science is complicated. History is not complicated.

"Northern carpetbaggers took advantage of the South and they resented it." I distinctly remember learning about "Carpetbaggers" and seeing editorial cartoons about it.

And the Grant Administration was savaged as corrupt. Not much was written about the KKK, and what I recall learning about it was another area where the "it's complicated" phrasing comes to mind.

I didn't take any history courses covering this stage of American history at UM. It wasn't required, and I wasn't a history major anyway (both of which I wish were different).

The American history I learned from 1860-1898 was pretty much The Civil War, Failed Reconstruction, "Radical" Republicans fall on their face, Big Business booms, some people criticise it as "The Gilded Age" though, then The Spanish American war, with some quibbling about whether it was necessary, but we kicked ass, which was fun!... and we're off to the Glorious American Empire...

Wow. This was common knowledge in the 60s and 70s. I was never offered that “American Exceptionalism” yarn. It was sorta hard to promote in the years I attended PS, anyway.

I would agree that education standards have fallen since your day.

Plus the efforts of Mellon Scaife, and people like the recently discussed William F. Buckley Jr., to fund organizations to start slipping weasel words into American text books were just getting started back then. Consider yourself lucky...

 

[Gulo Blue]

"It was complicated" - These words are now always a red flag for me.

I think history is complicated.

It's complicated right now. People I respect that I believe to be kind and smart voted for Trump. Explaining how that can be given what I understand of Trump is complicated.