dagblog - Comments for "Can anything effective be done to combat implicit racial bias?"

18th, 19th, and 20th century

NCD — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 02:31:26 +0000

18th, 19th, and 20th century American motives seem to generally gravitate around money.

Canada and Australia didn't have revolutions. They turned out ok and, additionally, didn't have follow on civil wars. The Revolutionary War may have been less about freedom and more about political power and financial gain.

I admit the Declaration of Independence is remarkable, and those who signed it risked their lives doing so.

Most states initially

rmrd0000 — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 01:00:59 +0000

In reply to Mho, that's the wrong term to

Most states initially restricted voting to landed gentry

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

The Bible contains messages to not submit to slavery. There are messages to escape slavery. There were multiple slave revolts led by by black preachers based on their interpretation of the Biblical text.

Nat Turner Bible is now in National Museum of African American History and Culture.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/nat-turners-bible-inspiration-enslaved-rebel-rise-up-180960416/

Edit to add:

The Bible and the Church play a large role in the black struggle for acceptance.

Slave revolts were Biblically inspired. The church fought Jim Crow (See MLK), the Church is fighting for poor people (See William Barber).

I'd like to put this back on

artappraiser — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 00:22:02 +0000

In reply to I think you confuse 18th

I'd like to put this back on the author's shoulders. Here's where he comes from, he who is admiring the principles of the Declaration of Independence:

Gawande was born in Brooklyn, New York, to Indian immigrants to the United States, both doctors.[3] His family soon moved to Athens, Ohio, where he and his sister grew up, and he graduated from Athens High School in 1983.[4]

His parents came from, you know, the last big English royal colony, where everyone was not equal, and where previous to that, everyone was not equal according to a centuries old caste system.

I think you confuse 18th

artappraiser — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 00:15:16 +0000

In reply to We could add "the banality of

I think you confuse 18th century motives with mid-19th century industrializing world ones. Go back and read more on what "educated" people thought like prior to 1750 and you might as well be dealing with aliens. (They did do real witch hunts.) The awakening of the human mind and the beginnings of a new set morals in the 18th century is a wondrous thing, despite all its many flaws and sins.

Mho, that's the wrong term to

artappraiser — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 00:08:58 +0000

In reply to They spoke for landed gentry.

Mho, that's the wrong term to use, the landed gentry were the crown loyalists with an investment in the old system. There was a pseudo-landed gentry in the southern colonies, but make no mistake, these were all people who wouldn't have been able to accomplish that landedness by the old royal rules. And it was true that some of those colonies had a really hard time signing on to the project, as they didn't want to turn their backs on hopes for become great titled men of property granted by the royal line.

(The late 19th century and early 20th C chase by wealthy nouveau riche Americans to buy up Europe and marry into English titles was the tail end of that Tory sympathizing desire.)

No, they didn't mean landed gentry, they meant: all European white people and didn't consider the other races as full humans. It's just the way they thought. They knew little about the rest of the world, they were just then discovering their own heritage in Greece and Rome.

There's a lot of slavery in the Bible, and it doesn't treat females and all races equally. Which the Enlightenment guys all read over and over growing up, followed by Greek and Roman literature as adults. I know from past commenting that NCD rejects the Biblical text as well, so he's consistent in not making any excuses for historic figures. How come you don't reject that text, the Bible, too? Blacks and women need not apply as full beings in the Bible either. Egypt is as close as that text gets to Africa and the Egyptians are enslavers of Moses' people. I dare say if the 17th/18th century slave trade had never been created, it wouldn't have been until the 20th century that most people with black skin ever heard of the Bible. Why is that flawed text acceptable and some of the main Enlightenment ideas not?

We could add "the banality of

NCD — Mon, 04 Jun 2018 22:44:55 +0000

In reply to Granted, they were

We could add "the banality of 'righteous' principles" to the list...?"

Can be as easy to declare as to claim ownership of, especially in politics, difficult to conclusively define, frequently incompletely applied, often impermanent in popular support, consensus or even in sustained application.

In spite of the high language and declarations of Jefferson and other Founders, many escaped slaves headed to Canada.

They spoke for landed gentry.

rmrd0000 — Mon, 04 Jun 2018 20:52:42 +0000

In reply to Granted, they were

They spoke for landed gentry. Blacks and women need not apply.

p.s. Comes to mind that it

artappraiser — Mon, 04 Jun 2018 20:10:56 +0000

In reply to Granted, they were

p.s. Comes to mind that it took Russians another 140 years or so to buy in to the concept and sometimes it still seems like they don't. The French found the concept quite appealing right quickly but with them the concept was often more like "all French citizens equal, forget everybody else" and then backslid a lot with some major colonial experiments where the colonized were not equal. Etc. The luxury of vast land allowed the U.S. to say "everybody come on over" and that too was a Thos. Jefferson idea, outwitting the French on the Louisiana purchase. Note on that: both national entities did not conceive of that land as belonging to the indigenous, with the same rationalizations: white people are the only real people. This comes from the texts they were reviving from ancient Greece and Rome, where there were also slaves. One revolution at a time.

Granted, they were

artappraiser — Mon, 04 Jun 2018 19:46:47 +0000

In reply to ..radical idea, one

Granted, they were challenging that free commoner white people should be equal to royal white people. That in itself was radical for the time, I believe the term used is "revolutionary." Slaves were not considered "people". One revolution at a time. That their definition of people needed work does not wipe out the legitimacy of The Declaration which does not address it and we still use it as a founding principle of a work in progress. Would you prefer we throw the idea out and not preach it anymore because some of the writers by current standards look to be hypocrites making odd rationalizations?

..radical idea, one

NCD — Mon, 04 Jun 2018 19:29:00 +0000

In reply to The banality of decency....?

..radical idea, one ultimately inscribed in our nation’s founding documents: we are all created equal and should be respected as such

Those documents have the noble words and signatures of slave owners, one might ask, what principles were they "holding on to"?