The Books/Reading Thread

[rms]

Actually, I just had a detailed lesson the atlantic slave trade and there is actually little to no proof of Westeners enslaving Africans because they felt inferior to whites, it was just economics because what silly white people are going to sail off to Jamaica and work 18 hours a day on a plantation? They had silly African regional rulers enslaving other tribal Africans and selling them to the Europeans, pretty silly stuff. But I think the first example of actual racism would have been in South Africa, which isn't the same as the slave trade at all.

Duderino, I don't think anyone was immune to smallpox just like only Africans had developed an immunity to Malaria(or at least resistant). That's why them silly Caribbeaners died off and got replaced with them dark skinned folk.

Think the only motivation in European eyes were economic, I haven't seen much proof if at all that Boat Captains/High Officials in Western Countries were judgmental of the blackkies.

Wasn't it called Dark Continent because Western world knew nothing about it until the industrial revolution? Couldn't also explore until we got the cure for Malaria, which is late 19th century if i'm not mistaken.

This is cool, we're finally discussing history on here.

 

[Dak]

The article has a link to a 45 page peer reviewed article with a much more detailed discussion of the findings. There's a link to a second article that's dead, but you can find the article if you look it up by name. So there is plenty of information to back the stats. Keep in mind the context. It's a newspaper article; they're only gonna give the basics and then link/ reference the more detailed research.

I'll try to keep this in mind to revisit the article when I have the time.

Can't speak on the War on Poverty because I haven't studied it in detail but the "War on Undereducation" is a myth. By and large inner city schools just have not been given the proper resources and have lacked the proper planning and perspective to help their kids succeed.

I was thinking of all the money thrown at college attendance (Pell Grants, subsidized loans, etc). Money for K-12 is rather heavily dependent on the local economy.

 

[unknown]

When will you two realize that you are both stubborn as fuck and will never convince one another? You just keep going to have the last word. Also, you always end up arguing semantics. I'd compare your arguments to cancer in the way it grows out of proportion and kills all other things, including A FUCKING THREAD DISCUSSING BOOKS. THANKS OBAMA

 

[Dak]

The Transatlantic slave trade was clearly racist. You are literally the first person I've ever heard argue otherwise. Most the European slave traders and proponents argued that Africans were biologically inferior. Many even argued that they weren't fully human. There were some religious people who argued that Africans weren't biologically inferior but were culturally inferior. Either way, everyone involved was racist.

Actually the main reasons South Americans weren't used as slaves was because they had no immunity to European diseases.

Also the fact that Africans were participants in the slave trade has zero impact on whether or not the institution was racist. The only factor that matters is European ideology and motivation and the historical documents make that perfectly clear.

1. It was not purely cultural. Plenty of biological arguments were being thrown about.

All of this has already been responded to. I don't think you read it.

2. Discriminating against a people for their culture is often a form of racism. In fact it's one of the most common ones.

3. When exactly was this time period when Africa was supposedly cut off from the rest of the world? It sounds extremely implausible.

Um, roughly 3150 to 50 BC. The Nile provided a narrow "landbridge" around the Sahara (which acted as a topographic barrier) to connect the Middle East and major trade routes/civilizational exchange. Egypt straddled the Nile at the mouth blocking or substantially filtering this exchange.

As far as culture rejection being "a form" of racism: Lol. Let's call everything racism!

What evidence is there to support this conclusion? Washington was himself a former slave and look what he accomplished with an education. You're projecting conclusions about what people could accomplish without evidence or even a firm hypothetical argument. This argument needs much more justification, especially considering what we see as far as communities and individuals turning their lives around quickly post-trauma when given the proper resources and/or opportunities (i.e. many Holocaust and Armenian Genocide survivors and their children).

Yes, quick turn around, through a series of steps - eg you need to learn the alphabet before you can write, addition before algebra, etc. You are leaving out steps. Washington didn't just walk off a plantation and start working a dissertation. Even with my level of education and generalized experience, give me a welding machine and I'll probably hurt myself before doing anything productive. Education and experience occurs gradually and in a series of steps. I don't see any radical claim here.

 

[Einherjar86]

Actually, I just had a detailed lesson the atlantic slave trade and there is actually little to no proof of Westeners enslaving Africans because they felt inferior to whites, it was just economics because what silly white people are going to sail off to Jamaica and work 18 hours a day on a plantation? They had silly African regional rulers enslaving other tribal Africans and selling them to the Europeans, pretty silly stuff. But I think the first example of actual racism would have been in South Africa, which isn't the same as the slave trade at all.

Think the only motivation in European eyes were economic, I haven't seen much proof if at all that Boat Captains/High Officials in Western Countries were judgmental of the blackkies.

Wasn't it called Dark Continent because Western world knew nothing about it until the industrial revolution? Couldn't also explore until we got the cure for Malaria, which is late 19th century if i'm not mistaken.

This is cool, we're finally discussing history on here.

It was obviously economic, but this can't be divorced from racism.

Whether the Europeans did look down upon Africans (which primary documents strongly suggest), or whether they saw them as in need of "saving," or whether they saw them as excellent laborers - all of these reactions are racist.

In the most likely case, there was an economic need for slaves; but this economic need is immediately rationalized in terms of race relations and is justified by an appeal to racial inferiority. Either the Africans would be worse off in Africa, or they would benefit from Western institutions, or their value could be better realized through labor for the West; any of these logically connect to attitudes of race.

EDIT:

Yes, quick turn around, through a series of steps - eg you need to learn the alphabet before you can write, addition before algebra, etc. You are leaving out steps. Washington didn't just walk off a plantation and start working a dissertation. Even with my level of education and generalized experience, give me a welding machine and I'll probably hurt myself before doing anything productive. Education and experience occurs gradually and in a series of steps. I don't see any radical claim here.

But in Washington's presentation, if we follow it logically, slavery was necessary for his education in the first place, and he values his status above those of blacks in Africa. Slavery enters into the picture as a kind of backward saving grace for Africans.

Also, regarding race relations between Europeans and Africans, and the enslaving of Africans taking place on the continent, much of this was only possible after the Europeans introduced advanced weaponry (i.e. the gun) to African civilization. Inter-tribal slavery wasn't a rampant and economically organized institution. It was only when European economic necessity, because of imperialistic capitalism, drove the demand for slaves up that they began enslaving each other and selling them to the Europeans:

 

[rms]

It was obviously economic, but this can't be divorced from racism.

Whether the Europeans did look down upon Africans (which primary documents strongly suggest), or whether they saw them as in need of "saving," or whether they saw them as excellent laborers - all of these reactions are racist.

In the most likely case, there was an economic need for slaves; but this economic need is immediately rationalized in terms of race relations and is justified by an appeal to racial inferiority. Either the Africans would be worse off in Africa, or they would benefit from Western institutions, or their value could be better realized through labor for the West; any of these logically connect to attitudes of race.

I am very interested to see what sources you are referring to, because the guy who gave our lesson is a british scholar, from the mighty island and quite honestly his opinion on historical matters is much stronger than yours, and he said and we have read in class that westerners did not feel superior to them in that sense,

The saving aspect is more an idea behind colonization, something Western nations did not bother with for awhile in Africa, so don't think that is a legitimate point on the matter.

Whether they are good or not at labor was never addressed, it was a source of labor where you paid once and never again and obviously cheaper at this time. They still sent prisoners from England(specficially) at this time to work on slave plantations instead of taking a death sentence.

I really think you are confusing imperialism with slavery in this post, western nations first used indigenous peoples as slaves, but smallpox killed them all, so they brought in the next cheapest option, Africans. They also had slaves from all over the Middle East so it's not like it just blacks from Africa

 

[Einherjar86]

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his journals (I believe it was in Notes on the State of Virginia) that the dark skin of the Africans was a clear sign of their devilry and inferiority to white Europeans. He was not the only one who thought so.

EDIT: an essay included in Cultures of U.S. Imperialism, from Duke University Journals, delineates the tendency of black writers to ignore the gory details in slave narratives; white Americans didn't want to read about horrible things being done to slaves. This may not seem racist on the surface, but the reason for such censorship is that whites wanted to remain oblivious to violence done to blacks so that they could preserve a sense of magnanimity and righteousness in their behavior toward blacks. This is racist behavior; the persistence of entitled consciousness without acknowledging how their actions negatively affected those of another race.

Another article in the same collection, titled "Why did Europeans cross the ocean?" details how European colonists had to demonize native and African peoples in order to justify their treatment of them.

 

[rms]

Jefferson really has nothing to do with the Atlantic Slave trade man, Europeans selling off Africans and Jefferson rationalizing slave labor in America are two different things

 

[Einherjar86]

The Atlantic Slave Trade reduced human beings to commodities; it made tools, instruments, objects out of living, breathing, feeling human beings. That was how the Africans were captured and sold, and that was how they were viewed by those who bought them. If you want to say that isn't racist, that's fine. But whoever your professor was, he doesn't seem to have had a very good grasp on the relationship constituted between masters and slaves; it revolves around a dialectic of superiority and inferiority. There is no other way about it.

 

[rms]

Masters and Slaves already existed in Europe with indentured servitude, it was already a common thing to enslave people for your own bidding.

Is de-humanizing people, racist?

Africans were captured and sold by Africans, not Europeans, a strong distinction worth noting. Also, reading on European perspectives it actually wasn't common to think negatively of Africans at the time, which is quite crazy to me when I think of it but hey, that's what the history books show.

Humans all over the world in these times were de-valued, it was part of the world.

 

[Einherjar86]

Masters and Slaves already existed in Europe with indentured servitude, it was already a common thing to enslave people for your own bidding.

Is de-humanizing people, racist?

Africans were captured and sold by Africans, not Europeans, a strong distinction worth noting. Also, reading on European perspectives it actually wasn't common to think negatively of Africans at the time, which is quite crazy to me when I think of it but hey, that's what the history books show.

Humans all over the world in these times were de-valued, it was part of the world.

1. As soon as superiority and inferiority come into play, all material factors get subsumed into this dialectic. Therefore, in a master/slave relationship between whites and blacks, skin color immediately comes into play, and is retrospectively seen as justifying the dynamics of domination.

2. Africans did not capture and trade each other in an organized and large-scale fashion until the Europeans introduced the gun to African societies and the demand for slave labor increased. Watch the video I posted above. Africans may have traded conquered tribes-people on a small scale, but nothing even approaching what happened once European colonists arrived. Trying to justify European enslavement because the Africans were already doing it is not only irrelevant; it's also very uneven.

3. What textbooks are you using, and what edition?

 

[rms]

The Gun was sold to Africans, in exchange for Slaves, in a feeble attempt to 'modernize'--thus leading to infighting among African tribes and whoever won the little fight took prisoners, who were sold to the Whiteys for slave labor. Europeans rarely left the boat, let alone got near shore--they were too scared of Malaria, but i'll check out this video. European colonization didn't really happen for like 200 years, when the Berlin Conference segregated the continent by country

We are using Ways of the World, 2nd edition 2nd volume, by Strayer. But our teacher assigns 3-5 readings per week outside of the text as well, and our 'guest' professor came in and taught this lesson, i'm not sure what our actual professor is specified in, but he is English something.

This course is really British Imperialism and it's impact, not really Global history as I would see it.

 

[Einherjar86]

The Gun was sold to Africans, in exchange for Slaves, in a feeble attempt to 'modernize'--thus leading to infighting among African tribes and whoever won the little fight took prisoners, who were sold to the Whiteys for slave labor. Europeans rarely left the boat, let alone got near shore--they were too scared of Malaria, but i'll check out this video. European colonization didn't really happen for like 200 years, when the Berlin Conference segregated the continent by country

Exactly. They barely left the shore. Why? Because they gave guns to the Africans they met on the shore and said: "Bring us others, or we'll take you." That isn't slavery occurring naturally among African tribes; it's slavery introduced and perpetuated by European imperialism.

We are using Ways of the World, 2nd edition 2nd volume, by Strayer. But our teacher assigns 3-5 readings per week outside of the text as well, and our 'guest' professor came in and taught this lesson, i'm not sure what our actual professor is specified in, but he is English something.

This course is really British Imperialism and it's impact, not really Global history as I would see it.

I believe that this was told to you, but it's simply not true as far as I know. It might be that your professor is saying that because there's no insistence in all European writings that Africans are inferior, Europeans therefore didn't consider them inferior; but this doesn't make sense. Africans weren't invited to the Berlin Conference because they were explicitly believed to not count as human beings.

Europeans tended to view Africans either as instruments toward an end (i.e. commodities) or as less-than-human. There's a reason why African Americans were deemed as less-than-human in the writings of Jefferson et al. It was established on a firm historical precedent of European racial superiority over Africans.

 

[rms]

Exactly. They barely left the shore. Why? Because they gave guns to the Africans they met on the shore and said: "Bring us others, or we'll take you." That isn't slavery occurring naturally among African tribes; it's slavery introduced and perpetuated by European imperialism.

From everything i've been told and read, African slave sellers had great relations with the Europeans, there was a quote for why they could not just take the Africans from Africa, but I forget it now. At the start of the slave trade, all evidence points to it being a mutual transaction more than a fear whitey take over.

They actually barely went to shore my good man, malaria wasn't cured by whitey until mid 19th century(I think) so whitey was dropping like flies in fear of contact with the dark man

I believe that this was told to you, but it's simply not true as far as I know. It might be that your professor is saying that because there's no insistence in all European writings that Africans are inferior, Europeans therefore didn't consider them inferior; but this doesn't make sense. Africans weren't invited to the Berlin Conference because they were explicitly believed to not count as human beings.

At that time in history, I totally agree. But that is like 250 years after the slave trade started, and also industrialized nations were finding a way to now colonize Africa, when they couldn't before. I don't disagree with this time frame at all, but the previous slave exchange was more mutual(between whitey and african slave trader--not the slaves of course) and that's my argument for the cause against racism at the time. But I also think it's more barbaric cultures, great example is the difference in treatment of English when they conquested Australia and went to NZ and the differences there

Europeans tended to view Africans either as instruments toward an end (i.e. commodities) or as less-than-human. There's a reason why African Americans were deemed as less-than-human in the writings of Jefferson et al. It was established on a firm historical precedent of European racial superiority over Africans.

You are forgetting too though that Middle east people's were used as slaves, as well as prisoners so it's not all just get the darkest people around to be slaves, kind of thing.

 

[Einherjar86]

These are all good points, but good relations between Europeans and Africans doesn't mean the relationship didn't involve racism. In fact, even if the Europeans were cordial and accommodating to the Africans who brought slaves to them, this doesn't preclude them from being racist.

Racism manifests merely in the power dynamic; and the truth is that Europeans were manipulating the behaviors of tribal Africans for their own economic purposes. Although capital may be the drive, race frames the discussion. Even if the transactions were mutual, the demand for slaves was present; if Africans hadn't gone into the mainland themselves and brought back slaves for the Europeans, the Europeans would have done it themselves, or found some way to force them. Just because it exists that the fact of exchange was mutual doesn't subtract the racial factor.

I'm not forgetting about the Middle East or earlier time periods; Dak has already brought this up. Slavery revolves around many different dynamics; race, gender, class, etc. In the specific case of the Atlantic Slave Trade, is revolved around race predominantly.

 

[Dak]

1. As soon as superiority and inferiority come into play, all material factors get subsumed into this dialectic. Therefore, in a master/slave relationship between whites and blacks, skin color immediately comes into play, and is retrospectively seen as justifying the dynamics of domination.

This is what I was saying before........skin color comes into play afterwards.Post hoc.

the truth is that Europeans were manipulating the behaviors of tribal Africans for their own economic purposes.

Because it's necessarily impossible that the slave dealing Africans weren't working for their own economic gains? How is this not a racist perspective? Poor darky can't possibly ever possess an agency. Always the victim.

Although capital may be the drive, race frames the discussion. Even if the transactions were mutual, the demand for slaves was present; if Africans hadn't gone into the mainland themselves and brought back slaves for the Europeans, the Europeans would have done it themselves, or found some way to force them. Just because it exists that the fact of exchange was mutual doesn't subtract the racial factor.

Conjecture. Ready supply increases demand! The ready supply of Africans provided by Africans shaped international economics to make use of this cheap supply of labor. Had this labor not been available cheaply, we might have seen the cotton gin sooner, etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is what I was saying before........skin color comes into play afterwards.Post hoc.

Too difficult to explain, and too time consuming. The best I can do is: it isn't post hoc because retrospective coincides with simultaneity. That is, it's a justification, but it occurs instantly/immediately/simultaneously. But that act of justification makes it a retrospection since skin isn't a signifier of essential differences.

Because it's necessarily impossible that the slave dealing Africans weren't working for their own economic gains? How is this not a racist perspective? Poor darky can't possibly ever possess an agency. Always the victim.

Don't confuse domination with an absence of agency.

Conjecture. Ready supply increases demand! The ready supply of Africans provided by Africans shaped international economics to make use of this cheap supply of labor. Had this labor not been available cheaply, we might have seen the cotton gin sooner, etc.

Yeah, it is conjecture.

 

[rms]

These are all good points, but good relations between Europeans and Africans doesn't mean the relationship didn't involve racism. In fact, even if the Europeans were cordial and accommodating to the Africans who brought slaves to them, this doesn't preclude them from being racist.

Racism manifests merely in the power dynamic; and the truth is that Europeans were manipulating the behaviors of tribal Africans for their own economic purposes. Although capital may be the drive, race frames the discussion. Even if the transactions were mutual, the demand for slaves was present; if Africans hadn't gone into the mainland themselves and brought back slaves for the Europeans, the Europeans would have done it themselves, or found some way to force them. Just because it exists that the fact of exchange was mutual doesn't subtract the racial factor.

I'm not forgetting about the Middle East or earlier time periods; Dak has already brought this up. Slavery revolves around many different dynamics; race, gender, class, etc. In the specific case of the Atlantic Slave Trade, is revolved around race predominantly.

I think you are sort of ignoring the idea of barbarian culture vs. civilized, in the eyes of Europeans at this time. We are not fortunate enough to find white examples on an unknown continent who we enslaved, but I think the reactions differently to NZ/Aus show this kind of barbarian/civilized mindset, rather than darker than me idea

 

[Einherjar86]

I think you are sort of ignoring the idea of barbarian culture vs. civilized, in the eyes of Europeans at this time. We are not fortunate enough to find white examples on an unknown continent who we enslaved, but I think the reactions differently to NZ/Aus show this kind of barbarian/civilized mindset, rather than darker than me idea

Can you explain this? I unfortunately don't understand what you're saying. I agree that there is a dialectic of civilization and barbarism (or culture and nature), but I don't see how this is distinct from (i.e. unrelated to) race.

Also, in general; I think it's fine that we're having this discussion in the reading thread, no? I mean, it was instigated all because of Washington's book, so...

 

[Dak]

I think you are sort of ignoring the idea of barbarian culture vs. civilized, in the eyes of Europeans at this time. We are not fortunate enough to find white examples on an unknown continent who we enslaved, but I think the reactions differently to NZ/Aus show this kind of barbarian/civilized mindset, rather than darker than me idea

I agree, and this thinking is not limited to White Europeans (barbarian is Greek in origin, and originally mocked foreign languages). The Germanic "barbarians" that finally overran Rome weren't considered "barbaric" because of skin tone but because of cultural and language differences.

The distinctive racism surrounding the Atlantic slave trade was an unusual aftereffect of a peculiar situation, and not simultaneous.