400 Years of African Slavery in America

[barnhart]

If I understand Mr Stevens correctly, there is no contradiction between the high minded morality of the founding documents and the actual behavior, legacy and practice of the founders because the first enslaved Africans arrived before the founding and because there were no voices raised in opposition at the time. (Except for the voices of the enslaved and dispossessed).

I am not convinced.

[HondurasKeiser]

If I understand Mr Stevens correctly, there is no contradiction between the high minded morality of the founding documents and the actual behavior, legacy and practice of the founders because the first enslaved Africans arrived before the founding and because there were no voices raised in opposition at the time. (Except for the voices of the enslaved and dispossessed).

I am not convinced.

No, that's not what he said.

[Ken]

I followed your link to Stephen's essay and found it rather pedantic and far from a "withering critique" The first half of his essay is a picayune argument about the dates 1619 vs 1776 and how much the authors "dissed" 1776. He wastes half the essay on an argument that basically has no relevance to the overall theme. The second half of his essay is basically an argument that whites don't get enough credit for their role in abolition and civil rights. Essentially arguing that 1619 should have been written from more of a white perspective, like pretty much every other history of the country ever written. What actually makes the series interesting and worth reading is the fact that it was not. There are endless other histories of the country gathering dust on library shelves.

Quibble with dates and the extent to which whites are given credit for social change in this country. But none of that changes the basic fact that this country was born with two original sins: (1) Slavery and (2) the genocide of the native peoples. And both sins are explicitly tied to white supremacy and Christianity. In the south and east, slavery is the more evident sin and gaping wound. Here in the west, the Indian genocides and removals are the more recent and still festering wound.

I've only read some parts of the 1619 project and found it to be an interesting and thought-provoking work. But it's just one of many different historical takes on this country and I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about. One can write a history of the US focused on women's history, or Indian history, or immigrant history, or religious history, or economic history, or Hispanic history, or military history. And hundreds of works have been written with all those different slants. Of course this is an African-American centric history. That's the whole point.

This is simultaneously a good country and a bad country. And has been for the entirely of it's existence. That is the fundamental paradox of America and American life.

[RZehr]

Quibble with dates and the extent to which whites are given credit for social change in this country. But none of that changes the basic fact that this country was born with two original sins: (1) Slavery and (2) the genocide of the native peoples. And both sins are explicitly tied to white supremacy and Christianity. In the south and east, slavery is the more evident sin and gaping wound. Here in the west, the Indian genocides and removals are the more recent and still festering wound.

I don't think it is right to say "this country was born with two original sins: (1) Slavery and (2) the genocide of the native peoples." The fact is, this country was "born" with many sins. What do we mean by "born with"? How about murder? What about greed? And lust and pride and gluttony and slothfulness and anger and envy and lies and rebellion? And the list of sins goes on and on and on.
Nobody questions that (1) Slavery and genocide happened and (2) that they were wrong. It is simply a leftward political tilt that wants to emphasize these two issues and not the other many sins. They are selected because they are political red meat issues, and they use the word sin instead of crime because then it is a slap to the rights face, to use their own language against them.

I don't think it is right to say "both sins are explicitly tied to white supremacy and Christianity". If these are "sins" then they don't belong to Christianity. If they are inherent to Christian doctrine, then they aren't sins. It can't be both ways, either its a sin, and Christianity is not to blame for it, or it is a sin and Christianity teaches against it.
Speak volumes about what one considers to fit under the term "Christianity". And it betrays a higher loyalty to leftward ideology than true Christianity, or at best a concession of the definition of Christianity to people who are not. Christianity stands in the way of evil.

Disclosure: I did not read the links.

[Ken]

Quibble with dates and the extent to which whites are given credit for social change in this country. But none of that changes the basic fact that this country was born with two original sins: (1) Slavery and (2) the genocide of the native peoples. And both sins are explicitly tied to white supremacy and Christianity. In the south and east, slavery is the more evident sin and gaping wound. Here in the west, the Indian genocides and removals are the more recent and still festering wound.

I don't think it is right to say "this country was born with two original sins: (1) Slavery and (2) the genocide of the native peoples." The fact is, this country was "born" with many sins. What do we mean by "born with"? How about murder? What about greed? And lust and pride and gluttony and slothfulness and anger and envy and lies and rebellion? And the list of sins goes on and on and on.
Nobody questions that (1) Slavery and genocide happened and (2) that they were wrong. It is simply a leftward political tilt that wants to emphasize these two issues and not the other many sins. They are selected because they are political red meat issues, and they use the word sin instead of crime because then it is a slap to the rights face, to use their own language against them.

I don't think it is right to say "both sins are explicitly tied to white supremacy and Christianity". If these are "sins" then they don't belong to Christianity. If they are inherent to Christian doctrine, then they aren't sins. It can't be both ways, either its a sin, and Christianity is not to blame for it, or it is a sin and Christianity teaches against it.
Speak volumes about what one considers to fit under the term "Christianity". And it betrays a higher loyalty to leftward ideology than Christianity. Christianity stands in the way of evil.

Disclosure: I did not read the links.

I did not say ONLY two original sins. There are no doubt many others. Militarism is another that comes to mind. But I think slavery and Indian genocide are the two most grave political sins that were inextricably tied to the founding and expansion of this country.

Christianity's role was to lend religious justification to both. Yes, not all Christians. Not all Christians do, or agree on anything. But Christian theology was explicitly used to justify slavery and later segregation. Succession in the south was whipped into a righteous frenzy by Southern Baptist and Methodist preachers arguing that the Bible supported and justified slavery. After the war similar theological arguments were used for 100 more years to support segregation. Christianity was also explicitly tied to, and used to justify the concept of "Manifest Destiny" and westward expansion that resulted in the massacre, displacement, and deliberate cultural genocide of countless native peoples.

In both cases it was white Christians creating theological justifications for the enslavement, persecution, and eradication of others. Conservatives like to say that America was founded as a Christian nation. To which I would respond, yes, very much so. Both the good and the bad.

And note, when I use the term Christianity in a historical context. I'm not talking about some ideal Sermon on the Mount notion of what is true and pure Christianity. I'm using the term historically to describe the role of Christianity as a social and religious force in the US over the past 400 years. In other words, what self-described Christians and churches were actually saying and doing at that time.

[RZehr]

But I think slavery and Indian genocide are the two most grave political sins that were inextricably tied to the founding and expansion of this country.

What is a political sin?

[Ken]

But I think slavery and Indian genocide are the two most grave political sins that were inextricably tied to the founding and expansion of this country.

What is a political sin?

A term I made up to distinguish sins committed collectively by an entire nation as opposed to sins committed by an individual. I'm sure there is a better term, I just don't know what it is. "national sin?"

[RZehr]

Seems war/killing and rebellion and greed should be pretty high on the list for that period at the national level.
Slavery and genocide were simply a continuation of colonialism, not something particular to the birth of this nation. Had this nation never become independent, it still would have been killing Indians and enslaving people.

[Neto]

Seems war/killing and rebellion and greed should be pretty high on the list for that period at the national level.
Slavery and genocide were simply a continuation of colonialism, not something particular to the birth of this nation. Had this nation never become independent, it still would have been killing Indians and enslaving people.

In a sense, the practices of slavery and genocide (and later, a concerted effort to stamp out the languages and cultures of the Indian nations) were *only* symptoms of deeper sins, not political ones, but sins of moral depravity.

[barnhart]

Seems war/killing and rebellion and greed should be pretty high on the list for that period at the national level.
Slavery and genocide were simply a continuation of colonialism, not something particular to the birth of this nation. Had this nation never become independent, it still would have been killing Indians and enslaving people.

I think those two are specifically called out because they were necessary, in the sense that the nation would not be without them.