White People and History

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Mav, you might find it kind of interesting, Georgia was initially founded as a slave-free colony. The guy who founded it believed that slavery was a mortal sin, he was also against contact with the Native Americans (thinking that white society would "corrupt them"). He was actually really progressive for his time; the colony, which was founded as a military buffer between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida, was also used by him as a place for poor people to go for a more fair society. However, since he wasn't a proprietary owner, the colonial assemblies quickly shattered his vision.

I know this already, but thanks.

I didn't and I'm absolutely baffled at it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Mav, you might find it kind of interesting, Georgia was initially founded as a slave-free colony. The guy who founded it believed that slavery was a mortal sin, he was also against contact with the Native Americans (thinking that white society would "corrupt them"). He was actually really progressive for his time; the colony, which was founded as a military buffer between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida, was also used by him as a place for poor people to go for a more fair society. However, since he wasn't a proprietary owner, the colonial assemblies quickly shattered his vision.

He must have been disappointed by the end of his life if this happened within his lifetime.

[United Marxist Nations]

Mav, you might find it kind of interesting, Georgia was initially founded as a slave-free colony. The guy who founded it believed that slavery was a mortal sin, he was also against contact with the Native Americans (thinking that white society would "corrupt them"). He was actually really progressive for his time; the colony, which was founded as a military buffer between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida, was also used by him as a place for poor people to go for a more fair society. However, since he wasn't a proprietary owner, the colonial assemblies quickly shattered his vision.

I know this already, but thanks.

No problem. A bunch of little interesting things like that in history. Another example would be that perhaps the first nail in racism's coffin was put into place in the 1500's when some King of Portugal banned taking Japanese and Chinese as slaves.

[Mavorpen]

Mav, you might find it kind of interesting, Georgia was initially founded as a slave-free colony. The guy who founded it believed that slavery was a mortal sin, he was also against contact with the Native Americans (thinking that white society would "corrupt them"). He was actually really progressive for his time; the colony, which was founded as a military buffer between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida, was also used by him as a place for poor people to go for a more fair society. However, since he wasn't a proprietary owner, the colonial assemblies quickly shattered his vision.

He must have been disappointed by the end of his life if this happened within his lifetime.

A similar thing happened with Pennsylvania, where William Penn wanted to found a state for Quakers that was also sort of a Native American haven. He had really good relations with the Lenni Lenape and, rather than do so through coercion or force, made it a rule that any land obtained from Native Americans had to be legitimately purchased.

Of course, this all went to shit when his son took over.

[Forsher]

I know this already, but thanks.

No problem. A bunch of little interesting things like that in history. Another example would be that perhaps the first nail in racism's coffin was put into place in the 1500's when some King of Portugal banned taking Japanese and Chinese as slaves.

You're reading racism into slavery further back than you should be.

[United Marxist Nations]

Mav, you might find it kind of interesting, Georgia was initially founded as a slave-free colony. The guy who founded it believed that slavery was a mortal sin, he was also against contact with the Native Americans (thinking that white society would "corrupt them"). He was actually really progressive for his time; the colony, which was founded as a military buffer between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida, was also used by him as a place for poor people to go for a more fair society. However, since he wasn't a proprietary owner, the colonial assemblies quickly shattered his vision.

He must have been disappointed by the end of his life if this happened within his lifetime.

It did happen within his lifetime (in fact, he lived to see Georgia become part of the United States), he was recalled to England for military reasons, and the settlers used the opportunity to legalize slavery (which the Crown had been pushing for for years, because slaves from South Carolina often fled to Georgia seeking freedom). Unfortunately, I can't find anything he had to say on the matter afterwards. You might be able to, though, if you're interested. Guy's name was James Oglethorpe.

[United Marxist Nations]

No problem. A bunch of little interesting things like that in history. Another example would be that perhaps the first nail in racism's coffin was put into place in the 1500's when some King of Portugal banned taking Japanese and Chinese as slaves.

You're reading racism into slavery further back than you should be.

I don't think so, racism's roots lie in the early 1500's as a justification for slavery. You could be right though.

[Avenio]

No problem. A bunch of little interesting things like that in history. Another example would be that perhaps the first nail in racism's coffin was put into place in the 1500's when some King of Portugal banned taking Japanese and Chinese as slaves.

You're reading racism into slavery further back than you should be.

In 1550, King Charles, the grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella, called together a group of leading theologians and scholars in Valladolid to determine the criteria by which a just war could be waged against Native Americans. Among the questions which the group was to answer was whether or not Native Americans were capable of self-governance. Some of today’s scholars consider this to be one of the most important debates in history with regard to American Indians.

Bartolomé de Las Casas was a Dominican friar who had been the first resident bishop of Chiapas, Mexico. Among those who entered into the debate about the Indians, he was the only one who had actual first-hand knowledge of them.

Bartolomé de Las Casas presented the idea that Christianity should be spread by kindness and example rather than by the sword. Las Casas felt that Indians should be governed like any other people in Spain. He argued that Jesus had power over all people in the world, including those who had never been exposed to the Christian gospel. According to Las Casas, the Spanish had no right to subject the Indians to slavery or war, but rather, Spain’s role in the Americas should be spiritual rather than economic or political.

Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda supported the Spanish colonists, the Spanish Empire’s right of conquest, and the Spanish right of evangelization in the Americas. Sepúlveda, a philosopher and theologian who had never been to the Americas and who had never had any personal contact with Indian people, argued that Indians were brutes who could only become the servants of civilized peoples. Philosophically, Sepúlveda made his argument based on natural law philosophy.

According to Sepúlveda, there were four reasons why the Spanish could wage a just war against the Indians: (1) they were barbarians, (2) they committed crimes against natural law, (3) they oppressed and killed the innocent among themselves, and (4) they were infidels who needed to be instructed in the Christian faith. Las Casas countered these arguments by showing that the Indians, who he conceded were ignorant and at a different stage of human development, were no less rational than were Europeans.

One of the questions raised was whether or not American Indians were capable of self-governance. Sepúlveda, using Aristotle’s Book I of Politics, claimed that Indians were natural slaves. Aristotle’s Theory of Natural Slavery put forth the idea that some people born to inferior races were natural slaves and constituted a condition of “animate possession” when held by a superior race. He wrote:

“Those whose condition is such that their function is the use of their bodies and nothing better can be expected of them, those, I say, are slaves of nature. It is better for them to be ruled thus.”

Arguing in favor of a social hierarchy in which the Indians were at the bottom, Sepúlveda wrote:

“You should remember that authority and power are not only of one kind but of several varieties, since in one way and with one kind of law the father commands his children, in another the husband commands his wife, in another the master commands his servants, in another the judge commands the citizens, in another the king commands the peoples and human beings confined to his authority…. Although each jurisdiction may appear different, they all go back to a single principle, as the wise men teach. That is, the perfect should command and rule over the imperfect, the excellent over its opposite….”

[Vecima]

There's plenty of non-white centred history out of there, China, Japan and India are good examples.

But history is dominated, unfortunately, by the conquests of the white man. Ancient China has little to do with the China of today, or indeed the world of today(apart from the inventions, you can argue), same goes for Japan, maybe not India. For example, you can see the effects of the British Empire across the world. You can see the effects of American fiddling in international affairs. You can see the effects of the French, and a lesser extent the Germans. Whether you like it or not, Europe has had more to do with the making of the world today then China, India or Japan ever had

[Forsher]

You're reading racism into slavery further back than you should be.

In 1550, King Charles, the grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella, called together a group of leading theologians and scholars in Valladolid to determine the criteria by which a just war could be waged against Native Americans. Among the questions which the group was to answer was whether or not Native Americans were capable of self-governance. Some of today’s scholars consider this to be one of the most important debates in history with regard to American Indians.

Bartolomé de Las Casas was a Dominican friar who had been the first resident bishop of Chiapas, Mexico. Among those who entered into the debate about the Indians, he was the only one who had actual first-hand knowledge of them.

Bartolomé de Las Casas presented the idea that Christianity should be spread by kindness and example rather than by the sword. Las Casas felt that Indians should be governed like any other people in Spain. He argued that Jesus had power over all people in the world, including those who had never been exposed to the Christian gospel. According to Las Casas, the Spanish had no right to subject the Indians to slavery or war, but rather, Spain’s role in the Americas should be spiritual rather than economic or political.

Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda supported the Spanish colonists, the Spanish Empire’s right of conquest, and the Spanish right of evangelization in the Americas. Sepúlveda, a philosopher and theologian who had never been to the Americas and who had never had any personal contact with Indian people, argued that Indians were brutes who could only become the servants of civilized peoples. Philosophically, Sepúlveda made his argument based on natural law philosophy.

According to Sepúlveda, there were four reasons why the Spanish could wage a just war against the Indians: (1) they were barbarians, (2) they committed crimes against natural law, (3) they oppressed and killed the innocent among themselves, and (4) they were infidels who needed to be instructed in the Christian faith. Las Casas countered these arguments by showing that the Indians, who he conceded were ignorant and at a different stage of human development, were no less rational than were Europeans.

One of the questions raised was whether or not American Indians were capable of self-governance. Sepúlveda, using Aristotle’s Book I of Politics, claimed that Indians were natural slaves. Aristotle’s Theory of Natural Slavery put forth the idea that some people born to inferior races were natural slaves and constituted a condition of “animate possession” when held by a superior race. He wrote:

“Those whose condition is such that their function is the use of their bodies and nothing better can be expected of them, those, I say, are slaves of nature. It is better for them to be ruled thus.”

Arguing in favor of a social hierarchy in which the Indians were at the bottom, Sepúlveda wrote:

“You should remember that authority and power are not only of one kind but of several varieties, since in one way and with one kind of law the father commands his children, in another the husband commands his wife, in another the master commands his servants, in another the judge commands the citizens, in another the king commands the peoples and human beings confined to his authority…. Although each jurisdiction may appear different, they all go back to a single principle, as the wise men teach. That is, the perfect should command and rule over the imperfect, the excellent over its opposite….”

Blue is problematic. However, the red shows that slavery was more or less discussed and enacted in terms of its relationship to religion (the main basis for otherness).

The point is, racism as we understand it, developed out of the Atlantic Slave Trade... it did not cause it. That is, discriminatory thought (as we see above) certainly existed but it was in the sense that they didn't extend elements of their thought at the time towards certain groups. Call it passive rather than active racism... passive: "We can enslave for such and such reasons" active: "Because of these features, we should enslave".

In general, one should use caution when thinking of slavery as being derived inherently from racist thinking, which is what I read into UMN's post regardless of whether it was a sentiment actually in there.

[Condunum]

Oh so you think you know better than all historians now.

Let me ask you this: why do you think people defended slavery?

It was necessary at the time, you know. Look at it this way - slaves built this nation. By the way, slaves were not all beaten and treated poorly - I expect that was a rare occurrence. We only hear about the bad things. Not that slavery is a good thing, but it wasn't necessarily bad at that time for many people. We did, by the way, totally abolish slavery in the northern states within a few years after our founding. The 1787 Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery outright. It was totally abolished de jure by Lincoln's time. Slaves were no longer needed, not really, by that time anyway.

I don't defend slavery necessarily. I'll take a middle ground. I like to look at things as black and white, but this issue is very complex. Another way to look at it - the noble blood, sweat, and tears of slaves and 'masters' alike helped build a significant portion of this country. We should not look at it so...tempocentrically.

Slavery didn't "build" this nation, low income workers did. Immigrants made up the bulk of builders through much of our expansion. What slavery built was a massive cotton exporting economy that bolstered our economy in proto-industrial America. It's effect elsewhere in the nation was dwarfed by that of paid labor.