gdp's Comments

The Living Consequences : Tom DeWolf goes on virtual book tour

Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:19:51 +0000

Well, don't keep us in suspense: what was he trying to fool you about??

The Living Consequences : A response to my lectures in New Bedford

Tue, 4 Feb 2025 21:58:27 +0000

Stephen, I appreciate your reply, all these years later. While most of human history has, indeed, been one of grinding poverty for most individuals, the enslavement of others has often resulted in dramatic inequality, with much higher levels of wealth for those who enslave others. And this was never more apparent than in the case of U.S. slavery, which vastly enriched the slave-owning and slave-trading classes, as well as bringing greater prosperity to the majority of citizens, who benefited directly or indirectly from the slave economy. As an example, consider the early industrialization of the U.S., which occurred in New England through the development of textile mills. This industry, in places like Lawrence and Lowell, brought tremendous wealth to owners and investors, and generated greater prosperity for many others in the North. And it depended critically on a vast supply of cotton as a raw input, produced primarily by enslaved laborers in the South. This is why the phrase "Lords of the Loom and Lords of the Lash" gained such currency: because, in the antebellum U.S., everyone knew well how dependent the industrial North was on southern slavery. It is simply an error to attribute the strength of the U.S. economy, and its rise to become the largest economy in the world, to the Gilded Age. By that time, the U.S. had already managed to industrialize, thanks in large part to our dominance of the global cotton market at a time when cotton was the primary raw input for industrialization and few regions outside of Europe were able to industrialize. And the U.S. economy only overtook that of Great Britain, launching a century of dominance as the world's largest economy, after the Gilded Age and well into the Progressive Era, at a time when most regions of the world outside Europe had not even industrialized and would be unable to do so for generations. I will happily stay out of your feud with "blood-drenched" and "nihilist" communists and leftists.

The Living Consequences : Compensation for Mexican braceros

Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:25:13 +0000

I'm afraid that all I know about the process is in this post. If anyone else reading this knows more, I do hope they'll post a reply!

The Living Consequences : Compensation for Mexican braceros

Fri, 3 May 2024 18:17:19 +0000

Yolanda, as you can see above, the process appears to depend on where your uncle lives. There was a class-action lawsuit for residents of the U.S., which required them to contact the nearest Mexican consulate to file a claim. Mexican residents needed to contact the Mexican government to pursue a claim. However, it's been more than a decade, and I don't know whether these avenues are still open.

Tracing Center : Who were the Africans who revolted aboard the Amistad?

Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:35:32 +0000

There were Jewish slave traders, yes. But they were a tiny minority. The vast majority of European and American slave traders were Christian. So I have to question why you would mention Jewish slave traders here.

Tracing Center : Where in the U.S. did slavery still exist after Juneteenth?

Wed, 11 May 2022 20:59:53 +0000

Slavery has historically been widespread on all inhabited continents, and not just Africa. So why note that fact? Similarly, it is a basic historical fact that African societies were deeply involved in the transatlantic slave trade. So what? What does this have to do with a blog post about the end of U.S. slavery? I don't want to assume what point you might be making, but it almost sounds as though you're dismissing the history of U.S. chattel slavery by noting that there were other perpetrators who shared responsibility for it. Isn't this a bit like noting that southern U.S. slavery couldn't have existed without the active participation of many white northerners? It's true that many African societies were complicit in slavery—but many of those countries are ahead of the U.S. today in acknowledging that history.

Tracing Center : Who were the Africans who revolted aboard the Amistad?

Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:32:17 +0000

Thank you for offering this comment, Jerry. Certainly you're right that Jewish merchants did NOT dominate the transatlantic slave trade, as is often claimed, and baseless allegations that they did are anti-Semitic. However, there is no such claim here. Instead, it is noted that a Spanish slave trader has been described as "the Rothschild of slavery." This is a claim that his influence in the slave trade was akin to the extraordinary success of the Rothschild family in international banking. This would be like saying that a Hollywood producer is "the Bill Gates of movie making." It wouldn't imply that Gates is involved, at all, in movie making, but that the producer's prominence in movie making is similar to Gates' influence in the tech industry.

Tracing Center : Where in the U.S. did slavery still exist after Juneteenth?

Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:17:20 +0000

You're absolutely right that the historical truth is vital in conversations like these. And that people often have a hard time accepting historical truths that don't fit their preconceived narratives. To that end, yes, Africans taken across the Middle Passage were predominated enslaved by other Africans. But they were generally not "their own countrymen," but people from other societies entirely. This wasn't a coincidence, but is fundamental to how slavery has worked in most times and places in human history. We usually enslave the "other," foreigners if you will, and Africa was no exception. (There is also the fact that the enslavement of Africans was primarily driven by organized demand from abroad, but that's another matter.) You're also correct that the history of Liberia is a painful one, although historians generally attribute that to a natural conflict between the area's longstanding inhabitants and the arrival of large numbers of strangers from across the ocean looking to colonize the land. It isn't as if family members were returning home, now is it? That sort of thinking would suggest that all inhabitants of an entire continent, and all of their descendants from anywhere else in the world, are fundamentally close kin, simply because of the social construct of "race." Finally, there were no Irish slaves sent to the Americas by Great Britain. That's a myth. But as you yourself suggest, myths like this tend to persist because they fit preconceived narratives that people want to promote.

The Living Consequences : Racial myth and miscegenation on "The Simpsons"

Fri, 17 Apr 2020 21:18:56 +0000

You're right, Homer does describe himself as being Greek. He also describes himself as being part black ... so that sounds like his ancestry includes both. 🙂 Thank you for ignoring my other incorrect statements.

The Living Consequences : Racial myth and miscegenation on "The Simpsons"

Sat, 4 Apr 2020 22:23:40 +0000

Vi, what that episode proves is that Homer *thinks* of himself as white ... or finds it convenient to *talk* about himself as white ... or at least to do so when it's appropriate to be self-deprecating. This doesn't mean he doesn't have a black ancestor--which, by the "one drop rule," would traditionally have him and his family classified as black. And as the episode discussed above makes plain, the Simpsons *do*, in fact, have a black ancestor who was enslaved. Naturally, this is also just a television show, and its particulars can't be taken too seriously. But the social issues it touches on certainly can be!

The Living Consequences : Vermont weighs apology, reparations for slavery

Sun, 5 May 2019 19:57:56 +0000

I assume you're not actually trying to belittle the attempt to seek justice for the legacy of slavery and racism in the U.S. today, but genuinely confused about the nature of the effort. Whether or not you agree with the movement for reparations for slavery and racial discrimination, it's about seeking restitution for these offenses from the government and society responsible for them, on behalf of those who, today, continue to suffer the consequences. The U.S. government, economy, and people derive benefits today from our history of enslavement and racial oppression, while the legacy of this history continues to plague black Americans. These facts are hard to dispute. Obviously, Jews today no longer suffer the consequences of their distant ancestors' enslavement in ancient Egypt, nor do the government or people of Egypt today continue to benefit from those events, thousands of years ago. These facts, too, are hard to dispute.

Tracing Center : Historical myths and coded slave quilts on the Underground Railroad

Sat, 13 Apr 2019 17:22:37 +0000

Thank you, Robyn. To my knowledge, no historian has seen fit to devote the time to a book or article debunking the myth of coded underground railroad quilts. (There's little reason an academic would do so, given that there isn't any sophisticated scholarly argument to be made; there is essentially no evidence for the existence of these quilts, which were first described in a children's book.) However, it's apparent that the vast majority who have expressed an opinion dismiss the notion out of hand, and several leading historians have taken the time to point out why in articles for the general public: Renowned Yale historian David Blight, for instance, has publicly objected to this myth: https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2007/02/01/prof-de.... And historian Giles R. Wright debunked this myth in public repeatedly before his death, most notably here: http://historiccamdencounty.com/ccnews11_doc_01a.....

The Living Consequences : Racial myth and miscegenation on "The Simpsons"

Thu, 4 Apr 2019 23:17:44 +0000

Gelias, race is a social construct, and as such, its meaning can never be more, or less, than what any given society imparts to it. Thus, the U.S. construction of race, in which those of mixed ancestry may "pass" as white but are traditionally not seen as being white, is neither more, or less, correct than the social view in which a European with one or more African ancestors is seen as racially white. I'm sure many Europeans with African ancestry *would* laugh at being told they aren't white. Just as many Americans who are, genetically, just as white would laugh at being told they're white. These are equally valid social constructions of "race." You also seem to suggest that you are "purely white," despite being of mixed European and African ancestry, because you "have nothing in common with black people." You seem to be articulating yet another view, that it is your cultural background which determines your race. (If I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "nothing in common," please let me know.) In the U.S., race is traditionally seen as being about physical features and ancestry, so that a person may be "white" or "black" without necessarily having any affinity with cultures traditionally associated with those races. And, again, neither view can be more correct than the other, since both are inherently arbitrary social constructs.

The Living Consequences : Racial myth and miscegenation on "The Simpsons"

Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:52:12 +0000

I don't believe in censoring this blog, other than for language or spam, and I believe in offering a response to any ideas posted here, regardless of whether they appear sincere. So .... No episodes of "The Simpsons" are designated as "canon" or not. On an episode that is as authentic as any other, it was clearly stated that the Simpsons are descended, in part, from enslaved people of African descent. It's a myth that people have to have particular physical features if they are of a particular race. This myth stems from a false belief that race has a biological basis, as well as naiveté regarding what those of mixed race look like. So, yes, the Simpson family are clearly drawn, in the context of their show, to appear racially white. That, however, says nothing whatsoever about their racial purity. Many white Americans have relatively recent African ancestors, and it's not necessarily visible on the outside. I don't know what you're trying to say when you state that white Americans are a mixture of Europeans, Jews, and Native Americans. While race is an arbitrary social construct, it does have a fairly well-defined meaning, which can only be stretched so far. While white Americans can, of course, have Native American ancestry, that is, by definition, a racial mixing; and most white Americans don't have Native ancestry. Meanwhile, most white Americans aren't of Jewish ancestry, although of course many are. Moreover, Jewish identity isn't the same as race; there are many black African Jews, for instance, and a great many Jewish ancestors *were* European. Meanwhile, most black Americans are, in fact, of mixed racial ancestry (with about 75% having European ancestors). Is that what you mean by "mulatto," which actually means having mixed black and white ancestry (thus, one *can't* be 79% black and 21% mulatto)? Finally, there's nothing "Afro-centrist" about noting that a Simpsons episode discusses their enslaved ancestors, and African heritage. This would be, at most, "Afro-acknowledging" or "Afro-non-denying." You should try it. :-)

The Living Consequences : McCain's family ties to slavery

Mon, 27 Aug 2018 15:15:14 +0000

Julia, it's one of the basic facts of U.S. political history that the two major parties switched positions on race between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries. As you indicate, the Republican Party was generally abolitionist, and the Democratic Party was broadly pro-slavery, prior to and during the U.S. Civil War. And by the 1960s, a long, slow shift finally culminated in the Democratic Party siding with civil rights legislation, and the Republican Party increasingly opposing these and other progressive measures on race, with profound, lasting consequences for national politics. So my question for you is: why do you mention this? Is there a point you're trying to make?

Tracing Center : Black soldiers achieved something "virtually unheard of" at the Battle of Nashville in 1864

Sun, 12 Aug 2018 18:23:13 +0000

Richard, I don't dispute your assessment of the Confederate forces at this stage in the conflict. But when seasoned officers, on both sides, describe heroic conduct and hundreds dying because they wouldn't stop, that's combat as genuine and heroic as it gets. And that was the point: as I wrote, the 13th Colored Troops “contributed nothing to the Union victory” that day. Instead, the point is that their bravery and sacrifice deserve to be remembered ... and historically, we need to remember that their actions were vital to changing hearts and minds about slavery, and about free people of color, and were instrumental in the abolition of slavery with the 13th Amendment and the civil rights gained by the 14th Amendment.

Tracing Center : Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination

Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:17:40 +0000

Yes, it's an essential element of the transatlantic slave trade that African societies participated in the trade, by enslaving and selling people from other societies to European and American ship captains on the African coast. The slave trade thrived on the exploitation of human beings by other human beings. But what point are you trying to make? Does this add to, or subtract from, what Pehty Re says here about how African suffered under European colonialism? What's the connection?

The Living Consequences : Racial myth and miscegenation on "The Simpsons"

Sat, 20 Jan 2018 19:18:54 +0000

With respect, Kevin, I believe you've missed the point, and didn't actually read my reply to "E." Yes, it's clear that the audience is expected to assume that the generic Simpsons character--yellow, without specific features associated with race--is intended to be seen as racially white. Any non-white character seems to be identifiable by a different skin color or, as you point out, with distinctive physical features and/or accent. (The fact that white people are treated as a neutral, default race, the only one not drawn with distinctive racial features, is of course highly problematic.) However, the point here is that it's inappropriate for fans to complain that the Simpsons family turns out not to be white at all, but to be mixed-race. This is true despite these racial cues. Why? First, because the identification of most Simpsons characters as white has always been implied, not stated, and was always inherently ambiguous. For instance, since the white characters are yellow, and have cartoon features rather than ones traditionally identified with Caucasians, it's impossible to say that some of those generic characters aren't meant to be, say, Hispanic, or Native American, or of distinctively Middle Eastern appearance, or of mixed race. So it's ridiculous for some fans to complain that they somehow "knew" the Simpsons were white all along, not mixed race, and feel misled. Second, there's a big difference in our society between "being" of a particular race (or racial mixture) and being *seen* to be of that racial identity. Many people have long passed as white, for instance, who are actually of mixed white and black ancestry. This is an essential part of our American story, and of the history of race here. So it's entirely reasonable, and common, for an ostensibly white family to turn out to be of mixed race. This is especially true if we have no way of saying that the family looked especially white in the first place, rather than racially ambiguous; or claimed any particular, European ancestry (like being German, or being "Irish on both sides"). These things are, of course, true of the Simpsons family.

The Living Consequences : Racial myth and miscegenation on "The Simpsons"

Mon, 8 Jan 2018 19:42:48 +0000

You're absolutely right: that seems to be how race works on "The Simpsons," and by that standard, we can expect the Simpsons would look racially white in the real world. However, as I said, it's very common for white-looking Americans to have black ancestry. The idea of assuming racial purity in an ordinary "white" American family is a fantasy, pure and simple. So the idea that the Simpsons must be purely of European descent, that it's political "propaganda" for the show to suggest otherwise, is what's nonsense.

The Living Consequences : New York and slavery at the time of the Civil War

Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:55:43 +0000

There were a variety of reasons why some white people in the Northeast favored abolition. Abolitionism was often motivated by religious or humanitarian concerns (although Christianity generally supported slavery). It was also sometimes motivated by a desire by working-class people to avoid competition which could reduce jobs and wages. It's worth noting that not only was abolitionism a minority view in New York and other parts of the Northeast, but many white abolitionists favored only gradual or eventual abolition, were content to see the enslaved sold south, or preferred free blacks to be shipped to Africa. There are some excellent books on abolitionism in the colonies and young United States, if you're interested in learning more.