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

[LongLiveRafiki]

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.

I didn't mention reasons why blacks owned slaves because there were several. Since you wish to go into that, yes, some free blacks bought their family members to protect and free them. Others bought their family members and later re-sold them to either make a profit or because their family member displeased them in some way. Some owned slaves in hopes of becoming respected among their white neighbors. Some owned slaves purely for economic reasons. Some black slave owners treated their slaves well, eventually freed them, sent them back to Africa, or let them buy their freedom, same as some white slave owners. Other slave owners, both black and white, refused to allow slaves to buy their freedom and treated their slaves poorly. For a period, some free blacks had white indentured servants or hired whites to oversee their black slaves. There were women, including black women, who owned slaves, including for reasons solely about profit.

Here's an interesting article about some of what I described.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436/amp

Again, none of this justifies slavery or racism, but I think it does show that there were people who did terrible things during those times across all races and genders. So when people bring up about whites refusing to acknowledge that our ancestors were horrible racists, I think it's important to the discussion to remember that terrible acts were not, and will never be, limited to one race or gender. Things may certainly be black and white now in regards to our understanding that slavery was bad, but it hasn't always been viewed that way. Similarly, society's view on racial equality has changed drastically in the last 80 years. Judging someone as racist for 2 songs she didn't even write, without knowing her reasons for singing them or how she interpreted the songs, and without taking into consideration societal norms in regards to terminology at the time and the influx or lyrical satire in some of the shows that were becoming popular, is unfair and ignoring historical context.

 

[mjkacmom]

Well, since the greatest amount of people immigrated to the US after slavery was abolished (including all of my family in the early 1900’s), I suspect most people don’t have relatives who owned slaves.

 

[Skywalker]

Slavery = bad. Yes we ALL get that. There are a lot of vile incidents and horrible times and way too many victims throughout history and none of it is to be condoned. But trying to divide it up by race to say that the black slave owners were mostly somehow benevolent and all whites were evil is ridiculous. It is no different than white supremacists today who try to say that black people are all inherently more criminal minded and whites are somehow better.

It's all race baiting. And it all sucks.

 

[BLAZEY]

Being a racist was just as immoral then as it is now.

No, in the 1930's racism was not considered as immoral as it currently is, and was in fact upheld by many laws in the US during that time. The segregation laws in the US weren't repealed until the 1950's and 1960's. You can't hold people of historical time period to standards not wide spread and accepted in that time period. Banning remnants of the past to cleanse history by current moral standards, is just asking for history to repeat itself as people in general have very short memories. Use them as examples of changes, but don't pretend they didn't happen or exist.

 

[Floridaman999]

Loving v. Virginia says hello.

 

[luvsJack]

Well, since the greatest amount of people immigrated to the US after slavery was abolished (including all of my family in the early 1900’s), I suspect most people don’t have relatives who owned slaves.

I have no real idea when my family got here. Half of them from Ireland the other half from England. But I can say this with certainty, they didn’t own slaves because they weren’t rich land owners.


But nothing said here today was, I believe, meant to say that anything justifies slavery. Nothing ever has. No human being should ever be considered a possession. Should ever be treated like a farm animal with no humanity. Nothing about it was ok or justified.

Nothing justifies racism. Nothing makes it ok. And I don’t think anyone ever said that.

But there is a point when you have to understand the mindset of the people during that time. And it still goes back to judging a person by today’s standards. And it would help to know the singers own thought about the songs.

This habit we have today of digging up things from the distant past really needs to stop. No one has a lily white past. No one. We have judged 40 year old men on silly stunts they did in college. We have judged people by things said half of their life ago. And now a song from 50 years or more ago. At some point we need to focus on the future and stop focusing on the past.

 

[L&Lfan]

My grandparents ( born in 1906 and 1908) referred to black people as “ colored” and they believed in their hearts they were being polite. Social mores DO change and in no way should they be labeled “racists” by 2019 standards.

 

[DeniseJH]

No, in the 1930's racism was not considered as immoral as it currently is, and was in fact upheld by many laws in the US during that time. The segregation laws in the US weren't repealed until the 1950's and 1960's. You can't hold people of historical time period to standards not wide spread and accepted in that time period. Banning remnants of the past to cleanse history by current moral standards, is just asking for history to repeat itself as people in general have very short memories. Use them as examples of changes, but don't pretend they didn't happen or exist.

I understand what you are saying, but I'll say again: If you believe that the racists of the time didn't know that they were wrong, and that that was the majority of people in the country, I'm going to say that you are wrong. And to me, that shows that racism was not acceptable, at least not morally, back then. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, and that is mine.

 

[L&Lfan]

Then according to that standard even in 2019, most of the world is racist/prejudiced against “ the other”. Sri Lanka is the latest example.

 

[lifesavacation]

My grandparents ( born in 1906 and 1908) referred to black people as “ colored” and they believed in their hearts they were being polite. Social mores DO change and in no way should they be labeled “racists” by 2019 standards.

My 94 year old grandmother uses the term “colored” as well. When I tell her that’s racist, she responds by saying she can’t be racist because she has 2 great nieces she adores who were adopted from Africa. I know she isn’t being intentionally racist, but her refusal to change when confronted by it is frustrating.

 

[Southernmiss]

My grandparents ( born in 1906 and 1908) referred to black people as “ colored” and they believed in their hearts they were being polite. Social mores DO change and in no way should they be labeled “racists” by 2019 standards.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored

The acceptable term for a person of color at the time of your grandparents (like my own born in 1918 and 1920) was colored. That's why it was still used until most recently by older generations and I can't fault them for that as new terminology does take time to work through the populace.

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

My grandparents ( born in 1906 and 1908) referred to black people as “ colored” and they believed in their hearts they were being polite. Social mores DO change and in no way should they be labeled “racists” by 2019 standards.

I believe social ideas and terminology change absolutely. But sticking to outdated terms and ideals is pretty bigoted.

As a non-racial example. I’m an older millennial. When I was growing up Mentally retarded or retarded was proper terminology (and as I grew up was also used in a derogatory manner). It has since become an outdated term in favor of intellectual disability or referring to the specific disability such as Down’s Syndrome. Retarded is only considered an insult and has become a pretty ugly word.

For me to say “well, it was fine when I was growing up. Calling somebody mentally retarded is a medical term” I’d just sound like an *******. Just like saying well saying colored people was fine and refusing to adapt makes you a racist in 2019.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

My 94 year old grandmother uses the term “colored” as well. When I tell her that’s racist, she responds by saying she can’t be racist because she has 2 great nieces she adores who were adopted from Africa. I know she isn’t being intentionally racist, but her refusal to change when confronted by it is frustrating.

94?? Shouldn't the fact that she loves and adores her two great nieces be enough?

 

[luvsJack]

I believe social ideas and terminology change absolutely. But sticking to outdated terms and ideals is pretty bigoted.

As a non-racial example. I’m an older millennial. When I was growing up Mentally retarded or retarded was proper terminology (and as I grew up was also used in a derogatory manner). It has since become an outdated term in favor of intellectual disability or referring to the specific disability such as Down’s Syndrome. Retarded is only considered an insult and has become a pretty ugly word.

For me to say “well, it was fine when I was growing up. Calling somebody mentally retarded is a medical term” I’d just sound like an *******. Just like saying well saying colored people was fine and refusing to adapt makes you a racist in 2019.

Well the oldest of her two grandparents would be 113. So I think most would be willing to give them a pass.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I believe social ideas and terminology change absolutely. But sticking to outdated terms and ideals is pretty bigoted.

As a non-racial example. I’m an older millennial. When I was growing up Mentally retarded or retarded was proper terminology (and as I grew up was also used in a derogatory manner). It has since become an outdated term in favor of intellectual disability or referring to the specific disability such as Down’s Syndrome. Retarded is only considered an insult and has become a pretty ugly word.

For me to say “well, it was fine when I was growing up. Calling somebody mentally retarded is a medical term” I’d just sound like an *******. Just like saying well saying colored people was fine and refusing to adapt makes you a racist in 2019.

I like you used mentally retarded and now do not like I said in my first post.

However I do disagree with your last statement. Using the term colored when not socially acceptable to me doesn't necessarily make one a racist because racism is so much more than just using an outdated term it's an entire belief system. Stubborn perhaps, sometimes used in not so nice ways perhaps, seen as insensitive perhaps, but for me to actually label someone a racist it has to be more than just the usage of colored when that term is no longer acceptable to use. That is just me personally.

 

[L&Lfan]

I can remember my elderly aunt actually saying in the 1980s ( she was in her 80s by then) “ I don’t understand why they want to be called “black” when “colored” sounds so much nicer”. She was a wonderful person who I never heard say a bad word about anyone. She was just a product of her times.

 

[MillauFr]

I live outside Philadelphia. Kate Smith’s statue was covered and tied with rope on Friday. By Easter morning it was GONE....only a rust stain left on the pavement.

At least Rizzo still stands.... Still love his altercation with Stan Bohrman.... LOL

 

[LSUmiss]

I didn't mention reasons why blacks owned slaves because there were several. Since you wish to go into that, yes, some free blacks bought their family members to protect and free them. Others bought their family members and later re-sold them to either make a profit or because their family member displeased them in some way. Some owned slaves in hopes of becoming respected among their white neighbors. Some owned slaves purely for economic reasons. Some black slave owners treated their slaves well, eventually freed them, sent them back to Africa, or let them buy their freedom, same as some white slave owners. Other slave owners, both black and white, refused to allow slaves to buy their freedom and treated their slaves poorly. For a period, some free blacks had white indentured servants or hired whites to oversee their black slaves. There were women, including black women, who owned slaves, including for reasons solely about profit.

Here's an interesting article about some of what I described.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436/amp

Again, none of this justifies slavery or racism, but I think it does show that there were people who did terrible things during those times across all races and genders. So when people bring up about whites refusing to acknowledge that our ancestors were horrible racists, I think it's important to the discussion to remember that terrible acts were not, and will never be, limited to one race or gender. Things may certainly be black and white now in regards to our understanding that slavery was bad, but it hasn't always been viewed that way. Similarly, society's view on racial equality has changed drastically in the last 80 years. Judging someone as racist for 2 songs she didn't even write, without knowing her reasons for singing them or how she interpreted the songs, and without taking into consideration societal norms in regards to terminology at the time and the influx or lyrical satire in some of the shows that were becoming popular, is unfair and ignoring historical context.

The conversation usually devolves to slavery, but I think more relevant to today are the Jim Crow laws especially in the south. For one, it wasn’t all they long ago & I think it’s more related to the institutional racism that still exists today, Were black ppl implementing that amongst themselves or to other black ppl?

 

[LSUmiss]

I have no real idea when my family got here. Half of them from Ireland the other half from England. But I can say this with certainty, they didn’t own slaves because they weren’t rich land owners.


But nothing said here today was, I believe, meant to say that anything justifies slavery. Nothing ever has. No human being should ever be considered a possession. Should ever be treated like a farm animal with no humanity. Nothing about it was ok or justified.

Nothing justifies racism. Nothing makes it ok. And I don’t think anyone ever said that.

But there is a point when you have to understand the mindset of the people during that time. And it still goes back to judging a person by today’s standards. And it would help to know the singers own thought about the songs.

This habit we have today of digging up things from the distant past really needs to stop. No one has a lily white past. No one. We have judged 40 year old men on silly stunts they did in college. We have judged people by things said half of their life ago. And now a song from 50 years or more ago. At some point we need to focus on the future and stop focusing on the past.

Silly stunts like sexual assault

The thing is I do think sometimes it gets out of hand, but the bigger change is that you can’t hide from reprehensible acts anymore b/c info is out there & will get out. No one is perfect, of course, but most the of things that get dug up that become a big deal should have always been a big deal. In the age of social media, there is no way to hide for long.

 

[Planogirl]

The biggest problem to me is that this is easy. It's easy to remove monuments and change flags and ban songs. It's a lot harder to actually treat people fairly and with respect. I'd say that it would be nice to do both but it doesn't happen.