in case you're not watching the political blogs today
At Crooked Timber we learn that the big time conservative radio guy Michael Medved has produced a bullet-points list defending US history with respect to slavery. His argument boils down to:
1. Everybody was doing it.
1a. Everybody was doing it for a long time.
1b. Socrates thought it was cool.
2. We didn't do it for very long.
2a. And not too many of us did it.
2b. And it wasn't really profitable.
2c. we abolished slavery before some other countries.
3. The Middle Passage was bad, but
3a. it wasn't genocide because all those deaths were not on purpose.
3b. The worst thing about the Middle Passage was -- depending on your interpretation of Medved's convoluted writing -- the moral dilemma for the slave ship operators caused by having to dump sick people alive into the ocean, or the loss of profits to the slave ship operators coming in with a lighter cargo because they had to dump live people into the ocean not to mention the ones who died in the between-decks and were dumped dead into the ocean.
4. Slave descendants profited by living in America instead of Africa. You got that? You're better off. Don't bitch about it.
Do go to the Crooked Timber link, and once there, follow every single link you find whether you have time for it or not. Besides getting more than your daily outrage quota, you'll find a link to a painting by Turner you hardly ever see, and a list of when slavery was actually abolished in various countries.
Oh, and it's about to be Banned Books Week. Beloved, Toni Morrison's masterpiece about the damage slavery inflicts on its survivors, is one of the top ten challenged books of 2006, for "offensive language, sexual content, and inappropriate to age group." (Many high schools are having their students read this excellent, excellent book, for its literary value, its passion and compassion, and its all around wonderfulness. But you shouldn't just read Beloved, you should read everything by Toni Morrison!)
Some stupid commenter says he doesn't feel guilty for what his country did in the past, and I think he's missed the point so thoroughly I don't know if he can ever be set straight. It's not a matter of personal guilt for collective crimes of the distant past. It's a matter of personal responsibility to the collective crimes of the past and present, and all their implications. Responsibility to, not responsibility for. The difference is enormous. If all you ever think about is "am I responsible for that?" you'll be forever nitpicking your job description as a citizen of the world instead of responding to what's going on.
The past is not dead: it's not even past. Faulkner said that: isn't it interesting it was a Southern author who said it? (not that I think slavery is or was a peculiarly Southern problem: the whole damned country owes its wealth to slavery, and probably its horrible attitudes towards the working class in general, too)
1. Everybody was doing it.
1a. Everybody was doing it for a long time.
1b. Socrates thought it was cool.
2. We didn't do it for very long.
2a. And not too many of us did it.
2b. And it wasn't really profitable.
2c. we abolished slavery before some other countries.
3. The Middle Passage was bad, but
3a. it wasn't genocide because all those deaths were not on purpose.
3b. The worst thing about the Middle Passage was -- depending on your interpretation of Medved's convoluted writing -- the moral dilemma for the slave ship operators caused by having to dump sick people alive into the ocean, or the loss of profits to the slave ship operators coming in with a lighter cargo because they had to dump live people into the ocean not to mention the ones who died in the between-decks and were dumped dead into the ocean.
4. Slave descendants profited by living in America instead of Africa. You got that? You're better off. Don't bitch about it.
Do go to the Crooked Timber link, and once there, follow every single link you find whether you have time for it or not. Besides getting more than your daily outrage quota, you'll find a link to a painting by Turner you hardly ever see, and a list of when slavery was actually abolished in various countries.
Oh, and it's about to be Banned Books Week. Beloved, Toni Morrison's masterpiece about the damage slavery inflicts on its survivors, is one of the top ten challenged books of 2006, for "offensive language, sexual content, and inappropriate to age group." (Many high schools are having their students read this excellent, excellent book, for its literary value, its passion and compassion, and its all around wonderfulness. But you shouldn't just read Beloved, you should read everything by Toni Morrison!)
Some stupid commenter says he doesn't feel guilty for what his country did in the past, and I think he's missed the point so thoroughly I don't know if he can ever be set straight. It's not a matter of personal guilt for collective crimes of the distant past. It's a matter of personal responsibility to the collective crimes of the past and present, and all their implications. Responsibility to, not responsibility for. The difference is enormous. If all you ever think about is "am I responsible for that?" you'll be forever nitpicking your job description as a citizen of the world instead of responding to what's going on.
The past is not dead: it's not even past. Faulkner said that: isn't it interesting it was a Southern author who said it? (not that I think slavery is or was a peculiarly Southern problem: the whole damned country owes its wealth to slavery, and probably its horrible attitudes towards the working class in general, too)