U. S. Attorney General on Race and was this country really founded by slave owners?

[IDrinkaRum]

New Attorney General, also the first black Attorney General, says America is a "nation of cowards" when concerning race in our country.

I find it offensive that the article mentions that the country was founded by slave owners. I don't remember reading about the Pilgrims coming to Plymouth Rock with slaves. The people who lived on Roanoke Island and mysteriously disappeared, didn't have slaves. Neither did those who lived in Jamestown (a good 10 years or so before Plymouth Rock). I am 3rd Generation American on my mother's father's side. My father's mother's family came from either Ireland or England (and the English came over, presumably with the Jamestown crew). My mother's mother's family were living in California at the time, coming directly from Spain and my 4-greats-grandfather was the first White (non-Spaniard) landowner in California and I'm 4th generation American on my mother's mother's father's side. None of my family owned slaves, yet I'm supposed to believe (and accept) that because I'm white, my country was founded by slave owners and all white people were slave owners? (There were indentrued servants - mainly from England - who were sent to America to work off their debt to society, where is the mention of that?).

[Sylvia727]

I agree with the content of his message, but not the delivery. So long as people dance around the elephant in the room, not much is going to get done. And he's right that we need to be tolerant of each other. Everybody needs to be tolerant of each other, and sometimes that means blacks have to be tolerant of whites. However, I can't think why he felt the need to be provacative. Racial relations are quite provacative all on their own. His message could shame people out of their comfort zone, or it could scare them in deeper. I like what Hilary Shelton said at the end of the article: "People need to feel comfortable saying the wrong things." People are terrified of offending one another or hurting their feelings, so they don't say anything at all. Yes, things don't get worse when you keep your mouth shut, but they also don't have a chance to get better.

On a side note, why does every single article on race relations feel the need to mention slavery? I'm not descended from slave owners, and I know blacks who are not descended from slaves. Of course slavery had an effect on the racial development of the entire country, but it seems that in the end every single trivial detail comes down to slavery. There are times when I feel that I am being personally blamed for the institution of slavery, and that's just pathetic on the other person's part.

I said this in another thread, and I'll repeat it here: So long as we condition our children to always feel guilty or helpless or angry about a certain topic, open and honest discussion on the topic is impossible.

[protege]

Well, we have to consider that slavery was a legal and accepted practice in the US until 1865. Some of the Founding Fathers probably did own slaves. Does that mean that all white people then were slave owners? Of course not--my mother's side of the family has been here over 200 years, and they didn't. Simply because they were poor farmers. Dad's side of the family didn't arrive until 1850...at which time slavery was illegal in many states. Also, supposedly, some of that side of the family, namely my Norwegian ancestors...was here about 500 years *before* Columbus...but that's something else entirely, mainly because they were in Newfoundland...

Anyway, I think the article was worded that way on purpose. They used those words simply to get one's emotions stirred up. It's *guaranteed* to get viewers or readers if you turn things into a racial issue. As such, they're always going to be a problem...simply because some people, both black *and* white, need to get over it. Quit using problems that ended 144 and 40+ years ago as an excuse for bad behavior today.

While we're on the topic, it annoys the hell out of me, that whenever the topic of discrimination or racism comes up, it's always assumed to be black against white. What about the Japanese-Americans who were rounded up and caged during WWII, and the subsequent hatred after the war? Never mind that many fought heroically *against* their homeland. 442nd anyone?

[BlaqueKatt]

While we're on the topic, it annoys the hell out of me, that whenever the topic of discrimination or racism comes up, it's always assumed to be black against white. What about the Japanese-Americans who were rounded up and caged during WWII, and the subsequent hatred after the war? Never mind that many fought heroically *against* their homeland. 442nd anyone?

The US government actually gave reparations for that-not a lot and not nearly enough-but it was done while those affected were still living-not the often requested reparations for slavery.

[Amethyst Hunter]

So long as people dance around the elephant in the room, not much is going to get done. And he's right that we need to be tolerant of each other. Everybody needs to be tolerant of each other, and sometimes that means blacks have to be tolerant of whites. However, I can't think why he felt the need to be provacative. Racial relations are quite provacative all on their own. His message could shame people out of their comfort zone, or it could scare them in deeper. I like what Hilary Shelton said at the end of the article: "People need to feel comfortable saying the wrong things." People are terrified of offending one another or hurting their feelings, so they don't say anything at all. Yes, things don't get worse when you keep your mouth shut, but they also don't have a chance to get better.

This sums it up nicely.

[Slytovhand]

Should I point out that most civilisations were built by slaves? It's not something unique to the US. The Greeks and Romans had slaves, Celts and Norse captured people and used (and abused) other tribespeople. (I'm not as familiar with other nations such as China, India and Japan). South Americans captured people and sacrificed them. Africa?? Pretty much invented the system!

So... do we sneak around that topic because most of Western Civilisation was built up on it??

[DesignFox]

The US government actually gave reparations for that-not a lot and not nearly enough-but it was done while those affected were still living-not the often requested reparations for slavery.

Well, I may be mistaken, but weren't the reparations given soon after, not demanded 100 years later by people who didn't even directly suffer?

Instead of demanding compensation for shit that didn't even happen to them maybe people should just do what their religion tells them and let it fucking go!

No offense, but I'll be damned if someone's gonna tell me I owe reparations for some shit that occurred a hundred years before I was even born (and likely didn't even involve my ancestors.)

[IDrinkaRum]

That's what I say also. From what I understand of my family ancestory, there was no way we could have had slaves (not all white landowners had slaves anyway - it was the ones with lots of money who lost it during the American Civil War).

And the Middle East started having their own slave trade in/around the 7th Century. Slaves for harems, slaves for working the fields, slaves for working in the homes of the wealthy. The Western Civilization didn't even get into the slavery trade until very late in the game (circa 1600's) and then ended in the mid-1860's. England actually outlawed slavery in the early 1800's (so if an American slave owner brought one of his slaves to England, the slave could technically sue for his freedom and stay in England).

Slytovhand is correct that most of the "civilized" world in both modern and ancient times were mainly built with slave power. The Egyptians (and the last I checked, Egypt was in Africa) enslaved the Jews for many of years. The Native Americans, would enslave those of other tribes for various reasons. The Muslims participated in slavery.

And there are various forms of slavery. There are people all over the world (and in America) who come to wherever they live, then go back to their "home country" and say they want some help in their new home and whomever comes back with them will be whatever nationality, get schooling, etc. And then they are reduced to basically being a slave (and in the States, it's usually either the Africans who come over to live in America or some other foreign nationality). Then there is the "white" slavery - some based on fact & some based on gossip. The blonde & blue-eyed girls being kidnapped by the Middle Eastern men and sent to harems. Then the movie "Taken" which just recently came out where Liam Neeson's daughter is kidnapped for prostitution slavery (and again, that happens all over the world - and it's not just white girls).

Why is it that only Americans should be made to feel guilty about slavery?

[Slytovhand]

based on fact & some based on gossip. The blonde & blue-eyed girls being kidnapped by the Middle Eastern men and sent to harems. Then the movie "Taken" which just recently came out where Liam Neeson's daughter is kidnapped for prostitution slavery (and again, that happens all over the world - and it's not just white girls).

There was an Australian movie called The Jammed based on a true story about events that happened within about 2K's of where I am now (well, 2-5K's). Someone in an empoverished country 'pays' someone to get them a passport and 'safe passage' to a new country (this time, Australia)... they rack up a massive debt, and are forced to work as prostitutes to pay back the tens of thousands of dollars they've accrued. Can't go to the police, because they're illegal immigrants - which would get them kicked out. And probably have them killed as well (or at least, the threat of that...and their families).

[Evandril]

Why is it that only Americans should be made to feel guilty about slavery?

From what I understand, one of the differences is *how* we treated our slaves. Most places in the world that had slavery didn't have race as the defining factor, and slavery wasn't as 'bad' of a thing...Slaves were treated at least as well as you would a work horse, as an example (ie, something 'less' than you, but still valuable, and that worked best when treated well). That wasn't quite the case here

Of course, that doesn't mean that you deserve reperations for something that happened to your ancestors, but 'tis why America gave itself a black eye in the area...again, from the information I've been exposed to, please correct me if it's wrong/bad

[AFPheonix]

The other thing to consider is that our slave-owning period was relatively recent, and repercussions from that and keeping blacks as a sub-human class well into the 20th century is an awful lot to overcome.
I know I've posted this before, but really, go spend some time at this site: http://www.american-pictures.com/gallery/index.html
It's pretty eye opening, really.

[Rapscallion]

From what I understand, one of the differences is *how* we treated our slaves. Most places in the world that had slavery didn't have race as the defining factor, and slavery wasn't as 'bad' of a thing...Slaves were treated at least as well as you would a work horse, as an example (ie, something 'less' than you, but still valuable, and that worked best when treated well). That wasn't quite the case here

There is some evidence that indentured servants had - in some cases - worse living conditions. These were white 'slaves' of fixed duration. Death rates in transit were - according to an article I read some time back and can't be bothered hitting the Googlenet for - higher than those of slaves. Slaves had already been paid for, but indentured servants were to be paid when and if they survived their indenture, and paid rather handsomely at that.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

And then there was sharecropping - which was just a fancy name for slavery. And it affected both whites and blacks. In fact, some of my ancestors could have well been sharecroppers.

[AFPheonix]

Sharecropping still goes on in parts of the country.
Not to mention the use of day workers and migrant workers. It's really a form of slavery unto itself.

[AdminAssistant]

The use of migrants...well, that depends on the employer. My dad hired migrant workers to chop cotton during the summer, and they were all paid legal wages and provided with housing. There was a family that worked for us for..gosh....7 years or so. They had us over for dinner, we had them over for dinner, my sister and I played with their kids. I realize there are some who do not treat migrants fairly, but not all.