Why is it that the richest 10% of our entire population own 85% of the global wealth while the poorest 50% own barely 1% (Brown)? Why do our leaders feel more inclined to lie and cheat for their own gains? Wouldn’t it be better to work on progressing in a more communal way?
White men in the 17th century were supposed to be good Christians and abide by God’s laws. The Bible taught that slavery was wrong but still men continued to do it. In order to justify their immoral practices, they decided that black people were not human beings but a form of animal (“Beginnng”). That is, of course, after having declared their actions justified because Africans weren’t Christians and needed to be shown the way. John Winthop, the Massachusetts Bay Colony governor in 1630 believed that “in all times some must be rich, some highe and eminent in power and dignite; others meane and in subjection” (Zinn, 38). Imperial countries would use any reason they could to appear justified in their actions. America wasn’t the only country to act like that, they weren’t the first, nor will they be the last. But they do seem to be the most strong-willed country and took the longest to abolish slavery in its entirety (just as they refuse to stop impeding on other countries today). British historian, Peter Fryer explains his view of racism and says it “is a largely defensive ideology- the weapon of a class who’s wealth, way of life, and power were under mounting attack” (“Beginning”). That ideology works on many levels and with many kinds of people, it doesn’t just have to be the wealthy. When someone is faced with the unknown and feel afraid or threatened by it they tend to immediately persecute and condemn instead of pausing to understand what it really is.
I believe it was a mix of fear and of pride that contributed to such prejudices becoming what they are today. During this period of slavery rising and indentured servants diminishing, the lines between class distinctions were becoming more apparent. In fear of white indentured servants uprising with the black slaves, indentured servants were granted more rights and freedoms and blacks segregated even more. (Zinn, 38). Even in the 17th century, where America was supposed to be “the land of the free”, a middle class was established and furthered wealthy Americans’ ability to hold onto their wealth by making it harder for someone without substance to gain anything in life. (Zinn, 42).
Why is individualism so large a part of white society? The 17th century segregation and political control paved the way to a 20th century private accumulation state filled with suburbs and white picket fences. Socialist ideals and welfare programs have yet to succeed in a capitalistic world. Immigrants and blacks joined together in communities. They protected each other and helped each other. When a slave ran away, a master would be afraid to go after them for fear of confrontations with angry mobs. When slaves born in Africa were freed, they often joined other like communities, while slaves born in America, when freed, tended to set off on their own and fend for themselves (Zinn, 28). There’s something very separate about life in our egocentric America. Today voting turnout is extremely low. There is no universal anything, unlike western Europe. While the middle class is becoming almost an anti-class, it still makes up the largest percent of Americans… Americans who often struggle to stay on top of things in a country that has an ever increasing gap between the rich and poor. Americans are too worried about their own private lives to worry about the bigger picture… which may be exactly what those in control want.
~ “The Beginning of Racism.” March 24, 2007. http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10965
~ Brown, David. “Richest tenth own 85% of world's assets.” December 6, 2006. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article661055.ece
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i agree in that to justify slavery White men decided that black people were not human but almost dog like and thus Christian value need not apply, How Selfish and despicable!
I fully agree with your statement that “Imperial countries would use any reason they could to appear justified in their actions”. Essentially, that is what they did in the 1500s-1800s when the justification for slavery was converted from heathenism (first used as a defense against the enslavement of the Slavic people, who did not practice the religion of the Roman Catholic Church, but instead what the Roman Catholic Church deemed as paganism) to that of skin color. This change in policy was committed in the name of profits because of the increased profitability of slavery over indentured servitude. Since a slave could, and time and again did, convert to Christianity, the time-worn validation of slavery via religious views was crumbling. In its place, slave-holders defined one race as privileged and another as lacking. The beginnings of racism were fomented by slave holders in order to defend their continued use of forced labor despite general religious uniformity. Also, as opposed to religious views, the color of a slave’s skin could not be changed (later mulatto and mestizo progeny, previously treated as any other national, would be regarded as just as “tainted” as their relations). Thus, the need for a rationalization of slavery bred racism, not the other way around. Racism sprung directly from slavery, but slavery did not begin because of racism. Your statement that ”In fear of white indentured servants uprising with the black slaves, indentured servants were granted more rights and freedoms and blacks segregated even more. (Zinn, 38)” serves to emphasize this point. With the growing number of indentured servants who identified with the enslaved men and women who shared similar conditions, the elite classes were endangered by a class uprising. These privileged few came to the decision that, in order to ensure their continued affluence, they would need to separate these two groups via a difference in status. Through bribes (more rights, money, land) granted to white indentured servants based upon the “fact” that “all white men were superior to black”, the elite gained the general support of white indentured servants and severely reduced the ability of slaves to gain freedom, effectively setting an entire race against an ideology based upon something they could never change: the color of their skin (Zinn, 37).
Sources:
Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York, New York: Harper Collins Publications, 2003.
Post a Comment