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

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

How often do brothers/sisters from other chapters stop by your chapter house just to visit?
What about spending a weekend there?
Or did any of you even let them in?

My chapter just got thrown into an uncomfortable situation recently. One of our chapters from another part of the state is VERY different from my own, and about 15 of them wanted to come "party for the weekend" up here.
On the one hand, yes, they are our brothers, so we want to be courteous and let them into our home. But on the other, we probably won't like each other, so we could just tell them "no" they can't come.

I'd like to see if there's a general consensus about an appropriate course of action.

Originally Posted by AlexMack

Their chapter is a lower tier at the other school.

Did I miss something here???
How is it that SEC asked the OP and AlexMack answered a question about it??

[DSTCHAOS]

Trying to get the thread back, jon?

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Trying to get the thread back, jon?

Back?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Back?

Ha. Then you don't know that the visiting chapter has already visited and that we're having a pretty cool discussion about important stuff.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Did I miss something here???
How is it that SEC asked the OP and AlexMack answered a question about it??

If I recall that part of the conversation (oh, so long ago), some posters asked what was so "different" about the other chapter that wanted to visit and AlexMack gave the above as a sarcastic answer, which was obviously the truth, but was "unspoken" at that point. Am I following the undercurrent in your question being that you're wondering if they're the same person? Because if so, then no, I'm pretty, no 100% sure, they're not.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

If I recall that part of the conversation (oh, so long ago), some posters asked what was so "different" about the other chapter that wanted to visit and AlexMack gave the above as a sarcastic answer, which was obviously the truth, but was "unspoken" at that point. Am I following the undercurrent in your question being that you're wondering if they're the same person? Because if so, then no, I'm pretty, no 100% sure, they're not.

Thank you and I thought as much. Was just on my mind as I was reading thru 6+ pages of postings.
Thread caught my attention as I have been on both ends of the situation.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I didn't know textbooks were saying that. Do you know when they started including this?

There were a couple of articles about it about two or three years ago.

Also, the fact is that slavery was about race. I am trying to find the year, but early on in the existence of the institution, a law was passed that legalized perpetual servitude for Africans and African descended people. Before that, indentured servitude was the more common practice.

ETA: Found it! Courtesy of Encarta.msn.com, "Gradually by the 18th century, colonial laws were consolidated into slave codes providing for perpetual, inherited servitude for Africans who were defined as property to be bought and sold."

Read Notes on the State of Virginia to see how Thomas Jefferson rationalized enslaving Africans and African Americans because of their alleged inferiority. Read any late eighteenth/early to mid nineteenth century writings by seccessionists and advocates of the institution, and you will find that they justified slavery based on the color and origins of the enslaved, not based on the need for low cost labor.

Here, SEC, I am talking about primary sources, where these ideas are plainly stated without any need for interpretation. In fact, it would take a Herculean effort of misinterpretation to advance the notion that slavery was not, on multiple and significant levels, about race given the details in these documents.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Oh, it's neither based on fact or feelings. More based on logic really. I refuse to believe that the majority of plantation owners of 200 years ago treated their slaves as poorly as it's made out to be. Sure, they probably had the minimum amount of food, water, clothing, shelter, and sleep. I'm not debating that.
The way I see it, those crop producers NEEDED the slaves- wouldn't they do everything they could to keep them working as efficiently as possible? I mean, books and documentaries make it out that you could run to the general store and pick up a replacement slave 10 minutes after you beat one to death. They did cost money- money that plantation owners and operators wanted for themselves.

And yes, I think that slavery has slowed progression for many black Americans. But in my experiences, it's more of the indifferent attitude that holds many back- black or white.

And one more thing. I know you'll probably counter by saying something along the lines of: "Fearing for their lives made them efficient workers." so I'll work on preparing a response now.

ETA: In advance, if the fear for their lives was enough, there would be no need to mistreat them.

Many of the despicable things that humans do to each other are not (if ever) based on logic.

[Army Wife'79]

Slavery wasn't always about race. When I lived in SC I went on a "Gullah Tour" in Charleston conducted by an expert (black) on slavery and he pointed out that several "free black people" owned property, acerage and slaves in both Charleston and New Orleans and had sort of a "special status" (I guess b/c of their freedom). Also that they were often "meaner" than the white overseers and their slaves liked being traded/sold to the white owners. (there were lots of stunned looks on this tour bus).
Also, many blacks enlisted in the Confederate side of the Civil War b/c they didnt' want their way of life to end. History books from our childhood had a way of painting inaccurate pictures of the entire situation.

[Little32]

^^The fact that blacks owned slaves does not negate the fact that the institution of slavery coalesced around issues of race. That's sort of a red herring argument.

The fact that there was legislation that limited perpetual slavery to those of African descent pretty much cememts the claim that race was central to the development of the institution.

Right, those history books that suggest that slavery was not at all about race do paint inaccurate pictures.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by Army Wife'79

Slavery wasn't always about race. When I lived in SC I went on a "Gullah Tour" in Charleston conducted by an expert (black) on slavery and he pointed out that several "free black people" owned property, acerage and slaves in both Charleston and New Orleans and had sort of a "special status" (I guess b/c of their freedom). Also that they were often "meaner" than the white overseers and their slaves liked being traded/sold to the white owners. (there were lots of stunned looks on this tour bus).
Also, many blacks enlisted in the Confederate side of the Civil War b/c they didnt' want their way of life to end. History books from our childhood had a way of painting inaccurate pictures of the entire situation.

Outside of Charleston and New Orleans, there were blacks that owned slaves. If you understood the nuances and intersections of race/color/nationality/status, it may be clearer why there were black slave owners and how they went about rationalizing their participation as a slave owner in the institution of slavery. One cannot apply a generalization that fits all people, then or now. Little 32 provided primary sources that highlight the fact that slavery was indeed about race.

SIDEBAR: This reminds me of the episode of A Different World, where Whitley finds out her great-grandfather owned slaves.

Back to the topic:
History books (and any other textbooks for that matter) often don't paint an accurate picture of ANYTHING. I know this because I work in the educational textbook publishing industry. They often don't paint complete pictures because the truth is not always pleasant and developers and editors struggle with what should be/how should particular subjects get taught; because not all students are able to comprehend the macro and micro elements of something like slavery, trail of tears, etc. And because many parent/educators (at the state and local level) don't want these things taught to their kids. At the end of the day, for the publishing company it comes down to money and their need to sell books. So, for example, you won't see cultural/musical references to the Buena Vista Social Club in Spanish textbooks sold in Florida because of the influence of the Anti-Castro Cuban population in the state, Despite the fact of the impact BVSC has had on latin/caribbean music throughout the world.

I also wouldn't expect a tour guide to rail against white people on a tour bus with white people on it.

[SWTXBelle]

Oh, I've known tour guides who had no trouble castigating a tour bus with white people on it!

As to the arguement about race vs. economic/status issues, I think that as is true of most issues it is too complex to say it is a strictly this or that proposition. Issues of race, economics, class and the like ALL play an important part in understanding slavery. Part of the problem with history texts is they have a tendency to take really complicated, important events and reduce them to a page or two. You simply can't do justice to a topic when you treat it like that.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

History books (and any other textbooks for that matter) often don't paint an accurate picture of ANYTHING. I know this because I work in the educational textbook publishing industry..

Just to clarify that I am not referring to textbooks at all. I am referring to works written by academics and published by reputable scholarly presses. Obviously SEC and a few others don't hold these works in high regard. However, peer-reviewed works (though they may pose different interpretations of facts) are usually going to give you some sense of reality, and have the advantage over textbooks that they sign their primary and/or archival sources, so you can always return to those to check the work of the scholar.

Originally Posted by Army Wife'79

Slavery wasn't always about race. When I lived in SC I went on a "Gullah Tour" in Charleston conducted by an expert (black) on slavery and he pointed out that several "free black people" owned property, acerage and slaves in both Charleston and New Orleans and had sort of a "special status" (I guess b/c of their freedom). Also that they were often "meaner" than the white overseers and their slaves liked being traded/sold to the white owners. (there were lots of stunned looks on this tour bus).
Also, many blacks enlisted in the Confederate side of the Civil War b/c they didnt' want their way of life to end. History books from our childhood had a way of painting inaccurate pictures of the entire situation.

Your examples are certainly correct. For example, I study quite a bit about Haiti, a situation in which there were actually MANY black slave owners (as opposed to continental North America were there were few. But you can't argue from the existence of these people that slavery wasn't so bad or blacks like slavery too. There is far too much evidence to reject this idea. For example, black narratives written by escaped slaves, the huge maroon population (esp. in the Caribbean), etc.

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I haven't made claims, I've stated my opinion on the matter. I'm sorry if that's offensive, but I've done my best to keep it civil. Treading on eggshells is really tough, and I'm the only one that's doing it. You all feel free to ream me about my beliefs, but if you all say anything, it's just common knowledge, or accepted understanding.
And about your friends- I don't trust all academic sources. I understand that they have put in a lot of hard work trying to get the facts, but the real fact is that no one alive today was there, and therefore we cannot expect an accurate, unbiased, depiction of the time. Again, as DST pointed out, I can't base anything as controversial as this on "historical fact"....

If it helps understand my point of view, I think slavery was about the free labor- not about color. I don't doubt that it was easier, or more acceptable at the time to have slaves of color, but I don't think that was the number one concern- profits were. Maybe I'm downplaying the racism for you, but certainly not ignoring it

Well, you've basically claimed here that your thoughts are based on your "belief" and not any kind of research or knowledge. I don't see how you can claim that your own beliefs based on supposed logical deduction can trump the work of people who've spent years studying primary sources on slavery. You can't logically deduct from a basis of no knowledge. So I'm not sure how much we have to say to one another.

As for your second point--free labor vs. color, that has already been well-explained here. Initially slavery was not about color--that's true. in the 17th c. people experimented with Indian enslavement and white enslavement. It was only later that they went the color route and made it legally very difficult for a person to be free. I know the French example best--in San Domingue (Haiti) and Guadaloupe and other French slave colonies laws were instituted that made it extremely difficult for masters to free their slaves. There's evidence that masters often wanted to free their house slaves (NOT field slaves), but faced so many legal obstacles and steps of review that they didn't. It's also true that alternate forms of slavery existed at the same time as racialized chattel slavery--for example, the North African Barbary slave trade, to name just one.

One thing we do have in agreement (sort of) is that slaves exercised far more personal agency that scholarly studies of the 70s and 80s might have us believe. Although this is tempered by the severe physical and mental abuse they received, slaves exercised in many cases control over their own finances, etc. There's also evidence that many practiced sophisticated forms of African cultural ritual and religion unbeknownst the their masters, up until Christianization in the mid-to-late 18th c. (This is especially the case for Latin America; Latin American and North American slavery differed quite a bit.) Also an increasing emphasis on marronage (escaped slave communities) and free blacks has altered our view of slavery somewhat. The emphasis on the last few years has been on slave resistance and agency. But this is always tempered by the fact that their masters controlled their life and death.

I am definitely not accusing you of being racist. Just that you have a bunch of ideas that don't seem to be based on any real knowledge of slavery other than what you read in the textbooks from your required history courses. That doesn't constitute a strong basis for having this discussion, TBH.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Part of the problem with history texts is they have a tendency to take really complicated, important events and reduce them to a page or two. You simply can't do justice to a topic when you treat it like that.

Mmmmmhmmmm

[Little32]

^^Exactly at SWTX. True understanding of the issue takes a time and effort that most are not willing to invest. Additionally, I don't think that anyone would argue that economics was not part of the issue as well, but to try to take race out of the equation is just flat out wrong.