https://slowtowrite.com/slaves-of-white-people-slaves-of-christ/
“But among other observations, one great duty I owe to Almighty God, (the thankful acknowledgment I would not omit for any consideration) that, although I have been brought away from my native country, in that torrent of my robbery and wickedness, thanks be to God for his good providence towards me; I have both obtained liberty, and acquired the great advantages of some little learning, in being able to read and write, and, what is still infinitely of greater advantage, I trust, to know something of HIM who is that God whose providence rules over all, and who is the only Potent One that rules in the nations over the children of men. It is unto Him, who is the Prince of the Kings of the earth, that I would give all thanks. And, in some manner, I may say with Joseph, as he did with respect to the evil intention of his brethren, when they sold him into Egypt, that whatever evil intentions and bad motives those insidious robbers had in carrying me away from my native country and friends, I trust, was what the Lord intended for my good. In this respect, I am highly indebted to many of the good people of England for learning and principles unknown to the people of my native country. But, above all, what have I obtained from the Lord God of Hosts, the God of the Christians! In that divine revelation of the only true God, and the Saviour of men, what a treasure of wisdom and blessings are involved? How wonderful is the divine goodness displayed in those invaluable books the Old and New Testaments, that inestimable compilation of books, the Bible? And, O what a treasure to have, and one of the greatest advantages to be able to read therein, and a divine blessing to understand!”
Ottabah Cugoano,
I find myself wondering how the testimony of an African slave cannot be taken seriously.
32 comments:
Lawdy, LAWDY, thank god and the white slavers for slavery! My, my my!
1. I suspect you didn't read the whole piece.
2. Why would I consider your (White, liberal, suburban, rich, 21st century) hunches to be more valid than those of a slave sold into slavery in the 1800's?
3. Why would I consider your (see above) hunches to be more valid on this topic than those of the author who is actually from Ghana?
It's interesting that you downplay or ignore the actual point of the piece...
No it's not interesting at all. It's what I'd expect. Coming from someone who isn't particularly down with a Sovereign God, it's not surprising at all.
Listen to (all, more, different, diverse) black voices, you might learn something.
I'll also note that the literal title/point of the post was that the perspective of both a slave from the 1800's as well as that of someone from Ghana is literally "thought provoking".
Unfortunately, the only thought it provoked from Dan is the reflexive, anti white racism we've come to expect from him. Which isn't thought provoking at all.
It's not "white racism" to note the paternalistic, racist actions and attitudes of white people against black people back for hundreds of years in our nation's history. The downplaying of slavery and the refusal to call it a great evil, while the attempted selling of the "happy slave" and the "many benefits to the poor blacks" that slavery offered is a real part of our history. It's happening still and we've seen it in the GOP candidates running for president (and their allies) just this past year.
Surely you are not blind to that?
Listen to all black voices, indeed.
Do you condemn ALL slavery as a great evil and a human rights atrocity?
"It's not "white racism" to note the paternalistic, racist actions and attitudes of white people against black people back for hundreds of years in our nation's history."
Where in this excerpt, or the piece it came from, is the "paternalistic, racist actions and attitudes of white people against black people back for hundreds of years in our nation's history."?
The downplaying of slavery and the refusal to call it a great evil, while the attempted selling of the "happy slave" and the "many benefits to the poor blacks" that slavery offered is a real part of our history. It's happening still and we've seen it in the GOP candidates running for president (and their allies) just this past year."
1. Where is any of this in the excerpt/piece I posted?
2. This post has nothing to do with Trump, nor with you making things up and claiming he said them. Anything further along this line will de edited out.
3. Tell me you didn't read the entire thing, without telling me you didn't read it.
4. Tell me that you missed the entire point of the piece either because you didn't read it, or chose to ignore it in favor your your preconceived, bigoted, unproven hunches.
"Surely you are not blind to that?"
No, I'm not blind to something that isn't in the excerpt, the piece, or my brief comments on the piece. It's completely normal to not see something that isn't there, because you made it up.
"Listen to all black voices, indeed."
You clearly don't.
"Do you condemn ALL slavery as a great evil and a human rights atrocity?"
Irrelevant to the post, the excerpt, or the piece I linked to.
'll also note that the literal title/point of the post was that the perspective of both a slave from the 1800's as well as that of someone from Ghana is literally "thought provoking".
I GET that you personally find it "thought provoking" that an apparently very conservative black Christian from Ghana might cite a story of a slave reportedly being happy with the benefits that came from the great evil of slavery. But if you want to listen to "all black voices," then why do you consistently ONLY cite the ultra-conservative Christian black people who happen to agree with you? Why are THEIR black voices the only ones you find "thought-provoking..."? Why do you not find the many who are pushing to teach our actual history of the great evil of slavery and the many economic costs that came/come from slavery, from Jim Crow, from removal from lands, from oppression, from repression right up into our lifetimes?
Why do you not find it thought-provoking when white and black teachers are telling us that their voices are being silenced or repressed in schools in conservative states, who are being pressured to limit how and what they teach out our real history?
Have you listened to James Baldwin? Frederick Douglass? Ibram X Kendi? bell hooks? The Reverend Dr Martin Luther King (ALL of what he says, not just cherry-picked snippets)? Robin DiAngelo? Maya Angelou?
Start citing some black voices you disagree with and finding THEIR words thought-provoking. Then we can talk about listening to all black voices.
Where in this excerpt, or the piece it came from
The myth of "the happy slave," the myths of the alleged benefits of slavery, these are all part and parcel of the real history of downplaying and/or denying the evil of slavery. Are you not aware of this?
This person's quote you cite fits right in with the racist/white nationalist attempt to downplay the evil of the institution of slavery and the evil of the treasonous rebellion of the white people of the South, the attempt to whitewash history. This is not to criticize this author. He's unknown and this is one short excerpt, not his whole story. But finding these little snippets of "happy slaves" is what racists have been doing for 200+ years. You know this, right?
https://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plans/frederick-douglasss-narrative-myth-happy-slave
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/dark-cloud-over-enjoyment
https://19thnews.org/2023/07/women-slavery-benefits-florida-department-of-education/
"I GET that you personally find it "thought provoking" that an apparently very conservative black Christian from Ghana might cite a story of a slave reportedly being happy with the benefits that came from the great evil of slavery."
How magnanimous, if condescending, of you. I guess that the words of a "very conservative" black African and the very words of a slave in the 1800's are aromatically disqualified by your preconceptions, prejudices, and biases.
"But if you want to listen to "all black voices," then why do you consistently ONLY cite the ultra-conservative Christian black people who happen to agree with you?"
Simple. I don't.
"Why are THEIR black voices the only ones you find "thought-provoking..."?"
They're not.
"Why do you not find the many who are pushing to teach our actual history of the great evil of slavery and the many economic costs that came/come from slavery, from Jim Crow, from removal from lands, from oppression, from repression right up into our lifetimes?"
1. This question literally doesn't make sense if one uses standard English rules of grammar.
2. That is a view that is widely disseminated, it's impossible to miss.
3. This is a novel view of the sovereignty of YHWH, coming from a slave. It's different. Worth considering. Worth not dismissing because it doesn't fit some 21st century, white, liberal, narrative.
"Why do you not find it thought-provoking when white and black teachers are telling us that their voices are being silenced or repressed in schools in conservative states, who are being pressured to limit how and what they teach out our real history?"
Other than the irrelevance of this "question" to this post, and the ample evidence that this notion of "conservatives" banning books and teachings is almost always exaggerated and overblown. But since it;s irrelevant to this post, I'll edit any further reference to this diversion out of any future comments.
"Have you listened to James Baldwin? Frederick Douglass? Ibram X Kendi? bell hooks? The Reverend Dr Martin Luther King (ALL of what he says, not just cherry-picked snippets)? Robin DiAngelo? Maya Angelou?"
Yup. Are you aware of the multitude of problems with Kendi's "scholarship" and department? Are you really claiming that they are more "authentic" than an actual slave from the 1800's?
"Start citing some black voices you disagree with and finding THEIR words thought-provoking. Then we can talk about listening to all black voices."
I do so love it when you come to my blog, have nothing but ad hom attacks, then start demanding that I do exactly what you tell me to do. It's quite the display of grace.
AGAIN, ALL BOW AND ACCEPT THE WORDS OF THE GREAT AND MIGHTY DANTHUSTERA AS THE FINAL WORDS ON THE TOPIC. THE WORDS OF A 21ST CENTURY, WHITE, RICH, LIBERAL, MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE WORDS OF AN ACTUAL SLAVE, AND AN ACTUAL BLACK VOICE!!!!!! SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE.
3. Tell me you didn't read the entire thing, without telling me you didn't read it.
What in the name of all that is rational and honest makes you think I DIDN'T read your little out of context quote?
I see that the author of the quote was an early abolitionist who wrote a book, "Thoughts and Sentiments on the Evil and Wicked Traffic of the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species..." SO, without knowing more about this man and his writings, we see that he clearly appears to have considered slavery a great and wicked evil, EVEN IF he took the time (perhaps) in this quote to note some benefits that happened as a result of great evil.
So, LISTEN to his voice, indeed. Will you join with that voice in saying that slavery is a great evil, and that it always is thus?
You clearly don't.
Another stupidly false claim, if you're suggesting I don't read and listen to a wide range of black opinion. Don't be an ass, of course, I do.
If you're noting the reality that NO ONE listens to ALL voices, as it's humanly impossible, so what? No one throws a baseball to the moon and then flies up and catches it before it lands, either.
I'll simply note that Dan has chosen not to engage with the substance of the piece by Sey or the substance of the extensive quotes of Quobna Ottabah Cugoano. Dan also ignores that Gugano was an abolitionist and that the title of his book is Thoughts and Sentiments on the Evil and Wicked Traffic of the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species.
Instead Dan chooses to dismiss the literal words of a literal African slave from the 1800's, and chooses to substitute a curated list of modern liberal folks who's views agree with his. Leaving aside the problems with Kedni's scholarship as well as the idiocy of Kendi's primary premise (That ANY differences in ANY performance between racial groups MUST be ONLY the result of racism), doesn't seem to deter Dan from citing him as gospel.
I'm not surprised that Dan's first tactic it to attack the black voices that dare to challenge the liberal narrative Dan is committed to, or that ad hom is all he has. That what he does when confronted with black voices that don't agree with his white, liberal, savior, ass.
This is a novel view of the sovereignty of YHWH, coming from a slave. It's different. Worth considering. Worth not dismissing because it doesn't fit some 21st century, white, liberal, narrative.
1. It's novel? You're not familiar with slaves who spoke of the sovereignty of God? That's not novel. You need to read more.
2. I'm not dismissing his quote. I'm dismissing white men like you RIPPING quotes like this out of context (in this case from an abolitionist who opposed slavery as a great evil) to have the effect of downplaying the evil of slavery.
In short, I'm not dismissing HIS words, I'm dismissing YOUR use of them.
Read for understanding.
"What in the name of all that is rational and honest makes you think I DIDN'T read your little out of context quote?"
1. Because you didn't even read my comment that prompted this response.
2. Because nothing in your screeds so far indicates that you've read any of it.
3. Because you've chosen to make ad hom attacks on the authors, rather than to engage with the substance of their work.
"So, LISTEN to his voice, indeed. Will you join with that voice in saying that slavery is a great evil, and that it always is thus? You clearly don't."
I've done so multiple times. I'm not wasting my time doing so again. Your inability to remember, isn't my problem.
"Another stupidly false claim, if you're suggesting I don't read and listen to a wide range of black opinion. Don't be an ass, of course, I do."
I've seen no indication that you do, no quotes, no posts, nothing. When confronted with a black voice that doesn't buy your narrative, you reflexively default to ad hom attacks.
"The myth of "the happy slave," the myths of the alleged benefits of slavery, these are all part and parcel of the real history of downplaying and/or denying the evil of slavery. Are you not aware of this?"
So you are telling me that you have perfect knowledge that Cugano was intentionally perpetuating this "happy slave" myth? That he was lying in the quote used? That you know better then he or Sey?
"This person's quote you cite fits right in with the racist/white nationalist attempt to downplay the evil of the institution of slavery and the evil of the treasonous rebellion of the white people of the South, the attempt to whitewash history. This is not to criticize this author. He's unknown and this is one short excerpt, not his whole story. But finding these little snippets of "happy slaves" is what racists have been doing for 200+ years. You know this, right?"
I'm tired of your bullshit conspiracy theories, and of you placing your rich, white, liberal narrative above that of a slave.
"1. It's novel? You're not familiar with slaves who spoke of the sovereignty of God? That's not novel. You need to read more."
It's realtively novel in a world where folx like you take the Kedni's of the world as gospel. Obviously it's not completely novel, as scripture is full of examples of YHWH using evil to fulfill His good purposes.
"2. I'm not dismissing his quote. I'm dismissing white men like you RIPPING quotes like this out of context (in this case from an abolitionist who opposed slavery as a great evil) to have the effect of downplaying the evil of slavery."
Then you're an idiot who didn't read the piece I linked to. Nothing I've done or said is about downplaying the evil of slavery. It's much more about playing up a God that is sovereign enough to use things that were intended to be, or were, or are, evil to bring about His ultimate good.
"In short, I'm not dismissing HIS words, I'm dismissing YOUR use of them."
Then you're still an idiot. The context is in the piece I linked to as well as in the book referenced in the piece.
"Read for understanding."
You don't, why demand that I do what you won't.
You just want to hammer home the almighty narrative.
Sey:
In Ghana, where I was born, every person was a slave to sin before the Atlantic slave trade. Like all sub-Saharan Africans in the first 1,500 years of Christianity, Ghanaians had never heard the gospel. So God used the slave trade to save sinners from slavery to sin.
I reject the notion of a God who causes sin, who places people in oppression to simply "demonstrate his power/stroke his ego/show he is god." I reject that as unbiblical and irrational. That it is a black man promoting this conservative ideology/theory doesn't help make it more rational, moral or biblical.
If God isn’t sovereign over everything, he isn’t provident or helpful in everything. If he wasn’t sovereign over the slave trade, then he wasn’t sovereign over its abolition.
That's a fine human theory, but it's nothing more than that. It ignores the notion of a god being complicit in oppression. IF God is "sovereign over everything," this theory goes, then "God is also allowing oppression to happen... even causing it to happen, because ultimately, even rape, murder and oppression are tools of this god, to make that god's 'power' known," the theory goes.
Blecch. What a wicked and irrational and unbiblical human theory.
Or do you think I'm misrepresenting this human theory?
At the very least, do you recognize it AS a human theory of a god who allows/orchestrates/plans evil?
You just want to hammer home the almighty narrative.
...says the man who is finding "thoughtful" the man who promotes the almighty narrative of an almighty godling who, in his almighty power and ego arranges for the suffering of innocents so that this godling might be glorified.
THAT is one of the dominant narratives of many conservative christians for centuries, especially white and in-power conservative Christians, but it has bled over into the people oppressed by evils such as slavery.
Do you condemn slavery as ALWAYS a great evil and something a good God would never command or "arrange" as part of a "divine plan" to, in theory, get glory for this vain godling?
Craig,
You have to keep in mind that Dan's white guilt is legitimate because he comes from a family of slavers and continues to support the political party of slavery. Thus, he tries to assuage his guilt by continually asking those who have not such family history, nor support the political party of identity politics which supported, defended and promoted slavery where they stand on the morality of slavery. He does this so he can again posture and a moral and morally superior person.
And despite Dan bringing up the concept of the "happy slave" so as to further denigrate better people than he and those he supports, the dude you highlight indeed seems happy to have been selected by God to be among God's people...something his words suggest he doesn't believe was nearly as likely to happen had black people not sold him into slavery. This slave is clearly happy that his enslavement led to his becoming a Christian and it seems clear his suffering as a slave is, to him, well worth it and an eternally beneficial tradeoff.
The most ironic aspect of Dan's desperate guilt-driven bloviating is that he is the very person he accuses you of being... the white savior and champion of the oppressed black man.
After listening to black voices Dan offers, and then listening to black voices you've offered, it's clear who of the two of you is presenting black voices worthy of attention. Hint: it ain't Dan.
I think Dan just sits waiting for a new post from you so that he can attack it without even think about the actual post, rather he just attacks you, the author, because he hates facts and truth. Dan proves over and over that he is just a pawn of Satan who attacks REAL Christians wherever he finds them. The topic of the post doesn't matter to Dan as long as he can spew his anti-white, anti-conservative, anti-real Christian nonsense.
"Nothing I've done or said is about downplaying the evil of slavery."
The author/former slave you quoted has a whole book apparently talking about the literal evil of slavery. You and Sey selected out of that one snippet talking about how this author found some good in the midst of that flood of evil. This, in the context of so many white conservative christians citing the happy slave myth.
Omission of the evil while focusing on a potential positive has been a tool of racists and oppressors for generations.
We're you aware of this?
Dan
"The author/former slave you quoted has a whole book apparently talking about the literal evil of slavery. You and Sey selected out of that one snippet talking about how this author found some good in the midst of that flood of evil. This, in the context of so many white conservative christians citing the happy slave myth."
You have literally no idea what the "whole book" is about. You've chosen to arbitrarily decide that the one quote is out of context based on your complete and total ignorance about the book, and your biases, prejudices, and preconceptions.
"Omission of the evil while focusing on a potential positive has been a tool of racists and oppressors for generations."
Make broad, generalized, unproven statements much?
"We're you aware of this?"
We're you aware that I don't take your bullshit claims as gospel?
"In the same way, though African and European participants of the slave trade meant evil, God meant it for good, to bring many slaves into eternal life.
That doesn’t mean we should downplay the evils of the slave trade. We can grieve over the slave trade while rejoicing over God’s sovereignty over slavery."
"...says the man who is finding "thoughtful" the man who promotes the almighty narrative of an almighty godling who, in his almighty power and ego arranges for the suffering of innocents so that this godling might be glorified."
I guess that going on the attack against strew men is easier than actually denying that you're committed to a narrative and will reflexively deny anything that even casts a bit of doubt on the narrative you've committed to.
"THAT is one of the dominant narratives of many conservative christians for centuries, especially white and in-power conservative Christians, but it has bled over into the people oppressed by evils such as slavery."
What is?
"Do you condemn slavery as ALWAYS a great evil and something a good God would never command or "arrange" as part of a "divine plan" to, in theory, get glory for this vain godling?"
"In the same way, though African and European participants of the slave trade meant evil, God meant it for good, to bring many slaves into eternal life.
That doesn’t mean we should downplay the evils of the slave trade. We can grieve over the slave trade while rejoicing over God’s sovereignty over slavery."
I worship YHWH, the Sovereign God who created all things, it's not my place to condemn Him. But you feel free to do so.
"I reject the notion of a God who causes sin, who places people in oppression to simply "demonstrate his power/stroke his ego/show he is god." I reject that as unbiblical and irrational. That it is a black man promoting this conservative ideology/theory doesn't help make it more rational, moral or biblical."
1. Who cares what you "reject"?
2. When were you put in a position to "reject" things as being objectively false based on your own personal, subjective, biases, prejudices, and preconceptions.
3. Your racism, and hatred for anyone who cats doubt on the narrative you worship is showing.
4. When you can't do anything else, attack the black guy.
5. The black guy is probably just a stooge of the white oppressors who's being paid off to turn on his people.
"That's a fine human theory, but it's nothing more than that. It ignores the notion of a god being complicit in oppression. IF God is "sovereign over everything," this theory goes, then "God is also allowing oppression to happen... even causing it to happen, because ultimately, even rape, murder and oppression are tools of this god, to make that god's 'power' known," the theory goes."
Well, that's a fine human theory that comes straight from the biased, prejudiced, preconceptions, and subjective hunches of Dan. Just one more made up claim that you can't prove.
"Blecch. What a wicked and irrational and unbiblical human theory."
"Blecch. What a wicked and irrational and unbiblical theory straight from the prejudices, biased, subjective, almighty Reason of Dan.
"Or do you think I'm misrepresenting this human theory?"
I think your placing your own subjective human theory above scripture. Obviously you're misrepresenting it because that's how you roll. You state your twisted version of what someone else is saying, put your version of what has been said up as a straw man, then viciously attack both the straw man as well as anyone who doesn't immediately agree with your subjective hunch or twisted representation of what has been said.
"At the very least, do you recognize it AS a human theory of a god who allows/orchestrates/plans evil?"
No.
"In the same way, though African and European participants of the slave trade meant evil, God meant it for good, to bring many slaves into eternal life.
That doesn’t mean we should downplay the evils of the slave trade. We can grieve over the slave trade while rejoicing over God’s sovereignty over slavery."
Do you not acknowledge that YHWH is the God that is sovereign over all of creation? (If a simple direct answer to this question is not the the first line of your next comment, I will keep your comments in moderation until I get a simple direct answer. The simple direct answer needs to start of with either the word "Yes" or "No". You can obfuscate and dodge all you want after one of those two words.)
Art,
I think you are at least partially right. I think that Dan's commitment to the Narrative is what's driving him. The very fact that even one slave would have the temerity to not buy into Dan's Narrative cuts deep. He feels the need to demonstrate why his white, liberal, 21st century, Narrative is obviously superior to two black men. One an actual slave, and one from a country that was plagued by slave traders.
Glenn,
With the caveat that Dan only does that to certain posts, I agree. He jumps in immediately with a bunch of bullshit, and ignores the intent of both the article and of my post. Dan doesn't like it when black people dare to leave that liberal "plantation" that the democratic party perfected when LBJ used "welfare" to bind the "NiXXXXs" to the DFL for "2 hundred years". This is bonre out by Dan's immediate use of ad hom attacks against both Sey and Cugoano. It seems obvious to me that an actual God who is actually sovereign over everything is very threatening to Dan. That a sovereign God would go against Dan's subjective hunches about how a God should act and against Dan's rules about what a God would do, is obviously a big problem. You'll note that Dan doesn't make a positive argument (with objective evidence) for his position, nor does he actually engage the argument made in the article. He mostly just attacks two black men with ad hom attacks, and attacks me for having the temerity to post something by a black man that doesn't fit with Dan's Narrative.
What's also interesting is that Dan attacks me for saying that the piece is "thought provoking", while ignoring the fact that it's clearly provoked plenty of angry thought in him. I guess I was actually spot on.
But, I'd love to stop wasting time on Dan and get some response to the piece.
God doesn't cause sin, he allows it. Nowhere does this article say He causes sin.
Glenn,
Now you're just meddling with Dan's straw man. If you do too much of that, the straw man will disappear and he'll be left with nothing to fight.
I've done something I never remember seeing Dan do. I purchased the book in question and it's on the list of books to read. I suspect that Dan will not accept anything I say about the book, and I suspect that Dan will continue to insist that his assumptions about Cugoano and his book are correct.
"The author/former slave you quoted has a whole book apparently talking about the literal evil of slavery. You and Sey selected out of that one snippet talking about how this author found some good in the midst of that flood of evil. This, in the context of so many white conservative christians citing the happy slave myth."
Dan presumes he knows the reason why this snippet was selected. In his depraved racist mind, he believes it's to promote the so-called "happy slave" myth. I think, just with this small post of Craig's, that the point was to express that despite the "GREATEST EVIL OF ALL TIME!!! SLAVERY, this one slave came to, like Paul expresses in his epistles, gratitude for the great negatives of his life due to it resulting in his coming to know Christ. I can only hope Dan will endure some great suffering which will finally lead him to Christ as well.
As to the so-called "happy slave myth", I think it's a myth itself. Rather, except for those of the Trabue family of slavers, most who suggest positives about slavery aren't really saying slavery itself was a good thing. One can look at it in two ways:
1. To some slaves, they may have had decent lives which provided for them to an extent that they did not fare well after freedom came to them. This is not to say they were incapable or were not inhibited in their quest for a good life in their newfound liberty, but that due to all which did inhibit them, they recall how they had their most serious needs met while still enslaved that were later far more difficult to realize. For these, people would say "they were better off", but only in the strictest sense of comparing their well-being before and after. But this doesn't even come close to speaking of the difference between the time they were sold into slavery by black people versus after. It's only dealing with a small aspect of the issue. It's an "after the fact" or "hindsight" comparison, much the way some Hebrews thought back on their time in Egypt before the Exodus.
2. Given their origins before black people sold them into slavery, many were more possessed of talents and abilities as a result of their enslavement. This doesn't mitigate the "GREATEST EVIL OF ALL TIME!! SLAVERY!!! as the evil it is, but does indeed and without debate demonstrate that many had marketable skills because of having been enslaved. It's obvious that unless slavers only intended that the most menial of tasks were worth the expense of having slaves at all, that slavers would see that some of their slaves were trained to perform more productive tasks in the service of their masters. These they could use upon their freedom and many did. I don't know if Kendi or Angelou or Di Angelo or the 1619 Project teaches this part of black history.
But again, except for the slavers, like the Trabue family, few people spoke of "the happy slave" in the manner Dan's suggesting is common to better people than he.
Art,
This attack on the "happy slave" myth is problematic.
1. As you point out, the piece I linked to and quoted from DOES not promote the "happy slave" myth.
2. The reality is that some slaves were "happy" to some degree during their enslavement. To point out those examples does not diminish that reality that slavery was a horrible institution.
3. This notion that "happy" is the appropriate word is stupid. Happiness is (at best) a transitory emotional state which isn't an actual measure of anything substantial. It's more likely that some slaves were able to (through various means) find some positives that allowed them to survive and make their situation more bearable. I suspect that most slaves were "happy" at some point during their slavery, because stuff happens to bring happiness during all sorts of horrible situations.
4. The fact that some slaves learned skills that translated into post emancipation work is undeniable. The reality is that in many cases slaves (despite the slaveholders contention) were able to learn all sorts of useful skills (including literacy) that they were able to leverage after their freedom. Acknowledging this reality doesn't mitigate the horrible nature of US slavery. It merely points out that some slaves were able to gain skills that could benefit them as free men.
5. Again the notion that slavery in the US is the primary focus of slavery is simply absurd. The notion that African blacks weren't culpable in selling their own to slavers is ignored, as is that fact that Muslims were and are major players in the enslavement of others.
Started the book, and so far Dan's conclusions about it are being proven false.
I agree with the use of the term "happy" in this context. However, I would assert that those who actually used it with intent were the very people who were doing the enslaving...those like Dan's family. It was a falsehood to rationalize their enslaving of these people as a good thing. Dan and his ilk, however, prefer to suggest that non-slavers, conservatives and pretty much any white person, believes in the "happy slave" in the manner his kind coined the term. I don't even think anyone who acknowledges all the other truths to which you speak use the term much at all in describing any level of contentment on the part of even the most well treated slaves.
I would also presume there are cases in which Stockholm Syndrome came into play with some of the enslaved, as well as a sense of abandonment and/or despair on the part of those enslaved who had no marketable skills or the means by which they could sustain themselves as they sought to market them, particularly in that part of the country where they were most oppressed and disregarded as "less than". Neither suggests true happiness, though there are those who manage to choose happiness over negative emotions regardless of the degree of suffering they're forced to endure. Would that we all could.
I agree that the "happy slave" narrative was started by the slave owners themselves to justify their actions. That folx like Dan try to use it to broad brush anyone who tells the Truth that some of the slaves did find some degree of happiness or pleasure or satisfaction in some aspects of their lives, doesn't mitigate the actions of those who enslaved them. The fact that some slaves learned trades that benefited them as free men, also doesn't mitigate the actions of the slave owners. It actually reinforced the point of the piece I referenced. It reinforces the fact that some good can come out of an evil situation.
As far as Stockholm Syndrome, I think that the movie Django Unchained illustrates this with the Samuel L Jackson character. I have no doubt that some minority of slaves bonded with their owners for various reasons, even though it was not in their best interests to do so.
I agree that "happiness" is a poor word choice, to describe what actually happened. The use of "happy" by those on the left as some sort of ultimate goal or highly valued state simply is a pursuit of fleeting "highs" instead of something more long lasting.
We see similar examples of this in the Holocaust. We see KZ captives who somehow found meaning, beauty, forgiveness, and the like in the middle of literal hell. We see it in those who forgave their captors after they were released. YHWH can and does redeem everything and He has the capacity to take the most evil things humans do and bring about good from that evil. Joseph realized this centuries ago, yet progressive christians have taken that power away from their version of god.
Post a Comment