|
June 30, 2008
"Race is what defines us" (Especially if you dig holy dirt...)
Can dirt be holy? Is there such a thing as "sacred soil"? If you're religious about physical things, I guess dirt as well as locations can be considered sacred. Certainly, a good argument can be made that important graveyards, or places where large numbers of people died -- such as Auschwitz or Gettysburg -- are worthy of a certain kind of reverence. Whether that makes the dirt itself holy is another question. When I was on the Berkeley Police Review Commission, People's Park activists used to scream that the park was "sacred ground," and they meant it. Here in Philadelphia, local activists (in an ongoing effort I have blogged about repeatedly) have pressured officials from the notoriously guilty Bush regime into creating a holy place out of the buried ruins of the first presidential mansion. Not because George Washington lived there, but because he kept his slaves there. It is believed that slavery needs to move from being an unfortunate reality at the time of the founding to being a central feature. My own view of this is that the most important feature was the development of the idea of freedom itself, manifested in the break with England, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. That many of the founders were themselves flawed, that they did not live up to the principles they enshrined, well, that is certainly an important part of history, as well as a feature of man. One of the founding's contradictions is that the founders' ideas were incompatible with slavery, even though slavery -- and slaves -- accompanied many (not all) of the founders. However, to say that the country was "founded on slavery" because there were slaveholding founders is at least as much a mistake as saying that the country was "founded on Christianity" or "founded on the Ten Commandments" because many of the founders were devoutly religious. George Washington used to have insubordinate soldiers flogged; does that mean the country was founded on flogging? But logic be damned; according to the law of identity politics, it is very important that people have "their own narrative," so slavery has to become a central feature of the founding. The first thing Philadelphia tourists ought to see is the sacred soil where slaves once walked. ...black enslavement at the nation's birth and in its birthplace has taken its place as a painful, essential topic of discussion and commemoration. In 2010, a memorial to the President's House and its enslaved occupants is to open right outside the front door of the Liberty Bell Center.In this case, going deep means peering into a sacred hole: In the spring and summer of 2007, Philadelphia witnessed something unprecedented, as hundreds of thousands of people streamed across the city to look at a hole - an archaeological exploration of the house site at Sixth and Market Streets.Such carefully chosen words. The hole kept its redolence of the unspeakable. Never mind that no one really knows who used the hole; it could have been traversed by everyone who occupied the place. It has earned a permanent stench of slavery, and for that it is sacred. What's in this hole? Foundations of a house which belonged to Robert Morris, and which was temporarily donated by him for the residential use of the first two presidents. Washington had slaves there, Adams did not. The house was eventually torn down. Hardly magical or mystical, unless you believe that the foundations of the house have deep and hidden meaning, and that the soil is "sacred": The excavation, done under the auspices of the National Park Service and the city, ignited imaginations and intense conversations as more than 300,000 visitors watched archaeologists expose the symbolic foundations of black slavery and governing white power in the literal foundations of the first U.S. executive mansion.Sorry, but I think they're reading a bit much into the foundations of a house. But the word "sacred" is used seven times, and the Inquirer is so caught up with the magical powers of the narrative that it is reported that when the archaeologists "exposed this sacred ground," they were "releasing its power." I kid you not: When the excavation was completely open and the worlds of George and Martha Washington were revealed, so intimately interlaced with the worlds of Hercules and Oney Judge, Michael Coard ventured down, 15 feet below street level, to the area that had once been the kitchen.What amazed me was to read that in addition to the slaves, the house was actually occupied by Martha Washington and Abigail Adams! Something which park superintendent Cynthia MacLeod hopes might be worthy of historical notation. "We are pleased now also to have the tangible connections to relate the stories of many individuals previously not as well represented, such as James Dexter, all the free and enslaved Africans at the President's House including Oney Judge and Hercules, and, I hope, Martha Washington and Abigail Adams who also occupied the President's House," she said.Well, I'd hate to be in Ms. MacLeod's position, as her predecessors stand accused of resisting and balking in the face of something called the "power of the real." Yes, holes are powerful -- especially when they invoke racial narratives: Nevertheless, more than once in recent years, the park and its partners resisted archaeological efforts, balking at the pursuit of what local historian Ed Lawler has called "the power of the real."That's the real lesson. It's all about race. Isn't it nice to know that modern America can finally agree on something? This is all so nonsensical to me that it's hard to know what to say, and I'm barely resisting the temptation to violate Godwin's Law. (But I do feel obliged to observe that the notion that defining people by race has a poor historical track record.) Of course, if you're one of those recalcitrant reactionaries who don't believe race should define us, there's a term for you. You're guilty of "color-blind racism." In other words, if you don't think race should define us, you're a racist. As to unbelievers in sacred ground, they're probably guilty of an emergent form of blasphemy. posted by Eric on 06.30.08 at 10:10 AM
Comments
I realise I am treading into very controversial ground here, but is there a connection between the fragmentation of both the nuclear and extended family in the AA community and the growing intensity of identification on the basis of race alone? It would make an intuitive sense. People need to feel they come from somewhere and fit into the world somehow. Family usually provides that, though clan, profession, or religion are used as well. In the absence of a well-defined family, perhaps defining by race becomes more intense as a fall-back position. Assistant Village Idiot · June 30, 2008 02:11 PM The founding of an independent USA was the beginning of the end for slavery. Hugh · June 30, 2008 03:01 PM AVI, you may be right about the need to belong. Hugh, of the 12 million Africans transported to the Americas, slightly more than three percent were brought to the British North American colonies. The vast majority were taken to Brazil or the Caribbean: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2005/11/few_new_yorkers.html In this villainous scheme, though, the United States is seen as the greatest malefactor -- and is blamed not only for conduct occuring before this country existed, but for the colonial policies of other European countries. If there's guilt in the present for the crimes of the past, then why won't the Europeans admit their greater share? Eric Scheie · June 30, 2008 03:15 PM According to another estimate, the total overall number was more like 9.5 million, with 399,000 going to the British colonies/future United States: http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/series/hw/slavery/slaveryintro.htm On the demography of early American slavery . . . Historian Philip Curtin estimates that the total slave trade from Africa to the Western Hemisphere amounted to 9,566,000 people, the largest forced migration in all history. The 4,700,000 taken to South America accounted for half of the entire trade. The 4,040,000 who went to the West Indies represented more than 40 percent. By comparison, the British colonies/United States received roughly 399,000. South America imported nearly 12 slaves and the West Indies imported more than 10 slaves for every slave who went to North America. Eric Scheie · June 30, 2008 03:24 PM The USA is getting the heat because for of power and wealth. Hugh · June 30, 2008 03:54 PM I wonder how pissed the people, whom wish slavery was a cornerstone issue, would be if some group came out and said that we were all slaves before 1776. John · June 30, 2008 05:52 PM I think there's more than identity politics here, as well. By claiming slavery as the single significant feature of America's founding, these critics are freed to discount any good that has come from this nation and claim it is all tainted, and that we are all (those of us not descended from slaves, that is) so deeply flawed that our judgment is suspect. An exception is always implied for the speaker, for by acknowledging his own Original Sin he has thus freed himself from it. When they say "We are..." they really mean "You are..." Hence the various attempts to redefine patriotism to match whatever is the cause du jour. Most recently we hear that the Dems' odd dietary fetishes are "The New Patriotism." Another is the mindless refrain that "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." And by now we've all grown tired of the endless claim that worshipping at the altar of the Blessed Saint Al of Gore is patriotism. Conveniently such definitions exclude one's political opponents, in fact delegitimize them, while recasting one's own position as not merely proper, but as the only proper one. So the need to actually engage your opponents in debate is eliminated, as you have already demonstrated that they are not just incorrect, but evil, mendacious, and stupid. Their views and arguments can be disregarded, their so-called "data" and "facts" ignored. Steve Skubinna · June 30, 2008 07:08 PM The basic fact is that anyone who has been fortunate enough to have ancestry that caused them to be born in USA is probably one luckiest descendents of that ancestry. Hugh · June 30, 2008 08:19 PM Anyone else feel that Martin Luther King would be spinning in his grave if he could hear these folks spout, "The African American story is there staring us in the face. Race is what defines us. There it is"? (Emphasis added.)
joated · June 30, 2008 08:43 PM It is good to avoid thinking of some areas as 'sacred'. This necessarily means that other places are 'profane'. Evil acts or good acts may be done in a place, but the place itself is neutral. This false dichotomy prevents clear thinking. Note how the persons described by Mr. Scheie lapse into 'magical thinking'. There is nothing 'sacred' about there having been slaves in a particular location. For that matter, there is also nothing 'sacred' about schools or government property which would make carrying a weapon there inappropriate. There is also nothing sacred about wetlands, or ANWR. I could list other examples, but this illustrates that leftists are not as free from superstition as many imagine themselves to be. Second Opinion · July 1, 2008 03:53 AM "Note how the persons described by Mr. Scheie lapse into 'magical thinking'." Good point, but I thing "idolatry" might be more apt, as these people seem to have elevated an ideology into a false religion. pst314 · July 1, 2008 09:51 AM Perhaps when encountering this attitude our best response would be to ask "what do you mean by sacred in this context?" And don't let 'em change the subject. It is a vacuous idea and they need to see that. Assistant Village Idiot · July 1, 2008 10:01 AM can be slavery and sacred "walk hand in hand"..? torasham · July 5, 2008 08:16 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
To bed without fireworks, you bad bad country!
Who are they? Part III I'm sure this won't be my first disappointment.... The gun nuts next door.... Doggies for demolition truth Worthless Dotcomradery sacred grounds and sacrilegious objections Local News Culture War is Religious War, claims Buchanan Gone are the days when my heart was young and...
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Prof Miller: "We're going deep into discovering ourselves as a nation."
Not true. This is not an attempt to discover, but an attempt to impose a particular view. "Discovering" means "seeing it my way." You don't have to violate Godwin's Law*, Eric. 1984 will serve your purpose just fine.
*The original law has a slightly different meaning than your use here.