3 ms·
>US chattel slaves were forbidden by law to read because it made organizing/rebelling easier and more likely That's not the reason why. The reason is rooted i
by VoodooJuJu 3y ago
>US chattel slaves were forbidden by law to read because it made organizing/rebelling easier and more likely
That's not the reason why.
The reason is rooted in Wessexian and Mercian cavalier culture.
The cavaliers were noble-blood hegemonic, believed that their hegemony was sanctioned by God, and that it was not only their God-given right to engage in literacy and certain leisurely pursuits, but it was their duty, and it was God's will that the nobles, and only the nobles, should pursue these things.
This cultural expression existed long before chattel slavery was ever a thing, with peasants and indentured servants being discouraged and disabled from literacy, though not necessarily legally forbidden.
So these people didn't forbid literacy out of fear of peasant reprisal, they did it because they believed God had granted the privilege to them, and only them.
See: Fischer, 1989. Albion's Seed.
- kimixa 3y agoStating one person's theory about complex social behaviors as "fact" seems a little far, even if they did happen to write it down in a book.
- VoodooJuJu 3y agoI would suggest, rather than inventing your own mythology, rather than subscribing to the mythology of HN comments without any scholarly references, rather than write off a history book because it only has a single author (would two have convinced you? perhaps three?), to go directly to the primary sources cited in the book: [1] Patriarcha by Sir Robert Filmer [2] The Diary of William Byrd II of Virginia, 1709-1712 These are just a couple examples, both of which are quite representative of the ideas and culture of the governing elite of the Virginia tidewater. If you engage with these primary sources, you may be able to relieve yourself of any spurious mythologies and preconceived notions.
- kimixa 3y agoI think you completely missed the point here. Your statement categorically denied one proposed cause, and presented another as the sole truth for an incredibly complex social result. I don't know if you're not a native english speaker, so apologies here if that's not the case, but you seem to have fallen down the stairs with a Thesaurus. This didn't help improve the clarity of your comment in any way, and gives the perception you're trying to give your reply a veneer of intellectualism with no content behind it. What "mythology" did I present? I intentionally presented no alternative theory. The proposed theory in the book may be well be a large contributor to the end result of illiteracy in slave populations in the US at the time. But to categorically state that a single reason was true for a society consisting of millions of individuals is absurd.
- VoodooJuJu 3y agoNext time you get owned in any kind of argument, don't go for the "ESL" ad hominem, because when you're wrong, you look like a moron, and when you're right, you look like a jerk. It's just a losing play no matter what. This conversation is done.
- anon84873628 3y agoSadly we can't down vote anymore, but please know well that the only person you "owned" here is yourself.