'everyone was essentially part of the
social system that kept slavery intact long after it had been abolished in
the
rest of the "civilized" world'

I have been reading this line with interest--the above statement, however,
is too general.  True, slavery was not just in the south (much worse there
of course), but a lot of folks fought very hard against slavery (white men
and women among them), and still get very little credit.  We only really
know the authors famous for fighting slavery like Thoreau and Whitman, but
the other thousands, who put their lives on the line just as freedom
fighters did in Birmingham  a hundred years later, are discounted.  It was
never 'everybody'--It was the men who had the power to make laws which has
always been a privileged elite few.  The population of this country was all
over the place on the slavery issue, and often young men who did not believe
in slavery (on either side) still fought for their country, as they have had
to in all of our wars.

Also--characterizing women in Civil War times as having anything close to
the power men had re: slaves or anything else is not accurate.  I have
looked through my family tree, and the rainbow therein, and see straightaway
that the few remaining journals of literate "rich" woman who wrote about
that time were very much telling the truth!  Their main concern, cliché or
not, was blocking visits, if they were at all able, from their menfolk to
the slave quarters.  I have not read one account by a woman from that time
who did not have that concern very much on her mind.

I find myself irritated at this "white men" thing--we attack feminists,
racists, African American men, Hispanic women--"whoever"--but it was in
fact, like it or not, it was 'White Men' who held the majority of the slaves
and held the power over the slaves.  Some women certainly wielded power with
the household slaves, who always fared better, and could certainly persuade,
hint, lie re: an action or a concern.  As could men.  But in reality, from
all the written accounts I have read, and knowing the history of the time,
women had very little power period, and it was it confined to one or two
areas only.  I don't understand why we have to ignore that fact at this late
juncture.

I agree with Deb that the true stain on America is slavery; I still find the
entire debacle hard to comprehend at times.

Rhonda


----- Original Message -----
From: "Deb Fuller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: "Enslaved"


> --- Max van Balgooy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > "You will notice that we use the terms 'master-enslaver' and 'enslaver'
> > to talk about those who enslaved others.  This is quite intentional.  It
> > is generally considered polite to talk about these famous men as
> > planters, politicians, or "great leaders".  We want to call attention to
> > how the frame shifts if we also talk about them as enslavers.  This
> > emphasis, while in itself a partial distortion, complicates these other
> > frames if applied consistently.
>
> Okay, I will throw up the BS flag on this one. You cannot hope to increase
> understanding on a subject that is already distorted by distoring it in
another
> direction. This will just serve to irritate the people who's ideas you are
> challenging and make them far less open to other viewpoints thus defeating
the
> whole purpose. In addition, you are also creating new misconceptions in
people
> who have little knowledge of the subject and are trying to learn.
>
> Secondly, it also seems like a knock specificailly at "white men" in
> particular. One thing I've noticed about the whole "enslaver" issue is
that it
> is almost exclusively used when talking about the male owner of slaves,
usually
> the plantation owner. Women were slave owners as well and were largely
> responsible for a plantation's success. Using the rationale that their
comfort
> and wealth was because of appropriated labor of enslaved peoples, that
puts
> them in the same category as the men. But I guess if you are already
considered
> to be part of an "oppressed" population, as women are often times
considered
> because of their lack of rights and social status, it's not PC to also
consider
> them to be "enslavers".
>
> Along this vein, why aren't these "enslavers" also described as "bigots"
and
> "chauvinist" because they also would have thought that Native Americans,
> Mexicans, the Irish, and other non-Europeans were inferior and women were
the
> weaker sex. I mean if you are going to point out one of their faults to
show
> that they weren't great politicians or leaders every minute of the day,
why not
> point them all out while you are at it.
>
> Thirdly, I'll state again that using the term "enslaved" implies that the
> people were free at one point. If they were taken from Africa, sold, or
forced
> into slavery, I'll grant the use of the word. But if people were never
free to
> begin with, they can't really be "enslaved". They start out as slaves.
It's
> like being born an American (or other nationality) citizen. If you are
born in
> America or to American parents, you are automatically a citizen. There is
no
> naturalization process. So why are slaves who are born slaves suddenly
given
> the status of "enslaved", which has been up until recently, applied to
people
> who at one point had been free?
>
> >And while these men were not
> > politicians or great leaders every moment of every day, they were always
> > enslavers.  Their comfort and wealth were wrapped up with the fact that
> > they enslaved other people, appropriating their labor and controlling
> > their lives.  Such an approach, we believe, challenges commonly used
> > language and frames of understanding that replicate systems of racism.
>
> And it does nothing to educate people on the social conditions that made
> slavery acceptable. Instead, it looks like a smear campaign against men
who
> have otherwise been revered. Not one exhibit on slavery that I've seen
actually
> goes into the social history of why slavery was acceptable in it's time.
(I'm
> sure they are out there but it doesn't seem to be the norm.) If the goal
of
> changing the language is to challenge frames of understanding, we must
present
> the whole picture, not one piece of it. A relatively few number of white
men
> owned slaves; a vast majority of people supported the institution.
>
> In addition, we can't say in one breath that it is wrong to apply 21st
century
> ideals to another time period and then turn around and apply one of our
21st
> century ideals to that time period.
>
> > It is also in line with suggestions by Michael Banton, Robert Miles,
> > Stephen Small, bell hooks, Leon Higginbotham, and others within the
> > field of race studies that we remove language that continues to mask
> > systems of domination.  We recognize the term may be awkward for some,
> > disturbing or irritating to others; however, we use it to unmask the
> > ways that dominant language obscures the reality of enslaving human
> > beings.
>
> I think people are smart enough to figure out for themselves how truly
terrible
> slavery was without unmasking any language. I think it's great that
historic
> houses are starting to show other aspects of the time period besides just
the
> lives of the white men who owned the houses. You don't need many words to
> convey the vast differences between a plantation house and the slave
quarters.
> Having both on display is impact enough. I think people are smart enough
to
> figure out the rest. If they aren't, no amount of language will help them
> understand.
>
> > "The other term that we use quite consciously is 'enslaved' (instead of
> > 'slave').  We use it to counter a long tradition of erasing the basic
> > humanity of enslaved people by naming them only in terms of a status
> > that was imposed upon them.  Using the term 'enslaved people' emphasizes
> > the point that 'people' were enslaved and that who they were exceeded
> > that status."
>
> So how is "slave status" different from "enslaved people status"? "Slave"
has
> always been applied to people. Animals aren't enslaved. People were
treated
> like objects. They were listed in death inventories along with farm
animals and
> property. Again, modern people are probably smart enough to see a death
> inventory and come to same conclusion that *human beings* had this status
> imposed on them. Changing the wording gives an inaccurate picture of the
> historical times. A slave owner would not look at his slave and think,
"this is
> an enslaved person that had this status imposed on him." No. They are
going to
> look at a slave and think, "This is a good strong farmhand. He's worth
$200."
>
> Dickering over language seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to avoid
> confronting the social reasons behind slavery in the US and to shift the
blame
> onto a few white men who owned plantations. This is not surprising.
Slavery is
> a HUGE embaressment in the timeline of US history. On the one hand, we, as
a
> nation, did a lot of impressive things. We were the upstart country that
won
> our freedom from an oppressive colonial government and in little over 200
> years, has become one of the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful nations
in
> the world. Europe had been working on their countries for a couple of
thousand
> years and didn't get as far.
>
> We pride ourselves on being the "land of the free" and it is directly tied
into
> our national image. Our pledge, our national anthem, our money, national
seal
> and flag all have mention or symbolizm about freedom and liberty for all
> people. So how do we, as a nation, reconcile the fact that a little under
150
> years ago that we had a social and legal system that deliberately took
away the
> freedom of other people and it was an intregal part of our society? Oooh,
ouch.
> Kinda stings doesn't it? Europe got rid of slavery long before we did.
Germany
> had that mass extermination thing going on not long ago but that was
carried
> out by one crazed maniac and his minions, not the entire nation in
general.
>
> In contrast, slavery was supported and promoted by basically the entire
nation.
> Sure, there were free states and there was also the fugitive slave act
that
> said that run-a-way slaves could be returned to their masters no matter
where
> in the Union they happened to be found - free state or not. So while the
> majority of Americans did not own slaves, everyone was essentially part of
the
> social system that kept slavery intact long after it had been abolished in
the
> rest of the "civilized" world. A plantation owner might be the primary
> "enslaver" but it was the rest of society that supported the system. It's
just
> a little easier to point the finger a few men with power than the average
joe.
>
> And one can argue that one way to affect changing attitudes is to start
> changing the language. But I see a lot of verbage changing and not a lot
else
> being done to explain the times and social attitudes. We need to go one
step
> beyond "this is how the rich whites lived and this is how the enslaved
peoples
> lived." We need to start addressing WHY and HOW. How does a person become
> dehumanized to the point of being property? That is what needs to be
addressed;
> not how to distort history through language to try and redeem a population
that
> has long been misunderstood.
>
> Deb
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).