Category: American History

By on

The continuing debate regarding slavery and the Civil war is baffling to me. There is this faux confusion about why slavery is such a big deal. A good example of this odious opinion can be found in Jason L. Riley’s post in the City Journal. He makes two contentions regarding slavery in USA.

The first is that slavery was pervasive all over the world so why should the American version be seen as evil while every other country gets off the hook. Riley ignores the racist defense of slavery which justified the enslavement of Blacks but also persisted long after the Civil War ended. There was big difference between Roman slavery and American slavery. For most other countries who engaged in slavery, the slaves came from the defeated population after the end of wars. It was just bad luck that the losing side became slaves to the winning side.

Americans, on the other hand, and probably because it was a glaring contradiction with American values, justified slavery with the pernicious view that Blacks were racially inferior to Whites and thus their subordination was justified. It is the only way someone can understand why the subordination of Black people continued after the Civil War. White Discrimination, then, limited Black progress for, at least, 100 years following the Civil War and, sadly, even today, some Whites cling to this racist ideology.

Furthermore, particularly for conservatives who liked to sing the praises of American Exceptionalism, saying that everyone is doing it has all the moral weight of a teenager caught with a can of beer. So what if everyone was doing it? The question pertinent to American History is why did some of our forefathers have slaves. It doesn’t really matter that some African Blacks sold other African Blacks into slavery. Yes, it was wrong of them but their history isn’t what we are looking at. We are looking at American History. It was Americans who thought that these African Blacks were the equivalent of cattle and hogs and so there was nothing wrong with making them slaves.

Then there is Riley’s contention that slavery did very little to the advancement of American Capitalism which, OK, maybe but it hardly matters when Southerners, both slave owner and non-slave owner, believed that the continuation of slavery was vital to the economy of the South. They believed it so strongly that they were willing to defend slavery with their lives. They were willing to break the country in two to defend it. They thought their way of life was under attack. The percentage of GNP that slavery brought to pre-Civil War America seems a irrelevant to understanding the actual conflict.

The reason that Riley is confused about American Slavery being such a big deal is that he overlooks racism. The reason that Conservatives won’t look at racism is that it would involve some uncomfortable discoveries. The painful truth is that White people, either actively or passively, treated Black people badly for quite a long period in American History. It is painful to think that great Grandfather and Grandmother weren’t such good people. They had flaws. They really didn’t represent American ideals. On the other hand, it would certainly make such landmark events like the Civil War much more comprehensible to people like Riley if he introduced racism to the conversation. and, after all, isn’t understanding our history what learning is all about.

By on

Florida continues to rewrite the history of the Civil War. The governor and his cronies want a much more palatable history so that white children don’t have to learn that their ancestors behaved like assholes. As Chauncey DeVega, in the above linked Salon article, noted: “The discomfort of Black and brown children — who watch their communities’ histories, experiences and reality being systematically erased and distorted — was apparently of little concern.”

But never mind, the fragile minds of white children are the concern here. They need to know that their country is great. Period. Any information that might suggest otherwise has to be massaged so that these delicate darlings don’t get the wrong idea about the country.

So the Civil War becomes a little kerfuffle about State’s Rights. The North wanted to force its ways on the South and the South wasn’t having it. Making State’s Rights the issue, as opposed to slavery, drains the Civil War of any meaning.

Florida education wants white children to think that slavery wasn’t so bad. The plantation owners gave the slaves a good profession, and kept them well fed, and housed. The plantation owners and the slaves, in fact, got along fabulously. Besides, slavery was a dying institution and wouldn’t have lasted much longer any way. Got it.

Leaving white children with the mistaken idea that the founding fathers were perfect and the nation was perfect from the beginning with no need to change. But the nation did change — a bloody civil war was fought, the slaves were freed, and the South began a hundred year resistance campaign against blacks which included lynching and legal discrimination.

How does one explain American History without touching on the Civil War and race? More importantly, how does this silence about what happened help anyone – Black, Brown, Red, Yellow or White? The fact is race is an ongoing concern for the American people. The American people’s approach to race has changed over time and this change is important both to note, to discuss and to understand.

How does a student understand Reconstruction without first learning about the Civil War? How does a student understand the Civil Rights Movement without understanding legal discrimination? Yes, these are unpleasant topics because a lot of people behaved badly and their behavior is difficult to understand. But it did happen. It is a part of history.

Children, contrary to popular belief, live in the real world not an imaginary world of lollipops and gum drops. They see confusing and terrible things every day. This is part of their transition to becoming adults. Not all truths are pleasant. Children need to know that. The country started with some grand ideas but some pretty awful ones too. It is important to learn from the awful ones in order to change our present to an even better future.

By on

Sophia Tesfaye, in Salon, reports that conservatives are trying to recast the Rosa Parks story. In 1956, Parks famously refused to go to the back of the bus which set into motion the Birmingham Bus Boycott. Matt Walsh, conservative podcaster, made a documentary trying to show how this was not just a story about a tired seamstress breaking after a hard day of work when asked to move. No, it is worse, so much worse — Parks was a member of the NAACP and was looking for a way to challenge segregation. The bus incident provided her with an opportunity to do so.

Amazingly, Walsh isn’t giving us any new information. He just seems a little surprised that Parks was a member of the NAACP and how it might have affected her refusal to move. Well, yes, so what? This is stunningly meaningless presentation of the facts. The law was wrong and she was right to refuse. NAACP needed a case to highlight this indignity, Parks provided it.

The problem wasn’t that Parks was an activist, the problem was there was a back of the bus laws in the first place. There would be no need for activists opposing unjust laws if the laws did not exist in the first place. If Parks, based on her experience and the experience of other Blacks, saw a situation and was prepared to act in no way diminishes what she accomplished.

And, if Parks and the NAACP set a trap, then who is to blame for the cops falling into it? The cops had other choices here too. They exacerbated an already tense situation with Parks’ arrest. Who better to act when an opportunity presents itself — an ordinary seamstress after a long day of work or an ordinary seamstress after a long day of work who is also a member of the NAACP. What am I missing here? Is Walsh saying that Blacks should remain disorganized and leaderless?

It is painful to listen to this crap because they are trying to turn history upside down. Walsh is all about undermining Rosa Parks? Who backed the NAACP? Who paid for their resistance? Could there have been Communists involved and, if so, doesn’t that make the fight against segregation wrong? Well, the USA fought along side the Communists in World War II, does this some how diminish the Allies’ victory. Walsh misses the whole point — the segregation laws were unfair and needed to be resisted. Parks admirably used the opportunities and resources available to her. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

By on

It always irritates me when I read articles like Barton Swaim in the Wall Street Journal (paywall though you can get a free article if you get a log in). Swaim thinks that the adherence to the Protestant Work Ethic is in decline and he pins this decline on Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and every other helpful thing ever done for poor people since then because the poor have no reason to work hard when they can get so much free shit from the government. The USA has just made it too easy for poor people to goof off instead of work.

Those retched poor people are just too God damn powerful and greedy as opposed to those put upon rich people who everybody keeps picking on. Swaim’s thinking is that we need to make the poor more miserable than they already are. They will never understand the value of hard work because they are given too much. His search for a villain in this story stops directly where his prejudices end — the poor.

Where to begin? First, we have to take him at his word that people would rather not work. It is mostly word of mouth drivel about adult men living with their parents, COVID subsidies and Somali refugees. Some of these may be problems but Swaim doesn’t really give much insight on how these unrelated problems have undermined the Protestant Work Ethic or how they are related to Johnson’s War on Poverty. He is flinging them out like a mad ape throwing shit at patrons at a zoo. He is hoping one of them will hit the target. They don’t. Adult men living off their parents, I am afraid to say, are living off their parents and not the government. COVID subsidies are long gone and no longer an issue. Which leaves the Somali refugee scandal which may or may not be a problem (it is still under investigation) but hardly a reason to eliminate a whole system. You wouldn’t call for the end of Corporate Capitalism based on the bad behavior of Bernie Madoff or Enron now would you? Why apply a different standard to government assistance.

Swaim also mythologizes life in pre-War on Poverty America. It was not sweetness and light. It was grinding poverty for most Americans — with estimated poverty rates between 40 to 60 % of the American people. And I am not talking the Great Depression either because even before the Great Depression an awful lot of Americans lived in poverty. It was only after Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal that this rate came down to about 20% in 1960. After Johnson’s War on Poverty, the poverty rate now hovers around 11%. So government services lifted many poor Americans out of poverty.

Next lets look at those patriotic Capitalists who, in order to avoid paying higher American wages, brought to you, thank you very much by unions, fled the country in order to pay lower wages to workers outside the country. These “good” Americans pulled the rug out from under high wage workers in order to make more money with absolutely no concern for how this affected their now out-of-work employees. Nobody, by the way, stopped them. They were free to undermine union workers wages and unions themselves with nary a complaint from anyone.

This left getting a good education which has turned out to be bit of a trap for some. Many took out loans for educations that turned out to have very little benefit in the job market. People came out of college owing a bundle of money with little chance of recouping on their investment. So much for a home and a family.

Now AI is whittling away at the functions in the better jobs so that workers even in medicine, law and engineering are being threatened. What type of jobs does Swaim have to offer these young people with the advent of AI? Even a $15 minimum wage is insufficient to pay the rent in most states. The lowest possible wage can’t provide a meaningful income for survival. Some companies like Walmart and McDonald’s encourage their workers to use government benefits to supplement the low wages they pay their employees.. People actually are working full time jobs while receiving government assistance. Then these same assholes are trying to take away these benefits from full time workers because it discourages them from hard work.

Fuck them. Talking about how government benefits discourages people from fully engaging in the Protestant Work Ethic is just bull shit. People can see their reality. Hard work without a pay off is a meaningless exercise. I am surprised that so many low wage workers are still punching a time clock.

If only the poor worked harder, the world would be a better place. Maybe for the rich but there is little evidence that it would help the poor. The corollary to this rule is that rich people need even more money or else they will stop working so hard. Do you see the problem here? Rich people need more money are they won’t work while poor people need less money are they won’t work. Genius.

By on

I once was talking about reparations for the families of ex-slaves with a woman who finally had enough of me. Now here is the thing I doubt that reparations will be instituted anytime soon. The American public is too tax averse and the subject is too controversial to get anywhere near congressional passage. Even though it is unlikely to happen, there is a pretty reasonable case to be made for giving reparations.

So the woman I was arguing with finally stumped when she asked, “why should I pay for the sins of my father?” I didn’t have an answer at the time but I do now.

This same woman gets all weepy when speaking about all the good America has done. She visited Normandy Beach to see where D Day was fought. She had justifiable pride in those soldiers sacrifice. She believes she benefited enormously from her American heritage. She owed something to the forefathers for the sacrifices they made.

Well, then, doesn’t she also owe something to the victims of her ancestors mistakes. It is terribly easy to claim American heritage when it is doing good. But let’s face it, it didn’t always do good.

My mother’s family were some of the original settlers of my home state of Kansas. Presumably, they took their land from the indigenous people who roamed the plains prior to their arrival. Now I certainly don’t approve of forcing people from their land. On the other hand I have benefited greatly from their actions even though I committed no crime.

Might makes right. The bottom line is that the native population was, through a combination of trickery and force, removed from their land. My ancestors then took advantage of it. If I am proud of what they built and I also need to acknowledge the damage they did to the native population. History cuts both ways.

Getting back to the reparations debate. There is no clear cut dividing line when racism ended. Indeed it lingers on to this day but let’s use the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a dividing line. Before 1964, then, discrimination was legal. What did my ancestors do to prior to 1964 to ensure that Blacks had civil rights. Precious little, I am afraid.

Now these are ancestors that I actually remember not some distant myth of an ancestor. These are grandparents and parents. I am innocent of any crime but my ancestors sat idly by while something terrible was happening.

Which brings me to Trump trying to sanitize slavery by removing a picture of a whipped slave from the National Park system. Trump is concerned that this type of photo gives a negative view of our history and “distorts understanding rather than enrich(es) it.” This is an actual photograph. There is no argument about that. Trump is afraid that people will learn that actual flesh and blood human beings whipped this mans back until it was a mess of scars.

What? Seriously, what? What misunderstanding is Trump worried about? What is gained by removing this photograph? We don’t have to think of our ancestors doing horrible things in order to keep slaves? The problem with wanting to worship our ancestors is that our ancestors were human beings not saints. Sanitizing history doesn’t change it and it actually makes the Civil War more confusing. Why did so many people die to stop slavery when the slave owners were so nice and the slaves so happy?

And this is why reparations are useful. It would be a price that living Americans would pay for the mistakes of their ancestors. It might make, and might is the operative word here, people realizes that at one point in our history we behaved terribly to our fellow human beings and that is important.

Of course, it will never happen but the least we can do now is fight to show the brutality of slavery. A very small price indeed.

By on

Donald Trump was upset about the Smithsonian’s failure to talk about the good parts of slavery. There are good parts of slavery? Who knew. I am greatly interested in hearing more. I am sure he will be forthcoming with more details sometime in the future.

Trump may have had a point about the information in Smithsonian displays but it was lost when he started to talk about the good parts of slavery. Because Trump has a reputation of never apologizing and never backing down, there will be no apology which puts his supporters in the awkward position of defending Trump’s ridiculous statement when the only sane response is Trump is wrong and he never should have said something so stupid.

A good portion of the Conservative side has taken the best option available to them — they are ignoring the statement completely. Anyone who tries to defend him looks like an idiot and no one dares contradict the notoriously vengeful Trump so silence is about the best option a sane person would have.

Why Trump and Conservatives feel that American History has to always paint the country in a positive light is baffling. History is about human beings doing things. Human beings, some of the time, are going to do the wrong thing. It is inevitable. And it is a good lesson for children. Even people who do good things can sometimes believe and do terrible things. Children need to know this. How do you expect them to navigate life in this rough and tumble world if they believe Americans only do good?

Facts are facts. Slavery existed in the United States at one time. How do you explain American History without talking about it? The Civil War was all about slavery no matter how hard people try to make it about State’s Rights. This fails when looking at what people living at the time say. All the historical evidence points to slavery as the cause of the war. It wasn’t tariffs, agricultural policy, industrial policy, or any one of a million different issues that states might disagree about — it was about slavery.

Well, then, a lot of Southerners opposed slavery but they felt compelled to support their state, friends and family who did. So where exactly do you stop supporting your friends and family when they have bad ideas? I don’t really want slaves but all my friends and family have slaves so, in order that they don’t feel awkward, I am going to fight a bloody civil war so they know I really like them. These people are actually worse than the people who believed slavery was acceptable. It is the old mother’s adage if everyone was jumping off the Empire State Building, would you? Give me a break.

The Civil War is over with. It is no longer relevant to a modern discussion of civil rights. Now, I happen to disagree with this but say I give it to Trump’s defenders in this debate. The Smithsonian’s displays are about the Civil War. They are trying to explain what happened in 1860 and not how we live now. In order to understand America in the 1860’s, slavery has to be discussed and, if it is discussed honestly, the evils of slavery come up from time to time — it is unavoidable.

Some slave owners were nice to their slaves. Oh come on, really. They may have been nice people but they still believed it was OK to own people, to sell people, and to retrieve people if they ran away. That is your definition of nice? There is little evidence that this niceness was apparent to the slaves. If the slave owners were so nice why did they have to have laws returning runaway slaves? Why would anyone want to leave paradise on the plantation?

The slaves were fed and housed. Big Whoop. Prisoners are fed and housed. Hostages are fed and housed. This is basic human behavior. Nothing particularly special or nice about. If you are going to buy someone, force them to live somewhere and tell them they can’t leave — you better damn well feed and house them.

Why people try to make the South out to be the good guys in this scenario is beyond me. They were wrong about everything and I mean everything. There is nothing redeeming about the South’s position on slavery. It was wrong for them to have slaves and it was wrong for them to start a war about it. Trying to make lemonade out of this tainted basket of lemons is impossible. So, for God’s sakes, stop it.

By on

Donald Trump thinks that Abraham Lincoln mishandled the Civil War. He should have tried more peaceful methods to end the conflict in order to avoid avoid the 600,000 deaths the war caused.

Wow. That is just gobsmackingly arrogant and stupid even for a man who is known for being gobsmackingly arrogant and stupid.

When someone talks like this, it gives me the impression that he has thought long and hard about the Civil War and that, through his study of the war, he saw some alternate peaceful approaches that Lincoln missed in 1860. Well, Donald tell me more. Trump is, after all calling into question the actions of the most esteemed president in American History regarding the pivotal issue of his presidency — the very issue that most people think makes Lincoln great. It requires a thorough explanation of Trump’s reasoning in order to understand how Lincoln erred so badly in his decisions.

Unsurprisingly, Trump just leaves it at that — Lincoln could have done better. Which leads to a different impression of what Trump said. Mostly that he doesn’t know a God damn thing about the Civil War and has no business expressing opinions about it.

The Lincoln of 1860 was quite willing to let the South keep their slaves. He drew the line at expanding slavery to any territory wanting to join the USA. He wasn’t seen as a hardcore abolitionist and was willing to do anything — including selling out the slaves — to keep the Union together. Something that many modern historians rightfully are critical of. What more could he have done to peacefully end the conflict? Particularly after the South attacked Fort Sumter which started the war. Yes, the South started the Civil War. Not Lincoln.

The most terrifying thing about Trump is that he is both painfully ignorant and he has his finger on the button that could send nuclear missiles flying through the air. He, facing his own divided country, delights in antagonizing his political opponents to such a degree that people are talking about a new civil war. Well, if Trump wants to show how to bring peace to a divided country he now has an opportunity to show it. Let Trump heal the divisions plaguing our country now.

Trump criticizing Lincoln. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

By on 1 Comment

Heather MacDonald writes that Donald Trump took “the most important step it can to restore meritocracy. to American society” by eliminating disparate-impact. When exactly was there a meritocracy in the United States? Certainly no time before 1964 when discrimination against people of color and women was legal. Not directly after the passage of Civil Rights laws in 1964 when White resistance to the new laws was so fierce it required the implementation of Affirmative Action in order to ensure that Whites complied with the new law. Since MacDonald finds any tool that aids people of color a boost is an affront to meritocracy, it certainly isn’t the recent past So MacDonald needs to identify the golden age of meritocracy in USA because from the evidence I can see, there never has been a meritocracy.

MacDonald glosses over 200 years of American History. She assumes that the 1964 Civil Rights ended discrimination and nothing more needed to be done. For her racial prejudice is obvious, racists are obnoxious assholes in a Ku Klux Klan robe screaming the N word. It certainly couldn’t be nice middle class whites who hire employees or admit students to Ivy League colleges. They wouldn’t be caught dead in a Ku Klux Klan robe, so how could they be prejudiced.

The advantage of the public bigots is that they are easy to identify. The problem is the more prevalent form of racism that Blacks encounter is from polite and powerful White who, just the same, might be disinclined to hire someone different from them. They don’t say we are picking a White over a Black. They know the game. They say that the White guy is just more qualified for the job than the Black guy. For this reason, discrimination is difficult to prove. This is the barrier that Blacks face. MacDonald doesn’t appear to be bothered much by this more subtle form of racism or even acknowledge that it might exist.

Disparate-impact was one of the tools that the government used to show discrimination. If an employer has never hired Blacks, year after year, in a community where the population is 25% Black, then the government can see that there might be a problem with discrimination in hiring. Without disparate impact, how does MacDonald propose to identify non-compliant businesses and schools?

She doesn’t. She views discrimination as a phantom problem that doesn’t occur any more so there is no reason to investigate. People are only looking for the best – Black, White, Man, Woman. Race and Gender don’t matter only quality. Well, maybe, but how do we know this is happening unless we evaluate?

Finally, for the record, there will never be a meritocracy as long as rich families hand over their businesses to their children. It is never going to happen as long as some people have connections and others don’t. It never is going to happen as long as people with money can buy their children’s ways into universities. It never is going to happen when White middle class people can avoid “bad” school districts. It never is going to happen as long as poor Black children are given a second rate educations while White middle class children are given a first rate one.

How does MacDonald feel about those problems? Until she addresses them, I don’t believe that she gives a damn about meritocracy.

By on

Well, the news out of Texas just keeps getting better and better. Not only must a woman give birth to a baby which is doomed to die, the state takes a deem view regarding historical information about slavery. Michelle Haas, amateur historian, believes that the Varner-Hogg plantation, a Texas state historical site, had too much information about the slaves and not enough about the slave owners. You heard me right. The slaves are getting more attention than the slave owners. The horror.

Whats more troubling is that it took only one person complaining for the Texas Historical Commission to throw in the towel. They voluntarily removed the books about the slaves because they were afraid that the Republican-controlled Legislature would be upset by her complaints. One complaint and the Commission gives in. So much for Don’t Mess with Texas.

It begs the question what books about plantation owners are acceptable to Haas? Gone With the Wind?What happens when someone complains about Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler? Are they going to remove it as well? At this point, you might as well close down the store completely because everything is offensive.

 Which is the point after all. This isn’t just about protecting children either, this is about keeping information from adults too. One of the books removed was Alex Haley’s classic history of his family’s experience of slavery. It’s appearance on the bookshelves is there to remind people that there were also slaves at the Varner-Hogg plantation and that plantations needed a large work force of unpaid labor in order to function. What exactly is the problem with discussing slavery? It existed at the Varner-Hogg plantation. Knowing about slavery would help a modern audience understand plantation life. I think most adults can handle this information.

And why do I need to know more about the owners? Of all the plantation residents, their place in the hierarchy of the plantation can be understood by the dimmest kindergartner. They collected the paycheck while the slaves did all of the work. What else did they really do? Give parties, run for the state legislature? You can remove the owners from the story and still get a pretty good idea of what happened on a plantation. On the other hand, you can’t remove the slaves which might also explain why there is more information about the slaves. But, by all means, tell me more about the owners.

And, while you are at it, please spare me the heart warming stories about how well they treated their slaves. It is irrelevant and frankly unbelievable. Owning a person, by its very nature, is bad treatment. Knowing any more about them, can only give people a worse opinion. Now if I can hear about why they thought they had the right to own slaves? Or why Africans were the people they were willing to enslave, I am all ears.

Also don’t tell me that slavery was a worldwide problem and that lots of people had slaves at the time. This isn’t exactly true particularly in European countries. Most of Europe had already outlawed slavery by this time and there were a lot of Americans opposed to slavery at that time so it wasn’t a universal belief. These slave owners clung to an outdated concept of how to treat their fellow human being. This is precisely what the Civil War was about. The slave owners, in case Haas’ throwing sand in your eyes has blinded you to the fact, were on the wrong side of that war.

By on

Oklahoma School Superintendent wants the truth of the Tulsa Race Riot to be taught but he also doesn’t want White kids to feel badly about it. Governor DeSantis in Florida feels the same way. What is the proper emotion for White kids to feel after learning about racism? It seems to me that is up to the individual child and is uncontrollable and not really the business of the educators. Some things will make you feel pride and other things might make you ashamed. There is no right way to feel about the past because people are still arguing about the past.

How do you take the White Racism out of the Tulsa Race Riot? White people targeted black people based on a run in between a Black man and a White woman. White people killed hundreds of Black people just because they were Black. White people either participated in the riot or did nothing to stop the riot. Should a White child feel badly about being White and the behavior of his race? Well, yes, if they are decent human beings. White people did a terrible thing to Black people. Thems the facts.

This idea that history has to show the American past in an admirable light seems incredibly wrong headed to begin with. First, history is about people. People are fallible. People sometimes do terrible things. The Civil War was one of the significant events in American history. In order to understand what happened and why this was so important in American history, difficult subjects have to be addressed. It doesn’t put everyone in a positive light. But I don’t think it will be any more traumatic than teaching first graders that one day an active shooter might appear in their classroom and how they should act when this occurs.

What doesn’t help is for educators to be even handed about a subject where being even handed is absurd which is what the Florida Department of Education tried to do. They were concerned that the slavery discussion was too one sided for the anti-slavery side. You heard it right. They wanted children to have a more positive view of the slave owners. This is dumbfounding. Why is that so important? Why can’t some White people be the villains in this particular story?