• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

News Why It's So Hard To Talk To White People About Racism

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a coda to this thread... This is a beautiful essay that I think sums up a lot of why it is difficult for anyone (even a brilliant and awesomely clear thinking group like us) to talk about this stuff....

Link Removed
 
My two cents is that I have not hurt any black people and racism is rampant. But being white does not mean I deserve to labeled as racist because i am white. I can discuss this rationally. i see both black and white people who are racist and i see both black and white people being just human and get along well with other races.

I happen to live in a culturerly diverse community and I love it. I never had this before. Everyone around here gets along well.
 
As and addendum to this thread: the recent controversy of the Confederate flag here in this country. There are those, blacks and political liberals, that call the flag racist. However the south fought the War of Southern Independence for the same reasons the thirteen original colonies fought the American Revolutionary War..

I personally like the flag. It is a very beautiful flag, and many a very good man, including blacks, fought under the flag. When I see the flag it represents, to me, an honoring of the men who fought to defend their homes, and their rights from an invading federal army.

The flag is not racist. It was stolen by the KKK to use for nefarious purposes, and the white supremacist (notice the small w) and they insult the flag by using it in a manner that it was never intended to be used for.

Yes racism is a problem here in this country, as it is in most countries, but right now the cry of racism is being used for political gain, and not for actual injustice being visited upon minorities by the "evil" white race.
 
I agree with Russ. this is based on facts if anyone is interested in doing a little research, Also a little known fact is that there were many black slave owners in the south. Do the research and find out the facts. There is an abundance of ignorance regarding these facts. In fact the first slave owner was a black man. Read Lies my teacher taught me and find out for yourselves if you are interested.
 
History geek pedantry warning.
for the same reasons the thirteen original colonies fought the American Revolutionary War..

Not exactly. 1) The first american revolution, in the summer of 1774, was a broad based non-violent takeover of the existing civil government institutions. It was precipitated by the crown usurping, as its sole and exclusive privilege, the powers to appoint civil magistrates (judges) and key administrative personnel - power which had traditionally and legally (according to the original charter of the colony, wherein colonials are recognized as british citizens with full rights) been shared between the crown and the colonials. I stress that this was non-violent. Moral suasion (and a certain amount of social intimidation) were the sole instruments to convince the men who had accepted the crown's commission to renounce it. (Raphael, The First American Revolution)
2) Leading up to this was the long line of other actions in trade and taxation that systematically disadvantaged colonials vis a vis Englishmen. The colonies did not have representation in Parliament - and their requests for such were repeatedly denied.
3) "The shot heard round the world" at Lexington and Concord was the beginning of the (British) counter-revolution to try to regain control of civil government.
4) The Declaration of Independence came later - and includes the bad behavior of the British regular army (the colonial troops had considered themselves to be the British Army before Lexington and Concord... Washington aspired to be a part of THAT army..)

In contrast the Civil War was explicitly (see the primary documents @ http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html) about slavery. Specfically, it was about the unwillingness of Northern states to return escaped slaves and the growing legislative movement to weaken and ultimately abolish slavery all together.
Texas: " She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association....The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States."

Georgia, " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."

Mississippi, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

These state had the same representation as everyone else in the House and the Senate. They had access to the judiciary just like everyone else. They do not complain of taxation without representation, of the usurpation of local governance, of excessive tariffs or trade preferences. The complaint is that when their slaves run away, the governments of the northern states refuse to make any effort to return them, and have even on occasion, hindered such efforts.

The beginning of hostilities is a matter of contention among historians - but what is NOT disagreed upon is the fact that tensions were running very high and all it took was a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation (easy enough to do when scared, as we all know all too well) to set it off. (here is an alternative to the conventional Ft. Sumpter account... Dead Link Removed.)

Don't get me wrong, there are many good people in the South and there are rare beauties in southern cultures that the world would be a much poorer place without. But wars are fought by lots of men, virtuous and vicious alike on both sides.

If you want an awesome example of personal bravery and principle look to John Adams and Josiah Quincy's (and the jury) defense of the British soldiers in the "Boston Massacre." Here is my favorite Adams quotation, "I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you.-Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence:"

The Confederate States of America was formed specifically to preserve the institution of slavery. If that's not racist I don't know what is. The flag is the symbol of the confederacy. If that's not a symbol of racism, I don't know what could be. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.
 
Reference on black slave owners Link Removed

It is significant that they were mostly from Louisiana (which had been a french colony and had quite a different culture than other Southern or northern states..) The culture of New Orleans around race was ... amazing...

If one reads history with any depth at all it becomes abundantly clear that while there are plenty of psychopaths and sociopaths populating key points it also becomes clear that the "good guys/bad guys" story where the guys in the white hats are all good and truthful and fair and virtuous in every other way, and the bad guys are all rude, and lie are smell bad is just an oversimplification we tell to children. The people on all sides of a conflict are PEOPLE. They have dreams and hopes and loves and hates. They are not all good or all bad. There is an idea that philosophers call "moral luck." The idea is that people are basically morally at much the same level and what you do or don't do is often just a matter of luck. The average joe who got assigned to guard a concentration camp in Nazi Germany. Bad moral luck there, dude. The white lady with the deep root cellar on the Canadian border in a community of Quakers - pretty easy to be the last stop on the underground railroad when its not much of a risk for you. Good moral luck. Perhaps no one writes about this with more compassion than Mark Twain - re-read Huckleberry Finn sometime, you'll be glad you did.
 
Last edited:
I was surprised to find out that the Indians (Native Americans) owned many black slaves and took them with them when they were removed for the southeast. When the Civil War occurred they formed units aligned with the CSA and fought in many battles. I grew up down here (the south) and considered myself reasonably knowledgeable about the war. I hiked many of the battlefields in the Boy Scouts but I had never heard of this. Only goes to show you there are many layers to the War between the States.

I remember Shelby Foote describing a conversation being shouted back and forth across entrenched North and South units on a battle field during a lull in fighting. The northern soldier asking why the southern fella was fighting since he didn't own any slaves and the southern soldier responded "Y'all down here" indicating he was just defending his land and his people.
 
n contrast the Civil War was explicitly (see the primary documents @ http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html) about slavery
the problem with this is the war was about economics. the North, because of it greater numbers in congress, was imposing unjust tariffs on the south, upwards to 40 percent.
Slavery was the emotional cause given by the government to get the people behind the war. It was not the principle reason of the war. The north was hamstringing the south from doing business with Europe, where the South could make greater profit, than if they dealt with the North.
When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation it "freed" slaves held only in southern states, and not slaves in northern states of which there were many.
When Grant met Lee at the Appomattox Courthouse to discuss the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, Grant was still a slave owner. When he was asked why he still had slaves up to that point his answer was " It is hard to find good help"

Slavery did not officially end in the North until the 13th amendment was accepted into law.
.There is an article I am going to try to find and will post it here that has some great information.
Dead Link Removed
 
Last edited:
the problem with this is the war was about economics. the North, because of it greater numbers in congress, was imposing unjust tariffs on the south, upwards to 40 percent.
Slavery was the emotional cause given by the government to get the people behind the war. It was not the principle reason of the war. The north was hamstringing the south from doing business with Europe, where the South could make greater profit, than if they dealt with the North.
But a key factor in the economic engine of the South was free (slave) labor, wasn't it? It ties directly into what the South was producing, of course - agriculture was the primary commodity, and agribusiness needs workers, lots of them. Slaves were not as significant to the needs of the northern markets, and therefore the question of slavery as a practice was intimately tied up with profit, loss, and taxation.

This quote is directly from the Mississippi declaration of secession (@Eleanor used an abridged version of it as well):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

So yes, the perception that the Civil War in the US was about the moral issue of slavery is just that - perception.

But the belief that slavery was an economic necessity was very much at the center of the war. Were the South to suddenly start paying wages to its slave workers, the profits obtained would be rendered negligible. The whole southern economy would risk collapse.

I understand why this motivated the secession; but I have an incredibly difficult time accepting that slavery was 'just the way things were'. I think the human race has always known (ever since it began using currency) that you do not get something for nothing. To treat another human being as a commodity is (to me) perpetually unacceptable. The reason given for it being acceptable was that their skin was black, and that made them 'lesser'.

We openly engaged in the practice of black segregation in the US all the way up til 1954. It is not difficult to still find places where segregation is common practice, still - albeit illegal. Those places are not just in the South.

I do not think racism is dead in America, and therefore I believe anything that may be construed as re-enforcing racism should be worked out of our society. Why is this not a good thing?
 
And listen: Recognizing privilege doesn't mean suffering guilt or shame for your lot in life. Nobody's saying that straight, white, middle-class, able-bodied males are all a bunch of assholes who don't work hard for what they have. Recognizing privilege simply means being aware that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things you take for granted (if they ever can experience them at all).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-...vilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255.html
 
Recognizing privilege simply means being aware that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things you take for granted (if they ever can experience them at all).

How about working hard for a promotion being told that you are the preferred candidate by supervisors. They are afraid they will be sued so they have to give it the minority candidate. Who's privileged?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top