“A Childhood Nightmare vs. a Childhood Dream”

From the birth of slavery around the early 1600’s until its abortion in the latter years of the 1800’s, a very distinct, but brutal difference always existed between black slave children and slave master’s free children. Across a spectrum, their lives differed in the aspects of obtaining physical nourishment, durable clothing/shoes, a decent education, mental guidance, and most of all, freedom. The slave master’s children received the best treatment and the most solid foundation in which to build their life upon, while the black slave children struggled constantly just too even get a glimpse or a taste of what that life would be like.

To begin with, as a result of the harsh conditions that slave owners placed on African slaves, infants, who could not even defend themselves, were the smallest, most innocent victims. “Half of all infants died during their first year of life, twice the rate of white babies.” The high death rate for African infants was a direct result of “chronic undernourishment.” Most slave owners forced their pregnant, African mothers to work in the fields from sun-up until sundown until their last week prior to giving birth. They did not even have the decency to provide the women with nourishing food so that their baby could stand a fair chance at surviving birth. Therefore, if the infants survived, they were severely malnourished. Slave owners viewed infants as nothing more but another “dollar in their pocket.” They knew that a continuation of reproduction would continue to power a constant increase in slave labor and their wealth. On the other hand, the slave’s master’s infants were given the most adequate child care possible. Masters and their wives had ultimate control over their children and could raise their children in any way they desired. The master’s wives had an abundance of nourishment because they had a wide range of possible food choices, foods that contained sufficient amounts of protein and other nutrients. This luxury allowed many of the master’s wives to give birth to very healthy babies. Not to mention, white mothers were given bed rest and were not forced into carrying out multiple tasks that were strenuous to themselves or their babies. Having children was very important to slave owners because their children would inherit their plantations and keep their productions prospering.

Once the black child was old enough to read and write, he/she still was not allowed to acquire such knowledge. Enslaved children were looked upon as inferior property whose main goals, for the entirety of their life, were to perform labor. Their masters strongly felt that it was unnecessary for the children to receive an education because they saw no connection between an education benefiting the children in doing their tasks. For the longest period of time, slave owners saw learning to read and write as a white privilege and superiority only. An enslaved child’s life was to serve his master and his family, and thus, providing these children with an education would be redundant. After all, they did not want the slave children to have access of understanding of what was to become of their lives and their families.

Last but not least, the enslaved children lacked a stability of mental/parental guidance. Some of them were lucky if they were not separated from their parents and families, but most of them were sold. Thus, they were never able to see their families’ faces again. The few parents that were able to communicate with their children told them encouraging words, such as “you are worth far more than what any price tag could say,” and “you are superior above all.” For those whose parents were gone, their poor minds, broken bodies, and shattered spirits were left to battle the monster of slavery alone. They were never privileged enough to enjoy the laughter and smiles of just being able to play with toys and other kids. Unlike them, slave masters’ children did not know what the feeling was like to be raped of everything that made them who they were. They had awakened to the world each day with no major worries, but just to be a happy child.

These circumstances particularly filled me with rage because in reality they all are just children, who did not ask to be born in such a tragic time and place. They all deserved an equal right to a very joyous and fulfilling childhood. As I reminisce about my own childhood, those were some of the best memories of my life, and to know that so many children were robbed of the same chance brings tears to my eyes. If I had a wish and a time machine to travel back in time, I would love to be an angel to those children who were left alone, and turn their childhood nightmare into a dream of reality. But since that is not possible, I promise to always be grateful of their trials and tribulations, and to always cherish my education, but most importantly, MY FREEDOM.

“Nigger vs. Nigga: A Double Standard”

Although some people overlook the difference in their spellings and assume these words share the same derogatory connotation, others feel that their distinct spellings constitute very distinct meanings to varying societies. To begin with, the term “nigger” was given to the black slaves during slavery because of their dark-colored skin. It was a racist insult. Living with the identity of a nigger, these HUMAN BEINGS were economically, politically, and socially disenfranchised. They were nothing more but of monetary value to their slave masters. Showing the least amount of respect to a “nigger” was out of the norm for the white society. Therefore, due to such harsh living conditions and constant abandonment, many African Americans find it very offensive for a Caucasian to refer to them as a “nigger” because it resurrects the awful memory of slave treatment.

On the other hand, some African Americans have adopted a new spelling of the word- “nigga,” and used it within a contrasting context. The word is used more liberally among the younger black generation. Saying “what’s up my nigga,” and “how are you doing my nigga,” signified a symbol of endearment and brotherhood they shared for each other. Within this defined social group, it harbored the same fondness as the words “bro,” “brotha,” or “sista.” Soon thereafter, the cultural influence of the word expanded massively within the entertainment industry, particularly in hip-hop music and comedy. In hip-hop music, examples include: hip-hop group Niggaz Wit' Attitude (N.W.A.), A Tribe Called Quest's "Sucka Nigga", Notorious B.I.G.'s song, "The Realest Niggaz", Jay-Z's "Jigga That Nigga" and Snoop Dogg's "For All My Niggaz and B**ches". These titles of songs incorporating the word “nigga” emphasizes how they found self- confidence and friendships, and most of all fame. Comedian Chris Rock’s routine "Niggas vs. Black People" distinguishes a nigga, which he defined as a "low-expectation-having person", from a "black person". In contrast, Tupac Shakur distinguished between nigger and nigga: "Niggers was the ones on the rope, hanging off the thing; niggas is the ones with gold ropes, hanging out at clubs.” Tupac said his song N.I.G.G.A. stood for "Never Ignorant Getting Goals Accomplished."

In conclusion, there is conflicting popular opinion on whether there is any meaningful difference between the terms nigga and nigger. Many people, both black and white, consider the terms to be equally devaluing, yet many African Americans embrace the term “nigga” and detest “nigger,” due to its derogatory history. They also feel offended when individuals from other races, particularly Caucasion refer to them as a “nigga” because they are not part of the “brotherhood.” Because of this, some critics along with others have deemed this controversial issue as a “double standard,” because it takes the form of a word in which certain concepts are perceived as acceptable to be applied by one group of people (blacks), but are considered unacceptable when applied by another group (whites). Personally, I don’t find it degrading for black people to refer to each other in that way because I feel that it helps them to find laughter and comfort within a word that once subjected them to a lower form of life. After all, I’m in total agreement with Tupac’s perspective on the meaning of a N.I.G.G.A-“Never Ignorant Getting Goals Accomplished.”

In Response to Fear of Education

I gave up trying to post to the actual blog entry.


What I find most interesting about your idea is the whites’ fear of black education and never allowing them even the opportunity to learn. As the separate but equal laws arose we saw the separation of schools and other institutions, and I am sure white southerners felt confident that African Americans had been refused an education and liberty for so long, they would not even know where to start or how to educate or spark a voice within their culture. Black southerners did the complete opposite in the most essential structures of any community: the church, school, government. Whites gave them the chance to be as free as they would let them, but as southerner blacks started creating their institutions they gained power they no one thought was possible. They were able to determine what to teach in schools and how to bridge the gap that was constantly thrown in their children’s faces. They were able to worship, preach, sing, and congregate in any way they felt best conveyed their message. They were creating black institutions that made their race strong and demonstrate they were defining their culture and race. While their impact was not as noticed or acknowledged until years later, they were laying a foundation for the generations to come. Showing them that it is okay to educate yourself and your family, you as a member of this community owe it to yourself to rise to your potential. I do understand that in this time, their potential would not be something extreme, but it is the principles and ideals that their striving to educate their entire community even if such degrading circumstances is a true lesson.

Commodification and Comparison

I’m also studying the Holocaust in a Religious Studies class, and I was struck by the similarities between how slaves (during the slave trade) and European Jews (during the Holocaust) were treated. Don’t get me wrong – the slave trade and the Holocaust took place in two very different historical time periods and under very different circumstances. Reading Smallwood’s paper on the idea of “commodified freedom” made me contemplate the commodification of the Jews during the Holocaust. Prior to the outright extermination activities, the Nazis forced many Jews to wear a yellow star of David on their outer clothing, a symbol of their Jewish heritage. Similarly, Africans in the slave trade were easily identifiable by their different skin color, their language, and their customs. During the years of the Holocaust, Jews who entered into concentration camps (in particular, the labor camps) were tattooed with a series of letters and numbers by which to be identified during their time in the camp. Slaves were priced, bought, and branded, existing (similar to the Jews) only as numbers in a system. Just as the Jews were separated between who should die and who could serve Nazi Germany’s greater good, slaves were processed, divided, and categorized by who could best serve a master. People were broken down into who should work and live, and who should work and die. It is interesting to see the “process” behind the dehumanization of the slaves and the Jews, as well as how one could go about rationalizing such barbarity with religion or logic.

A question arose while reading the Smallwood paper: did white slaveholders, particularly those in the South, truly believe slaves were lesser men in the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural sense, or was that reasoning just an excuse to profit from the free labor of someone else? How could one human being rationalize the horrible, degrading treatment of other human beings?

In lecture, we discussed the question of which came first, slavery or race? The idea of race might have been a modern one with regard to slaves, but Hitler also utilized the issue of “race” when describing the number of Jews who lived within German jurisdiction. Over time, Hitler legally restricted the civil rights of the Jews until they had none – for few reasons other than the fact that he believed they were a lesser race of people who did not deserve to live. Just as the Jews were attacked and persecuted for little reasoning other than the fact that they were Jewish, so African-Americans were limited politically, socially, and economically by the prejudices of the Jim Crow legal system.

The Evolution of Sambo and How Spike Lee Ruined Morgan For Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN-T_WRs7eo&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL97E51705D35F8009

Watch the video above. Just the first two minutes even.

You’ve just met “Sambo,” or a “Sambo,”rather. Sambo is essentially a stock character, that is, a character that carries many of the same traits from film to film, show to show, or from appearance to appearance in print. Sambo, specifically, is always black. He is often characterized by any combination of a clear lack of intellect, a propensity to scare easily, and really just any combination of any of the various black stereotypes created during and after the American slave era. While the traditional stock character of Sambo has essentially died out due to blatantly racist nature, the idea of a recurring African American stock character has not. It has simply evolved.

In a 2001 lecture at Yale University, African American filmmaker, Spike Lee, coined the term “Magical Negro.” To summarize, the Magical Negro is essentially a black character with some sort of power (whether it be overtly supernatural, or simply some specific wisdom) whose sole purpose is to help the white protagonist move forward towards his/her ultimate goal. I actually stumbled upon this while looking through information for my last blog post and thought this was worthy of it’s own. I’ve always understood the concept of limited roles for African American actors and the motives behind them, but I had never considered the idea of a STOCK character so immensely prevalent throughout film in the last twenty years or so.

The obvious character Lee mentioned in his lecture was Michael Clark Duncan’s portrayal of a wrongly accused prison inmate who literally possessed magical healing powers in The Green Mile. That made sense. The character lubricated major character development (all white characters) in the movie. But then I started considering other films based around the relationship of one white man and one black man.

One of my friends and I have this ongoing joke that Morgan Freeman basically plays God in every film he’s ever starred in (we obviously haven’t seen ALL of them, but our foundation is pretty solid). After all, he does literally play god in Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty, his unwavering wisdom (omniscience?) in films like Seven and The Shawshank Redemption, and his ability to basically narrate half the films I’ve ever seen with a narrator involved all do point to a “God-like” status. Every film I just mentioned features a white lead actor (It could certainly be argued that Freeman plays the lead in Shawshank, but either way, his character serves largely to help the white character alongside him). Now maybe my view has become skewed after reading about Spike Lee’s lecture, but every one of these characters main functions seems to be helping the white lead character along through advice or powers.

Being familiar with Spike Lee, I am aware that he can be a bit of an extremist at times, but his idea, nonetheless, has left an imprint in my mind. If this concept of the “Magical Negro” as a stock character does truly exist and is as prevalent in modern cinema as it appears to be, is it really all that far from being an evolution of “Sambo?”

Recent Homicide of James Craig Anderson & Hate Crime

A summer murder of a black man by white teenagers in Jackson, MS came to national attention in late July and August after the video of the vehicular homicide was made public. By all accounts there is little evidence to suggest this was not a racially motivated crime. The two news articles cited above provide excellent accounts of the homicide. Dedmon pled not guilty and he absolutely is entitled to due process. The fact of the matter is that all accounts point to Dedmon not only committing the crime (it's on video) but him also initiating the murder by encouraging his friends to leave the party they were at saying, "Let's go fuck with some niggers." If this incident doesn't fit the definition of a hate crime then I don't know what does.

When I first began reading about the case over the summer I groaned. I was very disheartened this had to happen in Mississippi of all places. Mostly, though, I was shocked that a group of teenagers could have the psychological mindset to do something like that. It isn't as difficult to imagine one individual being bigoted enough to commit a hate crime. But I haven't read anywhere that anyone at the party (several of whom followed Dedmon into Jackson on his "hunt") tried to stop him. I feel overwhelmed when I think of how these types of incidents can still happen in today's society. I was raised in the Mississippi Delta, and yes I had and still have friends there who I would have to say are racist, but I can never imagine any of them taking it to that level.

There is something about a crime like this that inspires a sense of disgust and outrage. When a crime is committed because of ethnicity, religion, or sexuality there is something intrinsic about those crimes that makes them seem worse than if the crime was instigated by another motivation. I have heard some compelling arguments, however, that hate crimes should not carrier a higher or more severe penalty than a crime of the same magnitude that wasn't instigated by reasons based on ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. I am inclined to say that hate crimes do deserve higher penalties because of the danger and instability they pose to society. What is your opinion on hate crimes? Perhaps more controversially, do you think hate crimes should apply to whites as well? If a crime against a white person is racially motivated should the defendant be subject to charges under federal hate crime statutes?

Comments

I am having trouble posting comments as well. In response to-


Willed Ignorance:

The relationship between a white child and his/her African American nanny is something I have also considered in great detail, especially after reading The Help. This novel explicitly details the fears of a black maid, Aibileen, who is raising her seventeenth white child- a little girl- in Jackson, Mississippi during the 1960's. When I first considered the special bond that develops between a "mammy" figure and a child, I believed that this connection had the potential to overcome the racist attitudes a child during this time period would be taught/would perceive from his/her parents. The child will love and admire that woman (it was the 1960’s afterall) until they are taught not to. I am very interested in the psychological processes that occur as a child struggles to understand why everyone, often most notably their parents, treats someone the child loves with such hate and disrespect. This post touches on an even more complicated process and line of questions- How are children taught to understand difference (as this still often results in racial prejudice)?

The Fresh Prince of Statistical Analysis:

I agree that the presence (or lack thereof) of African American actors in Hollywood deserves much attention and makes for a very interesting discussion. Movies are one of the most central and dynamic ways in which the perceptions of different groups of people are portrayed. As Hollywood and the film industry often mirror the dominant social culture of the individuals with power, this institution has always been dominated by white actors and actresses. In the beginning of the twentieth century black characters were in fact played by white actors in blackface. In the first part of this century a number of films were produced that put forth very damaging perceptions of black individuals; films such as Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind. How long have these films and the characters within them shaped racial perceptions? How does media continue to shape our perceptions of others?

Tony Horne

I often wonder if we could start from scratch with the human mind, never mentioning racial difference or teaching children about diversity, how would these children naturally act and think? I believe the Education system is just as important, if not more important than the family is shaping the perceptions of children. Approximately one-third of the day is spent in a school environment for majority of students. I think that noticing that someone looks different from yourself is only natural and I would expect the children to question skin-color differences; however, when this issue did arise, if nothing more than “We’re just different colors” was said to address the topic- how would children react? To put it differently, how would human nature dictate one’s actions and interactions from people who look different from the individual?

The Freedom’s Journal

Freedom’s Journal illustrates how fundamentally important it is to have an outlet to express oneself. This journal allowed African Americans a space to express themselves-free of whites. Additionally, it allowed them ownership of not only this publication but ownership of themselves and their thoughts-supporting an independence that most slaves had never experienced before. Freedom’s Journal was the catalyst for a black press that “helps unite black people by giving them a voice, community self-awareness and a prominent role in a changing world” (Newseum). This voice is central to the survival of any group and I believe it can be realized in many forms: most commonly through written, oral, and performance traditions.

IN RESPONSE TO "Willed Ignorance"

It is not allowing me to comment of any posts.


I also believe that the likening of African Americans to livestock or property was a way in whites attempted to make themselves less morally responsible for the mistreatment and abuse of slaves. However, I believe whites had other intentions for categorizing slaves as less than human. They wanted to make it evident that these beings that inhabited their plantations were a part of the machine that exported the most cotton the fastest. Slave owners felt the need to show the slaves that they were replaceable if they did not meet the standards of work the owner wanted to uphold. Slaves were the only workers on those plantations, while you may see some cattle here or there. It is not like previous times where oxen were pulling wagons carrying crops, these slaves did everything. In my opinion, they in some ways were the cattle’s replacement; a superior replacement but slave owners found a new population they could dominate over. Just like the Jim Crow laws, the white southerners wanted to subliminally make the ranking in the social caste system clear. Implementation of the notion that slaves were less than human was a way to further submit African Americans to a level that whites hoped they could never come up from. Everything whites did to their slaves had a purpose. Using various explanations for slavery it appears that southerners were trying to ‘save face’ and make it appear they were naïve to the humanity of African Americans. I do disagree with your statement that whites believed their slaves deserved rights. If that was the case, why would they have tried so hard to dehumanize and submit the entire race? They did not value them as humans they valued them as their means for income; they treasured the money and image these men and woman created for them. To white southerners they were never people, they were property which supplied them with income. Without this property, they would not have the money or the image that kept them in business.

“Pants on the Ground, Pants on the Ground, Looking like I fool with your Pants on the Ground” - Gen. Pratt

Since the immersion of Hip-Hop into American media in the 1990’s, the fad of sagging has become more and more popular. Some even believe sagging is almost synonymous with young African American culture. While it may be more prevalent in African American communities, sagging is also seen across the world in a variety of different cultures. It is in fact a fashion trend. Then why is there so much more attention on this fad than any other? What makes sagging different? Many people propose that it gives a poor representation of the African American population as it is mostly tied with young black Americans. But just because sagging is often seen more in the black community, I do not think the issue should be a huge target for political candidates or civil rights activists. It is only a trend that is currently prevalent across the world, and like all past trends, it will eventually die out on its own.
Similar to other fads, sagging has seen a rise in its popularity due to celebrities and other role models engaging in the practice. However, it is different than other trends in various ways. In addition to crime and violence often being associated with young black youth who sag their pants, many people are anti-sagging because of the public indecency that occurs when someone has their pants down to their knees. In a speech before the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama stated that people “should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's wrong with that? Come on. Some people might not want to see your underwear. I’m one of them." There is little to no political undertone to Obama’s displeasure of sagging. Regardless of the color of the person, sagging simply can offend people due to the skin and undergarments being shown. In addition, sagging illustrates an overall sloppy image, regardless of race. In the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Japanese snowboarder, Kazuhiro Kokubo, was not allowed to participate in the opening ceremonies because of his sloppy appearance, which included low riding pants. Race played absolutely no rule in the official’s displeasure of Kokubo’s style of wearing pants. It was messy and unprofessional and they did not want that to be shown. While I understand that sagging has the potential to have larger implications for African Americans, there are logical reasons to be against this fashion trend that does not reflect any cultural bias whatsoever.
Even in the face of all these criticisms, sagging has been profoundly popular for 20 years demonstrating a testament to the immense popularity of hip hop. Its presence not just in the black population, but in white and Hispanic populations as well, demonstrates its universal attractiveness. But I truly believe sagging is above all else a fashion trend. Its popularity will eventually diminish, and similar to the sweat bands and leggings of the ‘80’s, it will be replaced by a new fashion fad.

BY FARRELL DILIBERTO

From Frank Robinson to Michael Vick: The Transition to the Modern Black Athlete

In the period following World War II, the United States underwent dramatic social change. During this time, civil rights organizations experienced a great increase in their popularity among the black population, as the NAACP increased its membership from 18,000 before the war to 500,000 after it (www.naacp.org). In addition, African Americans were finally permitted to join the American Federation of Labor and other labor unions. The rise of these organizations allowed for great pressure to be exerted on institutions and the population as a whole to give blacks equal citizenship. At the same time, similar pressure was being put on sporting organizations to integrate their teams. Therefore, the desegregation of sports accurately depicts the continuing struggle for blacks to gain complete equality.
In the late 1940’s, organizations, overwhelmed by mounting pressure from society, began signing black players. While the signing of Jackie Robinson by the Brooklyn Dodgers is widely viewed as the beginning of integrated American sport, several black players, such as Kenny Washington and Woody Strode, signed contracts to play in the NFL two years earlier. All of these guys became established players and enjoyed great careers with their respective teams, thereby opening up the doors for generations of black athletes. Players are judged most importantly on their production on the field, and while these first black players, demonstrated great skills, the most important thing they did was the way in which they conducted themselves off the field. To justify their place among white athletes, they not only had to beat white players in competition, but they had to live just as perfect personal lives. And they did so to a t. What if Jackie Robinson was in constant trouble with the law or if Kenny Washington had a publicized drug problem? It would have casted a shadow over all black athletes, as many whites would have been quick to generalize all black athletes poorly. Instead, because of the exemplary behavior most early black athletes exhibited, there was a slight decrease in prejudices and African Americans moved closer to equality.
Even though black athletes were allowed to play with white players, they were still not seen as equal. In the years following desegregation, black players were treated much differently, specifically regarding the positions they were allowed to play. Many of the NFL elite believed that black quarterbacks did not have the intelligence or leadership to command the position and were often moved to other positions that highlighted pure athletic ability such as wide receiver. In response, black quarterbacks, including Warren Moon, Jimmy Jones, and Karl Douglas, went to Canada to play quarterback in the CFL. This prejudice in sports demonstrated the racial stigmas that were still present in society as late as the 1980’s.
While there remain common threads that link today’s athletes to athletes of the past, there are glaring differences that illustrate our progress. Black athletes are still often viewed as physically superior due to their biological makeup. They are still role models and leaders in the community. However, now they are not just role models for the black community but they are looked up to by an entire generation of young Americans. There are more Michael Jordan posters hanging from children’s walls than there are any other athlete. Think we would have seen a picture of Fran Robinson hanging in white little Jimmy’s room back in the 50’s. Probably not. Also, now, we do not stereotype an entire race based one or two individuals, as illustrated by the transgressions of Tiger Woods and Michael Vick. Both players committed atrocious acts in their personal lives, whether it was beating dogs or committing infidelity. However, there actions only impact how America sees them as individuals. There was a time when the actions of these two athletes would represent the entire black population not just themselves. So Vick and Woods better thank Frank Robinson and other black players who led desegregation because if Michael Vick and Tiger Woods were the first to integrate sports, it probably have taken a much longer time to rid society of many racial stigmas.

BY FARRELL DILIBERTO

The Justification for Violence

When I was in high school, I seldom agreed with my English teacher. I never fully agreed with his style of teaching and his political views. However, a random comment he stated made a profound impact on my perspective of life. Paraphrasing, he stated: "no matter how much the society claimed it has advanced in various fields of science, the minds and hearts of the people never truly progressed at all." Essentially, we, as a whole society, are stuck in history. When there is any sort of disagreement among individuals, it seems like the ultimate solution we are prone to select is violence.

War, regardless of its scale regionally or globally, is something that everyone wishes to avoid. Is violence escapable? Certainly not. There is no doubt that as long as human beings exist, there is going to be disagreement. But can certain violent act be justified? I would think so. In previous class discussions, we talked about slave resistance and its gradual transformation to rebellions. Africans Americans would often fake illness, do less work, bad work, and even sabotage property in order for them to be heard. These acts represented the result of long-term repression, and when these actions did not attain any compromise or negotiation, the effect was series of more and larger scale of violent acts. For instance, Nat Turner, a black preacher that led a slave revolt in 1826, killed over 50 slaveholders, which included men, women, and children. Some students in the class expressed their disagreement over killing women and small children, asserting that his action violated ethical boundary. To an extent, I see why Tuner’s rebellious move could be unpleasant to some individuals. However, I consider this outbreak of violence was eventual and unavoidable if that is the only path for African Americans to win their freedom. By committing a violent act, it is the fastest route to get public attention.

For years, African American slaves were silenced by the predominately white society. They were forced to turn into commodities. The complete constitution of slavery was supported by selfish reasons. It was mistake, and an entire race was suffering, living in an undignified life because of that mistake. Therefore, I propose, war is a necessity if that is the only access to the door of freedom. Violence is the tool to open that door of liberty. In other words, violence is only justified for legitimate reasons, to end wrong beginnings.

Children in Slavery

One of the most interesting and inspiring areas of African American History is the reaction and involvement of children. When learning about African American history, the children are often ignored or spoken about minimally. The stories from adults are commonly told, and while they are inspiring as well, it is the children that show the most bravery.

African American children growing up in slavery have a very unique experience. From the time they are born, they are constantly looking to their elders for answers or explanations as to why things are happening in certain ways. Most of the time, they accept the situation not really understanding or knowing how to react.

In the Jim Crow book, there is a passage on a young girl named Brenda Davillier. Brenda lived in a predominately black community where she attended church weekly. She remembered that she was allowed to sit in any seat because there were never any white people in attendance. Moreover, she had read a letter from the archbishop explaining that there could no longer be segregation in Catholic churches. It was not until Brenda went to church with her grandmother that she encountered a problem. When she entered the church with her younger cousins, they were the first people to arrive. Brenda knew that white people regularly attended mass at the same church; nonetheless, she still chose to sit in the front seat of the church. It was time to make a point. When white people started filling the church, they sat on the opposite side refusing to sit behind the young girls. The girls continued to sit in the front of the church week after week until eventually people began to sit behind them.

It is small stories like this one that show the bravery of children. Whether it is their naïve thoughts or just plain desire to stir up trouble, children in this time period made an impact on slavery. While Brenda’s grandmother did not have the guts to make a stand, Brenda used the small forces she could gather in order to prove her point. In my US history class, we talked a lot about the people that ended up standing up to white folk. Generally, it was young adults who had minimal ties to family and had not yet created a relationship with their owners. This group of people had less to lose should their revolt fail.

There is a lot to be learned from children. Their innocence can provide brutally honest truths during an extremely rough time.

Bound by Blood

Two years ago, I had the fortunate opportunity to take a ‘History of the American South’ course at Rhodes. As one would guess, the course had strong ties to our present class ‘African American History’, with one of those ties being a focus on family makeup. In my previous course, I actually wrote an essay on the antebellum planter family structure and its role in society. Thus, during this semester I have been able to make comparisons on that subject since our class focused particularly on the African American families, and my essay’s focus was on white family relations. I am going to reference the article, The Structure of Antebellum Planter Families: "The Ties that Bound us was Strong”, and hopefully provide some new insight.

During the antebellum period, family structure acted powerfully within society especially amongst southern planters. In her article, Joan Cashin exposes the significant function that extended family served. She notes that although historians have depicted the antebellum planter family as a close-knit model, in reality it extended outside the borders of just the parents and children; rather, it included aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. She shows that this extension is based upon the relationships and bonds built in addition to the active roles held in each other’s lives.

Cashin mentions several different kinds of visits families made to one another, distinguishing ceremonial visits, informal visits, and extended visits, with each bringing family from outside of the “nuclear core” into the innate relationships of the household. On more extensive stays, the visitors were naturally included in household routine and activities, leading the visitors to eventually embrace their new roles in the family. Extended family were also expected to take part in raising “the next generation”, as well as to house children for extended periods for various reasons. Furthermore, courtship and marriage typically emerged, as many marriages were the product of relationships built during these visits. Beneficially, marrying within the family secured family wealth and property in addition to assurance of the adjoining family’s history, an essential factor in maintaining status and class.

Similarly, close bonds with extended family led to shared inheritance and opportunities to become each other’s allies in business, politics, and society. There was mutual responsibility amongst family members to lead the next generation and to provide and assist in governing one another. For that reason, since future of a family relied heavily on inheritance, familial connections in business, and support from their own vast number, then the family structure is partly, if not greatly, responsible for representation in society.

In looking at what we’ve learned so far about African American families during the Antebellum, it’s ironic how the planter families so greatly owed their existence to the family model. Yet, at the same time they were generally the ones destroying the families of their slaves. In the south, slaves were constantly being sold and disconnected from their loved ones, though they too deeply valued family relationships. Essentially, a slave’s family is all a slave had. As the force of fear of disconnection grew amongst slaves, they began to take action. This decision to act, more than any other evidence, is a testament to just how important those connections were to slaves. Adding to the hypocrisy that created slavery, in this case African American slaves were marginalized when they shared the same values as whites.

Cashin, Joan E. "The Structure of Antebellum Planter Families: "The Ties that Bound us was Strong" The Journal of Southern History 56.1 (1990): 55-70

In Response to Justifications of Slavery in America (comment function not working!)

I do agree that the idea of morality was used by both anti and pro slavery supporters. I would argue that it did play an imortant role in the ending of slavery, yet I would agree that it was not enough to solely lead change. The definition of morality has been twisted greatly all throughout history. In order to get the 13th Amendment passed ending slavery in 1865, President Lincoln had to use the idea of morality to his advantage. By using Divine Providence and the support of evangelical leaders, Lincoln was able to assert that the Civil War was morally the right thing to do and eventually (using strategic/delayed timing to his advantage)make the main goal of the war not just preserving the Union, but emancipation of slaves. Lincoln countered southern views of African Americans and was able to use the "morally wrong" arguement to widen his support coalition, along with patriotism and strategy, to "win" the Civil War. Lincoln however, did not view it as a win, but something that had left both sides with bloody hands and both sides a part of the system of slavery. It would be interesting to know how reconstruction and Jim Crow would have been approached by Lincoln if he had not been fataly shot by Booth.
-Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power, Carwardine
http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Purpose-Power-Richard-Carwardine/dp/1400044561

Implications on Modern Day America By Forgetting Our History

After Emancipation, one of the biggest challenges was the search for lost ones, with families looking for each other after being separated during slavery. Most did not find relatives. Up until the 1890’s, many African American newspapers published “lost ones” columns. Frederick Douglass notes in the documents specifically his separation from his mom and his inability to remember her as they were forced apart when he was a child. The institution of slavery stole Douglass’ family from him and the sense of humanity that comes from family. In 1900’s, lynching and a reduction of political rights through Jim Crow were ravaging the South. By being subjected to constant fear and violence, African Americans found strength in family and community as a way to look out for each other (Remembering Jim Crow) This does not, however; mean in any way that the family was more stable and better off than in modern America. Even though the 1900’s are after slavery and the 1860 date mentioned in the preamble, I argue that it still applies as African Americans were still facing the consequences of slavery and inhumane treatment.
After slavery had ended and the Freedom Generation began, newly freed African Americans had to gather up the pieces of their identity through family, self-reliance, the church, and education. African Americans were finally able to marry, which was illegal before. Many former slaves also changed their name to be representative of their family and their freedom from slavery. Self-reliance also led to the creating of nuclear families that were impossible to create during slavery due to the institution.
So after all of this historical information available, what was Bachmann’s response to questions about her signing it? One defense of the signing was that the preamble is not in the 14-point candidate vow, which makes no reference to slavery. This is true, however; as pointed out in “Keeping Them Honest”, the complete pledge is only 4 pages. The statement about slavery is at the top of the fourth page. It is the first thing mentioned in the document, in fact. The article also notes another quote from Bachmann that states, “We know there was slavery that was still tolerated when the nation began. We know that was evil. And it was a scourge and a blot and a stain upon our history. But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. And I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly, men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country (Anderson Cooper Transcript, 2011).” Firstly, John Quincy Adams was not a “Founding Father” and secondly, many founding fathers owned slaves and profited greatly from the institution of slavery. I would also argue that her language, calling slavery a “blot and a stain upon our history” to be a gross understatement. It is time we hold all politicians to a correct and fully accurate version of history. If politicians cannot give an accurate account of our own country’s history, no matter how big of a “stain upon our history” something is, how can they be expected to represent our nation without learning from the past?
Although the preamble was taken out of the vow eventually, the Family Leader group has yet to recognize that it is historically wrong. They have simply deemed it to be “misconstrued” and not incorrect. The commodification of African Americans systematic destruction of family identification makes the preamble statement beyond incorrect, but completely ignorant, no matter your political party preference. As put by Hilary Shelton, Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy at the NAACP, “To say that the conditions of African Americans are living under today are somehow worse than the conditions under slavery ignores the factual reality that they were bred to be sold…It’s certainly a misrepresentation of our nation’s history and the horrors of slavery (Politico, “Bachmann Signs Pledge with Questionable Slavery Reference”).”