3 ms·

We could take any period of history, find the suffering, focus on the untold human interest stories and look at just that, in isolation. For instance, right no

We could take any period of history, find the suffering, focus on the untold human interest stories and look at just that, in isolation. For instance, right now we have The War Against Terror. We could put together the stories of those murdered by drone strikes, waterboarded in Guantanamo, raped by soldiers and so on. Yet the canvas is far larger, there are the stories of the soldiers and the perplexing question as to why we all let it go on. Everyone paid their taxes to pay for the war machine and everyone voted for a politician that voted for The War Against Terror (or would have voted for it had they been elected). I know this because, in October 2001, those willing to protest against the war amounted to me and a very small handful of others. Clearly by 2003, and the invasion of Iraq, there were millions more wanting to protest against the conduct of the war, however, October 2001 is where the uncomfortable truth is. By merely focusing on the 'human interest stories', be it in New York or Afghanistan, we avoid this uncomfortable truth aspect of the bigger narrative. Regarding Elizabeth Freeman, she did not make it to the courtroom on her own. Her male, white lawyer said a few words for her there. His story is interesting because he did own slaves and, once Elizabeth Freeman was free, she became his servant. So how free would she have been without his efforts and, as a servant, how free was she anyway? As for being 'fed and watered', the thing about owning a slave is that a slave did have to be cared for to a certain extent rather than just worked to death. Meanwhile, an 'indentured servant' could be worked to death' as there was no obligation or expectation to care for them into old age. Regarding 'routine sexual assaults', I am sure that goes on and has gone on since the beginning of time, regardless of race. Women were property too up until recent times, passed on from father to husband, with surname changing according to ownership. Yet, I like to believe that my great-grand-fathers did more than see their other halves as property, there 24/7 for their sexual gratification. Not everything need be painted as a wall of horror. Is everyone with some mixed-race ancestry the bastard spawn of some horrific rape? Or, amongst the tide of misery were there some instances where genuine love was able to flourish between Master and his concubine(s)? What about the white lady of the house and the gardener? Did love sometimes flourish there too? Again, the more in depth narrative fascinates whereas your 'it was just beatings and rape' version of the story is a tad trite for me. The danger of painting the story as 'black and white' with whites evil and persons of colour whiter-than-white is that by understanding the story that way you may come into a situation where you insult someone from a different background to yourself by assuming too much about their heritage.

jfc 13y ago
At this point, I have to question whether you have read any of the enslaved people's narratives. In them, there are villains and good people across ethnic backgrounds. If you think these narratives are primarily about race/ethnicity, you are incorrect. I contend that American slavery isn't as much about black and white people per se, as it is about human depravity, which we see across societies and cultures. American slavery is a context in which we can see the highs and lows of humanity. There is much we can learn about people from these narratives--if they are reported fully. The notion that we should focus on narratives which don't include the horrors of slavery--or that they should be minimized--is just silly. Narratives are the stories of enslaved people and the horrors they lived with are part of their experiences. You prefer to gloss over the horrors they experienced and instead seek to romanticize the institution. Ugh. Ma Bett (Elizabeth Freeman) came up with the idea to sue for her freedom and hired that lawyer who spoke for her. Further, by taking the matter to court, she was not hoping to rely on ethical arguments for her freedom, she was referencing the State Constitution. This is a far cry from approaching the Quakers and seeking help on moral or religious grounds. Your initial comment seemed to suggest that blacks were not the primary impetus behind their freedom. This narrative (and many others) directly refute that. Once Ma Bett was freed, she chose to become a servant to that lawyer. It scarcely needs noting that there is a difference between choosing to serve as a domestic and being enslaved.

jfc 13y ago

At this point, I have to question whether you have read any of the enslaved people's narratives. In them, there are villains and good people across ethnic backgrounds. If you think these narratives are primarily about race/ethnicity, you are incorrect. I contend that American slavery isn't as much about black and white people per se, as it is about human depravity, which we see across societies and cultures. American slavery is a context in which we can see the highs and lows of humanity. There is much we can learn about people from these narratives--if they are reported fully. The notion that we should focus on narratives which don't include the horrors of slavery--or that they should be minimized--is just silly. Narratives are the stories of enslaved people and the horrors they lived with are part of their experiences. You prefer to gloss over the horrors they experienced and instead seek to romanticize the institution. Ugh. Ma Bett (Elizabeth Freeman) came up with the idea to sue for her freedom and hired that lawyer who spoke for her. Further, by taking the matter to court, she was not hoping to rely on ethical arguments for her freedom, she was referencing the State Constitution. This is a far cry from approaching the Quakers and seeking help on moral or religious grounds. Your initial comment seemed to suggest that blacks were not the primary impetus behind their freedom. This narrative (and many others) directly refute that. Once Ma Bett was freed, she chose to become a servant to that lawyer. It scarcely needs noting that there is a difference between choosing to serve as a domestic and being enslaved.