Originally posted by IndependentMan:
_The Forgotten Cause of the Civil War inspires us to ask questions that most American historians are afraid to ask:_
_Would the Civil War have occurred if the existence of "white slaves" had not brought home to Northern citizens the great danger that slavery posed to a free society?
Originally posted by MBM:What does this mean? Many of our Founding Fathers understsood the great hypocrisy in their efforts to create a free nation, and yet still permit the existence of an institution built on the principle of human bondage. As you will recall Ben Franklin was an abolititionist. Others were against slavery, but were overwhelmed by the question of what to do with the slaves after emancipation. At that time in history there was no bi-racial country on the face of the earth. This fact was not lost on those that comtemplated this issue and whose first priority was the creation of a new country in America.
It's very simple what this means. If the slaves had been portrayed as being rather dark skinned with an African phenotype, white Notherners would have less sympathy for the anti-slavery cause. Since they saw that people with light skin and a Caucasian phenotype were slaves, they realized if that was the case, what was to stop the South had they gained the power, to enslave Northern whites. It makes perfect sense. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that at one point in history, there was not a bi-racial country on earth. That is completely false. That idea goes along with the premise of the white supremacist view that "God put each of the races on their own continent so as they do not mix". I'm not saying that was your intention. I mean when you look at it, the people in the Roman empire were mixed....people did not have the racial perceptions that we have today. The racial perceptions that we use today did not even start to come into place until the late 1600's.
Originally posted by MBM:On the other hand, an inherant belief in the superiority of whites was rather commonplace.
Yes I agree. That's the reason for the hypodescent...the One Drop Rule. The notion of white racial superiority and that this "purity" can be tainted with "one drop" of another, particularly African blood.
Originally posted by MBM:
The two races cannot live together on equal terms because of "deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites - ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained - new provocations - the real distinctions that nature has made, and many other circumstances which divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which would never end but with the extermination of one or the other race."
WOW! Doesn't that sound like the most hardened white supremecist? Nope. None other than dear old Thomas Jefferson!
Again, agreed. But let's not forget what a hypocrite Jefferson was in that he fathered children with Sally Hemmings who incidently was his deceased wifes half sister!!!!
Why are racial mixture and mixed-race people relegated to the margins of American history when knowledge of their origins and legal status are essential to understanding the tensions between North and South that led to the Civil War?
Originally posted by MBM:Since most blacks are technically of mixed race, I'm not sure I understand your premise here. There is a reason why African America is a rainbow of colors.
So if most blacks are mixed, how can they be considered "African". Does that make sense. Not to me it doesn't. So how can a quadroon be considered "African" when 3/4 of their ancestry is from Europe??? This clearly supports the white supremacist view of white racial purity. The reason why "blacks" are a rainbow of colours??? Because a lot of those people are not really "black", but are CONSIDERED black. Big difference. Many so called blacks in the US would not be blacks in many other countries including African countries. I guess that's where I'm trying to go with this. Using your definition, then why would not many "Hispanics" and Middle Easterners be "black"??? Try telling an Arab he's black!!!!
Why is the anti-slavery movement presented to modern students as merely an altruistic concern for "blacks," with no mention made of the threat to all poor and working class "whites" and "free society" in general?
Any such presentation is both inconsistent with the facts and disingenuous. As noted by Jefferson's quote above, there was no "love lost" for Africans in America. There was deep concern and doubt about what exactly would occur after emancipation. Among most, though, there was a commitment to the principles of the American Revolution. The following, quoted from Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis (p.88-89), demonstrates both the schizophrenia of many around this issue, but also the broad sentiment among many:
If slaves could be "white," and legal "whites" could be partially "black," are they not part of "white" or European American history and populations and not just some "exotic" variety of "African Americans"?
Originally posted by MBM:Are you trying to make the argument that blacks aren't really black , they're white? I'm not sure where you're going with this and, more importantly, why.
The argument I'm making is that a lot of people considered black are not black in a biological context in either skin colour and/or facial phenotype. I'm not saying white, I am saying BOTH. I'm not sure if you got the jist of what this article was about.....it was about the hypodescent, the One Drop Rule - the definition of what CONSIDERED YOU BLACK, how it was used to keep people who were by all practical purposes, white, in the bondages of slavery. WHen the people in the North, particularly abolitionists saw this, they reacted out of personal interest in that if the slave states received any power, they could turn it against them. If "whites" in the SOuth were already slaves, then it would be very easy to modify the standards and make slaves out of Northern whites. The protocol was aready set. So contrary to the accepted belief that Northern abolitionists reacted against slavery as a humanitarian concern, this article suggests it was out of a self interest concern which goes more along with the nature of Human Beings. You ask why, that's easy because it's the truth. If it's not, state where I am mis-representing the facts and/or flat out lying. My feelings will not be hurt.
The lack of respect for "mixed race" history within American history reflects the lack of respect for, and recognition of, mixed-race people in general.
Originally posted by MBM:I respectfully suggest that America's discomfort with "mixed race history" flows from America's general discomfort with the issue of race. Period. Since the "mixing" of races has always been a sensitive/sore issue from the times that slave owners raped their black women slaves (and produced children that obviously had the genes of their slaveowner) to now when we still live in a largely racist and segregated society, the issue of black and white relations is still not yet "solved" here.
Agreed again. However, over the years I have noticed that this issue is more of a sore issue with "blacks" than it is with "whites"....my experiences. But that said, many blacks that I know personally (including some family members), agree with me 100%, though they reject the mixed race designation. Whites I know personally for the most part, support the mixed race designation (can you believe that??). I suppose you can say both are in for selfish reasons, blacks do not want to lose numbers, whites want to decrease the number of blacks. I think there is some truth to this. But to me, an African is someone who is 100% or close to that, African ancestry. That's my opinion. Even Ebony Magazine published that by 2050, people who are mixed with African or something else, will not be calling themselves "black" or "African American". I think this scares the left wing black groups, this is their power base. Again, my opinion.
Onward and Upward![/QUOTE]