MDDM Re: Washington & slavery

[Paul Mackin]

jbor wrote:

> Paul wrote:
>
> >> "There are, however, in the vast record of his correspondence no explicit
> >> statements by Washington that blacks were innately inferior to whites."
> >
> > Is this a statement that can be accepted as true? (not sure who said it, but
> > no
> > matter)
>
> It was from that essay/talk by Peter Henriques. I haven't read GW's
> correspondence and papers so I couldn't say if it is true or not. I'm
> assuming that Henriques had read the primary sources.

Thanks. I'd missed that.

>
>
> http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm
>
> > In other words he was calling his black household staff lazy and shiftless
> > because
> > they happened to BE  lazy and shiftless, not because of their race.
>
> Yes, that's the gist. Sometimes GW is talking about individuals being lazy,
> dishonest etc. At other times I get the impression that it's the institution
> of slavery itself which GW believes has made slaves *in general* shiftless
> and untrustworthy.
>
> > None of this has anything much to do with Pynchon's GW that I can see.
>
> It certainly supports attribution of the line at 572.26 to George.

My  flippant closing line here was a throwaway a prioi type statement to the
effect that the  source material doesn't tie the hands of the fiction writer,
whose only obligaton is take make his character interesting, instructive, or
otherwise useful.,  But possibly there are cases where the historic record  may
rule out some otherwise possible interpretation of the fiction. . Will give that
some thought.

p.
.