Happy on the Plantation?

December 11, 2004 12:55 AM

School Drops Slavery Booklet after it receives criticism about the book's description of slavery as a benign institution where the slaves led "a life of plenty, of simple pleasures." [more inside]
posted by marxchivist (38 comments total)

One of the reasons the school gave for dropping the book was that it plagiarized the book Time on the Cross, which has generated its own share of controversy. For earlier precedents in the "happy slave" school of history and literature, see also Ulrich Bonnell Phillips and Thomas Nelson Page, author of such works as In Ole Virginia or Marse Chan and Other Stories.
posted by marxchivist at 1:03 AM on December 11, 2004

Oops, the plagiarism link above should point to here.
posted by marxchivist at 1:10 AM on December 11, 2004

Potok said people who argue that the South should secede again have latched onto the writings of Wilson and Wilkins, which portray the Confederacy as the last true Christian civilization.

Go for it. Please! Promise not to stop you this time, guys.
posted by RavinDave at 1:14 AM on December 11, 2004

You know if people want to send their kids to private religious schools and so on that's all cool, but surely there are some things we can just agree ought to be taught in certain ways?
posted by sycophant at 1:22 AM on December 11, 2004

They should read this:

American Slavery as it is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses, including OBJECTION III—"Slaveholders are proverbial for their kindness, and generosity" and this:

Russell Banks's Cloudsplitter about abolitionist holy warrior John Brown.
posted by faux ami at 1:50 AM on December 11, 2004

(note: faux ami's first link includes an introductory sound effect)
posted by rustcellar at 2:03 AM on December 11, 2004

How can anyone in an academic setting take this seriously? African slaves led a life of plenty? In one of the linked articles:

(The historians) believed they were more skilled and determined than free blacks because they were pushed harder. Slaves were, in their eyes, better off. They helped the initialization of an efficient economy, and thus attained pride.

So you're better off if you're "pushed" harder (read: beaten, raped, maimed) to perform by someone who virtually has absolute control over all aspects of your life? That particular worldview sees people as little more than machines, cogs in the wheel of industry where your only value is in how much you produce for your owner. And after all, individual liberty and self-determination only lowers production output and makes the person "unhappy" because of all of those complex choices they have to make. Better to only worry about avoiding the whip while you pick the master's cotton.

How lovely that this is being shared with our children as an ideal.
posted by mstefan at 2:44 AM on December 11, 2004

Oh, and let me guess... that school is filled with kids from a white, middle-income or higher protestant/fundamentalist background.

I say those teachers and school administrators could use a little cultural sensitivity training. Drop their ignorant asses in the middle of Compton, each wearing a t-shirt that says "Black Slavery in America - A Life of Simple Pleasures" with a nice big confederate flag on the back.

I'm sure the community would enjoy the opportunity to educate them.
posted by mstefan at 2:53 AM on December 11, 2004

This makes me kind of sick, not just because it is sick, but because this probably will not get recognized by the many. What I mean in particular is this information is not so readily distributable, so we are lucky to actually have been exposed to this.... but to accept it as truth is anything but.
posted by Keyser Soze at 3:09 AM on December 11, 2004

In the memo, school officials reiterated to parents that the school's goal in the secondary grades is to present two sides of an argument.

That is a lame excuse. If they're trying to be so fair to both sides, I'm waiting for their Judaic booklet "The Messiah, As It Isn't".
posted by Jenesta at 4:12 AM on December 11, 2004

I actually think every student should read things like this. I didn't have my kids read anything like "Southern Slavery, As It Was", but I did have my kids read quotes and text from those who defended the institution of slavery - we read passages of people coming from the "Happy Slave" perspective, as well as biblical justifications.

We read those things only after reading more factual accounts, as well as the book Nightjohn, which is a horrifying and violent novel.

My message was not, "There are two sides to this argument." My message was "Educated people must understand how evil has been justified in the past, so they can think critically about similar justifications in the future."

I don't think for a moment that that's what this school was doing. This sounds to me more like the "it's complicated and there are disagreements so believe whatever you want" intellectual laziness now being applied to climate change and evolution - anti-intellectual cover for an archaic political stance.
posted by Chanther at 4:50 AM on December 11, 2004

Even with the book withdrawn, the racism is still alive that led to its adoption.

These southern "christian" schools sprang up everywhere directly after school desegregation was enforced in the south so we know its all about getting a good "christian" education.
posted by nofundy at 4:59 AM on December 11, 2004

I would have to agree that kids should be exposed to this kind of stuff, in the proper context, so they can be taught why people thought it and why it is wrong, rather than just banning it outright... however, I think the school suffered a severe lapse in judgement in opting to use a booklet published in 1996 instead of using writings from the period in our history where slavery was a wide-spread practice.

The slavery/anti-slavery debate was alive and well in the 1800s; there's plenty of material from back then that they could've used to illustrate the point without drawing on literature from the 90's. Unless Wilson's booklet was tongue-in-cheek or meant specifically to emulate what a pro-slavery writer from the 1800s might say, I don't see why they chose to use it.
posted by Kosh at 5:24 AM on December 11, 2004

I'm wiht Chanther. Throw this in the pot with other writing (especially, for this subject, Wendell Berry's The Hidden Wound). Stir with some critical thinking and discuss. Was it possible that some slaveowners *were* benevolent and the arrangement was beneficial in some ways to slaves? Was that typical? Does it make it right/good even if the answer to both questions were yes?
posted by weston at 5:28 AM on December 11, 2004

You're missing the point! Don't throw out the religious element. These are religious schools. Part of this school's thrust is wanting to believe that white slaveholders were somehow good and moral. Tie that in with an economics argument- that slavery kept the South running and that many blacks had no other options even when slavery was abolished - and you can amazingly resuscitate the debate, while forgetting the main points of it.

Free Soilers, Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Ragged Army, the Underground Railroad, hard labor - many forces were at work on both sides of the slavery argument and, sadly enough, it mostly came down to money, land, devastating droughts, the balance of national power. There were only a few who felt categorically (and ironically, it was people like John Brown whose religion urged him to forge pacts and alliances with blacks themselves)that slavery must be done away with.

What's going on today is an attempt (yet again) to muddle issues by pretending that all information is equally valuable and we should just read it all - and that all of us are okay and should feel good about ourselves. It's by appealing to our modern fascination for all things economic and religious that we can put Humpty together again - and feel good about ourselves doing it. Don't fall for their argument, if for no other reason that it may raise the floor (and make some people feel better about themselves, because after all not everything is black and white) but lowers the ceiling for the future of discourse about important issues.
posted by faux ami at 5:55 AM on December 11, 2004

well damn, ain't we Carolinians comin up roses lately on mefi...
posted by glenwood at 6:11 AM on December 11, 2004

Oh, and let me guess... that school is filled with kids from a white, middle-income or higher protestant/fundamentalist background.

Yes, Cary is a very white, very upper, middle class neighborhood.

I've been following this story as an N&O subscriber. The principal said he used this booklet because, "it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery." He also said it was a counterpoint to Uncle Tom's Cabin.

But what the N&O article linked to above doesn't clarify is that Douglas Wilson, one of the authors, is a pastor in Idaho who has some links to the school. He wrote a book on classical education on which the school bases its philosophy. Also, his Association of Classical and Christian Schools accredited Cary Christian. And he is scheduled to speak at the school's graduation in May.

Mr. Wilson wrote a letter to the editor today, but not to defend his writings. He claims "government" schools only allow their students to read pablem: "pre-packaged, government-approved information units."

Some of the choicer bits that the newspaper exerpted:

Slavery....was a relationship based on mutual affection and confidence.

There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the world.

...many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust forged over generations with their white masters...

Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South-- and had a much easier existance.

Well, except I imagine the white people in the South got to chose whom they wanted to marry, what they had to eat and when they could stop working. Plus they probably weren't whipped or beaten if they worked slower, took a break, broke a tool, got sick, talked back to someone, or left the farm to attend a dance.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:25 AM on December 11, 2004

the slaves led "a life of plenty, of simple pleasures."

Ah, yes, the "simple pleasures" of having your children taken away from you and sold like cattle.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:15 AM on December 11, 2004

posted by Mayor Curley at 7:30 AM on December 11, 2004

I didn't have my kids read anything like "Southern Slavery, As It Was", but I did have my kids read quotes and text from those who defended the institution of slavery - we read passages of people coming from the "Happy Slave" perspective, as well as biblical justifications.

why not have them read uncle tom's cabin. you'll find all those perspectives - and more - in the proper context. in addition, it is a classic of american literature.
posted by three blind mice at 7:41 AM on December 11, 2004

This is the benefit of shining a light into a dark corner. It makes the roaches scurry.

What's going on today is an attempt (yet again) to muddle issues by pretending that all information is equally valuable and we should just read it all - and that all of us are okay and should feel good about ourselves.

Wasn't that pretty much the message of The Incredibles?
posted by rushmc at 7:50 AM on December 11, 2004

"You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective"

So how can you sane Southerners stand it?
posted by monkeyboy_socal at 8:42 AM on December 11, 2004

Well, except I imagine the white people in the South got to chose whom they wanted to marry, what they had to eat and when they could stop working.

This was mostly true, but don't forget about Irish laborers who were given jobs that slaveowners didn't want their slaves doing. Why? Well, at the end of the day, if the job kills your slave, then you're out some money. If your hired Irish help dies, then you just hire a different guy tomorrow.

It wasn't just blacks who were second-class citizens.
posted by mikeh at 8:43 AM on December 11, 2004

The booklet is obviously trash, I'm sure the book on the Holocaust calls it just a big long pajama party.

But what creeped me out wast this line "We apologize for this oversight and covet your prayers for our school," stated the memo to parents.

Coveting prayers? Isn't that like the 13th Commandment? Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Intolerant Neighbor's Prayers?
posted by fenriq at 8:54 AM on December 11, 2004

The Slave Narratives (IIR the title C) was a make-work project during the Roosevelt (?) era. It contains the collected interviews and stories of ex-slaves. Some of the slaves missed the slavery days; some were glad to be rid of it.

Yes, some slaves were happy being slaves, and unhappy being free.

The booklet was very selective in its telling tales.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:00 AM on December 11, 2004

". . . school officials reiterated to parents that the school's goal in the secondary grades is to present two sides of an argument."

Some arguments don't deserve two sides. Here's some more proposed book titles for their curriculum:

Christians in the Colosseum, and Other Historic Sporting Events

The Children's Crusade: Keeping Them Off the Streets

Women's Suffrage, Why Bother

The Final Solution, What's the Big Deal
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:06 AM on December 11, 2004

I taught a course on 19th century American lit at a very selective university--even there I was struck that when I presented pro-slavery arguments that one student thought that I was justifying slavery--the furthest thing from my mind! So while I agree absolutely with Chanther and others who suggest that students should be exposed to arguments from the 19th century that defended slavery--so that they understand this shameful episode in American history in all its complexity-- it would have to be done with extreme caution in the case of 9th graders who don't have the capability for dealing with ambiguity that we hope more advanced students will acquire.
posted by Pattie at 10:08 AM on December 11, 2004

(It goes without saying, I trust, that what I wrote is not to defend exposing students to RECENT arguments in favor of slavery written by nutcases!)
posted by Pattie at 10:13 AM on December 11, 2004

Kosh and Pattie, that's a good point - there's a huge difference between exposing kids to the arguments made by pro-slavery people in the 1850's and 1860's, and exposing them to a recent writing with pro-slavery sympathies. I think the former is necessary in context, and the latter is ridiculous - so I stand corrected.

Three bind mice - they'll read Uncle Tom's Cabin when they get to high school. I teach fifth and sixth graders, and the reading level is a bit high for them. We spend a lot of time deciphering primary source quotes and paragraphs, but 700+ pages is too large a chunk of hard text at that grade level.

Is it just me, or is there a paradigm shift going on? It used to be that the left, with multiculturalism, was accused of moral relativism. But now some forces on the right are pushing a strange sort of intellectual relativism - the idea that complicated subjects have no right or wrong answer, but that one must make a decision about what one "believes" (along with an unstated assumption that the evidence that could prove or disprove anything is too complicated to be understood).
posted by Chanther at 11:20 AM on December 11, 2004

I think it's important to keep in mind that the Bible does indeed contain plenty of approval and justification of slavery - and that since the fundamentalists swear up and down that the Bible is the literal Word of God, then they must also believe that slavery is permitted, because God said so.

I think this is something that most of us non-fundies don't take into account. We've been concentrating on abortion, gay marriage, and evolution so much that maybe we're ignoring an ugly thought process that's hidden inside the "theocratic agenda" (for lack of a better term, sorry).

IIRC, somewhere in the Bible there is at least one example of a debtor being made a slave to his creditor when he couldn't pay a loan back - which from my reading of history a common practice back then, as was slavery in general. I think it's one of the few instances where you can take a slave who is not of another nation (as is the rule from Leviticus). Probably something to keep in mind as right-wing "Christians" gain more control of government and finance, eh?

To me, the espousement of slavery and other practices like denying women any voice or power, stoning adulterers to death, and killing children who disobey their parents are what puts the the majority of the Bible firmly in its historical context - it's around 2,000 years old, and a lot of the knowledge and great ideas we've had since just aren't in it - and makes it impossible for me to take it literally.

We do things much better now. Surprisingly we've managed to actually implement some of Jesus' teachings (and other forward-thinkers of his time, as well as before and since) as positive societal change and actual legislation, the philosophical basis of our lives and human relations worldwide.

That there are people today, many people, out there who want to "go back" to the "old ways" - certainly not the good old ways - and are actively working to make it happen is both alarming and depressing.

And I'm glad somebody turned on the kitchen light so the roaches are scurrying. How about we step on some?
posted by zoogleplex at 11:51 AM on December 11, 2004

So while I agree absolutely with Chanther and others who suggest that students should be exposed to arguments from the 19th century that defended slavery...

Why, exactly? Obviously slave owners felt justified in the practice of slavery. So what intellectual progress are you making by spelling out their justifications? What you really end up with are those who provide those bullshit justifications as the "other side" of an argument or in a context-free sense in the pursuit of "letting the reader decide for themselves".

What's next? Should students be instructed in the "argument" that homosexual pedophilia by men is a natural expression of a adult's love for a male child? Should NAMBLA be given equal time in the classroom, as long as you follow up with "by the way, pederasty is illegal" at the end?

The only thing that those justifications supporting slavery demonstrate is man's inumanity to man the lengths to which he'll go to rationalize the systemic exploitation, abuse and murder of a whole race of people, largely based on nothing more than the color of their skin. Thanks, but guess what? There's a hell of a lot of better ways to do that than promote garbage like this. Especially to a bunch of 10 year old kids.
posted by mstefan at 12:03 PM on December 11, 2004

As long as we're gonna talk about issues that challenge us and make us uncomfortable, why not talk about WW II firebombing of German cities and the mind-bending 'Christmas truce', or for that matter another view of the forgotten Yugoslavia intervention?
What good can possibly come of sanctifying white slaveholders as bold and generous caretakers of the economy and their slaves? It's remarkable to me how these folks manage to choose to fight for the wrong issues for the wrong reasons every single time. Repeat after me: people are more important than money.
posted by faux ami at 12:32 PM on December 11, 2004

Yugoslavia here
posted by faux ami at 12:38 PM on December 11, 2004

Mstefan,

Let's be clear that we're in fundamental agreement here about the bullshit perpetrated in the classroom in question. And note, too, my own questions about whether even ninth graders (not to mention 10 year olds) are intellectually mature enough to handle learning about the arguments that were made in favor of slavery--though it sounds as if they are in good hands in Chanther's classroom. I think, with care, that giving context to these issues is precisely the point--to the degree that students are able to handle it. I am not in favor of pro-con debates ("both sides of the issue") about slavery, and I hope that they will soon become irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties for homosexuals as well. But I can certainly imagine that 100 years from now that students wanting to learn about the immoral treatment of gays in our time (denying marriage and other basic civil rights) may indeed want to know what nutty ideas got into people's brains. That is just a matter of 20th century history. I'd want students of the future to have as full an idea as possible of our society, including its moral failings (again, in our own voices--not in the voices of some future retro apologists for intolerance).
posted by Pattie at 12:41 PM on December 11, 2004

(no, though, learning about important social issues such as emancipation and gay rights to the degree of complexity appropriate to the students' level is very far from bringing in apologists for pederasty to class.) The whole point is that students deserve to have instructors FRAME for them issues so that they can understand what went wrong. This is very different from anything goes.
posted by Pattie at 12:59 PM on December 11, 2004

the Bible does indeed contain plenty of approval and justification of slavery

Slavery then was generally embedded with a different set of social circumstances, as compared with the mass, permanent, industrialized slavery introduced and refined by the late pre-modern Europeans.

Ancient Mediterranean slavery practices allowed for voluntary slavery, and voluntary manumission. It was a way of escaping debts, and of wiping the slate clean. In modern-day terms, much of it could be understood as a combination of bankruptcy and debt bondage, and immigration. Roman Foederati tribes could voluntarily enter into mass slavery compacts with stronger tribes or with Roman administrators, and their ownership was generally traded amongs concerned parties as diplomatic bargaining chips, at least until the minor tribe managed to purchase its freedom. Many of the disagreements between the Romans and Huns stemmed from the Huns' annoyance at so many of its slaves fleeing into Roman territories without permission.

There's a whole bunch of Roman and Persian literature where social climber slaves are ridiculed as nouveau riche, lampooning the manners of their "etters". Former slaves were notorious for ostentatious consumption.

finally, many lower-middle class Romans, especially third sons or worse, voluntarily entered slavery with a notable patron in the hopes of being eventually adopted by the paterfamilias.

The more northern Germanic societies, by comparison, tended to consider slavery a permanent condition, inherited by descendents. Hence the later division into the Franks ("free") and the non-Franks, those who were destined for either slavery or permanent payment of taxes.

The much-later European slavery commoditized the slave as a unit of repetitive production. There was no possibility of manumission, no chance of social advancement. It was a totalizing ideology and, as such, it contained within its stern ideology its rapid demise. Compared with the generally long-lived, stable slavery practices of earlier millenia, it barely lasted 300 years.
posted by meehawl at 1:38 PM on December 11, 2004

Why, exactly? Obviously slave owners felt justified in the practice of slavery. So what intellectual progress are you making by spelling out their justifications? What you really end up with are those who provide those bullshit justifications as the "other side" of an argument or in a context-free sense in the pursuit of "letting the reader decide for themselves".

What's next? Should students be instructed in the "argument" that homosexual pedophilia by men is a natural expression of a adult's love for a male child? Should NAMBLA be given equal time in the classroom, as long as you follow up with "by the way, pederasty is illegal" at the end?

I'd say it would be essential to a class (for fairly mature students) on Greek history to learn about the Greek attitude towards the positive qualities of older male-younger male sexual relations. I'm really having trouble imagining that you honestly believe that the beliefs of people now considered barbarous have no place in education. To avoid current propaganda is one thing (and in a classroom, extremely important) but to deliberately set aside documents from the past because they contain beliefs that are no longer accepted is the height of poor judgment. Hiding extremely important ideologies that have driven past events is never a way to make "intellectual progress." Those who do not study history, as they say . . .
posted by rustcellar at 2:50 PM on December 11, 2004

But now some forces on the right are pushing a strange sort of intellectual relativism - the idea that complicated subjects have no right or wrong answer, but that one must make a decision about what one "believes" (along with an unstated assumption that the evidence that could prove or disprove anything is too complicated to be understood).

And people say presidents have no influence on their party/country...
posted by rushmc at 4:55 PM on December 11, 2004