whenever white people try this "judge them by the morality of their time", what they always imply is judge them by the morality of the rich, powerful, white people of their time. pretty sure if you asked any of the slaves, indians or women of the time what they truly about these great men of state, many might have advocating for their immediate liberation, even if it involved violence upon these "great men of state" who would invariably move to restrain them.
i don't have it in front of me to reference, but i'm pretty sure Zinn brings up some pretty strong evidence of near constant attempts at violent insurrection among slaves as well as organized, brutal repression and reprisal of any spark that might catch. that's not even getting into the constant stream of those fleeing bondage. the portrait of the southern plantation slave passively accepting their situation is a myth, and apparently one that hagiographers of the founders rely deeply upon.
Yeah there's also the issue (I think Zinn brings this up too) that we know slaveholders at the time were scared as shit of slave revolts. That tells me they absolutely knew that slaves hated being slaves (surprise surprise). So slave owners knowingly perpetuated a system that they knew was incredibly oppressive.
Imagine you are a slave owner. You are literally surrounded by slaves all day. You see them work all day at your plantation in miserable conditions. You see them get beaten. You sell their children off (which any human being knows is so fucking evil) and break up married couples. You also know they hate their condition and would rebel if they were given the opportunity (and kill you without remorse in the process). And yet, you choose to keep such a system in place - hell, you consider maintaining this system to be the most important political aim possible. Now tell me with a straight face, Mr. Smithsonian, that I am not morally culpable here.
And for people who say "tHeRe'S aLwAyS bEEn sLaVeRy"... yeah, sure. But the type of chattel slavery that was brought upon the people of Africa was really on a whole other level. I mean, the transatlantic trip alone was a horror beyond words and has no parallel among any society with slaves, ever.
And there's always been a struggle for liberation from slavery. The moment shackles were first put on a human being that struggle was born. The only way to believe that abolition wasn't a widely held belief is to deny the humanity of the enslaved.
not defending it or anything, but for most of human history, slavery was "you owe me money/I kicked your ass in a war", not "the very nature of you and your people is to be subservient".
Zinn brings up some pretty strong evidence of near constant attempts at violent insurrection among slaves as well as organized, brutal repression and reprisal of any spark that might catch
Gerald Horne covers this in depth in The Counter-Revolution of 1776. Can't remember if it's that from that book or another, but there were also abolitionists at the time of the American Revolution, as well as freed black people who could (and did) tell the white aristocracy exactly what slavery was.
whenever white people try this "judge them by the morality of their time", what they always imply is judge them by the morality of the rich, powerful, white people of their time. pretty sure if you asked any of the slaves, indians or women of the time what they truly about these great men of state, many might have advocating for their immediate liberation, even if it involved violence upon these "great men of state" who would invariably move to restrain them.
i don't have it in front of me to reference, but i'm pretty sure Zinn brings up some pretty strong evidence of near constant attempts at violent insurrection among slaves as well as organized, brutal repression and reprisal of any spark that might catch. that's not even getting into the constant stream of those fleeing bondage. the portrait of the southern plantation slave passively accepting their situation is a myth, and apparently one that hagiographers of the founders rely deeply upon.
Yeah there's also the issue (I think Zinn brings this up too) that we know slaveholders at the time were scared as shit of slave revolts. That tells me they absolutely knew that slaves hated being slaves (surprise surprise). So slave owners knowingly perpetuated a system that they knew was incredibly oppressive.
Imagine you are a slave owner. You are literally surrounded by slaves all day. You see them work all day at your plantation in miserable conditions. You see them get beaten. You sell their children off (which any human being knows is so fucking evil) and break up married couples. You also know they hate their condition and would rebel if they were given the opportunity (and kill you without remorse in the process). And yet, you choose to keep such a system in place - hell, you consider maintaining this system to be the most important political aim possible. Now tell me with a straight face, Mr. Smithsonian, that I am not morally culpable here.
And for people who say "tHeRe'S aLwAyS bEEn sLaVeRy"... yeah, sure. But the type of chattel slavery that was brought upon the people of Africa was really on a whole other level. I mean, the transatlantic trip alone was a horror beyond words and has no parallel among any society with slaves, ever.
And there's always been a struggle for liberation from slavery. The moment shackles were first put on a human being that struggle was born. The only way to believe that abolition wasn't a widely held belief is to deny the humanity of the enslaved.
not defending it or anything, but for most of human history, slavery was "you owe me money/I kicked your ass in a war", not "the very nature of you and your people is to be subservient".
Gerald Horne covers this in depth in The Counter-Revolution of 1776. Can't remember if it's that from that book or another, but there were also abolitionists at the time of the American Revolution, as well as freed black people who could (and did) tell the white aristocracy exactly what slavery was.