Interesting & Civil discussion re: slavery from Greek Life is HERE

[SWTXBelle]

We should probably specify that for the most part this discussion has centered on slavery in the Americas. Slavery, alas, has been around far longer (and continues today, for that matter).
I have always been intrigued by the enslavement of those who look like the enslavers. Surely it is easier to justify slavery if the slaves are "different". If you can think of the slaves as sub-human, or only in economic terms, it would be easier (I think) to live with your actions. But when the enslaved look like you - talk like you - and you don't have the "different" defense, your justifications would have to be more intellectual in nature a la the defense of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome.
I did Living History work, and one character I portrayed was an occupant of New Orleans under Union occupation. Doing the research was interesting - I haven't done any statistical comparisons, but I think I can make an educated statement and say that the attitude of southern women towards slavery and slaves was different than the male. It is remarkable how many primary sources show women who felt a certain similarity existed betweeen their role and that of their slaves - totally at the whim of men in terms of their lives, financially dependent, etc. (And NO - I'm not saying slavery = role of women. There is no doubt that is was much better to be a white woman than a slave. I am saying that women had a different take on it, and some of them were far more sympathetic than most men to the plight of their slaves).
Of course, if the slaves lived in marble palaces, wore silk clothes and ate bon bons all day it wouldn't matter - the problem with concentrating too much on how the slaves were treated is that it seems to imply that if they weren't being abused, then it was okay, or that it is wrong because people were abused when it was wrong because IT DENIED THE BASIC HUMANITY of the slaves in denying them the freedom that is a basic right for all men. And women, too!

[LaneSig]

Can I just say I love GreekChat? We start off with a discussion about chapters of the same fraternity, but different campuses, visiting each other and end up discussing the history of slavery/racism.

Does this thread win the award for going off in the most random direction? Or, has there been another thread that so clearly exited its original concept?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

We should probably specify that for the most part this discussion has centered on slavery in the Americas. Slavery, alas, has been around far longer (and continues today, for that matter).
I have always been intrigued by the enslavement of those who look like the enslavers. Surely it is easier to justify slavery if the slaves are "different". If you can think of the slaves as sub-human, or only in economic terms, it would be easier (I think) to live with your actions. But when the enslaved look like you - talk like you - and you don't have the "different" defense, your justifications would have to be more intellectual in nature a la the defense of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome.
I did Living History work, and one character I portrayed was an occupant of New Orleans under Union occupation. Doing the research was interesting - I haven't done any statistical comparisons, but I think I can make an educated statement and say that the attitude of southern women towards slavery and slaves was different than the male. It is remarkable how many primary sources show women who felt a certain similarity existed betweeen their role and that of their slaves - totally at the whim of men in terms of their lives, financially dependent, etc. (And NO - I'm not saying slavery = role of women. There is no doubt that is was much better to be a white woman than a slave. I am saying that women had a different take on it, and some of them were far more sympathetic than most men to the plight of their slaves).
Of course, if the slaves lived in marble palaces, wore silk clothes and ate bon bons all day it wouldn't matter - the problem with concentrating too much on how the slaves were treated is that it seems to imply that if they weren't being abused, then it was okay, or that it is wrong because people were abused when it was wrong because IT DENIED THE BASIC HUMANITY of the slaves in denying them the freedom that is a basic right for all men. And women, too!

I understand where you were going with this, SWTX, and without in any way (hopefully) taking the thunder out of the slavery discussion, here's some info (pulled from the 'equal rights' thread the other day) that might help connect the dots as to why some women may have had much different attitudes about slavery than men. In 1848, Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted a "Declaration of Sentiments":

"In this Declaration of Sentiments, Stanton carefully enumerated areas of life where women were treated unjustly. Eighteen was precisely the number of grievances America's revolutionary forefathers had listed in their Declaration of Independence from England.

Stanton's version read, "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world." Then it went into specifics:

• Married women were legally dead in the eyes of the law
• Women were not allowed to vote
• Women had to submit to laws when they had no voice in their formation
• Married women had no property rights
• Husbands had legal power over and responsibility for their wives to the extent that they could imprison or beat them with impunity
• Divorce and child custody laws favored men, giving no rights to women
• Women had to pay property taxes although they had no representation in the levying of these taxes
• Most occupations were closed to women and when women did work they were paid only a fraction of what men earned
• Women were not allowed to enter professions such as medicine or law
• Women had no means to gain an education since no college or university would accept women students
• With only a few exceptions, women were not allowed to participate in the affairs of the church
• Women were robbed of their self-confidence and self-respect, and were made totally dependent on men

Strong words... Large grievances... And remember: This was just seventy years after the Revolutionary War. Doesn't it seem surprising to you that this unfair treatment of women was the norm in this new, very idealistic democracy? But this Declaration of Sentiments spelled out what was the status quo for European-American women in 1848 America, while it was even worse for enslaved Black women."

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by LaneSig

Can I just say I love GreekChat? We start off with a discussion about chapters of the same fraternity, but different campuses, visiting each other and end up discussing the history of slavery/racism.

Does this thread win the award for going off in the most random direction? Or, has there been another thread that so clearly exited its original concept?

Wait - you mean Greeks actually get an EDUCATION??? They aren't just partying and frying their brain cells, but actually engage in meaningful discussions about a variety of topics? lol

And I have to admit, many times the digression ends up being more interesting/fun than the original topic. That said, I'm glad the chapter visits have worked out well.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

We should probably specify that for the most part this discussion has centered on slavery in the Americas.

That was made clear from the beginning.

[SWTXBelle]

Hmmm . . .as I'm reading the beginning of the digression it seems to center more on a discussion of Europe. Hence my desire to clarify. If I'm being repetitive, so be it. If I'm being repetitive, so be it.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

It seems like this may be a semantics issue on what we're calling "race"? Europeans certainly saw the African as other from the beginnings of the slave trade, but that view's development into modern ideas of race was a process that took a few centuries.

I guess so, because what you and Chaos are calling race seems to tied to negative perception of those differences, whereas I tend to think of race in the DuBoisian sense, as one of the ways that a group people define themselves against another group, which does not necessarily imply negative associations. Though I would argues that the negative associations attached to those perceived differences did emerge earlier rather than later.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Little32

I guess so, because what you and Chaos are calling race seems to tied to negative perception of those differences, whereas I tend to think of race in the DuBoisian sense, as one of the ways that a group people define themselves against another group, which does not necessarily imply negative associations.

That's not how we're defining race. I define race the same way that DuBois did, as a N. American construct.

But that conceptualization aside, you already said that slavery was initially about economics (the physical and cultural differences were used for a reason, not because Europeans hated a "race" of people and targeted them as a hobby). And that race became an emphasis a little later on as the N. American construct of "race" developed and advanced. We're saying the same thing.

[Little32]

OK, that last post made it a bit more clear. We are, mostly, saying the same thing.

[AlexMack]

Damnit my internet broke at the wrong time last night. Just an aside to my previous discussion with SEC before this thread whipped around to slavery.

I'm not asking the USA or other developed nations to produce less food. I'm asking for international trade laws to be changed so that trade is, well, fair, for everyone. That could actually help with poverty levels too, increasing a country's gross product.

And dude...wanting not to believe something happened doesn't mean it didn't. I would like to believe that the nazis didn't murder 6 million people but they did, and there are people alive today who can attest to that fact. Shit we're back to jews again. Sorry ya'll.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

whipped around to slavery.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Exactly. "Race" is more of a North American construct.

I'm sure the Spaniards who throw bananas onto the pitch and make monkey noises directed at black players at Nou Camp and elsewhere would love to hear that one.

I'd like an explanation.

Believe it or not, at the moment I've been having alot of racism directed towards me. In the country I live in (which 3/4ths of my ancestors came from) right now, I'm frequently being insulted because they think I'm one race (which is hated in this country) because I get darker in the sun then they do (the other 1/4th is seen as an even lighter skinned nation). They don't know any better. All that being said, I'm not sure how you can term it a "N. American construct."

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I'm sure the Spaniards who throw bananas onto the pitch and make monkey noises directed at black players at Nou Camp and elsewhere would love to hear that one.

I'd like an explanation.

Believe it or not, at the moment I've been having alot of racism directed towards me. In the country I live in (which 3/4ths of my ancestors came from) right now, I'm frequently being insulted because they think I'm one race (which is hated in this country) because I get darker in the sun then they do (the other 1/4th is seen as an even lighter skinned nation). They don't know any better. All that being said, I'm not sure how you can term it a "N. American construct."

She means that the structure of racialized thinking as we know it today developed in North America. Some elements of that thought have been exported elsewhere. This is true. At the same time, there are many other places where racial relations have developed differently than in North America. Any study of Latin American slavery and racism would demonstrate this fact. To illustrate this you can read the sections comparing racism in the US and racism in Brazil on Wikipedia (which, incidentally, is not written by liberal academics):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%2..._constructions

No one claimed racism did not exist outside North American. It certainly does. What is being argued is that there is more cultural/national variation to racism than you are admitting, and that the racism we know in the US was first developed in the North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. European people in the medieval period certainly did/said things that we would perceive as "racist" today, but it's not clear that they even had a concept of "race."

[Elephant Walk]

That would be terribly difficult to prove. Thought isn't "exported." There is a root within the peoples which accept the theories so that once they are exposed to the theories, they expose the root. There is nothing new under the sun (as the Bible claimed and I think is true).

I know plenty about the race classifications in Brazil, I did an in-depth study on it for one of my classes. Fairly intresting, but it really doesn't prove anything we were talking about.

[nittanyalum]

SEC (and others that are interested): Please read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1206...iews_days_only -- and be sure to watch the slideshow

and: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1206...2:r1:c0.328393