Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (5103)	8/18/2001 9:21:44 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

A bonanza day for the NYT. Here's an interesting editorial on the topic of "presentism", a term I've not heard till now: August 18, 2001 Yale and the Price of Slavery By HENRY WIENCEK CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va.--In 1852 a wealthy Mississippi cotton planter, Robert Hairston, suddenly fell ill. With death overtaking him, he frantically dictated a will in which he revealed that he had a child, his only one, a 5-year-old girl who was a slave. With his last breath he commanded his family to have the girl set free and bequeathed to her his entire estate — land, cash and slaves worth over $1 million. Hairston's white relatives, all quite wealthy, could not bear to see that much money pass to a black. They decided to make her disappear and divided up her property among themselves. To cover their tracks, they called the father a lunatic and stuck to that story for generations. They told a judge the girl was dead and sent her off to a distant plantation. One hundred and sixty years later, while researching a book, I discovered through court records and oral history in the area what had really happened. This tale of theft on a massive scale has a deeper significance; it reveals some of the psyche of the masters. The white family could never claim they did not know what they were doing, that through some defect in their perception they did not comprehend that this slave was a human being. She was one of them. She probably looked like them. But cash trumped blood. I was reminded of that story this week when three researchers released a report on Yale University's deep entanglement in slavery. In response to the report, John H. McWhorter, a linguist at the University of California at Berkeley, defended Yale's reputation, saying, "Slavery when those people lived was largely an unquestioned part of existence. It's downright inappropriate to render a moral judgment . . . based on moral standards which didn't exist at that time." Yale's administration, in a defensive feint, noted in responding to the report's publication that "few, if any, institutions or individuals from the period before Emancipation remained untainted by slavery." This is the "presentism" defense, which can be useful for almost any era and almost any misdeed. But it is most commonly deployed when the morality of slavery comes up: We must forgive them because they did not know what they were doing. Presentism is very often advanced in defense of America's founders. It is comforting to think that their generation, so distant in time from us, lived in a condition of moral ignorance, and thus innocence, regarding slavery. But that is not the case. Even Thomas Jefferson, some of whose statements exhibit an almost demented racism, could see clearly that slavery utterly compromised the nation: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever," Jefferson wrote. "The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us." George Washington was an enthusiastic slaveholder in his early decades, buying slaves to build himself a plantation empire; but by the end of his life he found slavery repugnant. In his will Washington freed his slaves and specified that the children be educated, believing that with education and training the freed children of slaves could take a more fruitful and productive place in Virginia society. If we accept the statement that "it's downright inappropriate to render a moral judgment" on slavery, we are more willing to accept slavery than George Washington was. If the founders had such misgivings over slavery, how is it that they allowed slavery to continue? The answer is not that they didn't know any better, but that they kept slavery so the Southern states would join the union. It was a transaction, a deal, just like the deal that put the national capital on the Potomac in exchange for the federal assumption of states' debts — and not unlike the deal the Hairstons made in causing their kin to disappear. With their eyes open, the founders traded away the rights of African-Americans, many of whom had fought bravely in the Revolution, so that the national enterprise could go forward. This country was founded upon a bargain for which we continue to pay the price. We compound the mistake by draping a veil of innocence over the transaction. The true beneficiary of the presentism defense is not the past but the present — it guards and preserves our fervent wish to have sprung from innocent origins.