Yet when we get down to the individual level in the past, such as Abraham Lincoln for example and his attitude on the ranking of blacks in US society, we often have people (and quite often the same as those who claim what I stated in the first paragraph) saying things like "well, he freed the slaves, and that's a lot 'less' racist than most at the time, so therefore he's a good guy despite his racism." Yet can we truly agree with this? Is Lincoln's prejudice okay because of his context?

How far can moral relativism go? Is it not wiser to simply look at the past, and all different societies and cultures, with an amoral lense, thereby not judging the individuals and structures / conditions they created, and reserving that judgment for only those in the present and same culture / society? Do you think that's even possible, or is moral evaluation in our eyes necessary to some level?  Is it not hypocritical to denounce the structures of the past (such as slavery), but not the individuals who created and perpetuated these?

Post edited at 10:51 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 by Bud2400

We were discussing this in class the other day. I believe that it's only okay to look at and judge those in our present culture and society. I don't know exactly how today's societal structures are still in favor of whites, though it may seem that way from a different perspective. I think many minorities feel that whites "reap the benefits," when in all honesty, the government has set up special programs to help these people and help them excel.

I'm not sure about your last question there. I do think that people often judge other cultures for their racism and especially sexism these days, China being a great example. Do I believe it's right? No, not at all. It is a part of their culture, though. I don't believe it's fair to judge them because it's their tradition and we have no right to take it away from them. As for our nation's history of racism, I don't believe it's fair to judge our white ancestors, either. As we evolve, we being to realize right from wrong more clearly. Although Lincoln was racist, he was a pioneer in the clarification of right and wrong and helped abolish slavery (even if the reasons why he did are still unclear). Though he wasn't perfect, he did change things a little, and a little change goes a long way. We have to look at things through all perspectives.

I hope I answered it correctly, although I doubt I did. Great topic, though. First one to make me actually think tonight.

-------
And if I had a nickel for every damn dime
I'd have half the time, do you mind?

---

I don't know exactly how today's societal structures are still in favor of whites, though it may seem that way from a different perspective. I think many minorities feel that whites "reap the benefits," when in all honesty, the government has set up special programs to help these people and help them excel.

---

There is the entire notion of "white privilege," which I admit is sketchy as it assumes a preference for whites among all people all over the US in every situation, with few exceptions, and doesn't explain the success (and improvement) many minorities have had socioeconomically recently.

But more justified, I think, are the whole structural issues surrounding it.  For example, you must remember that after WWII, the US government gave out loans to many whites to buy houses out in the suburbs.  They refused to do this for minorities.  A family's household is really more than just a place to live, but it's really an investment for their savings.  As a result of these loans to whites, many of them got much further ahead of minorities socioeconomically than ever before.  When minorities began moving into the suburbs, too, thanks to some of LBJ's acts in 1968, the value of the neighborhoods they moved into went down into the shitter (as it was predicted by the government for decades, and led to a scare when it finally began happening), causing white flight (mostly to save some of the value they invested into their homes), and thereby leaving a smaller tax base for the schools, neighborhood, and whatnot, leading to the degradation of those services and leaving minorities with less access to education, and land value that's not worth very much (and less to pass on to the next generation).

As a result of all this, whites today (and in a very general way) still reap the benefits of the government giving out loans to white families to buy houses after WWII, as the money, and the benefits of having that money, is passed down through each successive generation.
 

---

I'm not sure about your last question there. I do think that people often judge other cultures for their racism and especially sexism these days, China being a great example. Do I believe it's right? No, not at all. It is a part of their culture, though.

---

It's certainly their culture, and very different from ours, but is it right to oppress people under any circumstance?  Are there times when it's ever okay to discriminate a general group of people based on an attribute such as race, sex, or what have you?

---

As for our nation's history of racism, I don't believe it's fair to judge our white ancestors, either. As we evolve, we being to realize right from wrong more clearly.

---

Hold on a moment, though - you say we learn right from wrong more clearly as time goes on.  Wouldn't that imply that what our ancestors were doing in the past was "less right" morally than what we are doing today?  Wouldn't that imply some kind of judgment on those who lived in the past?

Or is it all simply a matter of circumstances, and that we can only come to understand these different sets of morals by understanding the surrounding issues which allowed them to come into being?

---

I hope I answered it correctly, although I doubt I did. Great topic, though. First one to make me actually think tonight.

---

Thanks.  BTW, there's really no right or wrong way to answer the question, although inconsistencies / hypocrisy can always be prevalent, thereby weakening the overall stance.

I think what you are trying to say is that we shouldn't really judge what was happening in the past like racism on the same level as we judge te same actions today. For example we can't really judge discrimination in the past by using the same standards that we use today. Or that if we do then we have to apply the same stadards to everyone and everything which is kind of impossible and maybe unfair.

If that's what you mean I think I agree. I think we have to be careful sometimes how we judge the past and not get carried away and use our own standards.

But I don't think we can be completely morally neutral either. Some acts and laws and methods were worse than others. And some of them were less justifiable than others.

Take slavery. Its true that many different poeple and countries and cultures approved of slavery. It sure wasn't just whites or unique to whites.  

What I think most people who try to look it over realize though is that the slavery of the 1400s was more understanble than the slavery of the 1800s which is more forgiveable than the slavery of now (which is done in a differnt way by differnt ppl but still is slavery)

In the 1400s slavery was really a common thing and Europens who went to the Middle east knew they were just as much at risk to be captured by some slave trader and become a slave as an african who stayed in his own place. Slavery back then was not more "moral" or better but it was a common thing and everyone knew it could happen. And there was ways for a prisoner or a slave to get freedom. In Muslim counstries and in Christian countries the way people got free was by converting to the faith of the country. Many Native Americans and Africans did that in the US. Many Europeans did that in the Holy Land.  

In the 1800 though things has changed. For one thing there was a bigger morality movement all around. What people generally thought as ok in the 1500 as torture and massacres was no longer a good thing. Slavery was no longer something whites would even accept for whites. But because they still needed slavery and colonizations and exploitation for economic reasons, they had to find other ways to get at the Africans and still feel ok about doing it.

So the best way they thought out was to convince people that non-whites were not really human. That they did not have the same rights as whites.And the way they did that is by pushing up the concept of race and of race difference. I don't say race was new concept but they made it into a MUCH bigger deal than it was.

So they even passed new laws to make sure that EVEN IF blacks converted they couldn't escape slavery and that the simple fact of being black could mean you were automatically considered a slave in slave territory. Those laws went way beyond those of the 1400s and they had no moral code to back it up eeven by 19th century standards.  

So the problem here is that if you judge the 1800s by their OWN standrads and their OWN code of morality what they did is CHANGE the meaning of race and the meaning of who is human SO THAT they could live with themselves doing thing they knew was not quite right. Maybe it was conscious or maybe not but when you do that, when you try to change the moral code to fit your needs then yeah you are breaking your OWN moral code.

I am not saying that ALL whites thought blacks weren't human btw. Only KR thinks that. But the institutions made laws to MAKE it so even if people probably did NOT even think so.

So to me that's why racsim of 1800 is 10x worse than racism in 1400. Its not that the slavery of 1400 is morally better but that at least they were CONSISTENT with the code.

If you ask me what I think of Lincoln I think most people can tell that guy was really morally split, The main problem is that he did good stuff in the end but often for the wrong reason and even in the wrong way. When you read at the way the reconstruction was done it was a big mess really for everyone white, black, etc...A lot of people probably had good intentions but it did more harm than good the way it was done. I can't really judge that though because I can't day I would have done better, And maybe that's why most people have trouble judging Lincoln because they can't really tell if they could have done better there.

So really even if you look at it from their own standard (and you do that by reading what people were writing back then) then its obvious they were really going against their code by using race to justify slavery.  

I guess I went on a soapbox so sorry if I was long here.

Post edited at 1:52 am on Nov. 30, 2008 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

I doubt that whites suddenly decided to become racist during the 19th century. In fact nothing could be further from the truth.

I wonder if many people here have read Moby Dick but this would certainly provide some food for thought for those who believe that Whites considered Non-Whites as "less than human" (I am not targeting anyone in particular in this forum by the bye, just making a statement from the various tidbits I read here and there).

To sumarize briefly, Moby-Dick is of course the classic tale of man vs nature and himself. It is an epic story which relates mostly to the 19th century notion of good, evil, God and man and his place in the world. There are many many layers to this story, but the interesting part in relation to race is this. Many key actors in the story are in fact not white.

The protagonist's closest friend and ally is named Queequeg, a native of Polynesian Islands. This character is a larger than life figure, at times terrifying and mysterious, yet, inescapably human, imbued with complex feelings and motives. Although he is routinely refered to as a "savage" and even a "cannibal" no one, not the author, nor the reader can ever think of him as anything less than fully and completely human.

In fact in many ways, Queequeg is more humane and less "savage" than his Caucasian counterparts. When he is shipped onboard a whaler as a chief harpooner, he is even given a far greater share of the whaling profits than his white friend. His salary is thus far greater than most white whaling men. This is not how "non humans" are geenrally treated.

Keep in mind Moby Dick was written at the peak of the 19th century by an author who is unmistakably of the 19th century in his sensibilties and world view. This volume was not written to please modern sensibilities or even portray the fiction of the "good savage", nor was it meant to fill an wmpty slot with the "token" Non White.

Many parts of Moby Dick have been drawn from the real-life experience of the author, Herman Melville as a sailor and whaler.

And lest one worries, Queequeg is not the only Non-White in the story. Other prominent characters include: Dagoo, an African native, and Tashtego, a Native American also play prominent roles.

Last but not least, Pip, the cabin boy and favorite of the Captain is a little black boy, perhaps 6 or 7 years old.

None of these Non White individuals are ever treated as slaves or non-human.

In conclusion then: as the OP so correctly points out its is completely useless and inaccurate to attribute any sort of moral judgement on the racism or non-racism of societies of a different era or country.  

We cannot simply judge or make any type of moral assertion on how races were really viewed in the past since

- first, as today, these views varied widely in their nature and intensity,
- second the construct of societies were in some ways so different than the one in which we live that we cannot possibly render them true justice.

This is true whether we attempt to judge the 15th Century, the 19th Century or American societies of the 1960s.

-------
All men and women are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.

http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-yeybybp-support-sn.html#89

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

I doubt that whites suddenly decided to become racist during the 19th century. In fact nothing could be further from the truth.

---

I'd agree, although I'd concede and admit that there were concepts created during the time which formed race as it was then into how we view it nowadays.  Understanding social darwinism, why the whole call for "separate, but equal" came into being and how segregation really got going, how race became more than just an indicator of one's family's origins and into something that meant much more, etc. and how that all came into being is imperative if you want to understand race today.

These connotations brought stereotypes with them, and stereotypes aren't always positive.  Through social darwinism, we see these stereotypes become a mark of why European countries were so much stronger than non-European ones.  The difference between a "savage" and a "civilized" person, which is when savage came to mean something inherently negative (and probably gradually after Moby Dick).  Through this, non-related things such as manners began to be emphasized for "civilized" people (if you look at a list of common matters in European societies, you'll notice that things like spitting at the table or burping real loudly while eating your food was all good until around the 19th century, when manners became much more strict).

Eventually, the perceived differences between races were of largely irrelevent things perceived to have some impact, which transformed race from a biological phenomenon into a socially constructed one, and wound up calling for segregation which increased dramatically after 1890.  And this is how we understand race today, though more and more we're dispelling the myths created in the past.

The question would be, though, whether that was immoral and stupid of them?  I'd be inclined to agree if they had the same technology that we do to study race.  As it was then, not even genes, and especially DNA, we really understood very well.  Any analysis required things like skull comparisons and whatnot which would lead the scientists of the day to declaring non-whites as almost a separate species from whites.  For anybody of the era, it wasn't exactly easy to disagree or contradict these claims as it is now (especially with the power of European countries of the day compared to any non-European country except maybe Japan, which didn't really prove itself until after 1905), where DNA analysis shows that everybody alive today has a common ancestor who lived about 70,000 years ago - far too soon to separate into different species, or really obtain any truly significant differences.

In other words, different circumstances lead to different conclusions, calling for what we'd perceive as horrible things.  But is that necessarily immoral?  Perhaps not when all is considered and done...

---

None of these Non White individuals are ever treated as slaves or non-human.

---

I don't think that any white person ever saw minorities as undeserving of human rights, although what we consider "rights" today differed from what were considered "rights" back then.  With the concept of a homogeneous nation state, minorities were perceived as a threat to that (which is essentially the concept of nationalism), and if minorities were perceived as human but somehow inferior to whites (which is generally what social darwinism of the day called for), it was believed to be justified to calling an end for their ability to do something like vote, or live among whites.  The right to vote and right to live where one pleases wasn't seen exactly as "rights" for all back then - generally they were only seen as rights for those citizens of the nation-state, and the nation-state of the US, as it was perceived, was white.

---

In conclusion then: as the OP so correctly points out its is completely useless and inaccurate to attribute any sort of moral judgement on the racism or non-racism of societies of a different era or country.

We cannot simply judge or make any type of moral assertion on how races were really viewed in the past since  

- first, as today, these views varied widely in their nature and intensity,
- second the construct of societies were in some ways so different than the one in which we live that we cannot possibly render them true justice.

This is true whether we attempt to judge the 15th Century, the 19th Century or American societies of the 1960s.

---

I agree wholeheartedly.  It's easy to look back to the late 1800s, early 1900s with contempt for many peoples' racist views and the popular concept of social darwinism.  It's easy to look back even further to back when using African slaves was commonplace in the Americas with contempt.  Thing is, to truly understand it, you have to consider the context (the reason why something like slavery began, the reasoning surrounding the racism or segregation, the science of the day and its limitations, etc.), and don't be fooled - it always makes sense in the proper context.  It was never a matter of "oh, we just don't like black people, so let's enslave them!" and nobody ever immediately thought "white people are superior, therefore all minorities should be treated with contempt."  It's never so simple, and always gradual.

If the past doesn't make sense, then be aware of your own positionality and drop the modern notions, and take the past in for what it really was.  You might personally find it repulsive, but it is what it is.  It might have consequences we perceive as negative today, but in the proper context, it makes sense and the morality is neither better nor worse than any other, including ours.

---

And there was ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in having Blacks in the USA if they weren't slaves.

---

---

They called then non-human because they didn't think they were human - not to justify what they did

---

---

They damn well didn't think it was wrong!

---

---

Most Whites - and I can assure you MOST - didn't want Blacks to be considered equals.

---

---

I can assure you at least 1/2 of the USA didn't want Blacks to be a part of it.

---

---

They didn't call them non-human to make slavery "Better" but they called them subhuman because they THOUGHT they were.

---

What do you guys think? Is it true of all whites Some whites? Most whites?

Post edited at 6:16 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Thing is, to truly understand it, you have to consider the context (the reason why something like slavery began, the reasoning surrounding the racism or segregation, the science of the day and its limitations, etc.), and don't be fooled - it always makes sense in the proper context. It was never a matter of "oh, we just don't like black people, so let's enslave them!" and nobody ever immediately thought "white people are superior, therefore all minorities should be treated with contempt."

---

He says they didn't consider blacks as human so enslaving them was no problem.

I keep arguing against that and telling him whites weren't all like that and that the 3/5 idea was a compromise for taxes not something to probe they didn't think them human.

In fact the abolotionists did NOT want slaves to be counted while the slave states wanted them FULLY counted! So it wasn't to MEASURE their humanit it was just for population counting for tax.

Its funny that KR thinks whites were more racist than they really were and I am the one who argues against thinking that.

Post edited at 6:23 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

I think what you are trying to say is that we shouldn't  really judge what was happening in the past like racism on the same level as we judge te same actions today. For example we can't really judge discrimination in the past by using the same standards that we use today. Or that if we do then we have to apply the same stadards to everyone and everything which is kind of impossible and maybe unfair.

---

That's certainly a part of it.

One of my points is that you can't judge the past with modern standards.  You can't condemn racist individuals of the past in the same way as you can of the racist individuals of today.  Today we have a lot more evidence of just how silly the notion of race is, but back then, it wasn't nearly so obvious and as a result, many people were led to believe of inherent differences between the races, and larger structures like segregation was put in place around 1890.

The other point is that if we can't condemn the racist individuals of the past, then can we condemn the structures of the past which tends to influence us far more?  A lot of people will paint the US as evil for allowing racism and segregation to grip its hold on society starting in the late 19th century, but is that really a valid view given the context of the era?

BTW, Jake, you seem to present the argument that over time, our morals became "better," but that the further back we go, less than perfect morals were more acceptable because of some alleged ignorance.  This is more along the lines of a moral absolutist and personally I don't subscribe to the view at all.

The way I see it, different circumstances called for different things.  This may have included slavery, segregation, or what have you.  In the context of the era, if you truly look at it for what it was, it makes perfect sense and doesn't seem immoral - people aren't inherently evil, and when they do something, they almost always believe it to be for the better (this includes even men like Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cronies, who I don't believe are the epitome of all evil as is painted today, but rather advocating ideologies which I personally don't like or agree with).

In reality, the morality of slave owners was no better than worse than the morality of the common people of today.  But instead, different circumstances existed which called for different moral judgments and different actions.  Indeed, some actions of the past can be seen as immoral, but if you're going to judge it that way, you must do it by the standards of the day, which can be difficult at best.

---

He says they didn't consider blacks as human so enslaving them was no problem.

---

Frankly I don't give a shit what KR says, Jake, but I'll answer anyway.

Then KR is wrong, as slavery came about as a need for slave labor on plantations.  Slavery was already an acceptable practice on non-Christians and Africa already had a thriving slave market, so exploiting that wasn't seen as immoral.

As soon as those African slaves began converting to Christianity, in order to keep people from being cheated on their slave labor and the investment they put into their slaves, slavery began being justified as a racially oriented thing more and more.  Was this immoral?  Perhaps, although I tend to think that we only have the morals that truly suits us (otherwise things like usury, which has traditionally been considered a sin, would never have came into use), and as a result, I simply just see it as it is.  It's what the situation called for.  Things change like that.

Despite that, I'd disagree that whites saw blacks as non-humans.  There may have been more extremist attempts in the late 19th century to make blacks appear to be closer to monkey than man, but no one truly denied them of their humanity (or at least humanity as it was understood by the whites of the day).  They may have been inclined to believe themselves to be superior and different, but not necessarily view blacks as non-human.  After all, do remember that segregation in the 1890s called for "separate, but equal."  In reality, the inequality always existed, but nobody liked to think that they were being unfair when it seemed to benefit them given what they understood.

---

BTW, Jake, you seem to present the argument that over time, our morals became "better," but that the further back we go, less than perfect morals were more acceptable because of some alleged ignorance.  This is more along the lines of a moral absolutist and personally I don't subscribe to the view at all

---

I don't speak of condemning but I don't think all of it was allright either. A lot of people suffered. Even if they thought blacks were not human you don't go torture a dog especially if you think he's lss intelligent. When you have a pet you don't mistreat it and force it to work to death. Some ppl do that but even if you're not a animal lover you know you are doing wrong. So that works in any moral system.

I don't think we all work outside of a moral system where some things are ok because they are in a different place. Things like killing and raping anf abusing are never ok. Even in self-defense.

Its forgiveable but not ok. Not in my system anyway.

For example:

Slavery was acceptable in Jesus time right. But even in the time of Jesus a slave was not considered subhuman. It has fewer RIGHTS than a free man as you said but thats different

Slaves were NOT considered like cattle even in those days. And mistreating you slave was a sin in Jesus time.


-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Frankly I don't give a shit what KR says, Jake, but I'll answer anyway.

---

---

As soon as those African slaves began converting to Christianity, in order to keep people from being cheated on their slave labor and the investment they put into their slaves, slavery began being justified as a racially oriented thing more and more.

---

---

Despite that, I'd disagree that whites saw blacks as non-humans.

---

When I read all the BS KR spews its sometimes hard to tell if I'm the only one thinking that or if he is....

From what I read thats what I figured though. Thanks!

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP