Welcome the the second historical discussion. It's been about 6 months since the first one, but if this one is a success I really hope to start putting these out more regularly.

Historical Discussion #1: Treaty of Versailles

Racial Views and History

It is only within the past fifty years or so that we can claim to have really begun to make significant strides towards equality for persons of all races. There is, of course, much work left to do in this regard. Over the past few centuries there have been many champions of equality and racial freedoms. However, there have been many more men who accomplished great feats for society, but leave much to be desired when it comes to their views and, at times, actions with regards to race. With this in mind, how should this affect our overall view of them today? Should we view their thoughts and actions in comparison to the prevailing views and norms of their day? Or can we rightfully expect more of such ones who were able to distinguish themselves and show forward-thinking in so many other areas of life? Consideration of a few examples is in order.

Among America’s founding fathers were found a variety of attitudes, largely influenced by geography and the class they were born into. George Washington, for one, was a slaveholder who throughout life mildly repudiated slavery and refused to sell slaves separate from their family. However, it wasn’t until his death that he freed his slaves. John Adams, on the other hand, did not own slaves and viewed the practice as repugnant and antiquated. However, out of fears that it would compromise the Union if the slavery issue was pushed forward, Adams never forced the matter with the fervor he did on other issues close to his heart. The most puzzling though, is Thomas Jefferson. A fervent champion of religious freedom and equality of men, Jefferson never freed his slaves, even upon his death; this despite forty years of proclaiming a desire to see the institution ended permanently. More troubling are Jefferson’s comments in Notes on Virginia, in which he recorded his belief of the inferiority of the mental capacity of the Negro. This scarcely seems to be the same man who passionately wrote of inalienable rights and equality of all men. Should we overlook or gloss over this darker side of Jefferson in deference to his significant contributions to America in so many other regards? There are certainly many more examples which could also be examined; however, from Washington, Adams, and Jefferson we see a good representation of the different attitudes of the time. This problem is in no way limited to eighteenth century America, as will now be discussed.

Some of the most important men of the twentieth century are also known to have fallen victim to racist tendencies, at times taking away, or preventing the acquisition of, rights of persons based strictly on race. Undoubtedly the foremost example of this is Adolf Hitler. Obviously, what separates Hitler from others of the early twentieth century who also espoused similar sentiments is that he turned these views into unthinkable actions. Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, and other prominent World War I era leaders expressed belief in Arab inferiority, including the idea that they lacked the ability to rule themselves. Also of note are the anti-Semitic beliefs held by leaders in Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Turkey that there was a vast global Jewish conspiracy which could at any moment undermine their respective war efforts. Many of their paranoid ideas remarkably resemble the future ideas put forth by Hitler.

Institutionalized racism was by mo means limited to the Nazis. In America, many politicians made careers based on the perpetuating segregation indefinitely. Conversely, many leaders, including senators and presidents, worked hard to help this nation move forward from its embarrassing racial history. However, even some of the men who did much to end segregation, including Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, are recorded as using racial epithets rather freely. Does such use of derogatory and hateful words effect how we should remember such men? Or should we consider how such words and attitudes were viewed at that time to determine our opinions of them?

If so desired hundreds of other specific examples could be produced; however the purpose here is not solely to judge each person on a case by case basis, but rather to determine through what lens it is proper to judge the racial attitudes of men throughout history. Should an intolerant or racist attitude be a strong mark against him, or should it merely be a footnote—something we acknowledge, yet doesn’t take away from how we view him? This is obviously a complex issue and not all cases are the same. Please feel free to interject other questions which may be important to discussion, such as: Should all types of racism (against blacks, Jews, Arabs, or Asians) be viewed the same? How much of a difference does it make if a person tacitly approved of racist practices compared to taking an active role in the perpetuation of such practices?

Please note: The preceding write-up is in now way designed to be all inclusive of what can be discussed. Please feel free to add for consideration any points you find relevant.

Do Woodrow Wilson's racist sentiments provide insight into todays dealings with the Middle East?

One thing that must be understood is that racism is quite universal, its not just a thing white people feel.

And about Jefferson, I really dont know, did he treated his slaves well? Would freeing them be good to themselves in such society?

but has white racism not affected more people? i think it would be near impossible to argue that. which is why it is most significant, along with the fact that much of the discussion will likely revolve around America, as this board is US-centric, and most major US leaders have been white.

not saying your point's invalid, just that it's not at the center of this topic necessarily.

"White" people invented the idea of "race", and took the ethnocentrism that is a part of all human societies to a new level where the color of one's skin became more important than language or religion of cultural history, and in some places, more important than almost anything else.

In that way, Western Europeans, "white" people, invented racism, and this largely took place in the past 200-300 years.

I find this topic particularly interesting because I'm currently taking a White Power, Black Leadership course taught by a Professor who was active in the south during the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. We've been reading books by Du Bois and Washington, as well as a study on Ben Tilman, the craaazy racist governor and then senator from SC.

Perhaps this is too simplistic, but it seems rather outrageous to me that we should blindly idealize Jefferson or other founders and ignore that they held slaves. Or, as an example from another time period, outrageous that we should praise the Reconstruction period for reuniting the country, but while teaching the subject in schools, completely ignore the fact that this unity was at the cost of fostering civil rights for African Americans.

While, yes, there were great advancements in social services and democratic participation during the Progressive Era, it was also the same era hat black men lost the vote in North Carolina. We have an amazingly horrific history of lynching in this country well into the 30s, perhaps later. But people mainly just learn this: Reconstruction, World War I, Great Depression, WWII, Civil Rights movement. Even in high school the whole topic of the Civil Rights movement was really brief. I have attended some pretty great schools, but the extent of it was still just segregation/lack of voting. We never talked about the fact that freedmen became so indebted they were pretty much slaves. There was never any talk of deeply ingrained racial attitudes. We didn't talk about lynchings or how the federal government ignored riots and massacres.

I'm not sure if I directly addressed any of the points, so I apologize for the ramble. I guess this leads up to my question- Why don't we learn about these things? Why SHOULDN'T this be a basic staple of history classes? Is it just because we're ashamed of ourselves? Or we don't want to admit that our founders weren't the pinnacle of morality because that somehow lessens our countries values? Huh. I think this topic is particularly relevant now after Obama's election, when there are some people claiming that racism must be over since he was elected.

My answer to that is that many educators want simple answers to give to students, and getting into the complexities of the situations makes that a lot more difficult.

What are racial relations like in Brazil?

...
i learned about all of this in high school, maybe earlier

but then i thought about it, maybe it was in my women and minorities class sr year, i dunno, but i know i learned about black codes etc prior as well as sharecropping in history classes.

but there is only so much time in a year to teach the entire history of the usa

We learned about it too. We didn't spend a lot of time on it, though, because as dk said, you only have so much time to cover all of American history.

I think you hit on it there.

Today I was reading an excerpt from Du Bois called the Souls of White Folk, which is a really confrontational piece compared with some of his other writing. In it he says that white people 'discovered' whiteness (not just the United States), and white superiority, and with it a 'divine right' to steal from brown people. Which is pretty much true if you think about it in the U.S. context. During slavery/Reconstruction/Post-Reconstruction, white supremacists constructed the southern myth that they were the victims of Reconstruction, not the freed slaves, and furthermore that blacks could not be trusted (despite protestations from black writers along the lines of 'we cared for your children and nursed your parents but now we can't be trusted?'). I think the white supremacist fiction might be more powerful than others, though racism can exist universally. International input, anyone?

I did IB so my high school history courses were basically first-year college courses, and we covered most of that as well.

Totally wrong. Racism was around in Ancient India, Egypt, China, etc.

Ethnocentrism and cultural elitism were around, but I don't think the concept of "race" existed as we know it today.

I mean, in Egypt, the Egyptians were superior to the Hebrews and Nubians and Libyans and Greeks and anyone else they may have encountered, but by our modern standards, we probably wouldn't even consider most of those people to be of different "races". Conversely, until the colonization of America and the proliferation of teh African slave trade, a Spaniard wouldn't have thought any more highly of a Frenchman than he would of a Moor, except for the religious difference. Shit, a Moor would probably be more welcome in an English city than a Scotsman.

Racial divisions were invented so that the ruling elite could make the European indentured servants feel superior to the African slaves, even though they were both treated like trash and literally worked to death by their masters. Racism as we know it in modern America was invented to get white trash to prop up the moneyed and landed elite. It's still the basic model for the Republican Party.

It can't be said enough.

"White people have more in common with black people than they do with rich people." - Jay Billington Bulworth

but it really doesn't matter who the target is or how the lines are defined, it all involves hatred/prejudice towards those different from you

Glad to see some good discussion. I'll comment later tonight when I get a chance.

Agreed. You just can't say "totally wrong" to me and not expect a response.

Also, if we're going to be talking about things in terms of "race" as we understand the term in our society, that way of looking at things is a relatively recent development in history. There absolutely, demonstrably, was no such thing as a "white person" before the 17th or 18th century.

Right, buy they did, and that's what matters. If aliens came down to earth today they might not consider blacks to be any different that whites, but the salient point is that such differences are important to us.

Also, the Egyptians killed redheads on sight.

Ginger kids have no souls.