Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:35 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Drawing the Color Line 
Author Message
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5813
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1478
Thanked: 1547 times in 1207 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Drawing the Color Line
Zinn was good in identifying the historical conditions that created the perfect storm for chattel slavery to thrive in the colonies. At the time he was writing, apologists for slavery were no longer coming out of academia or mainstream public life, so there wasn't a lot of refuting that he needed to do. He refers to a book that exploded some of the myths of benevolent southern slavery, The Peculiar Institution, by Kenneth Stampp, but that came out in 1956.

I thought the interesting part of the chapter was his explanation of how even poor whites, of which there were many, came to adopt the prejudices of their betters. Zinn cites some secondary sources that he thinks shows an early affinity between slaves and poor whites. He uses this as support for his thesis that there was not a "natural" dislike of white against black; rather, the hatred had to be inculcated deliberately, mostly by a process whereby poor whites would come to have privileges and advantages that black slaves of course didn't. This created that awareness of social class that made poor whites protective of their status and disdainful of the slaves. So even though they would never own any slaves, they came to support the wealthy planters who did, later on going to war to preserve the institution.

Zinn's argument makes sense on the surface. I don't know whether the evidence in total shows he is right. It seems something that would take a great more space to delve into than he can spare in a fairly brief survey. The argument is an example of what he hopes to achieve through the book: show us that our failings were not inevitable and pre-determined. If blacks and poor whites lived in equality in earliest America, they can do so again.



Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:09 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1757
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 48
Thanked: 573 times in 450 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Drawing the Color Line
Quote:
By 1800, 10 to 15 million blacks had been transported as slaves to the Americas, representing perhaps one-third of those originally seized in Africa. It is roughly estimated that Africa lost 50 million human beings to death and slavery in those centuries we call the beginnings of modern Western civilization, at the hands of slave traders and plantation owners in Western Europe and America, the countries deemed the most advanced in the world.
p. 29



Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:24 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5813
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1478
Thanked: 1547 times in 1207 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Drawing the Color Line
LanDroid wrote:
Quote:
By 1800, 10 to 15 million blacks had been transported as slaves to the Americas, representing perhaps one-third of those originally seized in Africa. It is roughly estimated that Africa lost 50 million human beings to death and slavery in those centuries we call the beginnings of modern Western civilization, at the hands of slave traders and plantation owners in Western Europe and America, the countries deemed the most advanced in the world.
p. 29

That seems a good example of Zinn's belief that the historian should stand for something, or against something. Real neutrality is impossible, Zinn says, but the historian convention of not expressing opinions openly conceals this.



Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:42 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membership
Brilliant


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 666
Thanks: 32
Thanked: 342 times in 266 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Drawing the Color Line
In his book "One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race" by Scott Malcolmson, he brings up that the plantation system of the South was dependent upon chattel labor. If there were no blacks brought in and forced to work the fields, the plantation owners would have had no other recourse but to have poor whites brought in and force them to work it. Those fields are not going to just lay fallow because no blacks are around and they aren't going to plant themselves. Recruit a private army to go out and get some slaves too poor and disenfranchised to have any political or material clout to fight back with. Blacks were the easy and natural target but without them, it would have been poor whites.

Poor whites, for their part, were well aware of this. They didn't talk about it much because it wasn't a safe thing to be bringing up. But they constantly buttered-up the landowners with obsequiously-worded reminders that "you and I have the same great-granddaddy!" There was always this constant reminder of the familial relations they shared as a reminder--a way of saying, "If you enslave me, you're enslaving your own kin!"

Consequently, poor whites poured their hatred and derision onto the blacks as a way of further ingratiating themselves to the landowners. They were putting themselves into the role of overseer--maybe not good enough to sit with the family at the table up in the big house but not low enough to thrown hog intestines and hooves to eat. A kind of "I may not be the best but at least I'm not the worst."

You seem to be showing that Zinn is pointing out how poor whites and blacks were manipulated into hating one another by the rich but I'm not sure that's true. Why would rich whites care what happens to poor whites? Always more where they come from. Poor whites wanted status--not really out of some illusion of grandeur but out of a very real fear that they needed it for protection from the machinations of the rich whites whose motivation was always financially based. The rationale of the poor whites was "the more like them [the rich whites] we are, the less likely they are to see us as them [the blacks]."

Those privileges that poor whites received over blacks weren't simply given to them to sow class distinctions, they were fought for and won by poor whites as a matter of survival. They accomplished it by doing what blacks were far too disenfranchised and beaten down to do: form into a political class.

This has been the true Southern way of life behind all the antebellum bullshit notions of propriety and noblesse oblige. The Southern way of life was always, at its root, based on the fear that the rich will eat the poor when the time comes and so in the meantime improve your circumstances to look less appetizing to them.

Even today, it works that way. Trump gained the presidency by appealing to poor whites and pretending that he holds them in higher esteem than blacks or Mexicans or Muslims. But poor whites are still a viable political force and they have been able to force their vision on society for that reason. The rich politicians cater to the whites to show them "I'm one of you!" because that residual fear that if the rich distance themselves too much then poor whites start to fear for their way of life and react accordingly.

The reason Trump was so mysteriously successful was because he wasn't some politician who would kill his own mother to get votes. The poor whites want to impress the Big Daddy up in the big house--not his go-betweens. The go-betweens are not trustworthy. They may relay the Bid Daddy's hopes and dreams but how do we know they aren't just putting one over on everybody and lying to both sides?
The establishment politicians they decry so much today are those go-betweens--slimy, scheming, in it only for themselves. But TRUMP! Trump isn't a go-between. He IS the Big Daddy who is speaking directly to them without go-betweens. This has never happened before. Finally! The Bid Daddy is giving us the love, attention and reassurance we have always craved from him!! He is finally showing us how loving and benevolent he is!! He is finally telling us how much he values and treasures us!! We don't have to fear him--he loves us!! To them, he is showing himself as human and it brings them to tears. What a great, great man!!! He assures them, "I want what's good for you and fuck the niggers, spics, kikes, queers, gooks and camel-jockeys! I will fight only for YOU!!!" They love that. Can't resist it. No matter what a lying, stupid, ill-tempered, uninformed, clumsy buffoon he reveals himself to be virtually every time he opens his mouth--they LOVE him!! In fact, the worse he behaves, the more he really does seem to be like one of them. It just makes them love him more.

As long as Trump does nothing to trigger that old fear that rich white Big Daddy will eat us if he takes a whim, they'll love him. If he hurts them in a deliberate way, however---destroys their healthcare, their unemployment checks, their means of employment, then the love affair will be over. If he shows them he holds the go-betweens in higher esteem than he holds them, the love affair is over.

So, where I differ is not that the rich whites have fostered the class distinctions and warfare. It wasn't the rich ones. It was the poor ones. By "poor" I don't just mean poor, I mean "not rich." In other words, middleclass whites are also the poor whites. This wasn't the doing of rich whites but whites in general. It was white people themselves who did this. The country looks the way it does because whites want it to look this way. They are still the dominant class. Trump could have been prevented but non-whites cowered when pissed-off whites flexed their political muscle. Just like voter intimidation of decades past--non-whites stayed home and let the whites have their way. They'll deny it, of course, but that's what it was. Their courage failed them. Whites threatened war if Hillary won and non-whites caved because non-whites are still not a viable political force. They have great strength but their impulses are divided and they can't use it without a great leader to unite them. Hillary wasn't it. Obama was. He was a tremendous unifier, if nothing else. Now, the whites have their tremendous unifier but it's incredibly pathetic. Obama united different races and colors; Trump unifies only the whites against everyone else. It's doomed to failure in the end.

I didn't mean to get off on a Trump rant but we can see the effects of what the treatment of race in the past is having on us today. The Kochs may have thought they were the rich backroom deal-makers calling the shots but they aren't. It was the mass of white people they thought they were mobilizing for their own ends. That mass is who is calling the shots and they can't be led to a better, more inclusive path. They need a leader who will lead them to what they really, truly want: an all-white nation.



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
DWill
Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:27 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5813
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1478
Thanked: 1547 times in 1207 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Drawing the Color Line
DB Roy wrote:
You seem to be showing that Zinn is pointing out how poor whites and blacks were manipulated into hating one another by the rich but I'm not sure that's true. Why would rich whites care what happens to poor whites? Always more where they come from. Poor whites wanted status--not really out of some illusion of grandeur but out of a very real fear that they needed it for protection from the machinations of the rich whites whose motivation was always financially based. The rationale of the poor whites was "the more like them [the rich whites] we are, the less likely they are to see us as them [the blacks]."

Those privileges that poor whites received over blacks weren't simply given to them to sow class distinctions, they were fought for and won by poor whites as a matter of survival. They accomplished it by doing what blacks were far too disenfranchised and beaten down to do: form into a political class.

This has been the true Southern way of life behind all the antebellum bullshit notions of propriety and noblesse oblige. The Southern way of life was always, at its root, based on the fear that the rich will eat the poor when the time comes and so in the meantime improve your circumstances to look less appetizing to them.

The only reason the one-percenters would have had to mollify the poor whites was to save themselves from rebellion, in Zinn's reading. Zinn claims that early on in the colonies, the servant class of whites and the black slaves were not separated by a lot, and that the similarity in their status produced fellow-feeling between them. They might join forces and then the rich folks would be in trouble. Bacon's Rebellion consisted of both blacks and whites. Zinn doesn't like the claim that racial hatred was "natural," not needing to be manipulated by the wealthy. So the rich gave the whites preferential treatment, which only really required hardening the bondage the blacks were under, vs. that of white servants. He's a little vague on the details.

I like your take on it a little better, because it makes sense that the poor whites would take an active role in upping their status, rather than simply being acted upon by the planter class in the South. Zinn seems to be focused on oppression perhaps too much. Obviously the black slaves were oppressed to the max, but racial and cultural affinities of poor whites to rich whites gave poor whites a huge advantage, and it's not surprising that they used it to scramble up the ladder a bit. The arrows point up as well as down for the poor whites.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
DB Roy
Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:27 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Awesome


Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 956
Location: Wyoming
Thanks: 408
Thanked: 394 times in 320 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 1

Post Re: Drawing the Color Line
There have been many views on slavery and color; one of the more interesting I found was in a short film discussing the causes of the Civil War. The film's point was that the color of the African slaves served mainly as an identifier; a black slave 'stood out' from whites and Indians. A white slave (if he existed), could escape and with the opening of the western frontier, easily find a place were no one would know (or care) about his previous life. (An old folk song around the time of western expansion was "What Was Your Name in the States.") Likewise, an escaped Indian slave could likely find refuge with his own, or even another, tribe. But the African slave had nowhere to run.


_________________
Love what you do, and do what you love. Don't listen to anyone else who tells you not to do it. -Ray Bradbury

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it. -Robert A. Heinlein


Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:24 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 



Site Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank