“‘Plantations’ in state’s name is offensive remnant of slavery trade”

I’ve previously blogged about the grassroots effort in Rhode Island to change the state’s name. In short, this movement seeks to remove the words “Providence Plantations” on the ground that the word “plantation” is now too intertwined with slavery.

There is a letter to the editor in today’s edition of the Newport (R.I.) Daily News arguing the case for this name change. The letter is co-authored by my uncle, Dain Perry, and Nick Figueroa of ULMAC:

Dain is, like me, a direct descendant of James DeWolf, the leading slave-trader in U.S. history, and appears in the documentary Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North. Nick is a leading figure in ULMAC, an organization which advocates on behalf of racial minorities in Rhode Island, and which has been pushing for the name change.

As I’ve reported previously, there is a joint resolution pending this year before the R.I. legislature on the name-change issue. The resolution has been the subject of hearings in both chambers this spring; it has passed out of committee in the House, and is awaiting action by the full House.

The letter is well-written and makes a strong case for changing the state’s name. My only quibble would be that the letter suggests that the word “plantation” has gone from being an innocent word to one which is dominated by a “malignant” image, much as the swastika became unavoidably linked to the atrocities of the Nazi era.

As someone who encounters the word “plantation” frequently in contexts unrelated to slavery, I’m unconvinced that this has become nothing less than the “true meaning” of the word today. As many dictionaries, encyclopedias, or the work of many historians would illustrate, “plantation” is still often used in ways entirely unconnected to slavery. Instead, I would have focused on an argument closely related to that offered in the letter and on the blog run by Nick and his group, We Are Not a Plantation: that the historical connection of the word “plantation” to slavery in this country naturally makes its use in the state’s official name deeply offensive to many of our citizens, particularly those with a deeply personal connection our history as a slave society.

To read the letter, you may click on the image above, or read the text of the letter below the jump:

‘Plantations’ in state’s name is offensive remnant of slavery trade

Hidden in plain sight is probably the best way to describe the sentiment of some Rhode Islanders who feel that their state has ignored its history and their suf¬fering. The point of contention is the word “Plantations” in the state’s official name.

Many of us understand the negative connotation of the word as it pertains to slavery. Not acknowledging the state’s role in the slave trade has made the word appear benign; after all, in its original meaning, “plantations” meant a farm or place of harvest. Rhode Island’s little dirty secret has been kept under wraps quite effectively. Our schools mention very little about Rhode Island’s prominent role in the slave trade, and the communities that par-ticipated heavily in these egregious acts have remained silent.

Private fortunes were made on the backs of the enslaved — so much so that our state’s economic foundation depended on it. The past seems so long ago. Rhode Island is now a vibrant and thriving com¬munity made up of many different ethnic¬ities and religions. Roger Williams would be smiling. Except for one thing: the term “Plantations.” Why does this word remain a painful reminder to many? The answer comes from the past practice of slavery and Rhode Island’s role in it.

Over a period of time words, phrases and symbols tend to take on different meanings. Take, for example, the swastika. In its original form, it was a religious sym¬bol for many cultures throughout the world. However, put into the context of World War II and the Nazi atrocities, this revered symbol morphed into a whole new meaning, one of hatred, murder and oppression based on religion. Regardless of where you see this symbol, the first thing that comes to mind is the Holocaust.

Now imagine having this symbol on offi¬cial state property. It would clearly be offensive to the victims and descendants of those who were subjected to its oppres¬sion.

Like the swastika, the word “Planta¬tions” as it relates to Rhode Island’s histo¬ry has undergone this transition from benign to malignant. It is a painful reminder to the descendants of those who suffered during this truly ugly period. One thing is clear: Those who are alive today are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors; however, it is our responsibility to acknowledge the true meaning of this word and eliminate this painful reminder from our state’s name.

Dain Perry, Charlestown, Mass., and Nick Figueroa, Providence

Dain Perry is a descendant of the DeWolf family of Bristol, which was prominent in the slave trade, and a participant in the documentary “Traces of the Trade.” Nick Figueroa is a member of the Univocal Legislative Minority Advisory Coalition, a nonpartisan network of more than 30 community-based organizations that advocates legislation and policies to promote equality and opportunities for people of color in Rhode Island.

144529 Responses2009-05-19+23%3A01%3A24James to ““‘Plantations’ in state’s name is offensive remnant of slavery trade””

5:21 am, 30 June, 2009.
Sean says:

The world should do an apology then..because if you read your history books America was not the only one involved with slavery.

Get over it.

Move on.
10:17 am, 24 August, 2018.
Bill says:

Sean,
America needs to understand the consequences of the slave trade( positive for wealthy white men and devastating for African Americans), slavery, and Jim Crow. They need to teach the history of this nation through the eyes of the Europeans( rich and poor),the Native Nations and the Africans . Only when the true history is understood can everyone GET OVER IT.
Bill
5:26 am, 30 June, 2009.
James says:

You're quite right, Sean, that the U.S. was not the only nation to engage in slavery.

How, though, does this affect whether or not the U.S. should apologize for its own actions, and for their impact on millions of its citizens today?
8:35 am, 8 July, 2009.
Ron Peden says:

Sean, When you say "get over it" do you mean we should erase that segment of our history and ignore it…? Or, do you mean we should get over the fact that the word "Plantation" is part of the Rhode Island name?
4:29 pm, 24 July, 2009.
bobbo says:

Hi James

Came back looking to see if you covered the Gates arrest as considered argument is hard to find. But this thread has some note worthiness about it.

I would have thought that "Plantation" at the time it was used simply meant a place to grow food? As such, the notion that LATER it become associated with slavery and therefore there is justification for removing this word from the States Name is just a little bit too precious don't you think?

You hesitate a little bit from your uncle's position by appreciating that the connection of plantation to slavery is not today universal. Well, THATS the wrong argument. Isn't history all about putting things into its proper context? At the Time RI was named, Plantation did not have much if any context to slavery. Changing the name today is just too prissy. I assume the historical record won't be scrubbed of this offense to time contextual historical literacy?

But there are more wrinkles. You analogies the pro scrub position to that of the use of the swastika. This also is completely inappropriate. The swastika did not "come to mean" Nazi abuses, IT WAS the symbol of the Nazi Movement. There is no reason at all for 5th century Indian Temples to whitewash this symbol become later some other group used it for such miserable aims. That is not at all what happened to the use of Plantation.

Another ripple–you argue the use of swastika is bad because of the use the Nazi's put it to. This argues that the use at the time should be put into the context of how the history is viewed later, yet you argue elsewhere (still do I assume?) that the Civil War was NOT FOUGHT to free the slaves even though that is just about universally the view today. Why the disjuncture? Why do you want to dump on the Nazi's but keep the White States Rights advocates for the purpose of keeping slavery legal and spreading it to the west, pure?

THAT doesn't make any sense. Well, just wanted to let you know I was still alive, roasting coffee beans at home, and still enjoy a contested exchange. Use as you will/enjoy.

Bobbo.
10:49 am, 28 July, 2009.
James says:

It's good to hear from you again, Bobbo!

As I suggested in an earlier post on this topic, I think there's an interesting argument to be made for changing the state's name, even knowing that the word "plantations" only became associated with slavery after the state was named.

I do believe that it's important to understand historical context, and I wouldn't want anyone, for instance, to discuss the state's name without understanding that it had nothing to do with slavery. However, what exactly is "too prissy" about saying that the word "plantations" is now highly offensive to many Americans?

After all, millions of U.S. citizens suffer the legacy of slavery to this day, and millions have ancestors who suffered directly, and terribly, from slavery itself.

What if the word "holocaust" had had another, more innocent meaning before the mid-twentieth century? Would you be shocked if, today, there were a movement among Jewish groups to remove the word "Holocaust" from the name of a midwestern state peopled in the 19th century by German settlers? Some residents of that state might object that the word "Holocaust" had no connection originally with exterminating people, and you might agree that the state's name ought to remain. But would you say that the groups opposing the name were being "too prissy"?

What if the Holocaust, with its six million dead, had been perpetrated against Americans? By other Americans, on American soil (including in that hypothetical midwestern state? Would you then say that the survivors, and the descendants of the dead, were being "too prissy" in asking that the state's name be changed?

As for the Nazi swastika, I'm not sure I follow your distinction. The swastika was a symbol of the Nazi party, and so, as I said, it "became unavoidably linked" with the atrocities of the German state under Nazi rule.

What's the difference? The word "plantations," like the swastika symbol, was in widespread use in innocent meanings, and later became associated with something evil.

As for the Civil War, that conflict wasn't fought to free the slaves, and of course that fact doesn't change later even if some people today think that it was. The Nazi regime was, by our moral standards, evil, and we say so. The same with slavery. So what's your point? Why would we say that the Civil War was fought to end that evil if it wasn't? Why wouldn't we say that, today, the swastika carries with it a connotation of monstrous evil?

I may have misunderstood one or more of your criticisms here; if so, please feel free to help me understand, as you clearly think I'm off-base on several aspects of this issue.
8:33 pm, 28 July, 2009.
bobbo says:

Thanks James, nice to be welcomed back.

I just read the linked earlier post. I must be getting old. I'm not as attracted to nit picking the nits I see.

I am reminded of the saying that there are two types of people in the world: those that divide the world up into two views, and those who don't.

Is history honored or respected when it is held statistic? I don't think so. One symbolic defined term versus another. It has whatever meaning one wants to give to it.

I'm "basically" one of the type of people who thinks there are pro's and con's to every choice made. You are pretty far along that continuum too.

I see several pro's and con's to keeping the name the same, and in changing it, but I don't think history can be "honored." 99% of the time, appeals to honor are rhetoric, minds not to be changed.

Just on the swastika comment, the word plantation was NOT related to slavery when first used. That association is being made after its first use. NOT SO with the swastika. The swastika was chosen to represent the Nazi State which a reading of Mein Kampf clearly shows was formed with the intent of genocide. No later arising association is made with that symbol. The earlier use of the swastika by Indian religions was and remains innocent of all taint.

The kerfuffle over the word niggardly is the same issue. Still goes on. I wouldn't use the word in group settings. The intercourse of known social linkages forewarns the careful lexicographer.

At its root, strikes me as mostly distracting and not important. What IS important?

Its always money. Issue apologies by the truck load, change names, erase words from the dictionary===I don't care, it means nothing/everything/all the same.

Take my money, that can cut to the bone.

Gee–I'm glad I reread before closing. Recent tv show said it plain and simple. Paraphrasing: there are those today who want to advance that the Civil War wasn't fought to prevent slavery. They say it was about States Rights. Yes, the State Right to maintain and extend slavery. The civil war was fought to outlaw slavery.

Now, once again, the "actual" history doesn't change depending on what we call it. What we call it can change, and it can change again later. Hard to criticize your motives when focused only on the benefit you wish to bring an oppressed people. Its only when you start talking about taking my money that visceral reactions arise.

Yes money. Filthy lucre. Pedestrian. Shallow. It does move history along though.
1:16 am, 29 July, 2009.
James says:

I appreciate your reflections, Bobbo.

On the issue of the swastika, I don't agree with your starting point. You correctly note that the word "plantation" had a long-standing meaning unconnected with slavery, and that the swastika's original significance as a symbol was unconnected with the Nazi regime, too. Yet you choose to start its history, for this purpose, with its selection as a symbol of the Nazi party. What is the difference you see here? That the Nazi party chose the symbol at a particular moment in time, while "plantation" gained its second meaning more slowly? Why is the original meaning of the swastika untainted, yet the original meaning of "plantation" is not, when they were both appropriated later for another association?

The use of the word "niggardly" is a great example to bring up. I think it's quite different, however: "niggardly" doesn't have any particular association with anything bad. It sounds, to those unfamiliar with the word, as if it were related to a word with a terrible history. But it is not, and there is no long tradition of believing that it is. This is why Jesse Jackson, among many others, has spoken up specifically in defense of the word "niggardly," pointing out that we should not give it an association, now, with a word it happens to resemble.

You may believe that it means nothing to apologize or to stop using offensive names, but there can be power in words and it does matter to many people. Some apologies may ring hollow, but others carry weight. Some name changes may be trivial and contrived, but some names out there are deeply offensive (and always were) and signify as much.

On the Civil War, please understand that I'm not arguing that the conflict was about "states' rights." It was about what we've always thought it was, a complex mix of conflicting politics, culture, and economics which led both sides into a war that few, on either side, would have preferred. Yes, the Confederacy was fighting for, among other things, its political autonomy and to protect its economic system (of which slavery was a vital part) from the possibility of federal intrusion at a later date.

The issue is that the Civil War was not fought "to outlaw slavery." Not by any stretch of the imagination. There was no consensus in the Union when the war broke out that slavery ought to be abolished. The Union did not set out to do so. As late as 1865, it was not at all certain that Congress would agree to end slavery after the war.

In other words, slavery was one precipitating cause of the Civil War, and it ended as a result, but ending slavery was not the intention of the Union and the Confederacy did not believe that the Union was about to do so.

As for telling history in a particular way, in order "benefit … an oppressed people," I would never endorse such an approach. While our understanding of history will inevitably change with scholarly advances and our own changing times, we should always strive for an accurate and balanced portrayal of the past.

If telling that history benefits anyone, especially because historical myths have disadvantaged them up to now, then that's great. However, if history tells us things we don't want to hear, that are inconvenient for our present situation, then we must tell it just as honestly as ever.
12:41 pm, 29 July, 2009.
bobbo says:

Fascinating. We are both reasonable, informed, truth seekers, honest===and missing each other. Where is a trained interventionist linguist when needed? So many threads. Some loose, some easy to pick.

Rather than pick over bones, I will try to progress.

Words. They are what we think with and what we communicate with. So limiting.

I will start with the idea that there is no "the" swastika. The Indians used "their" swastika to represent "doing good." That meaning doesn't change or come to mean holocaust because 1000 years later Germany used "their" swastika for that purpose. Nothing has been co-opted. Maybe, people simply fail to exercise or have context when contemplating the symbol.

Further it is a symbol. It "means" nothing except what meaning people give it. So, its meaning is very contextual. What is the main context except history/its meaning at the time of its actual use? Can that meaning possibly change over time or rather only be manipulated?

So, I look at each symbol for its own individual meaning and don't lump all similar symbols together. Contextual. Historical.

The word plantation gained a secondary meaning over time in the USA but the word in the state's name did not. Like the swastika, each use stands on its own.

Now, niggardly is much the same issue. How can you say it doesn't have any particular association and in the same breath say it "sounds like" it does??? Like the cause of the Civil War, you are dicing the issue pretty closely all to avoid what you easily admit. So, Jesse Jackson put the issue to rest. I still won't use the word because not everyone has heard/agrees with Jesse, and the word still sounds like what many proud, young, ignorant gang bangers would take offense to. I haven't heard the word since that flare up either. How long before it gets dropped from the dictionary? Archaic use. Language grows. Don't even have to take on a secondary meaning in this case. Again, words are symbolic, mean whatever anyone wants them to mean, have well accepted meanings in their time and place. All context.

Apologies mean nothing TO ME. Thats why I am happy to have them issued by the truckload. I am sure that some apology has some meaning to those who seek them. Thats fine. Words do have great power from time to time. Not the words in most apologies though. What apology ever rallied the troops/citizens to fight the good fight–by sword or by pen? All context.

The above being prelude. You say: "The issue is that the Civil War was not fought “to outlaw slavery.” Not by any stretch of the imagination. /// Not by "any" stretch? You must be thinking only of yourself. MY IMAGINATION stretches that far. Can you still think what you say with this new information? Do you have to have a clear undiluted express statement for a certain end in order for that end to be "in play?" What if expressing that end would doom the enterprise? Would you go ahead and say it for the history books, or not say it and achieve the goal? If the gaining of A unavoidably causes the ending of B, if A and B are inextricably intertwined, why would you deny "B." Something more than lack of imagination going on.

Is the exercise one of history, logic, or rhetoric? I take my own meaning. I can even agree with your position as I don't think it actually impacts the living consequences.

I wasn't equating your motives of benefiting a people with a conscious manipulating of history, but on 3-4-5th thought, it does kinda fit with your position on the Civil War. Talk long enough and everything can get twisted? (smile!) No, I was just trying to give you a compliment. It is hard to criticize any effort to benefit a group. Simple statement. I connected it to any harm it might cause some other group, not the rewriting of history to get there.

I guess we won't know until some actual program of reparations is proposed. Kinda like Ombama's healthcare plan right now. Selling the "idea" is hard when the details are inchoate.

You know, James, we miscommunicate so completely, right now as I imagine various plans of reparations, I really have no idea how you might judge them. I'm going to think about what that means.

Still nothing on Gates? Just drinking beer?
4:50 am, 30 July, 2009.
James says:

Bobbo, the swastika has a long and complicated history. (It's all that way, isn't it?) It has been used by many cultures, including Indian cultures. The Nazi party didn't come up with the symbol on their own, but took it from Christian tradition.

So I'm still not sure what difference you see between the swastika and "plantation." In both cases, they were in widespread and innocent use, and in both cases, they gradually came to take on a related, but distinct, meaning with evil associations. You say things like, "nothing was co-opted" with the swastika, but I fail to see how either example involves a greater or lesser degree of co-option.

You also mention that a symbol only has the meaning which it is given, but this is, of course, as true for a word as for a graphical symbol.

I agree that we shouldn't lump all uses of a symbol together, but neither should we lump together all uses of a word.

Now, niggardly is much the same issue. How can you say it doesn’t have any particular association and in the same breath say it “sounds like” it does???

I said that the word "niggardly" sounds like it has a bad association, to those who are unfamiliar with the word.

The difference, in my mind, is that "plantation" does now have a long history of being used to refer to one of the greatest atrocities in human history. If it were a different word altogether, and ignorant people were simply leaping to the conclusion that it was the same, then the answer would simply be to educate people.

I'll use another example: Suppose that there was a movement to discourage the casual use of the swastika in Christian contexts, despite the long and innocent history of this, because it had been appropriated by the Nazi regime. Not a crazy idea, right? No need to use the symbol, since its modern use has been minor and it legitimately reminds people of its use for evil. That's basically what happened after the Holocaust.

Now suppose that a movement arose to ban the use of the Christian cross as a symbol, by people who didn't recognize the difference between the two crosses. We wouldn't join the call for churches to abolish the cross, would we? Wouldn't the more appropriate solution be to help people to see that the Christian cross is a different symbol, to help them recognize the significance of the bent arms and so forth?

I still won’t use the word because not everyone has heard/agrees with Jesse, and the word still sounds like what many proud, young, ignorant gang bangers would take offense to.

That's certainly your privilege, and with attitudes like this, you're right that "niggardly" will probably gradually disappear from use (especially since it is already a word which most people don't know).

Words do have great power from time to time. Not the words in most apologies though.

I think that, too, is a matter of opinion. I know many people, including many religious people and many parents, who routinely engage in apologies and imbue them with great significance. If you're thinking of apologies in, say, the entertainment media, then you're probably right that most of those are insincere and offered as cheap ways of reducing a P.R. problem.

Not by “any” stretch? You must be thinking only of yourself. MY IMAGINATION stretches that far.

No, bobbo, even though you can imagine that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, that still doesn't make it true that the Civil War was fought to end slavery.

That will never be the case, no matter what might be believed by those who aren't familiar with the history of that time.

You know, James, we miscommunicate so completely, right now as I imagine various plans of reparations, I really have no idea how you might judge them.

Well, bobbo, feel free to mention specific reparations proposals (possibly as a comment to a post here related to reparations; just use the search function or go here. I would be more than happy to offer my thoughts, although I would remind you that I am not, and have never been, a supporter of reparations for slavery. This is why I've taken very little time on this blog to address specific reparations proposals.
1:07 pm, 30 July, 2009.
bobbo says:

James, we only repeat ourselves. I feel constrained again to comment that you are very consistent. Always reasoned, calm, never admitting error.

Are you holding the high ground, or just refusing to admit bias? What can/should BOTH of us take from the living consequences. Are there any living consequences that should be "recognized" in legislation? Thats where the rubber meets the road.

I went to your "About this Blog" page. I think each sentence could be deconstructed for what you think you are about, what you actually are about. From sentence to sentence there would be varying degrees of separation.

"I’m worried about a group of white people thinking very hard about their ancestors and what the slave trade meant to them." /// Why? Let not the dead hand of history bind your joys and desires. Take counsel from Barack: Look to the future. Shouldn't the same concern exist regarding Black people?

"If we do this in isolation, I think there’s a danger that we end up giving ourselves permission to move on because we’ve decided that we’ve dealt with it and feel better about it, rather than dealing with the consequences, the living consequences today.” /// Well let's do it with full involvement and recognition and THEN give ourselves permission to move on – – -etc.

Hah=="you know, there are two kinds of people:" those that want to keep their heads/emotions in the past. Think of all the tribal and religious trouble spots in the world. Then there are non-zealots who give "due regard" to the past, but move on to the future.

Lets analogize to another type of inheritance–genetic. Each generation is born with a fresh genome. Doesn't matter how many cuts and lashes the father experienced, his son is born with unblemished skin. We should give permission for the mind to be as healthy.

Hypothetical: imagine (sic) the Civil War WAS fought to outlaw the extension of slavery which directly resulted in the abolition of slavery. What changes would that recognition cause in your evaluation of the living consequences? I can do the exercise both ways. If you can't at least make the argument of both sides, do you really understand your own?
12:36 pm, 31 July, 2009.
bobbo says:

Epilogue–I've been reconsidering my position: "Was the Civil War fought to free the slaves?" Being as anal ytic as I can be, I must say the answer is "No."

And thats why I have lazily said and not fully appreciated the oft stated conclusion that "slavery is inextricably entwined with the causation/resolution of the Civil War."

I basically come at this question starting with the "Natural Rights of Man", the Declaration of Independence, Statements of Jefferson, NorthWest Ordinace/Missouri Compromise/Kansas-Nebraska Ordinance then Dred Scott Decision. Somewhere in there is the "House Divided" speech of Abraham Lincoln. Finally, every time I have ever said the CW as fought to end Slavery, I was always in mind of the fact that the North did not start the CW–South Carolina did by firing on Fort Sumter (a nice days picnic when the weather is good and you have a boat!) In a real sense, the CW as fought by the North was for no reason at all other than to repulse an invading force.

But why did South Carolina fire on Fort Sumter, or for that matter why did SC first secede? I've never read anything on that before. The Google:

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secess…

an excellent read if ever there was one. SC seceded because its rights and privileges to hold and keep slaves was being interfered with/not supported by the North. "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution." (About 60% of the way down the page.) The political advantage of the South gaining 3/5th representation without the burden of granting citizenship was under attack, so SC and the Confederacy seceded and then attacked.

Without slavery, there would have been no CW. After the CW there was no slavery. Was the CW fought to end slavery? Again, strickly "No." But I'd say more closely that only applies to the motives of the North. Did the South fight the CW in order to maintain, keep, and expand slavery? I'd say the answer is Yes. We do tend to read history from the perspective of the winner.

I think the question I asked you above is still valid though. Take two people considering consequential questions regarding the living consequences. One thinks the CW was fought to free the slaves, the other thinks something else. Does this necessitate the two will evaluate the consequential questions any differently?

If one thinks the CW paid all debts owed from America to those enslaved, and the other thinks the CW is irrelevant to that question, then a difference proceeds.

As usual, I can answer these questions both ways and am more interested in weighing the pro's and con's of both sets of consequences to see what kind of society results.

My imagination stretches that convolutedly.

The answer to my other question posed above (sub rosa) was Heineken.
11:44 am, 5 August, 2009.
James says:

“I’m worried about a group of white people thinking very hard about their ancestors and what the slave trade meant to them.” /// Why? Let not the dead hand of history bind your joys and desires.

I think we're saying the same thing here, Bobbo. This quotation of mine from the film is meant to suggest that there is relatively little to be gained from dwelling excessively on the past. I do believe, however, that our understanding of our present circumstances, and what we might want to do about them, should be informed by an understanding of how we got here.

Well let’s do it with full involvement and recognition and THEN give ourselves permission to move on – – -etc.

Here, again, I think we may be on the same page. I do believe that we can't move on until we've successfully dealt with the consequences of the past.

For instance, if Professor Gates reacted the way he did in part because of the weight of the past, then we need to understand that consequence of the past and act to put it behind us. Simply convincing ourselves that we reject the sins of the past and want to move on isn't enough.

there are non-zealots who give “due regard” to the past, but move on to the future.

I'm not sure it's that simple, Bobbo. Everyone believes that they're giving "due regard to the past." Many people cling to old hatreds more than I think they should, and many find it convenient to pretend that the past matters less than it does.

For instance, many white Americans would like to believe that racial inequality today stems from the failings of people of other races … or from individual circumstances that are purely the result of hard work or the luck of the draw. In fact, we know that this isn't true, and that the nation's history of race profoundly affects its citizens today, despite the belief that we live in a "color-blind" or "race-neutral" society, or even one characterized by "reverse discrimination."

Each generation is born with a fresh genome. Doesn’t matter how many cuts and lashes the father experienced, his son is born with unblemished skin. We should give permission for the mind to be as healthy.

That's a great analogy, Bobbo.

It helps us to see that this situation is very different. In genetics, by and large, each generation is born fresh, without any trace of the trials and tribulations of the preceding generations.

In society, however, this isn't even remotely true. Today's American families find their income, wealth, education, and jobs profoundly affected by what those families experienced in previous generations. Not to mention their social connections, religion, cultural values, and so on.

imagine (sic) the Civil War WAS fought to outlaw the extension of slavery which directly resulted in the abolition of slavery. What changes would that recognition cause in your evaluation of the living consequences?

Very little. As I've said before, so what if it had been? While that would be of profound historic importance, what would it tell us about the present?
12:06 pm, 5 August, 2009.
James says:

In regards to your epilogue, Bobbo:

the North did not start the CW–South Carolina did by firing on Fort Sumter (a nice days picnic when the weather is good and you have a boat!)

This is certainly a debatable proposition, as you note. The Union argued that the Confederacy fired the first shot, while the Confederates believed that the North forced them into secession.

However, you should not simply accept the later Confederate propaganda that the institution of slavery was in immanent danger. It's true that there were political struggles over slavery's extension, but the North was deeply divided over slavery and there was unlikely to be a serious movement to abolish the institution any time soon.

I say this, by the way, as someone with a family member who served at Fort Sumter on that fateful day. (He was a captain of artillery and one of the fort's most senior officers.)

You're right, of course, that the North never did decide to wage war against the South. While there may have been those in the Union who sought war, the most they could do was to maneuver to have the Confederacy secede violently, thereby uniting the North in what was seen as a defense.

Did the South fight the CW in order to maintain, keep, and expand slavery? I’d say the answer is Yes.

A major motivation for the South was, indeed, the desire to preserve slavery. That doesn't mean it was the only motive, or that slavery was under immediate threat.

More importantly, however, so what? This is an important historical matter, but the issue of the role of slavery in the Civil War was originally whether the war amounted to reparations or an apology for slavery. At its simplest, if the South was defending slavery, and the North was fighting for other reasons, then this is hardly an apology or reparations at all, or even a step forward in race relations.

One thinks the CW was fought to free the slaves, the other thinks something else. Does this necessitate the two will evaluate the consequential questions any differently?

I don't see how it would, but you're welcome to make the argument. 🙂

If one thinks the CW paid all debts owed from America to those enslaved, and the other thinks the CW is irrelevant to that question, then a difference proceeds.

How would this person think that the Civil War repaid all debts owed to the slaves? If half the nation fought in part to keep them enslaved, and the other half fought for other reasons altogether?

Even if the war had been fought to end slavery, how would this amount to repaying any debt? Ending a terrible practice doesn't pay anyone back for what was done; it simply avoids incurring any further debt.
9:36 pm, 5 August, 2009.
bobbo says:

Well done James.

Once I meet YOU half way, your position makes more sense. Still no give on your part? ((The North "forced" the South to secede?==hah, hah. "She wore a low cut dress officer. She made me rape her I tells ya!!)) Well, if I'm totally wrong, why should your position change at all?

My concluding thoughts revert to process and definition. Just what is "causation" when discussing something as complicated as war/revolution? What we have mostly is a bunch of intertwining events/issues. Who knows what combination was necessary for what result?

Reparations and living consequences are not legally actionable as to the Civil War. That leaves only some notion of morality in play. Does moral consideration even follow causation? Feelings? Trump Cards? Unintended Consequences?

Thanks for another excellent discussion.
9:53 pm, 5 August, 2009.
bobbo says:

imagine (sic) the Civil War WAS fought to outlaw the extension of slavery which directly resulted in the abolition of slavery. What changes would that recognition cause in your evaluation of the living consequences?

Very little. As I’ve said before, so what if it had been? While that would be of profound historic importance, what would it tell us about the present? ///

It would tell us to put the past behind us and to make our future the best we can. "The past" will NEVER be properly/fully appreciated/accounted for by those still living in it. It is indeed truly irrelevant for those living for the future. Of the two modes, with the faults and short comings of either not fully recognized, I choose the future.
2:09 am, 6 August, 2009.
James says:

Bobbo, I confess that I'm not always sure just what you'd like me to give ground on. Perhaps you need to make it a bit more plain. 🙂

The North “forced” the South to secede?==hah, hah.

It's a respectable position, and it's hardly unique to the secession of the Confederate states. For instance, historians debate fiercely the reasons why Japan attacked the U.S. in WWII. A leading theory is that Japanese leaders believed they would lose such a war, but felt they had little choice, that Roosevelt had forced them into a situation in which the alternatives were even less palatable than a losing war.

In the case of the Civil War, the South may have genuinely believed that the balance of national power was tipping towards states without slavery and that, ultimately, the social and economic fabric of the South were doomed without a war. This could easily cause the region's privileged interests, at least, to conclude that they had no real choices except secession or the loss of everything they had.

Who knows what combination was necessary for what result?

I agree. I think there's significant value in analyzing the contributions of the various factors, and in performing counter-factual historical analysis. I also think it can be helpful to rule out, or to define limited roles for, factors which weren't essential to the outcome. At the end of the day, however, we should not attempt to deny the complexity of history.

It would tell us to put the past behind us and to make our future the best we can.

Why? Why on earth, bobbo? If the U.S. committed terrible acts with lasting repercussions to this day, then why would its responsibility cease to exist if we learned that it had struggled very hard just to stop performing those acts?

I simply don't understand this type of thinking. If we arrest a mass murderer, and he explains that he had recently given up killing people, do we let him go free on the grounds that it must have been difficult for him to stop?

I don't deny that the nation suffered terribly during the Civil War, and if it had been in the cause of ending slavery, that would represent a noble sacrifice. I just don't see what that has to do with the legitimate question of whether the nation ought, in some way, to atone for what it did all those generations ago.

“The past” … is indeed truly irrelevant for those living for the future.

The past is never irrelevant, bobbo. Those who believe that they are "living for the future" may choose to ignore the past, but that means ignoring critical aspects of the present and the future, as well.

The plain fact is that we have racial disparities in this country which are the result of history. We can try to move forward without acknowledging or addressing this fact, but we will inevitably fail.

For instance, many people who want to "move forward" and ask that others not "cling to the past" argue that we should simply be color-blind and allow everyone equal opportunity.

Yet opportunity in this country is largely about what circumstances one is born into, and this is heavily dependent upon, among other things, race. Until we have addressed this injustice in some fashion–by eliminating racial disparities, by coming to terms with them, or by a combination of both–we will continue to hear cries that this is unfair.
11:29 am, 6 August, 2009.
bobbo says:

James–I'm honored you continue. Its new ground, further exploration, a challenge to myself.

I do favor the point to point response/dialectic but it rapidly becomes unwieldy. For what its worth, my best thoughts:

Bobbo, I confess that I’m not always sure just what you’d like me to give ground on. Perhaps you need to make it a bit more plain. /// Well, when I post I do think I have made some killer arguments and yet UNIFORMLY you have maintained your original position. I haven't "won" a single point. Its not about winning/losing but how much honest review/introspection is really going on if not an inch is given up?====or, I am just that totally wrong in my thinking. An example, not that I am seeking for I want the contribution to be yours, just an example would be: "Yes, I can see that one view of causation of the CW could be stopping the South from seceding thereby allowing slavery to spread can be legitimately thought of as being fought to stop slavery." Instead you affirm you can't even imagine such an outcome/insight. I do think that is exactly that–a failure of imagination/flexibility. When intelligent people fail to exercise their imagination, I wonder why. What draws the bar, raises the gate? More on that to follow.

2. The North “forced” the South to secede?==hah, hah.

It’s a respectable position /// No, its not. The actions of the North were of the many threads leading to the CW but nothing "forced" anything. NOTHING ever forces anything. Its all choices, perhaps chaotic more than causal in fact. More lack of imagination in play? In hindsight, "the South" would have been well advised to not attack the North, just secede and let the issues simmer. Same with Japan and all other turning points of history. There are always "other options." In the case of war, those other options in hindsight almost always better. For Japan, I wonder what would have happened if they had offered to join the Allies? That would have gotten them the oil they needed. I wonder what haiku they didn't pay attention to?

3. In the case of the Civil War, the South may have genuinely believed that the balance of national power was tipping towards states without slavery and that, ultimately, the social and economic fabric of the South were doomed without a war. This could easily cause the region’s privileged interests, at least, to conclude that they had no real choices except secession or the loss of everything they had. //// I agree with the first sentence, disagree with the last. The balance of power was shifting to the free North. So–doomed with a War, unknown what would happen with mere secession as that is the counterfactual position. Would the North have ever invaded a peaceful, merely seceded South? If so, could they have won? What in South Carolina would have changed because Nebraska/California etc might join the union as a free state? Silly dumb southerners missed the basics. Easier to defend than attack. Make the enemy come to you. Take what you can get. Bargain, delay, wear down. I hate non-Machiavellian Politicians. True believers always take the wrong road. Yea Lincoln!!!!

"Less palatible than losing a war." /// Like what? Winning a peace? 80% of your second choice much better than 0% of your first choice.

4. At the end of the day, however, we should not attempt to deny the complexity of history /// and yet you do by refusing to imagine any of the many threads leading to a reasonable conclusion that slavery was the cause of the CW and the CW ended slavery EQUALS the CW was fought to end slavery. Close enough "if" you want it to be. You can't lament the loss of complexity while demanding the simple.

5. It would tell us to put the past behind us and to make our future the best we can.

Why? Why on earth, bobbo? If the U.S. committed terrible acts with lasting repercussions to this day, then why would its responsibility cease to exist if we learned that it had struggled very hard just to stop performing those acts? /// Because that is what HISTORY teaches us is pragmatically the best thing to do==the best thing for all those involved. The past vs future paradigm your living consequences may ultimately really be all about. Worth both of us thinking about? Imagining? I'll say again, with all kind intentions "behind" it: your constant hand wringing about the living consequences WHILE FAILING to present a concrete plan of correction is actually more harmful than beneficial. YOU keep the wound festering rather than putting the hot poker on it and forming the scar.

Why at all recommend coming to grips with the living consequences, but then not have any ideas what to do with that grip? PICK ANYTHING: none of it will work. CW–doesn't work. Welfare–doesn't work. Affirmative Action–doesn't work. Blacks being elected in majority white districts–doesn't work. President of the USA–doesn't work. What does it take to live up to MLK's dream? Where a man is judged on his character and not the color of his skin? Can't judge his character until we pay for our past sins/current benefits secured therefrom? Your position/desires are MIRED in the past. Not helpful. Get over it. Move on. There will be "injustice" no matter what it done. Moving on will get us thru it quicker than endlessly going around in circles in the undefined morass you wish to propagate: what is your solution? Pick One. If you can't pick one, recognize you are advocating a problem without a solution. At least, I have a solution, warts and all.

#6–If we arrest a mass murderer, and he explains that he had recently given up killing people, do we let him go free on the grounds that it must have been difficult for him to stop? /// Heh, heh. NOT EVEN A CLOSE ANALOGY. Think about why for awhile. You have previously posted right on point and correct others for making the error you demonstrate here. Immediate victims deserve justice, deserve compensation/reparations. Now–extend your analogy to the grandchildren of the mass murderer. Your punishment for them is what?

#7–“The past” … is indeed truly irrelevant for those living for the future.

The past is never irrelevant, bobbo. Those who believe that they are “living for the future” may choose to ignore the past, but that means ignoring critical aspects of the present and the future, as well. /// I didn't digress to parse it when posted and seems too obvious to parse now. I will only on your request. Just too anal for my high flying spirits.

#8–The plain fact is that we have racial disparities in this country which are the result of history. /// or human nature? Everything is the result of history. Mathematically, it drops out of the equation. (Context!!!!)

#9–We can try to move forward without acknowledging or addressing this fact, but we will inevitably fail. /// The USA has acknowledged and addressed the fact. YOU just aren't satisfied. "Inevitably fail?" Thats not very positive nor imaginative. You sound like a republican. I'm with Bill Cosby==stop blaming everyone around you but yourself/family. Horatio Algers==life sucks, now get on with it.

#10–Yet opportunity in this country is largely about what circumstances one is born into, and this is heavily dependent upon, among other things, race. /// Yea, I can basically agree. Now, should the remedy being individuals dealing with their circumstances, or passively waiting for society to cure their ills? Or a more subtle combo? Thats why I have always aggitated for free, accessible, quality healthcare and education for all. After that–life will still suck but you have some tools. Why not advocate healthcare and education as the redemptive cure for the living consequences? ((I have your fantasy answer, and your likely answer in mind.))

Are we having fun yet?
12:43 pm, 6 August, 2009.
James says:

We're always having fun, bobbo, aren't we?

an example would be: “Yes, I can see that one view of causation of the CW could be stopping the South from seceding thereby allowing slavery to spread can be legitimately thought of as being fought to stop slavery.”

Yet, as you correctly point out, I can't see how the Civil War can be seen as having been fought to end slavery. I'm not even sure I understand you here, as I believe this is a new argument: The Union did fight in order to prevent the South from seceding, but how would secession have spread slavery further? And how would fighting in order to preserve the Union, and coincidentally managing to prevent that further spread, be seen as fighting to end slavery?

The actions of the North were of the many threads leading to the CW but nothing “forced” anything.

I'm sure this is purely a matter of semantics, bobbo. The Southern elites could have allowed their way of life to be destroyed, just as the Japanese leadership could have refrained from attacking Pearl Harbor despite believing that not acting would lead to their defeat (assuming, in both cases, that these arguments are correct). Was either group "forced" to act? It depends on what you mean by the word.

In hindsight, “the South” would have been well advised to not attack the North, just secede and let the issues simmer. Same with Japan and all other turning points of history.

I'm not sure that those southerners who wanted to continue profiting from slavery, and had no intention of sharing their society equally with black slaves, would agree with you.

Nor, I suspect, would many pre-war Japanese have agreed that it was best to accept the loss of their empire rather than fight for it. A matter of different values, of course, as illustrated by the fact that few Japanese citizens would endorse this decision today.

I wonder what would have happened if they had offered to join the Allies? That would have gotten them the oil they needed.

The Japanese were convinced, and perhaps rightly so, that they were being denied access to oil because of their aggressive moves in the Pacific, not because of their sympathies with the Third Reich. Joining the allies against Hitler would not have worked, in this view, unless the Japanese also agreed to surrender their new imperial possessions in Asia.

So–doomed with a War, unknown what would happen with mere secession as that is the counterfactual position.

This is an interesting position, bobbo, although I believe it's another new argument. In effect, I believe you're asking whether the southern elites shouldn't have felt compelled to start a war because they could have seen a peaceful path to secession.

This is, perhaps, true. However, I think you need to ask yourself why, in fact, the South didn't simply secede, but also attacked federal installations. For instance, was Lincoln trying to goad the Confederacy into attacking Union forces, and thereby starting a war to undo secession? Did he set up a situation in which the Confederacy would feel unable to tolerate Union military bases on its soil?

Fort Sumter, after all, was designed to hold a key Confederate harbor, and federal forces had no intention of turning that fort over to the Confederacy. In fact, the federal response to secession was to build up Union fortifications in the South, and at the time Sumter was attacked, I believe a Union fleet was arriving to further reinforce its troops.

and yet you do [deny the complexity of history] by refusing to imagine any of the many threads leading to a reasonable conclusion that slavery was the cause of the CW and the CW ended slavery EQUALS the CW was fought to end slavery.

That has nothing to do with the complexity of history, bobbo.

You can think of this as a struggle over semantics if you'd like: I believe that you can't say the Civil War was "fought to end slavery" if neither side was trying to end slavery. That phrase means that one side or the other wanted the outcome and fought, at least in part, for that purpose. That simply isn't the case here, despite all the complexities of the situation.

Or you can think of this as a logical problem if you'd prefer: I don't see how "slavery was [a] cause of the Civil War" and "the Civil War ended slavery" lead to the conclusion that, therefore, "the Civil War was fought to end slavery."

Close enough “if” you want it to be.

No. The Union could not agree to end slavery if it won. This didn't change until the war was almost over, when Congress finally, barely, managed to agree to end slavery.

The Union would never have gone to war to end slavery. That much is clear. And, of course, the other side was fighting to preserve slavery.

At best, slavery's end was a happy byproduct of the fact that the Union went to war for other reasons and, once it had done so, and had demonized slavery, reluctantly concluded that it should impose the end of slavery on a defeated South.

Because that is what HISTORY teaches us is pragmatically the best thing to do

Ah. That's a very different proposition, bobbo, and not one which follows from your proposition, which was simply to imagine that the Civil War had, in fact, been fought to end slavery.

I think you'll find yourself hard-pressed to demonstrate that history tells us what is best here, but I await your argument.

your constant hand wringing about the living consequences WHILE FAILING to present a concrete plan of correction is actually more harmful than beneficial.

I fail to see how. For one thing, the wound caused by unresolved racial injustice is festering all by itself. I'm not causing that to happen by broaching the subject and suggesting that we should sort out what's happened and what to do about it.

For another thing, I do have a concrete plan of action. Just because you wish I were in favor of reparations for slavery, doesn't mean that it's the only approach to this subject. If you're worried that my plan won't get the job done, then I invite you to be more radical than I am.

PICK ANYTHING: none of it will work.

Actually, bobbo, all you're saying is that nothing that's been tried before has worked. That doesn't mean that nothing will ever work.

In fact, you're saying less than that: you're merely saying that nothing that's been tried before has gotten the entire job done yet.

In fact, we've made tremendous progress in the last forty years, thanks in part to the kinds of approaches you're talking about. This isn't something that can be fixed entirely overnight.

Can’t judge his character until we pay for our past sins/current benefits secured therefrom?

I'm not asking for anyone to pay for anything. I do believe that Dr. King would agree that we need to do more than to ignore the concrete consequences of the past and pretend that nothing's wrong.

There will be “injustice” no matter what it done.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Moving on will get us thru it quicker than endlessly going around in circles ….

If by "moving on" you still mean "acting color-blind without addressing the underlying racial disparities," then I'm quite certain that approach is the slowest one possible for changing our current circumstances.

NOT EVEN A CLOSE ANALOGY. … Immediate victims deserve justice, deserve compensation/reparations. Now–extend your analogy to the grandchildren of the mass murderer. Your punishment for them is what?

Bobbo, I'm not advocating punishment for anyone.

This isn't an analogy about reparations. You asked me to pretend that the Civil War had been fought to end slavery, and said that this would tell us that we should put the past behind us.

The point of the analogy is that even if the Civil War had been fought to end slavery, this wouldn't have allowed us to say that it was time to move on.

How could it? Terrible things happened, and the fact that the nation merely stopped those actions doesn't resolve anything.

The USA has acknowledged and addressed the fact. YOU just aren’t satisfied.

Really? When?

The U.S. hasn't acknowledged or apologized for slavery and racial discrimination, and it certainly hasn't addressed the results of that history.

Now, should the remedy being individuals dealing with their circumstances, or passively waiting for society to cure their ills? Or a more subtle combo? … Why not advocate healthcare and education as the redemptive cure for the living consequences?

I believe that quality education is a critical ingredient in making our society stronger and more fair, so I believe we agree to that extent. I suspect we also agree about the combination of individuals addressing their circumstances and society addressing systemic problems, despite your labeling the latter as "passively waiting."
1:16 pm, 6 August, 2009.
bobbo says:

Just posting what could be very interesting TV coming up one hour from now: (History Channel on Cable) My schedule says repeated in your area in 45 minutes too.

Indian Warriors: The Untold Story of the Civil War

Various tribes choose sides, fight and help tip the balance of the Civil War.

Why would American Indians take up either side? Promises? They know the white man speaks with forked tongue. Also interesting how "variable" the Indian response to the "black white man" was before the CW at least. Some made them slaves, others set them free, in and out of their own tribes.

Seems to me those red bastards who "volunteered" to keep the black man down deserve some special place in the living consequences–but those fighting the South still should pay for the benefits they received from slavery. Maybe your position is "right" (whenever you get one) but beyond computation?

I did see you posted rather quickly above. I've given my best today. I saw one sentence–still no give. Hah, hah. Well, I'm posting because I still get something out of it. No fun at all if my opinion never changes.
3:35 pm, 7 August, 2009.
bobbo says:

Well rested now, looking forward to what you posted. I will respond to each point without reading past to your entire post. Usually I read, consider, read then post. With that as prelude, here is my unconsidered response:

1. We’re always having fun, bobbo, aren’t we?/// Well, I do. I don't see how YOU could be though. Seems to me your controlled reactions must be an exercise in suppression? Only getting a "new idea" every once in a while would make keeping this blog interesting to me. YOU changed my mind on the causes/lack there of for the CW. Not so much "changed" as giving me the insight as to how one thinks if they can't imagine slavery being the cause. So, your blog works for me.

2–GAG ME!!!! Scrolling Up to get your next sentence I notice how long/unwieldy your response is. Thats "good" like Harry Potter is good I suppose. I may have to skip the less interesting/repetitive elements. But I see you need help.

"The Union did fight in order to prevent the South from seceding, but how would secession have spread slavery further?" /// The raw territories presumably would vote whether they wanted to be free or slave. Again presumably, this would determine which USA they wanted to join, if not start a third country?

3. Union did fight in order to prevent the South from seceding, but how would secession have spread slavery further? /// Earlier I posted the North fought for no reason or just to protect itself from an invading force. I can't imagine how you concoct "self defense" into an intention to prevent secession. THAT decision came later after the North defeated the South. You certainly are manufacturing reasons of no impact at the time after the dust has settled.

4. And how would fighting in order to preserve the Union, and coincidentally managing to prevent that further spread, be seen as fighting to end slavery? /// "A House divided against itself cannot stand." You don't fight to preserve something that cannot stand, you fight to preserve what will endure.

5. The actions of the North were of the many threads leading to the CW but nothing “forced” anything.

I’m sure this is purely a matter of semantics, bobbo. /// No. Forced means having no other options. It does not mean choosing a bad option that seemed like the best at the time. Silly to argue about what words mean when there is a dictionary to bring order/understanding to your position. Its the technique of a philanderer of the truth. Someone who wants to remove the burden of the consequences of making choices. No choice, no burden. History does not force any outcome. Thats why studying it does not make it predictive.

6. I’m not sure that those southerners who wanted to continue profiting from slavery, and had no intention of sharing their society equally with black slaves, would agree with you. /// Huh? If the North did not defend itself and beat the South Militarily–ie, the South seceded and the North did nothing or invaded and lost, the institution of Slavery would have continued. How would that have significantly changed the Plantation system? You are making several unstated assumptions that as best as I can spy them make no sense at all.

7–I’m not sure that those southerners who wanted to continue profiting from slavery, and had no intention of sharing their society equally with black slaves, would agree with you. /// Only an aside, but it seems to me it was also other poor whites the plantation owners did not want to share their wealth with. Wage Slavery/share cropping is only a half step above slavery itself. They were the typical repuglicans of their day. "I got mine, I'm going to keep it." and the poor white ignorant trash supporting their leaders to their own detriment are pretty much the same as the dumb asses today rioting to prevent better healthcare. History is depressing.

8. unless the Japanese also agreed to surrender their new imperial possessions in Asia. /// Thats right. 80%, make it 60% of option No2 instead of 0% of option One. Chess rather than checkers.

9. ….. For instance, was Lincoln trying to goad the Confederacy into attacking Union forces …. /// Heh, heh. Yes, everything is intentional. Why not attack on day one with no reserves? Any idiot would build up supplies. I would guess the building up of forces was not a "goad" as it was good planning even if such Northern Preparation "forced" the South to Act asap before the North was even more prepared to repel or defend itself. Close, but still not really the same thing. But that all goes to military practice, not in the scope here.

10–That phrase means that one side or the other wanted the outcome and fought, at least in part, for that purpose. /// Talk about making a semantical argument!! What is "causation" in something as complex as the CW? Slavery is/isn't the base/root cause of the CW all depending on semantics. I can see it. Why can't you?

You have this Nation where Natural Law says "all men are created equal" and this Nation must make its way in a world surrounded by superior powers. The Nation is half free and half slave. It is divided. It will not grow and prosper and survive the meddling of foreign powers if it does not grow large and powerful. Slavery has got to stop. Ordinances are passed to achieve this end. An anti-slaver is elected President. The South sees these developments as an infringement on their desire for a few repuglicans to make a lot of money and they don't care about National Power in the World of Nations. They just want to sell cotton, so they ATTACK!!! They lose. The North achieves its long stated goals: a house united able to take its rightful place in the world. Semantics.

11. The Union would never have gone to war to end slavery. That much is clear. And, of course, the other side was fighting to preserve slavery. /// Gee, then the South was pretty stupid and they weren't forced. Good thing the South didn't have access to all this information. Speaking of semantics, do you understand what "inextricably entwined" means? Pretty entwined: The South started a war to preserve slavery and they lost the war and they lost slavery, but the war wasn't about preventing slavery. """ oooookkkkkaaaayyyyy""""

12. At best, slavery’s end was a happy byproduct of the fact that the Union went to war for other reasons and, once it had done so, and had demonized slavery, reluctantly concluded that it should impose the end of slavery on a defeated South./// Hah, hah. Long arguments are soooo revealing. We have to do this again after a few beers. I gave you only a little bit of the anti-slavery laws being passed in the North. I gave you the very document that South Carolina seceded with. The House Divided Speech. I guess the only "cause" of anything is what is put on a bumper sticker? Damn!!! No bumpers back then. No wonder its so hard to figure out. === Is sarcasm better or worse than repeating myself?

13–No. The Union could not agree to end slavery if it won. This didn’t change until the war was almost over, when Congress finally, barely, managed to agree to end slavery. /// The argument you make actually flows in exactly THE OTHER DIRECTION. Why fight the whole war with slavery legal in the North and then with the War Won and thereafter make slavery illegal? Doesn't that just undeniably demonstrate the "underlying agenda" not put on a bumpersticker in order to win the war first? Remember there were a lot of stupid repuglicans back then who if activated would have made winning the war more difficult if not impossible. You say Lincoln was smart enough to goad the South into attacking, but not smart enough to keep his motivation out of sight ((actually only out of "in your face")) if thats what it took to win the war???? House Divided Speech means absolutely nothing to you? What does the House divided speech mean to You James?

14 I think you’ll find yourself hard-pressed to demonstrate that history tells us what is best here, but I await your argument. /// I gave my argument. When you look to the past, you engender tribal, religious, and sectarian disputes THAT NEVER END. Middle East looking to the past, their solution is in the future. You can wait for Godot, or suck it up and move on.

15. For one thing, the wound caused by unresolved racial injustice is festering all by itself. I’m not causing that to happen by broaching the subject and suggesting that we should sort out what’s happened and what to do about it. /// Thats directly what you are doing by suggesting there is anything that needs to be sorted out. Thats the injury of your living consequences. There is due regard for the past, normally engaged in by a few book writing egg heads, and the rest of us who unmolested are happy to accept what we have as the status quo/the given, and move on from there. You are well intentioned, but unintendedly very wrong headed.

16–For another thing, I do have a concrete plan of action. /// Damn!!!! You do????? I thought you expressly rejected any plans? Holy semantics Batman!!! Where is it posted. Delete Everything I have ever posted. Bring me a nice iced koolaid. I await the link or your precise of it. You may be lying in the weeds a la Abraham Lincoln keeping your ultimate goals to yourself. I don't wish to force your hand prematurely.

17. Just because you wish I were in favor of reparations for slavery /// No, I'm not. From our exchanges, I just keep getting the impression that you would be for that. You constantly say you are not, rinse, repeat. Semantics: whats your plan of reparations vs how does one acknowledge what is due in view of the living consequences? I can't judge until I see what you plan/suggest to do. Link?

18. How could it? Terrible things happened, and the fact that the nation merely stopped those actions doesn’t resolve anything. /// I see your point, you don't see mine. xxxx. I'm wavering. 40 acres and a mule? Return to Africa/Liberia? Reconstruction? xxx "Merely stopped." Civil War was a mere stop? Kinda dismissive of 625,000 dead? ( (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war)). Well, if resolution was needed, the TIME to get it done was 150 years ago. What is "owed" to BOTH SIDES after the lawsuits lapsed was a society grounded in "non-discrimination" simple recognition that we all are unfortunately "the same" in all things that matter.

19–If by “moving on” you still mean “acting color-blind without addressing the underlying racial disparities,” then I’m quite certain that approach is the slowest one possible for changing our current circumstances. /// Hey, there it might be. Pragmatically, I think just the opposite.

I'm sure I missed a lot. ONe draft only. How do you get type into italics, bold, underlined etc? Do you have a link showing how to do it?

Respectfully yours, bobbo.
9:09 am, 10 August, 2009.
James says:

Whew. Okay, here goes:

Seems to me your controlled reactions must be an exercise in suppression?

It's interesting, bobbo, that you see my reactions as controlled and suppressed. Why? I'm constantly learning and being challenged, so it's not that life isn't interesting. And it's surely not because I'm refraining from expressing myself fully and openly ….

I notice how long/unwieldy your response is.

Indeed, my responses are often too long. It's a matter of available time: as someone once said, I don't always have the time to write more concisely.

The raw territories presumably would vote whether they wanted to be free or slave. Again presumably, this would determine which USA they wanted to join, if not start a third country?

I'm fairly certain, bobbo, that the various territories would have been incorporated as states into whichever nation, the Union or the Confederacy, possessed them. Just as U.S. continental possessions invariably chose to become states, not to petition to join another nation. It was the terms of admission into the Union (and presumably into the Confederacy) which determined whether a state would be slave or free.

I posted the North fought for no reason or just to protect itself from an invading force. I can’t imagine how you concoct “self defense” into an intention to prevent secession.

I do believe that the Union was motivated to fight in large part by a desire to prevent the South from seceding. This doesn't mean that there weren't elements in the Union which would have preferred to see the South secede, or which preferred that outcome to a bloody civil war. But those elements did not, in the end, prevail.

THAT decision came later after the North defeated the South. You certainly are manufacturing reasons of no impact at the time after the dust has settled.

Preventing secession was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a reason for the war which only emerged afterward. Many in the Union were, in fact, determined to launch a war to prevent secession, and it might even be said that they succeeded. I also don't believe that there was any question about whether, if the Union won, the southern part of the country would remain in the Union.

You don’t fight to preserve something that cannot stand, you fight to preserve what will endure.

That may be, but you're assuming that the Union saw the end of slavery as a necessity, and that there was the political will to do so.

In fact, the U.S. was unable to agree on ending slavery before the war, and even the North was deeply divided on the question, with no will whatsoever to act. That reality changed somewhat with the advent of the war, but as I've noted, even in 1865, the U.S. Congress was struggling to achieve a consensus to end slavery. Abolition was hardly a foregone conclusion.

No. Forced means having no other options.

I think your response defeats itself, bobbo. Your "no" refers to my statement that this is a matter of semantics, concerning the definition of "forced." To prove that it isn't, you argue what the definition of "forced" should be.

Since you suggest consulting a dictionary, Merriam-Webster defines "force" as, among other things, "compelling by physical, moral, or intellectual means," or to "cause," especially by "logical necessity."

Far from being a "philanderer of the truth," I am using a definition consistent with the dictionary. Your claim that "forced" can only refer to "having no other options," not merely having only bad options, is not.

Huh? If the North did not defend itself and beat the South Militarily–ie, the South seceded and the North did nothing or invaded and lost, the institution of Slavery would have continued. How would that have significantly changed the Plantation system?

You're right, bobbo. You were arguing that both the Japanese and the Confederates should have refrained from what they did, and so I read too quickly and assumed you were referred to not attacking at Pearl Harbor and not seceding from the Union.

You were, in fact, suggesting that the Confederacy should have declared its secession but refrained from attacking federal installations in the Confederacy.

This might have been a wiser course of action, but you're the one making several assumptions in arguing that this would have allowed slavery to continue. Could a sovereign nation have continued to exist with another nation's military bases inside of it? Would it have been politically feasible to continue allowing the resupply of those bases? Would the Union have permitted secession indefinitely?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know that the leadership of the Confederacy felt they had little choice, in the end, if they were to preserve the institution of slavery.

it seems to me it was also other poor whites the plantation owners did not want to share their wealth with. Wage Slavery/share cropping is only a half step above slavery itself.

That's my understanding, as well, except that I'd be hesitant about so casually comparing chattel slavery to the lives of free whites in the U.S. in the 19th century.

I would guess the building up of forces was not a “goad” as it was good planning

Perhaps. My sense, though, is that the Union did relatively little to build up its installations in the South during this period, and what they did do was not necessarily in order to strength their defenses. As for overall Union military strength, I'm not sure how much that changed, relatively to Confederate strength, during the same period. In other words, I think you're dismissing too quickly the argument that Lincoln wasn't able, politically, to attack the southern states, and needed to goad them into attacking his forces.

What is “causation” in something as complex as the CW? Slavery is/isn’t the base/root cause of the CW all depending on semantics. I can see it. Why can’t you?

I'm not talking about causation, bobbo.

Slavery surely was one of the causal factors which produced the Civil War. I've said so repeatedly.

That doesn't mean, however, that the war was fought by either side in order to end slavery. Not even in part.

There's a difference between what causes events, and what motivates people to act. This isn't a trivial difference, and it surely matters when we're talking about whether or not the U.S. today deserves credit for the way in which slavery ended.

It will not grow and prosper and survive the meddling of foreign powers if it does not grow large and powerful. Slavery has got to stop.

That's your argument, bobbo. I would suggest that this isn't true at all: that slavery had caused the U.S. to prosper, and set in on a path to eclipse the other great powers within another half-century or so.

What would have happened if slavery had not ended in the U.S. Surely more economic prosperity, and presumably eventually slavery would have become economically less useful and died out. Would the U.S. also have suffered disadvantages, through being "divided"? I don't know.

The North achieves its long stated goals: a house united able to take its rightful place in the world.

But, bobbo, the North had never stated the abolition of slavery as a goal.

If it had, perhaps you could argue that it fought the Civil War in part to end slavery. But the North didn't agree on abolition until after the war was almost over, and after sentiment towards slavery and the South had changed drastically in the North.

Gee, then the South was pretty stupid and they weren’t forced.

No, as I've said, the South was worried that slavery was doomed if they stayed in the Union. This is entirely different from whether or not the Union would have launched a war against the South to end slavery.

The South started a war to preserve slavery and they lost the war and they lost slavery, but the war wasn’t about preventing slavery. “”" oooookkkkkaaaayyyyy”"”"

The war wasn't about "preventing" slavery, bobbo. It was certainly, from the southern perspective, partly about preserving slavery.

What am I saying that isn't clear? The leadership of the South wanted fiercely to preserve slavery, and felt that slavery was doomed to a slow death if the South remained in the Union. This was a political issue, to be resolved by removing themselves from that political system.

The Union, on the other hand, was decidedly of mixed opinion about the merits of slavery. Until, that is, the war was fought, after which the abolitionist side was able to (barely) win support for ending southern slavery.

Isn't this basic high school history?

I gave you only a little bit of the anti-slavery laws being passed in the North. I gave you the very document that South Carolina seceded with.

If you'll recall, that document indicated that some within the South feared slavery would end within the federal system, as I've argued. That document did not indicate what northern political sentiments were.

Why fight the whole war with slavery legal in the North and then with the War Won and thereafter make slavery illegal?

If you'll recall, there were repeated attempts in the North to abolish slavery before the war, each of which fell far short of success.

During the war, there were efforts to arrange for abolition after the war, which also failed, but came closer. Near the end of the war, there was another effort at securing abolition, which succeeded.

In other words, political sentiment in the North changed over time. Specifically, the impact of years of bloody warfare, as always, included the demonization of the enemy and everything they were believed to stand for. More people felt that slavery was inherently evil … while, at the same time, fewer people connected to slavery economically felt able to speak up for preserving slavery.

You say Lincoln was smart enough to goad the South into attacking, but not smart enough to keep his motivation out of sight … if thats what it took to win the war????

I haven't said that Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, or even that he was personally unwilling to wage civil war in order to end it. I think the latter is a stretch, but it's certainly possible. It was widely suspected in certain quarters at the time.

I've been talking about the war aims, and the motivations, of the Union, not of any particular person in the Union, even the commander-in-chief.

What does the House divided speech mean to You James?

That Lincoln argued, in public, that slavery was ultimately bad for the Union and would not last?

When you look to the past, you engender tribal, religious, and sectarian disputes THAT NEVER END.

That's not an argument, bobbo, that's an assertion. You're offering a conclusion without argument, and then arguing that the case in point is an example.

It is simply not true that every time anyone looks to the past, they engender disputes that never end.

Thats directly what you are doing by suggesting there is anything that needs to be sorted out.

Hardly. To believe that, you'd have to believe that no one is particularly bothered by the racial injustice left over from this dark history, and that any effort to deal with it will inevitably result only in worse tensions. I believe neither.

the rest of us who unmolested are happy to accept what we have as the status quo

I think you grossly underestimate, bobbo, the number of Americans who are not content with the status quo when it comes to how slavery and racial discrimination have left matters.

Have you never listened to anyone talking furiously on this subject? Have you never seen a riot produced by such inequities?

Or do you merely assume that these incidents must be caused, in every case, by someone focused on the past?

I thought you expressly rejected any plans?

Sigh. I merely expressly reject any plans for reparations, bobbo. And, once again, I do so because I don't support reparations in the first place.

I've offered my plan of action to you before, bobbo. Each time, you rejected it as insufficient, and insisted that I produce a detailed plan for reparations.

I just keep getting the impression that you would be for that. You constantly say you are not, rinse, repeat.

And yet, you persist in saying that I am, causing me to choose between repeating myself, or ignoring you ….

whats your plan of reparations vs how does one acknowledge what is due in view of the living consequences? I can’t judge until I see what you plan/suggest to do.

I've told you before what I plan to do, and believe that others should do, about the living consequences of slavery and discrimination.

Am I misreading you here, or are you offering me a choice between advocating for reparations or else for "what is due" for slavery and discrimination? I reject both options wholeheartedly.

“Merely stopped.” Civil War was a mere stop? Kinda dismissive of 625,000 dead?

Not dismissive of the deaths. Just dismissive of the idea that they relate to slavery in the way that you believe.

Those dead did not sacrifice themselves in order to end slavery. And even if they had, that would mean that the nation had "merely" ceased to practice that evil behavior, not done anything at all about what it had already done.

if resolution was needed, the TIME to get it done was 150 years ago.

I can't argue with you there.

Of course, nothing was done. And if it were now 149 years ago, or 145 years, I suspect you wouldn't try arguing that it was already too late. Slippery slope, isn't it?

What is “owed” to BOTH SIDES after the lawsuits lapsed was a society grounded in “non-discrimination”

So once a little time has passed, without the victims being allowed to sue for compensation, you say that the proper solution has become no further discrimination? But leaving what has already been done alone?

I can think of many reasons why it may be far too late to do anything now, assuming that lawsuits or a political solution were in order then. But I can't see how you would even begin to argue that non-discrimination in the future, with tremendous inequities persisting because of past discrimination, would somehow be just (in your words, "what is 'owed' to both sides"). At most, I would think you'd have to argue that nothing can realistically be done now, but that this is in no way "just," merely the pragmatic reality.

How do you get type into italics, bold, underlined etc?

The WordPress system allows relatively simple HTML code in its comments: italics, bold, links, etc. Are you familiar with HTML? I can't show you directly, since the system would translate the examples as actual comments, but I could spell it out if you'd like.
5:19 pm, 10 August, 2009.
bobbo says:

Always excellent James. You humble me. Haven't changed my mind—-just humbled me. Well—I don't think I'm going to ever say again the CW "WAS FOUGHT TO END SLAVERY." What I will say is that it is complicated. Complicated, yea===thats the ticket.

More later, but the gravamen:

"I’ve offered my plan of action to you before, bobbo. Each time, you rejected it as insufficient, and insisted that I produce a detailed plan for reparations." //// I don't/can't recall any plan about anything from you. Now, I "believe you," I'm just pointing out how dense your loyal opposition is AND its why I asked for a link that you haven't provided. I tried to search your website for "plan" and "plan of action" but got no where. Neither does a Google search–may be a few days before only THIS thread shows up? I went back to your home page. Nothing. I went to your "about this blog" page. No plan. But "the purpose of this blog should incorporate/refer to/be inextricably entwined in such a plan?

To wit: "This blog is devoted to exploring the history and legacy of the slave trade and slavery in the United States………..Because many Americans remain unaware of the full extent of this history, they cannot properly appreciate the impact of this history and its legacy on racial justice and inequality today." //// Is this your plan? To educate, to inform, to be a resource?? Like Obama's healthcare plan–a direction is not enough. You need a nuts and bolts PLAN to push an agenda. Otherwise you get too many birthers like ME!!!!

Please link to what you call your plan? That "thing" that I have rejected before? xxx bobbo
1:41 am, 11 August, 2009.
James says:

With all due respect, bobbo, I think you're being a bit too literal in what you're searching for. It's true that I never use the words "plan of action" to describe what I envision, nor do I routinely lay out a proposed course of action unless the subject comes up.

As I've said before, the purpose of this blog is educational. It is not meant to inspire political or social action, and I do not urge any particular course of action on anyone.

So, yes, the plan for this blog is to educate and to serve as a resource. You say that isn't enough, but what could possibly be wrong with that? I don't believe that a class, a textbook, a lecture or a blog needs to do more than educate on a topic.

If I wanted to push a political agenda, like the president is promoting health care reform, then of course I would need to provide a nuts-and-bolts plan. But that's not my aim here. As for my overall approach to the living consequences, you've already stated half of it without needing to be told, and the rest is also described on the "about the blog" page.
10:20 am, 11 August, 2009.
bobbo says:

Thats fair James. We actually agree on most things:

Slavery is a violation of Natural Law and our Founding Principles.

There was a CW.

Enslaved people deserved compensation of some sort at their liberation.

Reparations at this time is too difficult to calculate beyond a general program.

The ultimate goal was expressed by MLK.

I hope I didn't push that too far?

My ONLY purpose in a "plan of action" is that getting specific helps clarify issues that remain hidden when held sub-voce.

I perceive more than just education in your site's content and the "attitude" of your responses. Its not just educational because there is a constant bias*. A bias that there is a "living consequence" but as you told me==that is a conclusion. I agree blacks today "as a group" enjoy the American Experience less than whites as a group. I'm sure the living consequences plays a role in that but there are many other factors as well, the biggest one in my mind being "family values" taught on mother's knee and in the garage/back yard by dear old Dad.

Some ideas while correct really have no utility. Some ideas while correct and utilitarian are not acceptable.

In the end, what you/we think/know is of minimum value, its what you DO that is all important. Plans of Action, even minimal ones are the meat of any issue.

Skipping over the details slightly addressed before, for myself, I think the greatest boon/help to blacks would be for society to offer a race neutral social safety net (health and education–jobs of kind) and a real, constant, multi-faceted value system of individual merit not based on class/race. We are on that road now, hope we continue.

*bias: giving only one side of an argument. Why no anti-black information? Why no pro white heritage information? Why no info on reverse discrimination? A review of attempts to address the disadvantages of being black in America. Comparison to what other countries have experienced? When "information" doesn't lead to good and bad results, it has been filtered. That filter may have most of your plan of action caught in its fibers?

For what its worth. //// bobbo.
10:23 am, 11 August, 2009.
bobbo says:

Darn, forgot: think Mission Statement. Every blog should have one. Nothing wrong with being an information source.
10:54 am, 11 August, 2009.
James says:

Thanks for keeping your usual positive attitude, bobbo. Especially with my last response, which was a bit terse since I was heading out the door to speak to a class in Boston about this very subject.

I wouldn't agree with everything that you listed, but I think you're on the right track as far as sorting out areas of agreement and disagreement.

I agree with your insistence on specifics, by the way. I simply reject the idea that I need to advocate any plan for reparations at all.

Its not just educational because there is a constant bias*. A bias that there is a “living consequence” but as you told me==that is a conclusion

Bobbo, I don't see that as a bias, but rather as a purpose of the blog — to elucidate this history and its living consequences.

Now, you could certainly argue that there aren't any living consequences of this history today. However, I believe that's flat-out wrong, and I don't know anyone who teaches this material who would give such arguments any attention, except perhaps to raise them in order to debunk them.

As for what, specifically, those living consequences are, I do have an obligation to present arguments in a balanced way. However, I think you would agree that, if anything, I bend over backwards in presenting information and conclusions in a non-judgmental way. Certainly, you've repeatedly taken me to task for that very approach.

I’m sure the living consequences plays a role in that but there are many other factors as well, the biggest one in my mind being “family values”

The two aren't separate, bobbo. Of course cultural values play an important role in issues like education, income, and homeownership, to name just a few. However, where do the values that you believe contribute to success or failure come from? For one thing, poorer communities, and those with fewer resources or more hardships, tend to exhibit the values you associate with failure, regardless of race. For another, black communities in this country come by such values in large part because of the history they have endured and the lessons which have been learned (and which will take many generations to unlearn, as all cultural values tend to do).

Now, if you are suggesting that values are a more important factor in the persistence of racial inequality than the more direct consequences of this history, I would suggest that there is a wealth of evidence to indicate that this is not the case, and that there is only wild supposition to suggest that values play the dominant role.

In the end, what you/we think/know is of minimum value, its what you DO that is all important.

That sounds nice, bobbo, until you stop to think that what I propose to do is to educate. It isn't about what I know, but what others know that counts. And I do believe that greater public understanding about the issues covered on this blog will, in the long run, dramatically change how people in this country look at race today.

Why no anti-black information? Why no pro white heritage information?

I think that I provide information, all the time, about contrary views, if only to present those views and argue against them.

If you're asking why I don't spend any time blogging about people who are overtly racist and hostile to blacks, well, I don't see the point. While overt racism still plays a role in our society, this isn't the 1950s. I think most of us have decided how we feel about that, and I don't believe those views are going to become any more significant than they are right now.

Why no info on reverse discrimination?

I've touched on that topic before, and I was speaking about that very issue in Boston this morning. I'll see whether I can pull together a short essay on affirmative action and "reverse discrimination" this week, based on the information and ideas I was presenting today.

Comparison to what other countries have experienced?

I've mentioned other countries frequently on this blog, to highlight parallel efforts to deal with similar issues or to point out the ways in which those countries actually view race very differently. I think there are important comparisons to be made, but other countries generally have very different experiences with slavery and/or race, and so it's more a matter of explaining those differences and why they don't approach these issues in the same way.

Darn, forgot: think Mission Statement. Every blog should have one. Nothing wrong with being an information source.

Feel free to e-mail me and suggest changes to the "about the blog" page, which certainly has the tone of a mission statement at several points. I'm always open to suggestions, especially about expressing my ideas more clearly.
6:39 pm, 11 August, 2009.
bobbo says:

Heh, heh. My ex-wife was and is a university professor in the History of Science. She commented once "the worst" students were older men. They would read up on an issue and then just want to argue, not consider a new/(her) opinion/facts.

I haven't had it firmly in mind you had such a close university connection. I would have been predisposed to argue less with you had I known–to whatever degree I'm assuming now.

I thought you were just some guy with a blog, then one having a family connection, then one devoting a bit of private time to it I assumed from the consequential effects from the documentary? Didn't think about what you actually might do to earn a living. Guest Lecturer? Assoc Prof? Whatever, its all good. Your students should be flooding this blog? Why aren't they????

I was thinking about what one should "DO" once fully informed of the living consequences. I think I have more knowledge about TLC than those who are totally uniformed and what I take from this knowledge base is to treat everyone as individuals and not to assume any one thing based on their ethnic background. Group averages/norms may establish different baselines between groups, but not for individual members of those groups. Outside of probabilities with great variation, group statistics mean little in application to individuals.

As I understand it your "Plan of Action" regarding reparations is that none are due. After becoming more informed than most, certainly including myself, you have concluded reparations are not warranted.

Pretty subtle stuff. The difference between putting pressure towards ending the institution of slavery, getting invaded as a result, defending yourself and ending slavery vs fighting to end slavery. The difference between concluding reparations are not due, but that recognition for the benefits received by todays society should be made. More than semantics. An apology of some nature Plus anything else? If there was ever a Plan of Action, it would certainly include an apology of some sort. Would it include anything else?

I studied alternative medicine/health food/naturalistic medicine/vegetarianism for awhile. I couldn't consider that study valid if at the end of it I did not decide to utilize certain principles expounded/revealed/developed. So, I did diet/herbs/tantra for a few months. For some reason, it did not take, took too much effort. I'm in some in between status now.

Its is worthwhile to study history in general. Racial History, military history, social history, religious history, Gender Studies, economic history===etc. All have their living consequences. What to think, what to do?

Maintaining a blog like this is really admirable. I think I would create a reference area and collect those items you come across that "touch on" the living consequences whether you agree with them or not. Certainly they could be edited in and out. Don't ever edit completely out==just an off blog location of those really abhorrent things you come across/get sent? Such things may be insignificant now, who knows what the future will bring.

I think the Articles of Secession I linked to are just really excellent for all sorts of things. Once copied, sorted, and pasted, that reference might spark/confirm issues as yet unraised? Lots of others too. Hey===all it takes is time and attention???? Well, another post without me finding a link to learn html coding. >>>>> A google second later: this looks good: http://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm

Bias: family values are so infused with TLC that they don't fairly form a second variable. I think you got some white guilt floating around. But that is another subject and I left my Rorschachs at home. (smile.)
7:08 am, 29 October, 2009.
R.I. to vote on changing state’s name | The Living Consequences says:

[…] written before about the movement in Rhode Island to remove the words “Providence Plantations” from […]

The Living Consequences

“‘Plantations’ in state’s name is offensive remnant of slavery trade”

144529 Responses2009-05-19+23%3A01%3A24James to ““‘Plantations’ in state’s name is offensive remnant of slavery trade””

Leave a Reply

Using This Blog

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Featured Posts

Categories

Blogroll

Administrative