-Caveat Lector-
Gerald Harp wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> Welcome back, Hawk. Many of us missed hearing your arguments however we
> disagreed because your supporting evidence offered something to get one's
> teeth into.
Thanks for the welcome.
> I'm not sure what to say regarding your remarks concerning the scriptures
> since, apparently, some are grievously offended by any mention of spiritual or
> moral matters - at least they are offended when scriptures are referenced as
> opposed to, say, Urantia channeled baloney. I will only point out that we are
> directed away from legalism and toward general principles so i am puzzled by
> your statement that the principles cannot be applied in the specific. It
> seems to me that they could then never be applied.
That's an interesting question.. It seems to me that there are any number of
"general summaries" or guidelines that "usually" apply... While I am not in
agreement with the over-all thesis of "situation ethics," I do that that general
principles may be over-ruled by specific guidelines.
Let's say that it is a general rule that a soldier should obey his superior.
However, there may be specific rules that speak to more carefully defined
situations. If a superior officer tells Pvt. Peabody, "Strip that woman's
clothing from her body and rape her," then Pvt. Peabody should be responsible
enough to say that rape of a civilian by a soldier is prohibited by a specific
rule. If the "general rule" is to obey the superior officer, and he superior
officer says, toss a grenade into that building... BUT, the soldier knows that
non-combatant women or children are hiding in there for safety, Pvt Peabody would
be justified in refusing the order, which (under other circumstances) might be
perfectly litigitimate. Thus, when a multitude of very specific guidelines are
stated in which slave holders and slaves are instructed in the proper manner of
conducting themselves in their relationship, and never once even an added footnote
that "slavery is, after all, evil," then we cannot apply a general rule of
treating people in a manner that we would like to be treated as covering that
issue. In 1st John, for instance, there is a statement that "Christians don't
sin." However, in the next few sentences, John talks about all kinds of sin that
Christians are known to have committed (and are likely to again). It is somewhat
along the lines of a father saying, "Son, you are a Smith... and we Smith's don't
act that way," when the conversation was initiated precisely because a Smith was
acting that way. Another passage comes to mind: "Answer NOT a fool according to
his folly, lest you become like him," and in the very next verse, written by the
same author, he goes on to say, "ANSWER a food according to his folly, lest he
become wise in his own conceit." So, the actor's action may depend on the
intended or anticipated result.
To make this somewhat topical... Most of us would say that lying is a bad
sociological action... and most of us would tell our children that one should not
lie. However, in some circumstances lying might be the proper thing to do...
after all, what is camoflage, if it isn't an attempt to deceive someone (usually
someone bent on killing you)?
> You speak of the slave mentality and i know that it lives in many people.
> However, IMO the root of it is in oppression. When folks get so frustrated
> and despair of being allowed to do, they sometimes sort of give up and go
> along with the notion that if something good is going to happen, it must come
> from massah (the corporation, government, church, et al). Of course this is
> not confined to actual ex-slaves.
Right.. having once been a private in the Army, I understand the concept. If
one's dedication to self-discipline, hard work, dedication, and honesty aren't
likely to be rewarded, it certainly dampens the enthusiasm for such ideals. I
have visited several formerly Communist nations... The quality of workmanship is
deplorable! Why go to any extra effort, if those efforts won't make any
beneficial effect in one's life? I might say the same thing seems to raise its
head concerning a large number of government employees.
> You ask about what state had the removal of thumbs as punishment for learning
> to read. The plantations were in the bush.
I don't agree with that as a general statement. There was a highly structured
society in the Confederate States. Plantations were not isolated societies.
> The law was massah and vice versa. When you read the narratives of the
> ex-slaves your eyes are opened.
In some sense, you are exactly right... The "law" was generally whatever the
master said... But not in any appreciable degree than the law governing a
husband/wife or parent/child, or even employer/apprentice relationship. However,
I have already directed the list's attention to various laws of the state of
Virginia (for instance) regarding physical abuse of slaves, including assault and
rape. "Massa" was not above the law, but had a great deal of legal power and
authority. However, intentional maiming WAS against the law, and there is
documented trial evidence that the law was enforced.
> The law is irrelevant when it is not available and when the entire economy
> depended upon supporting massah's heroic efforts to keep everyone in their
> place.
I disagree that "the law was irrelevant," where the records of the courts clearly
show that they were enforced. Obviously, some people break the law and get away
with it... I doubt if a single person is deterred from the use of recreational
drugs as a result of the plethora of laws forbidding it. Your choice of words
indicates that you have an emotional bias against the system, ie "Massa's herioc
efforts." What you call "heroic efforts to keep people in their place" would not
sound at all out of place if spoken today by, for instance, a union organizer.
So, if you were to read a history of management efforts, your opinion might be
swayed if that history was published by the AFL/CIO or by the American Management
Association.
> Literate thinking slaves are an obvious threat. Why do you think our own news
> media is so carefully controlled? The weak spot in the plantation was the
> owner's children, their eagerness to share what they know and show off at the
> same time. When a slave learned to read, he taught others.
You are overlooking, or purposely ignoring, the evidence that many slaves were
educated in "letters." "That Devil Forrest" had some slaves educated because it
enhanced their value... Stonewall Jackson conducted a veritable seminary for
slaves. I admit that education might not have been a priority in most cases, but
then, not many corporations offer educational benefits to their workers, other
than that which would enhance the workers' ability to be more productive. Why
should that be a strange, much less an evil, concept to understand?
> When a plantation had more than, say, a score of slaves, they would meet at
> night in culverts or ditches with the overhead covered with branches and twigs.
I think you've been reading too many novels... While I don't doubt that such
things may have occurred, I do doubt that it was a wide-spread activity. Hell, we
cannot keep minority kids in school today... I have a bit of difficulty believing
that most slaves were desperately seeking "an education."
> They told each other about what was going on, 10 pair of eyes in different
> places could see a lot. With good fortune, one would teach reading. When a
> slave stopped overnight attached to plantation visitors, they could hear about
> things far
> away and give information in return. These underground schools were vital to
> the encouragement that comes from camaraderie.
No doubt such things may have occurred. I just have a bit of a problem believing
that "underground schools" were a big enterprise.
> The above remark applies to prayer also. Bear in mind that each plantation
> had its own way to deal with issues in the slave community, namely massah's
> way.
Of course... Massa was running the show and paying the bills. Some were good,
some bad, some stupid.. Not much different from what I encounter every day as a
management consultant. However, the stupid ones generally don't last long.
> A few, especially the large plantations with hundreds of slaves, were
> relatively liberal and followed their own house rules fairly consistently.
> Jefferson Davis ran one of these operations. Most plantation owners were
> rather harsh.
According to who? By what standard? LIFE was harsh then, compared to today. I
have several documents relating how to "Manage Negroes," that were published more
or less as "farm management journals" which were widely read much as "trade
journals" are today. I agree that some of the suggestions appear rather harsh by
today's standards, but so was many other aspects of 19th Century life (I again
point of the discipline of employees, apprentices, soldiers and sailors, wives,
prisoners, and children).
> Economics led the most intelligent owners to give their slaves just enough
> sustenance and rest to maintain the work.
Not according to the documents I have read, which were meant to educate and
increase the productivity, efficiency, and orderly operation of plantations and
farms. Most of them recommend ample leisure and recreational activities (such as
dances, etc.), providing extra rations for the more productive "gangs of hands",
allowing slaves to produce and sell on the open market, various bonus plans,
encouraging marriage and fidelity in the marriage relationship (being married was
one condition for getting one's own private quarters), and any number of other
incentives. If you're interested, I can provide the documentation.
> The photographs of the slaves tell the story by their faces.
Photographs distributed by who? I suggest that photographs produced and
distributed by abolitionists would tend to be those that supported their
contention of harsh cruelty.. I think that descriptions of travels by Europeans of
the time would be less biased, and they tend to report a rather benevolent
relationship between slaves and "Massa," as you call him. There are two rather
interesting photographs related to the CSA prison camp in Tyler, Texas (Camp
Ford). One shows a group of prisoners photographed upon their departure from
prison.. They were all dressed rather nattily, with frock coats, ties,
"plantation" hats, etc. In fact, they "could have been dressed for the ball."
Another photo was taken by Union officials and widely distributed as a
(presumably) propoganda tool.. The prisoners were ragged, barefoot, seated on the
ground, and generally looked like hell warmed over. Which was an accurate
depiction of prison life at Camp Ford? Hint... the one of the emaciated and
ragged fellows was taken some weeks AFTER the first, and while the "so-called"
prisoners had been rejoined to the Union Army.
> Jerry
>
> Apparently, many of the owners were as ignorant as the slaves about prayer.
> It was common for owners to forbid prayer, possibly because they did not want
> their slaves to have either hope or comfort or maybe because the owners really
> were nervous about the slaves communicating with the living god.
That's about as rediculous a statement as anyone could utter. In fact, the very
opposite of what you say is true. On almost EVERY plantation, church attendance
was a required activity. Volume after volume of documented evidence supports the
fact that slave owners went to great efforts to "evangelize" their slaves..
Christian morals among the slave population was one of the biggest issues and
highly encouraged notions in the South. You really do need to seek out "the rest
of the story," as Paul Harvey would say.
> The slaves, who like the owners apparently never heard of silent prayer or
> believed it ineffective, would speak their prayers into a tub of water to muffle
> it.
Give me a break! You don't really believe that, do you? How long have you
dedicated serious efforts in the serious study this issue? You have to realize
that very few books are published in an effort to present a "balanced view" of any
issue. If you restrict your reading to authors who only reinforce the ideas that
you prefer, you'll never become truly educated in any subject.. I have some books
I could suggest, and some documentation I could send to you, if you are sincerely
interested in being truly knowledgable on this subject. I have stated before that
I am opposed to the whole idea of slavery... I do not advocate it, and want no
part of it.. I started my study of the subject in order to argue effectively with
people who were saying basically the same things I am telling you. But my studies
took me in an entirely different direction than I had anticipated. In short, I
had to admit that I was wrong concerning the historical, theological, and
philosophical basis and practice of slavery in the Southern United States and the
Confederate States of America. My opinions were upheld with regard to the issue
as practiced in the Carribean, and in Central and South America.
Hawk
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
