Washington & slavery

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Washington & slavery


> Otto wrote:
>
> > [...] he should have known better that black people are not inferior to
whites
> > by birth.
>
> Isn't this the main point?
>

No, I was just answering a question from Terrance.
But when I think of it now: yes, it is an important point what he believed,
if he'd been able to let one of his slaves suck on his private hemp pipe,
thus treating him fairly equal (as Pynchon presents him), then this is a
little bit contrary to the GW we get from the historical record of his own
words & writings up to now. But I agree that Pynchon has done his homework
on this character, this highly controversial historical figure.

>
> "There are, however, in the vast record of his correspondence no explicit
> statements by Washington that blacks were innately inferior to whites."
>

"[...] What was GW's attitude towards his slaves and blacks in general? Was
he a racist? In some ways this is too modern a question and hard to apply
to George Washington's views.

There can be no denying that GW's observations on slavery and those held in
bondage contain many unfortunate comments from a modern perspective.
"Blacks were ignorant and shiftless; they were careless, deceitful, and
liable to act without any qualms of conscience." Describing Betty, GW
lamented that "a more lazy, deceitful & impudent huzzy" cannot be found in
the United States. On his black carpenters, he declared "there is not to be
found so idle set of Rascals." He recommended keys be left with a white
servant because "I know of no black person about the house [who] is to be
trusted." GW, an elitist by temperament and upbringing, did have an
"engrained sense of racial superiority," and did not identify with their
plight. As a group, the slaves seemed different than whites. In a
conversation with British actor, John Bernard, Washington came close to
explicitly racist language in justifying fighting for freedom while
maintaining slavery: "This may seem a contradiction, but S it is neither a
crime nor an absurdity. When we profess, as our fundamental principle, that
liberty is the inalienable right of every man, we do not include madmen or
idiots; liberty in their hands would become a scourge. Till the mind of the
slave has been educated to perceive what are the obligations of a state of
freedom, the gift would insure its abuse.""
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm


> >
> > His laments that they're not trustworthy & words like that are
> > highly hypocritical.
>
> Well, no, I disagree with this. Discrimination is when you employ
different
> standards to make judgements about different groups of people. I'm sure GW
> also believed some white individuals he knew were untrustworthy, idle,
> thieves etc too. No doubt they were. GW also seems to have trusted a great
> many of his slaves, granted them a range of privileges/liberties, and
> considered them as part of his "family". The point would be that he
treated
> them as individuals, as people, not as a racial abstraction.
>
> Within the system of slavery, which is a racist institution by its very
> nature, George seems to have gone out of his way to respect the opinions
and
> wishes of his slaves, and to have exerted himself quite a bit on their
> behalfs in order to ensure their ongoing welfare and humane treatment.
>
> It's quite feasible that some abolitionists were as racist as some
> slaveholders. The opposite possibility also holds true. I strongly doubt
> that life (i.e. freedom to go wherever and say whatever she or he wanted,
> freedom to work or worship as she or he wanted, financial and legal
freedoms
> etc) for a "free" African in Philadelphia, Boston or New York in those
times
> was any better than, or even nearly as good as, life for one of GW's
slaves
> down in Virginia.
>

Agreed, but a freedom in poverty may be more welcomed than a full stomach in
slavery.

> I'd say Pynchon has done his research on George and old Ben via the
primary
> documentation. Essays and articles and other secondary sources are only
> other people's *opinions*, some more valid and even-handed than others,
some
> interesting, some not, but all of them reflections and impressions and
> selections and "confabulations" just the same. Ultimately, Pynchon's
> characterisations of these and other historical figures in _M&D_ fall into
> the same category, of course - history as fiction, fiction as history -
his
> text acknowledges and offers itself as nothing more nor less than this.
> Nonetheless, in the novel GW is cast in a complimentary light, BF far less
> so. Imo.
>
> best
>

Yes

Otto



__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.dee