OK, I'll say it... we are too sensitive

[LSUmiss]

But you well know that is not what Pea asked. No reason whatsoever to make it seem like a racist statement of some kind. Same thing with @TipsyTraveler question. The PP asked "AS A BLACK WOMAN. . ." not to answer for all black women but to answer as a black woman that is going to perhaps have a different take on it. Gee Whiz, talk about trying to make something out of nothing. And no one is shifting blame, that's ridiculous. There is plenty of blame for those dark times to go around to everyone, no reason to argue over it.

Of course it doesn't make anything "OK", she nor anyone said it did. Slavery was a part of society at the time. Was it wrong? Yes, just as it was when so many other races and nationalities of people Was it normal then? Yes. You twist words and read things that aren't there all you want about it but those two facts remain. She was simply asking, with the knowledge that Africans were selling their own people to the slave traders tell us how it was considered normal at the time.

I didn’t think she meant it as a racist statement at all. I was pointing out a similar comparison. So, to use your logic, sex trafficking is normal b/c it’s done often & even by women to other women at times?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

She asked how does a black person reconcile in their mind that other black ppl were complicit & does that speak to the times of it being “ok” to some. My answer is that I don’t feel the need to reconcile that some women have been complicit in sex trafficking & that doesn’t mean it’s considered “ok” either.

If we don't figure it out, how do we fix it?

 

[kimblebee]

OK, I'll say it...

There is 100% no reason to play the national anthem at sporting events. Period.

Also, this article specifically said they were going to stop playing “God Bless America” , which is not the National Anthem.

If we stop playing the Anthems, when are we supposed to yell TRUE NORTH?

 

[LSUmiss]

If we don't figure it out, how do we fix it?

I guess what I’m saying is that there are terrible ppl who would do anything for money or whatever personal gain. Part of the discussion was about morals changing. Imo, those ppl weren’t complicit b/c it wasn’t considered morally wrong or it was somehow “ok”. Those were the type of ppl who aren’t motivated by or bothered by morals.

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

I can't get a job right now because my hair is green. My natural hair, which I chose to color. That's different from a job candidate who chooses to wear their natural hair in a particular style - how?

This is not the same thing at all. A more appropriate comparison would be if you couldn’t get a job because you were told the way your hair naturally grows out of your head is unprofessional. In order to get a job you’d have to chemically treat your hair to fit the ideal standard of a different race.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I guess what I’m saying is that there are terrible ppl who would do anything for money or whatever personal gain. Part of the discussion was about morals changing. Imo, those ppl weren’t complicit b/c it wasn’t considered morally wrong or it was somehow “ok”. Those were the type of ppl who aren’t motivated by or bothered by morals.

I believe that is, at least in part, what I said in my post.

There seem to be people, regardless of color, creed, whatever, that are just evil, and only care about what's in it for them, and not about individual human rights.

 

[sjrec]

So the Yankees and the Flyers will stop playing a recording of the National Anthem because the singer sang songs with racist lyrics 80 YEARS ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/sports/kate-smith-new-york-yankees-philadelphia-flyers.html

Can we not admit things were different that long ago and not hold people responsible for something they did back then?[/Q

I don’t know-don’t you think pickaninnies and darkies was pretty offensive even in the 30s?

 

[sam_gordon]

I don’t know-don’t you think pickaninnies and darkies was pretty offensive even in the 30s?

I don't know. I wasn't alive at that time. And offensive to who (whom?)? Did someone take offense? Probably. But why are those who are saying "Good riddance" to this singer not jumping up and down asking for the Washington or Jefferson memorials to be taken down? They didn't just sing racist songs, THEY OWNED SLAVES. But yup, the lady who sang racist songs 80 years ago needs her statue taken down. That makes sense to people?

 

[cabanafrau]

She asked how does a black person reconcile in their mind that other black ppl were complicit & does that speak to the times of it being “ok” to some. My answer is that I don’t feel the need to reconcile that some women have been complicit in sex trafficking & that doesn’t mean it’s considered “ok” either.

I don’t know if pea meant in that way, but historically, that’s how the info has been used.

Shhh, can't talk about the history we don't like.
Throughout history white people are bad, that is all you need to know, and curse you if you bring up any facts that may show whites weren't the only bad ones, and question anyone about them.

I guess I have a different viewpoint. I think looking at this aspect of issues like this (e.g. slavery, sex trafficking, etc.) is about looking at how people don't in fact only label people as "other" and justify why they are less than solely by virtue of such broad labels as white/black or male/female. There are in fact an infinite supply of ways people ultimately label "other" people as a means to achieve their own ends, for reasons of fear, etc. according to whatever the particular circumstances happen to be. IMO it doesn't achieve anything if discussions about these types of issues are conducted in a way that further cements the very same bias barriers and ultimately validates the idea they should have meaning or power in the first place.

Discussing African complicity in enslaving Africans to North America, Europe and beyond is a piece of what happened, pure and simple. The how and why and the complex reverberations of that fact are not unimportant today, largely for how that still impacts the African continent. It's not completely meaningless in terms of North America or Europe either, but it's probably most impactful in Africa itself.

As far as women being complicit in sex trafficking, absolutely that is an important consideration not to be overlooked. I'd suggest it's also very important to remember that not only women are the victims of sex trafficking. If we want to get to the root of the problem we shouldn't shy away from shining a light on all of it.

If we can start discussing more of these types of things directly with the idea of commonality as people it might be possible to progress instead of simply regress to our corners with our labels and their labels ad nauseam.

 

[cabanafrau]

The point I was responding to was that one would be hard pressed to find a black who found racism morally acceptable.

Much of the discussion here has been about whether a "moral code" changes over time.

I was surprised to learn that African blacks were complicit in the slave trade. This was something I recently learned, and I wonder how blacks feel about that. At that time, some apparently found slavery morally acceptable, so, to me, it spoke to what we've been talking about.

I am appalled at the thought that it happened, and I'm appalled that it still happens today.

I suppose this is why people don't want to say anything sometimes.

I made a comment upthread, but I guess I'll broaden it a bit. Yes, morals change over time, according to place, etc. I think most people have actually been discussing ethics and morals as equivalents when in fact they are different things.

 

[disneyjunkie]

I would like to respectfully ask your opinion on something. I know you are black. And a teacher, I believe, too (if my memory serves me correctly - forgive me if I'm wrong).

In re: to slavery, as has been brought up many times on this thread.

I always thought it was white men who went over to Africa and "stole" black people as/for slaves.

I recently learned, though, that African blacks were complicit in the slave trade, too, as outlined here, from the Constitutional Rights Foundation (which, I believe, is a non-partisan, legitimate resource):

"How did an African become a slave? At first, white slave traders simply went on kidnapping raids, but this proved too dangerous for the Europeans. Instead, they established hundreds of forts and trading stations along Africa’s West Coast. Local African rulers and black merchants delivered captured people to these trading posts to sell as slaves to European ship captains.

About 50 percent of the slaves were taken as prisoners during the frequent tribal wars occurring among the West African kingdoms. Another 30 percent became slaves as punishment for crimes or indebtedness. The remainder were kidnapped by black slave traders."

If this is true, how do black people today reconcile that in their minds, that some of their own ancestors had a part in the slave trade?

Doesn't it speak, in part, for "the times", that this seemed to be ok with people?

Please know I'm not trying to be snarky, sarcastic, cryptic, or anything like that, I legitimately want to know how people feel about this.

It makes me incensed and outraged that anyone, anywhere, thought that that was ok.

And crazy enough, we do still have it happening in some parts of our world today. Against not only people of color, but women, children, ethnic minorities, and others, which brings up a lot of questions for me - probably more questions than there are answers. There seem to be people, regardless of color, creed, whatever, that are just evil, and only care about what's in it for them, and not about individual human rights.

White people DID go to Africa and Africans. Some African tribes DID help capture Africans. Many of them were eventually enslaved as well.

How do I reconcile it my mind? Slavery did not start (or end) in the Americas. Slavery existed on the continent of Africa long before the slave triangle slave trade.

HOWEVER, the American and Caribbean form of slavery was unheard of in Africa.( Buck breaking- white men raping male slaves, breading-forcing mothers to mate with their sons...)

Olaudah Equiano was a slave in Africa and America. His writings reveal the contrast between the two forms of slavery. I think the Africans involved in the slave trade had no idea what was on store for the people they handed over to white slave traders.

I do not believe anyone ever thought slavery was OK. They just didn't care because they were not the ones enslaved.

 

[DeniseJH]

I don't know. I wasn't alive at that time. And offensive to who (whom?)? Did someone take offense? Probably. But why are those who are saying "Good riddance" to this singer not jumping up and down asking for the Washington or Jefferson memorials to be taken down? They didn't just sing racist songs, THEY OWNED SLAVES. But yup, the lady who sang racist songs 80 years ago needs her statue taken down. That makes sense to people?

It's a start.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

White people DID go to Africa and Africans. Some African tribes DID help capture Africans. Many of them were eventually enslaved as well.

How do I reconcile it my mind? Slavery did not start (or end) in the Americas. Slavery existed on the continent of Africa long before the slave triangle slave trade.

HOWEVER, the American and Caribbean form of slavery was unheard of in Africa.( Buck breaking- white men raping male slaves, breading-forcing mothers to mate with their sons...)

Olaudah Equiano was a slave in Africa and America. His writings reveal the contrast between the two forms of slavery. I think the Africans involved in the slave trade had no idea what was on store for the people they handed over to white slave traders.

I do not believe anyone ever thought slavery was OK. They just didn't care because they were not the ones enslaved.

Thank you for answering.

 

[LSUmiss]

I guess I have a different viewpoint. I think looking at this aspect of issues like this (e.g. slavery, sex trafficking, etc.) is about looking at how people don't in fact only label people as "other" and justify why they are less than solely by virtue of such broad labels as white/black or male/female. There are in fact an infinite supply of ways people ultimately label "other" people as a means to achieve their own ends, for reasons of fear, etc. according to whatever the particular circumstances happen to be. IMO it doesn't achieve anything if discussions about these types of issues are conducted in a way that further cements the very same bias barriers and ultimately validates the idea they should have meaning or power in the first place.

Discussing African complicity in enslaving Africans to North America, Europe and beyond is a piece of what happened, pure and simple. The how and why and the complex reverberations of that fact are not unimportant today, largely for how that still impacts the African continent. It's not completely meaningless in terms of North America or Europe either, but it's probably most impactful in Africa itself.

As far as women being complicit in sex trafficking, absolutely that is an important consideration not to be overlooked. I'd suggest it's also very important to remember that not only women are the victims of sex trafficking. If we want to get to the root of the problem we shouldn't shy away from shining a light on all of it.

If we can start discussing more of these types of things directly with the idea of commonality as people it might be possible to progress instead of simply regress to our corners with our labels and their labels ad nauseam.

I think the issue with having a conversation is that it starts (at least this one) with a thread entitled “we are too sensitive”. “Get over it” is all too often the theme of the “conversation”. That’s can be so dismissive & invalidating to hear if you were on the other end of history. So instead of a real conversation ppl understandably get defensive.

 

[b2k1121]

Shhh, can't talk about the history we don't like.
Throughout history white people are bad, that is all you need to know, and curse you if you bring up any facts that may show whites weren't the only bad ones, and question anyone about them.

This is a strangely defensive response. I didn't think I would ever hear 'whataboutism' over slavery but we do live in the weirdest of times.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I made a comment upthread, but I guess I'll broaden it a bit. Yes, morals change over time, according to place, etc. I think most people have actually been discussing ethics and morals as equivalents when in fact they are different things.

Ok. Let's define them.

Ethics vs. Morals

Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

In terms of this conversation, are you saying that the rules (laws) of days past were what they were, but individuals may have had/could have had a different set of principles?

It's funny because just recently I was reading what happened to people when "mob ruled" (specifically during American Revolutionary times). People who didn't go along with the crowd were fined, beaten, tarred and feathered, dragged through the streets, slathered with and made to eat manure, shot, and worse. I did read about one lady who happened to hold off a mob, but my sense is that that was rare, unless it was a person of power.

I think it's easy for us to say today that people of yesterday could've had different moral principles, but in practice, it would be very difficult for someone in the day to go against the majority. Probably less so in the 20th century, but much of it may have been dependent upon where one lived and what their social status was, etc. Not saying that it was right, just that it was difficult to go against the grain.

PS I didn't mean to put words in your mouth! Tell us what you meant!

 

[RedAngie]

15 years ago??? I think the Flyers should have dropped Kate Smith in 1976 when they were swept in the Finals by Montreal. They lost both home games when she sang her song, once recorded, once live in person. My 16 year old self wanted to shoot her because her magic was gone. It couldn't have been because Montreal was a better team. Nope, she became a jinx.

They probably should have retired her song soon after she died in 1986. Just have one last hurrah, then move on. Playing the song certainly hasn't helped them much these past 43 years.

They finally listened to you, albeit 43 years later.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Philly news last night reported that the NJ shore town of Cape May will also stop playing Kate Smith's God Bless America during their daily-in-summer flag lowering ritual. But the neighboring shore town of Wildwood intends to keep playing it, along with the National Anthem.

Edit: It wasn't the City of Cape May's decision. The ceremony is conducted by the owners of a gift shop on their private piece of property.

 

[cabanafrau]

Ok. Let's define them.

Ethics vs. Morals

Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

In terms of this conversation, are you saying that the rules (laws) of days past were what they were, but individuals may have had/could have had a different set of principles?

It's funny because just recently I was reading what happened to people when "mob ruled" (specifically during American Revolutionary times). People who didn't go along with the crowd were fined, beaten, tarred and feathered, dragged through the streets, slathered with and made to eat manure, shot, and worse. I did read about one lady who happened to hold off a mob, but my sense is that that was rare, unless it was a person of power.

I think it's easy for us to say today that people of yesterday could've had different moral principles, but in practice, it would be very difficult for someone in the day to go against the majority. Probably less so in the 20th century, but much of it may have been dependent upon where one lived and what their social status was, etc. Not saying that it was right, just that it was difficult to go against the grain.

I quoted your comment above because you mentioned changing morals, not to suggest a disagreement or suggest people of the past should have gone against the majority or anything like that.

A lot of the discussion has been about the amorality of various things that were once overlooked or accepted and today cause an uproar. Social mores have changed over time and sometimes according to where a society was located. It's often easy for things to get overlooked in a society in the same way that you can easily enter lukewarm water yet will instantly react negatively to ice cold or boiling water. It's pretty common for ideas about personal morality to be shaped by the world around you. All of that helps explain why it's a tricky thing to apply today's social mores to the past because they don't fit smoothly because they are in some ways a living, changing thing.

As far as mob rule being a thing of the past, I think social media and other things that can't be discussed here are fueling very dangerous conditions in a way that threaten to cause significant upheaval in ways many people think are only relegated to history books anymore.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

I won’t post a link because I totally understand the word being insensitive, but I just listened to the first half of Kate’s recording of the song whose title begins “That’s why...”

If I had heard that recording two weeks ago when Kate Smith showed up in an unrelated YouTube search I would have said “I didn’t realize she was so outspoken against slavery.”

The song is sung in such a dramatic, tragic and sympathetic tone that I am beyond shocked that people are equating it to her being racist. I got the exact opposite vibe.

I don’t know if my disconnect is my own ignorance to racial sensitivities or if it’s because other people are reacting without doing their own research but either way it is absolutely eye opening.

I took it as satire when I first heard it years ago. I think that's one issue that arises with trying to interpret the meaning of something so long after it was written/recorded- people don't know the intentions/thoughts/reasons a person had for doing it or how they interpreted the meaning to be.

Stop, just stop.

I refuse to believe that people were so darn stupid that they had no idea how these songs impacted others.

I understand why you(general you) defend this foolishness. It has to be hurtful to know that your grandparents, teachers, coaches, pastors...people that you loved, respected, admired...were vile, disgusting racists. While they were teaching you(general you) the golden rule, they failed to say that it only applied to white folks.

Now, here we are in 2019 and folks just can't bring themselves to admit that their loved ones were racists. Instead they settle on saying things like the times were different, they didn't know....

I guess pretending your loved ones were clueless idiots ( one would have to be not to know how these songs impacted others) is a lot easier than admitting that they were racists.

I don't have the slightest idea if my ancestors were racist. I do know that many branches of my family didn't come to the US until after slavery had ended. It does seem like a lot of blame seems to go around towards all whites in today's society as if we were all descended from racists and slave owners as if that makes us personally responsible. One can abhor racism and slavery without having to take personal responsibility for the actions/beliefs that their ancestors may or may not have held/been responsible for.

I would like to respectfully ask your opinion on something. I know you are black. And a teacher, I believe, too (if my memory serves me correctly - forgive me if I'm wrong).

In re: to slavery, as has been brought up many times on this thread.

I always thought it was white men who went over to Africa and "stole" black people as/for slaves.

I recently learned, though, that African blacks were complicit in the slave trade, too, as outlined here, from the Constitutional Rights Foundation (which, I believe, is a non-partisan, legitimate resource):

"How did an African become a slave? At first, white slave traders simply went on kidnapping raids, but this proved too dangerous for the Europeans. Instead, they established hundreds of forts and trading stations along Africa’s West Coast. Local African rulers and black merchants delivered captured people to these trading posts to sell as slaves to European ship captains.

About 50 percent of the slaves were taken as prisoners during the frequent tribal wars occurring among the West African kingdoms. Another 30 percent became slaves as punishment for crimes or indebtedness. The remainder were kidnapped by black slave traders."

If this is true, how do black people today reconcile that in their minds, that some of their own ancestors had a part in the slave trade?

Doesn't it speak, in part, for "the times", that this seemed to be ok with people?

Please know I'm not trying to be snarky, sarcastic, cryptic, or anything like that, I legitimately want to know how people feel about this.

It makes me incensed and outraged that anyone, anywhere, thought that that was ok.

And crazy enough, we do still have it happening in some parts of our world today. Against not only people of color, but women, children, ethnic minorities, and others, which brings up a lot of questions for me - probably more questions than there are answers. There seem to be people, regardless of color, creed, whatever, that are just evil, and only care about what's in it for them, and not about individual human rights.

In addition to what you posted, there were black slave owners in the US during the 1800s. It absolutely does not excuse slavery or make it okay, but it's certainly a part of history, albeit one not widely acknowledged. I think it does illuminate more about the times in what was socially acceptable.

 

[disneyjunkie]

In addition to what you posted, there were black slave owners in the US during the 1800s. It absolutely does not excuse slavery or make it okay, but it's certainly a part of history, albeit one not widely acknowledged. I think it does illuminate more about the times in what was socially acceptable.

Since you tossed out the tidbit about blacks owning slaves, why didn't you state the primary reason for this?

Some blacks owned slaves for the same reasons whites did-MONEY.

HOWEVER, many free blacks owned slaves as a why to protect their families. I'll use Colonial Virginia to explain.

At one time the law stated that when a child was born, he/she took the condition of the father. Due to the number of children being born as a result of white men raping slaves, the law was changed.

The new law stated that children took the condition of the mother. BUT, they failed to take into account the number of white woman that were involed with slaves. Those children were indentured servants for about 30 years. After the 30 years, they were free.

These free men often married slaves. Any children produced from those unions while the mothers were still slaves, were slaves.( children take the condition of the mother). This l meant that the owner could sell the mother and/or childrenat any time.

In oder to protect their families, many free slaves, purchased and in some cases, FREED them. In Virginia, slave owners( both black and white) had to petition the Governor for permission to free slaves. If the petition was denied, the father/husband owned the family until his death.

So yes, there were black slave owners. And no, it was not socially acceptable.