Prometheus 6

put this article up against one of the op-eds that kevin powell has written (almost any of them) talking about the "civil rights generation" and i wonder what you'd get?

Young republicans? Are these the guys who invite David Horowitz to campus and when the Black student union/movement/whatever protests, they starting yelling about free speech and trying to have open dialogue?

Are these the same guys who argue seriously that govt assistance should be apportioned by population proportions in the national population?

They're nuts. This generation has come to understand that progressive taxation is best for the nation. We understand we got get off oil and move away from any fuel that worsens our climate crisis.

And I surely don't know how they plan to recruit more minority republicans if Reagan is their icon.

... makes me want to see "The Dark Knight" again.

"Are these the guys who invite David Horowitz to campus and when the Black student union/movement/whatever protests, they starting yelling about free speech and trying to have open dialogue?"

Sister,

Don't the black students have something better to do than protest the appearance of someone who probably helped some renegade elements of the Black Panther Party cover up a woman's murder and now has shifted over to the far right wing? And, what is worse, the idiot Young Republicans are right. David Horowitz and the horse this fool rode in here on are not worth black people's time or protests. You never give free publicity to former left-wing extremists who have become right-wing extremists.

They probably did. But the paper also accepted a full page add by Horowitz. Then BSU complained. Then the paper editor replied that he wanted to try to open dialogue and that there is free speech. Then, the BSU president at the time said basically, "Yes, speech is free. So when you give that kind of space to Horowitz, you get what you pay for."

It was a big deal. And the BSU was also doing other things than just protesting Horowitz. And it was more about the paper than Horowitz per se.

And truth be told, ptc, the racial tension on campus was always kinda iffy. Most of the white students were not racially sensitive at all. Then again, I was at UNC.

no1kstate
Do you mind if I ask which college you attended?

UNC-Chapel Hill
The one and only Carolina.

Tarheels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason I asked is because I remember watching Horowitz on C-span in early 2006 giving some rant at Duke and wondered if your encounter and this event were one in the same. Looks like he wasn't too far away from your alma mater.

"Most of the white students were not racially sensitive at all."

Welcome to America. (:~)

ATarheel! Well, you're okay until basketball season begins. I always want UNC and Duke to have good contending teams. That way I can enjoy it much more when they lose on the road to the Final Four. To be honest, I get tired of the hype the media goes into about these basketball programs. UCLA has more championships than Duke, UNC and Kentucky but the media acts as if the latter three were part of the Second Coming.

All that was probably within a few days of each other. Nov/Dec 2001. I had to google it.

And the thing us, finals were coming up. The BSU was also protesting the fact that one of the buildings, Saunders I think, is named for a KKK grand-wizard. And after 9/11, black students joined in the vigils and things. By the same token, we also felt the white students and the country at large was blowing things way out of proportion.

It's not like a fight or anything broke out. And I wasn't involved in any of what happened. But the Daily Tarheel editorials were heated for a week or so.

And the campus is racist. I know a girl who majored in biology. She didn't realize there were any black professors until her second year. And she only found that out cause I told her.

Then of course you have the usual, white suburban ignorance.

ptc, don't hate on the Tarheels.

I used to be an ABC fan myself, anyone but Carolina. But I thought NC State's campus was ugly. Duke application was too thick. Seriously. I thought they wanted to know too much of my business. UNC had a beautiful campus! Well, on the first visit. And being that I first visited for some minority recruitment, the black students I met were cool.

It wasn't that I wasn't aware of racism in America. I just hadn't heard anything so brazen in its false sense of intelligence than what I heard at UNC. I remember before classes even started, they had freshmen workshops about a book we were supposed to have read over the summer. One white guy said he didn't think we should/could be too hard on people who owned slaves because that was just their culture. And a black guy said slavery was about money as even Africans sold other Africans into slavery for the money. By the time our group facilitator called on me, the topic had changed. But, I didn't care. I told the white guy that unless he was a slave or a descendent of a slave, I didn't think he was qualified to make such a statement. Then, luckily I head the first page of this book back at home, and I informed everyone that the Africans weren't aware of what they were doing. Slavery in Africa wasn't the same as slavery in America. Arab slave traders said slavery in Africa wasn't really slavery and that slavery in America was the worst.

But anyway, I had never heard such brazen idiocy before. A classmate in high school once complained about black history month - no white history month - but she wasn't among the AG students. So I didn't really notice. But the white students at UNC were just proud of their ignorance. I was left speechless on more than one occasion.

Wasn't Skip Gates at Duke for a hot minute or two? I recall him saying that his whites colleagues resented the fact that he drove a Cadillac.

Maybe. I would've remembered that. But if he was there, some of them may have been. Or, it may have been his white students.

Yes, I think he was. John Hope Franklin described how the faculty drove him away in his autobiography.

"Arab slave traders said slavery in Africa wasn't really slavery and that slavery in America was the worst."

You do understand that the Arabs were just trying to defend their business interests, which was buying and selling human beings. No slave would have agreed with the Arabs' assessment.

Yes, I can only imagine what you probably had to endure at Chapel Hill.

You do understand that the Arabs were just trying to defend their business interests, which was buying and selling human beings. No slave would have agreed with the Arabs' assessment.

Well slavery in most of Western Africa certainly wasn't it was in any of the Americas. Many slaves in Africa were treated like family and could work their way up or at least buy their freedom. They certainly weren't stigmatized and could become part of the tribe and grow their on wealth. And slavery wasn't an inherited state.

And, as I later learned, once many of the African tribes came to understand what was happening in the Americas, they wanted to stop trading. But the Europeans, what with their better weapons, would threated to kidnap from the tribe if they wouldn't go into the interior to kidnap members of other tribes. -And I don't mean tribes as in nations or at least city-states.

But, ptc, I suppose you're saying that the Arabs wanted to continue in their human trafficking. I never considered that possibility. From what I understood, Arabs used the own slavery as a measuring points. African slavery feel below their standards and Americas well above. And historically, slavery on the sugar plantations were just about the harshest.

Yes, I can only imagine what you probably had to endure at Chapel Hill.

I'm not sure how to take that. But I will confess, it drove me from relaxed hair to dredlocks.

"Well slavery in most of Western Africa certainly wasn't it was in any of the Americas. Many slaves in Africa were treated like family and could work their way up or at least buy their freedom. They certainly weren't stigmatized and could become part of the tribe and grow their on wealth. And slavery wasn't an inherited state."

Yes, all of this is true but it's objectivity is insufficient. Where are the voices and views of the people that were held as slaves in West Africa? Yes, slavery in the New World represented a marked departure from how slavery had been practiced in other times and in other cultures but what needs to be considered here are the assessments made by those who were enslaved. They were not free to come and go as they pleased. Their bodies, time and labor belonged to someone else.

Where are the voices and views of the people that were held as slaves in West Africa?

I see your point. It's kinda like what I told the white guy he wasn't in a place to pardon the actions of American slaveowners.

Point taken. My point to the black guy, though, was that the Africans didn't realize what they were doing. Parents would sell their children into slavery in order to learn some trade, gain education, and have a better chance in life. Yes, Africans knew the other people's time, labor, and body belonged to someone else. But they hadn't agreed to the terror of American slavery.

And, plus. I think sometimes in the haste to exculpipate Europeans in the slave trade, too many people like to say, "Well, it was Africans selling other Africans," as though it was one monolithic nation selling its citizens to slavery. It was much more like the English selling the French, or Highland Scotts selling Lowland Scotts. You know? I think that's something folks have to consider to get a better picture of what was going on in Africa.

And, a question. A good number of African indigenous nations -the aboriginal tribes, not European border-drawn nations- apologized for what they did? Right. I could swear at least 1 did, maybe 2 or 3.

"My point to the black guy, though, was that the Africans didn't realize what they were doing."

I may be cynical but unless those Africans were not human beings then they knew exactly what they were doing. They may not have realized the extent of the horrors that would be visited on the people they were selling into bondage but they knew those ships were never going to bring the people they sold back. The fact they had not agreed to the peculiarities of the American slavery system does not absolve them of their responsibilities for aiding and abetting this horror.

""Well, it was Africans selling other Africans," as though it was one monolithic nation selling its citizens to slavery. It was much more like the English selling the French, or Highland Scots selling Lowland Scots. You know? I think that's something folks have to consider to get a better picture of what was going on in Africa."

I am not sure what your point here is. There are no extant written records that would allow us to determine which members of which tribes captured and sold members of other tribes. Consequently, when people say that Africans sold other Africans they are speaking colloquially, not formally. They do not literally mean that all Africans participated in the slave trade no more than when we speak of European colonization we mean that every nation in Europe had colonies in Africa, Asia or the New World.

I am aware that the government of Ghana has apologized for the participation of their people in the slave trade. Ghana was a former European colony.

No, not to absolve them so much as dealing with the truth and not easy distortions. Most of the African slave traders wanted to get out when the discovered the horror of the American system. And still, in Africa, selling your child into slavery in some places was about giving them a better chance in life. So, they definitely had idea and didn't agree to the peculiarities of American slavery. I don't know if that absolves them, but they're definitely less cupable than people who knew exactly what was going on.

And in an attempt to explain my particular though process - When I hear "Well, Africans sold other Africans . . . " it's mostly in the context of not blaming whites for everything. Plus, a lot of white people already think African Americans are one monolithic group. So when I hear, "Africans sold other Africans" what I feel the person saying is, "You people did this to yourselves, too, so don't blame us." It's about like the "personal responsibility" meme to me. And, to me, it's kinda dehumanizing Africans by not addressing the different ethnicities within Africa. I don't know. I just feel like if the French had been selling the English into slavery, we wouldn't hear, "Europeans sold other Europeans into slavery." We'd hear the French sold the English and everyone would 1 understand that we're talking about two different people groups and 2 probably give the French a bit of respect for not selling other Frenchmen. Anyone who cares to ask knows that peoples on the coast would go into the interior and were kidnapping from other tribes. And the whole colloquial thing doesn't sit well with me. It's not like we don't know because there aren't records. We "don't know" because people don't care to find out/learn about Africa. You can learn about Queen Zhenga online.

I guess it boils down to the fact that I don't like white people trying to absolve themselves by putting the blame on people of color, whether we're talking present racism in education or 18th century slave trade. And I especially don't like it cause they hardly ever give people of color the humanity of error that they allow themselves.

So. That's my thinking.

"When I hear "Well, Africans sold other Africans . . . " it's mostly in the context of not blaming whites for everything. Plus, a lot of white people already think African Americans are one monolithic group. So when I hear, "Africans sold other Africans" what I feel the person saying is, "You people did this to yourselves, too, so don't blame us."

I understand your position and share your concerns. I think, however, that what partially opens up the door for those who wish to shift responsibility for the American system of slavery onto Africans is the kind of parsing you engaged in upthread. That line of argument reminds me of a discussion I once had with a much loved and now departed uncle, who was also a close friend of my father's. My uncle Pete was trying to persuade me that there were good slave owners and bad slave owners. I understood well the distinction he was making but my position was that regardless of how well a slave owner treated a slave the practice itself was odious in every respect.

The time is long past for us to wait for non-blacks to provide the narrative line for these discussions. If we are aware of African tribes that were more complicit in the slave trade than other tribes or of tribes that were not involved at all then we should begin to make that information known. If Queen Zhenga and her people were involved in the slave trade, then let's say so and be done with it. If they were not involved or resisted the trade, we should make this information known as well.

"...it's mostly in the context of not blaming whites for everything."

Citing the involvement of Africans in the slave trade does not lessen or minimize the horrors of slavery in the New World. I am older than you but when I was younger and ran into whites who made these kinds of arguments, I just walked away and stayed away from them. I knew that nothing I was going to say would change their minds. Ever.

You cannot have a dialogue with folks who espouse these viewpoints because their minds are closed. What they want are duologues. At bottom, they do not like black people but they have learned to dress their enmity up in suits of fine words and intellectual pretension. I went to high school with idiots like these and I can tell you that they have not changed at all.

I gotcha, ptc. I gotcha.