Re: Why did blacks need white to free them from slavery?
Originally posted by Monkey bumI think Monkey bum that they probably felt inferior on initial contact with a superior civilization, with superior technology. Science at the time had not even decided if they were of the same species as the white people. This would obviously impact on any choices the black people at this point chose to make. Perhaps they saw themselves as not quite human also.
This is a serious question. I would like serious answers.
yes, but...
most people take this line of thinking as "White people freed the blacks". Which couldn't be further from the truth. White people did everything in their power to suppress the blacks.
Individual blacks, like Olaudah Equiano and Harriet Tubman, were far more important to the abolitionist movement than any individual white person was. The black church was a crucial actor in the emancipation of slaves. Black networks of people running intelligence and communications behind the backs of the masters, blacks as the individuals who risked their lives for freedom.
But, nono, lets all whites pat ourselves on the back for freeing the people that we also enslaved. Good thing blacks don't write their own history.
Originally posted by inimalist
But, nono, lets all whites pat ourselves on the back for freeing the people that we also enslaved. Good thing blacks don't write their own history.
But in the end, blacks were in absolutely no position (ie mark it zero!) to free themselves, so it was the evil white-man who did the actual freeing.
Originally posted by Robtard
But in the end, blacks were in absolutely no position (ie mark it zero!) to free themselves, so it was the evil white-man who did the actual freeing.
"evil" white man was forced, through the actions of individual blacks, to reconsider the moral and ethical implications of slavery.
The slave narrative, especially that of Olaudah Equiano is a testament to this. Not to mention the other social and demographic reasons. There were slave riots and there was a HUGE black population which demanded some policy attention.
Obviously the people in power had to relinquish that power, or face total rebellion (which wasn't necessarily on the horizon). They didn't just wake up one day and realize they were wrong however. The white power establishment had to be shown that they were wrong. This was done primarily by black individuals with some institutional support from whites.
Exactly.
Besides, between 1530 and 1780 almost million and a quater white Europeans were enslaved by various Middle Eastern countries. Slavery, unfortunately still exists in Islamic world (most notably Saudi Arabia)
Robert C. Davis wrote about this.
Slavery is not an American nor European phenomenon, nor did it start with African enslavement.
I doubt any of them could have freed themselves on their own.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but...most people take this line of thinking as "White people freed the blacks". Which couldn't be further from the truth. White people did everything in their power to suppress the blacks.
Individual blacks, like Olaudah Equiano and Harriet Tubman, were far more important to the abolitionist movement than any individual white person was.
This is incorrect. It is argued and well accepted that Harriet Beecher-Stowe's book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, was a major point for people from the North. It greatly increased the passions of the Northerners.
Fer realz. I just took a test over this in my Civil War history class.
Originally posted by inimalist
The black church was a crucial actor in the emancipation of slaves.
No, it was the do-gooder white Christan's and Republicans such as Lincoln that were crucial to the emancipation of the slaves.
Originally posted by inimalist
Black networks of people running intelligence and communications behind the backs of the masters, blacks as the individuals who risked their lives for freedom.
Uh...don't forget about the hundreds of thousands of white Northerners who fought for the slaves' freedom. You know, the ones who actually freed the slaves.
Originally posted by inimalist
But, nono, lets all whites pat ourselves on the back for freeing the people that we also enslaved. Good thing blacks don't write their own history.
This is a logical fallacy. That type of thinking leads to discussion on reparations.
The white northerners who outlawed slavery and preached against it's morality are somehow the enslavers? These same white people gave their lives for their freedom and believed with every fiber in their being that slavery was morally wrong and a horrible institution.
You know, most people the North didn't even have slaves. They had white indentured servants. There were hundreds of thousands of free slaves in the North.
Ever here of John Brown? Yeah....he slaughtered some proslavers because he felt so strongly against slavery. He literally slaughtered them with the help of his four sons.
He was white, too.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Uh...don't forget about the hundreds of thousands of white Northerners who fought for the slaves' freedom. You know, the ones who actually freed the slaves.
That's not quite true. Lincoln outlawed slavery in the South in order to add justification for the Civil War, slavery actually remained legal in the North for a while afterward.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not quite true. Lincoln outlawed slavery in the South in order to add justification for the Civil War, slavery actually remained legal in the North for a while afterward.
Freeing the slaves was nowhere as noble as we make it out to be these days. Yes, Lincoln did free the slaves, but his reasons were not simply that slavery was wrong. Instead it was an effort to quell anymore uprising from the south, were it not for Lincoln believing that the south would be severely weakened by him freeing all their slaves, which took away their entire free labor force, he probably wouldn't have freed them.
Ofcourse, we would have come around to the point where we realised that slavery is completely wrong and the slaves would have been freed, but it would have been much later, and we would probably be either in or just entering the civil rights movement right now.
So, take it how you want. Lincoln did a great thing and righted a great wrong, but it wasn't for righting that wrong that he did what he did. He instead did it to quell revolution.
And also contrary to what seems to be a popular belief, the Civil War was not about slavery, it was States Rights vs. Federal Rights. The south wanted to ceced from the north, and the north didn't want that, so they fought. Slavery, like Chaos said, was tagged on later to add justification to the war, and to, like I previously stated, quell any future uprisings from the south.