Month: November 2019

In reading about the experiences of black people in the age of submission there two distinct topics that I thought of. One was the use of music, poetry and other forms of art which gave a political message and the second one was the usage of churches within the black community. Zinn showed many poems from authors such as Countee Cullen, Langston Hughes, and Paul Lawrence Dunbar. These Harlem Renaissance arts used their art to express political messages about the discrimination within the Jim Crow system. By writing from personal narratives as well as those which they knew were pervasive in the community, they were able to accurately convey the blatant racism and ostracization that took over their daily lives. This is especially powerful in Cullen’s incident poem as it shows that one racist experience can have a lot of power on a person’s life. By showing that his entire summer all he remembers was a racial slur that he was called, we are able to understand the message Cullen wanted to send to both the black and white audiences who read his work.

Another powerful aspect of these first-hand stories was the usage of the church, particularly Baptist churches, as a source of power, strength but also functionally as a place to meet where many marches and organized dissent started. When Zinn writes about Montgomery this is especially evident. By meeting at the church, it was symbolic of black unity but by also noting that the followers were instructed to “walk with God” demonstrates the power and significance that church and God had in these stories. The church, according to Zinn, was central to Martin Luther King’s movement but generally had a large presence in other movements as well.

5 Comments

I cannot decide if I wish I were surprised by these articles or not. As a part of my SSIR class, we have learned a lot about uncovering the intentionally buried stories of history especially surrounding the historic African American and slave history and culture in the United States and specifically here in Richmond. Sadly, not much surprises me anymore.

The more I read about our country’s true history, the more I want to find out more. Some new things I learned and was interested but simultaneously appalled by was the description of Lincoln’s opinions and how they changed depending on election timing and audience. Like many other leadership myths we have debunked (the founding fathers, MLK, JFK, Washington) we like to think Lincoln was a really genuine guy, maybe a little depressed about his son’s death, but a good guy who sadly got shot at a theatre. Upon further inspection, Lincoln’s First Inaugural Adrress, as Zinn calls is, “was conciliatory toward the South and seceded states” (189). Not that I am surprised considering the constant deconstruction of American legends I am seeing in many of my classes, but now I feel like we don’t really have anyone left. Super pessimistic and sad, I know, and no leaders are perfect, but Lincoln? Honest Abe?

In the second article, one point that stuck out to me was when Zinn talks about Montgomery being “the beginning”. Zinn describes that Montgomery:

“forecast the style and mood of the vast protest movement that would sweep the South in the next ten years: emotional church meetings, Christian hymns adapted to current battles, references to lost American ideals, the commitment to nonviolence,  the willingness to struggle and sacrifice”. (451)

I completely agree with this statement. Over fall break I went to Montgomery with my SSIR class and visited the Equal Justice Institutes creations of the National Memorial for Peace and Justice as well as the Legacy Museum: From Enslavement to Mass Incarceration. What both of these places and many other historical markers around Montgomery and Selma describe is that Montgomery definitely set the tone for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. Not just because of the bus boy coats and not just because Hoyt Street Church, but because what happened in other cities around the nation were dioramas and mini-replications of what happened in Montgomery.

 

Overall, these articles were enlightening yet also pretty depressing. It is sad to think that stories and myths of leaders have been engrained into our society for so long. I think it is our duty as scholars and especially scholars of leadership to question the legitimacy of the American story and not only bring out the truth but also bring out why we covered up the truth for so long. Only then can we move on and use our best judgement to improve how we record our history today.

6 Comments

This article, like several we have read in this class, is very interesting because it reveals pieces of history that were untaught, unmentioned, and in some senses swept under the rug. I appreciate Zinn’s mostly unbiased inclusion of all the different factors and discussions that occurred leading up to the abolition of slavery. He thoroughly discussed the country’s reasons for holing onto slavery for so long. When I was growing up I was aware that the south was dependent on human labor for their agriculture however I was not under the impression that the whole country, at least those who were of wealth, were accepting of slavery and the economic profit it brought forth. This is somewhat disturbing to me because human slavery is never justified, and the fact that many more American citizens were ok with slavery, even though they knew it came along with physical punishment and lack of basic human rights. EW.

 

It was also very interesting to learn more about Abraham Lincoln. Growing up I thought Lincoln was the MAN. He still is in some ways yet learning about how he tiptoed around the wants of the wealthy alters my view of him. In Zinn’s passage, he mentions “Lincoln could argue with lucidity and passion against slavery on moral grounds while acting cautiously in practical politics,”(Zinn 187). While I do understand that he has to be considerate of all opinions of his followers in order to stay in power, this was still eye-opening for me. Maybe it is because I have subconsciously linked the abolition of slavery with Lincoln. I always viewed Lincoln as a freedom fighter, activist, stick it to the mankind of guy, a man with morals he was willing to fight for… Hm.

8 Comments

You know, the title of this section really threw me at first, but I’m impressed with how accurate it ended up being. Early on in the first reading (the one this post is named after) a question is introduced, “Are the conditions of slavery as important as the fact that it happened?” This question is pretty loaded, but I’m going to go ahead and say yes. The conditions are important to remember so that the reality of the situation cannot be glossed over or said to “not have been THAT bad.” In that respect, this question is trying to protect against that exact mindset. Later in the reading (page numbers didn’t print out, so I can’t site, sorry), it gave the example of how “Half of all slaves were whipped” has a different feeling than “Every few days, some slave would be whipped.” And that is the point this question is trying to bring home. You have all the loopholes caused by phrasing, all the forgotten rights of those mistreated because some document someone didn’t explicitly say something, or explicitly note that one specific thing needs enforcing. It’s ridiculous and almost comedic.

On Abraham Lincoln. So, I’ll be honest, I’m not a history buff and I’ve kinda forgotten way more than I should have from AP US History (APUSH, ykwgo). That said, I was pretty shook when I read the excerpts from Lincoln’s speech. Yknow, the whole white supremacy strand, not wanting equality, and all that. And, I get it, I do. Those were the times, blacks weren’t even considered full-fledged humans at this point (which is just, uhhh disgusting? Appalling? Horrifying?). But Lincoln lost respect points from me today, I don’t think I even like $5 bills anymore. Mostly kidding, but lowkey triggered. YET, there is hope and I’ll cling on to it—Lincoln could have been lying. He lied in the next quote about not planning to free the slaves at all. So maybe he was just saying what people wanted to hear in order to get their support. I don’t think anyone knows for sure, but I feel like someone as smart and successful as Abe Lincoln… would understand ridiculous the notion of black people being not-people was. Maybe he somehow knew he was ahead of his time.

This reading was really frustrating for a variety of reasons. America’s history with racism and slavery is so murky and one-step-forward-two-steps-back that it’s really no wonder why we’re still having issues today. Slavery and Racism were said to have been ingrained in our society in the 1800’s. Not to mention, a lot of the events from “Or Does it Explode?” were… pretty recent in the grand scheme of things. Freaky.

2 Comments

This reading was very intriguing as it looks at multiple other factors that possibly went into the decision to free slaves. The revolting aspect is the most intriguing aspect to me. At some point one group of people will lose control over the other as it grows. The thought of a civil war led by those who were enslaved is very practical. Furthermore, this would completely reshape how America would be built.

This idea is somewhat reverse of machiavelli’s fear of the leader. The uprise of the slaves was the concern. Along with Nat Turner’s rebellion were many others. One revolt often overlooked is the one led by Newton Knight in Mississippi. Newton is also a distant cousin of mine that my grandfather has personal journals from. In many of those journals, he talked very optimistic about the slave rebellions and how they were soon to become liberated through rebellion.

 

3 Comments

Two interesting ideas stuck out to me in the two readings from Zinn: resistance and disproportionality. Zinn’s chapters make it clear that resistance in so many ways is/was a daily occurrence in black peoples’ lives. In slavery, Zinn says the “salve resistance” was “expressed in countless ways in daily life and culture” through “music, magic, art, [and] religion” (pg. 179). The way in which slaves came together and formed this culture of “extended kinship” was all to resist the system in which they were forced into (pg. 177). Slaves bonded and held each other up because as a whole they could imagine resisting the system and they could dream of freedom beyond the plantations. Later, in the 1950s and 60s Zinn argues “the memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away” (pg. 443). The resistance and anger embedded deeply in black history was “all there in the poetry, the prose, the music, sometimes masked, sometimes unmistakably clear” (pg. 446). Decades after slavery blacks continued to resist the inequality through their daily expression of song and religion and other tactics. Resistance is ingrained in black culture just as much as racism is embedded into American culture.

The theme of disproportionality is repeated by Zinn in his two chapters. In the first chapter he argues that the US system was exploiting not only poor blacks, but poor whites. While being pushed by capitalism, society was willing to entrap both poor blacks and whites into systems of slavery by working for other people that owned their land. The note written into the reading says, “systemic oppression is harmful to everyone (although disproportionately)” (pg. 210). This disproportionality is also shown in the 1950s when the actions of each branch of government are placed side by side. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled the clause “separate but equal” unconstitutional. However, the executive branch, meant to uphold the laws, allowed 10 years to pass and “more than 75 percent of the school districts in the South” to remain segregated (pg. 450). Systems affect people disproportionally and work together disproportionally. At its core, the theme of disproportionality directly points to causes and effects of racial inequality in American society.

2 Comments

It is so interesting how Zinn is able to retrieve all of this data. Much of which can not be found nor taught in American history. It may be lesser known that Abraham Lincoln didn’t free the slaves out of the kindness of his heart, but the statistics that Zinn gives, are most likely completely unknown and will never be taught about. This is ridiculous, especially with the amount of American “history” that is pushed down our throats during grade school. It is so interesting that these same tactics, excuses, and justifications are still used today today put down minorities and people in poverty.

History is really whatever story “they” are telling and only what they want us to know. Zinn explains the slave community as “a generalized extended kinship system” and it’s so amazing that the black community still has that today in some sense. Without that being blatantly explained to us, our history lives through our culture. 

If the condition slaves were put under, and rebellions because of it, were not enough to get people (Northerners) who weren’t directly affected involved, what would? Does the globalization of the world, and increased technology, allow us to have more empathy, feel more connected, and thus make us better equipped to feel for these situations. What about those situations with child labor in cocoa or the production of clothes? What matters more here quality or quantity, what qualifications make a rebellion move people, and makes it able to overcome oppression and military/police brutality during?

2 Comments

I found it very interesting to read and watch about the emergence of the women’s suffrage movement and the development of leadership styles associated, or not, with different genders. The piece by Rosner focused primarily on data of the ways women lead, classifying it as ‘interactive leadership’ where there are “efforts to encourage participation and share power and information… [and] inclusion is at the core of interactive leadership” (Rosner 151). I am glad the Schein reading was paired with this, because, in my opinion, the Schein reading added a dimension that the Rosner reading lacked. Schein focused on how attention should be focused on “erasing the differences between the sexes … to provide opportunities for the most qualifies of either sex” (Schein 167). The point was that categorizing leadership styles by gender is not accurate, because leadership is not neatly gender divisible. Schein’s ideas work to have interactive leadership as a leadership style that can be used by any gender and the chosen style dependent on each unique situation.

During this past summer, I saw interactive leadership where I was working. Every Monday, our department would meet in the morning to give status updates on projects and clients we were working with. My manager used this time to either field new ideas or have others field new ideas about various projects/events/etc that were going on. I think it was a great example of interactive leadership, because everyone was encouraged to speak up, give advice, or give help to others so we would all accomplish our goals.

1 Comment

In the article, Slavery Without Submission, Zinn explains why the United States supported slavery.  Zinn explains why they supported it and the reason was the profit they made off of it. The cotton industry grew because of slaves and millions of slaves were producing cotton. In the article, Zinn says, “By 1860, it was a million tons. In the same period, 500,000 slaves grew to 4 million.” I found this crazy because it just kept growing and growing and they were making money off their labor.

On page 172 in the article, John Little who was a slave explained how people say slaves are happy because they would laugh and smile. They put on a face to keep out of trouble. Even though they are experiencing very harsh conditions they put on a smile to help others and themselves. He says, “We did it to keep down trouble, and to keep our hearts from being completely broken: that is as true as the gospel!” This really struck me because it really is heartbreaking what they had to go through.

4 Comments

In the first article, Slavery without Submission, Zinn talked about the brutalities of slavery. While Lincoln did abolish slavery, Zinn gave an interesting perspective that differs from what most people are told. We are generally taught that Lincoln abolished slavery because he was pro-equal rights and did not believe in it. However, it seems as if his motivation was more economic and political Lincoln stated that if he could free the slaves and save the Union at the same time, then he would. Also, people do not focus on the fact that The Emancipation Proclamation led to black people being able to fight for the Union army. It seems as if Lincoln knew that more soldiers would be helpful in beating the south and that was another reason for why he freed the slaves.

The second article, Or Does it Explode, shows how life after the slaves were freed was still extremely tough for them. They were taken advantage of by rich white farmers because they needed jobs and there was still the same amount of racism in the south. When the Republicans agreed to pull Union soldiers out of the south so that Hayes could become president, the south basically went back to how it was except without slavery. I agree with MLK when he said that the riots were good because they brought attention to the matter, but they were not going to get them to their overall goal. I think that most people, including me, forget how recently America became desegregated.

4 Comments

Of both the readings for Tuesday, the quote on page 177 of A People’s History of the United States: “religion was used for control” struck me as the most significant. The context of this quote pertains to religious leaders’ control during slavery, where religion aided in keeping slaves in a submissive position. The mentality that was force-fed to these slaves by the slave owners and by black preachers was that slavery was God’s will and this was where everyone was supposed to be until they reached salvation, in which case their suffering would come to an end but would be fully worth it when these slaves could finally live freely and happily. Thus, any kind of revolution or push-back was not worth it, it would simply cause conflict and potentially get in the way of achieving salvation. This method of utilizing leadership positions, especially religious ones, to manipulate followers from speaking out against unfair treatment is manipulative and does not truly follow guidelines of religion and is incredibly immoral.

Religious bonds, whether those be community bonds between members of the same church or leader/follower relationships are a very special type of bond. According to Darwin’s Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson, people are much more inclined to feel close to people who share a religion with them; they see themselves as very similar with similar morals and ideas of what is right or wrong and same end goal. This also applies to leader/follower bonds being closer due to these similarities; followers are more likely to follow these religious leaders without doubt or hesitation due to this strong bond. This can be mutually beneficial for sure and lead to higher levels of morality, but can also be extremely problematic, such as in the case of slavery.

Leave a Comment

The first article “Slavery Without Submission” reinforced a lot of my prior knowledge on the justification of slavery. The Government justified slavery because it provided an economic boom in the US economy. Slaves were able to pick millions of tons of cotton a year which was the main source of revenue for the south so taking away this industry would cripple their economy. In doing so poor whites, middle-class whites, and upper-class whites were able to benefit from the hard labor of African Americans because it created jobs for them. What truly upsets me is the forms of punishments African Americans would receive for disobeying their masters. The article described a story in which an African American women provided some food for a starving poor white man. Once her master discovered what she had done she received 50 lashes for feeding the starving man.   What was also extremely upsetting to me was how African Americans would use gospel songs and dance to retain their humanity because without doing so they would be completely and utterly miserable. 

 

What I found to be very interesting in this article was the fight against slavery as well as the actions African Americans took to fight slavery. Learning about how slave revolts took place and the way in which they would gain followers. One being Turner’s Rebellion where slaves would take arms with axes, picks, hatchets, rocks and so on because muskets would draw too much attention. They would take other slaves from plantations once the owners were murdered. In addition, learning about Harriet Tubman’s nineteen journeys between freedom and back to lands of slavery was extremely impressive that she was willing to risk her freedom for others. She said something along the lines of we will either get freedom or die. If we cannot get one we will take the other. Finally, what I also thought was very fascinating was how Frederick Douglas was able to become educated as a slave and then escape freedom to produce many amazing literary works.

2 Comments

Slavery Without Submission 

Susan Nevin 

To begin, I read author Howard Zinn’s article, “Slavery Without Submission.” This article regarding the United States and why they chose to support slavery was truly shocking, and explained things about slavery I had never known. For example, this article explained that the reason that the United States government decided to back slavery was because of the profit they got from it. Because of slavery, the cotton production boomed, and by 1860, millions of slaves were producing millions of tons of cotton. Personally, when reading this, I just don’t see how they justified production as a means to use a humans’ life. Yes, while this provided more jobs for white people in the poor class, it took away any opportunities that blacks and people of color had to make a life for themselves. It was very upsetting to read that they used job opportunities and money as a means to justify something this horrid. 

` In addition, I read another reading from Howard Zinn, but this one discussed the black revolt of the 1950s. This piece explained that while this revolt came as a surprise to many people, it really shouldn’t have been. Zinn explained that, “it (slavery) was not just a memory but a living presence–part of the daily lives of blacks in generation after generation.” I am truly surprised that no one thought that this would be a possibility, and that years of oppression would would lead to people wanting to take a stand. However, if they hadn’t we would not have experienced the Civil Rights Movement, and come to make the progress we can see today.

3 Comments

Zinn’s reading regarding slavery without submission was truly an eye-opening read. I found the quote from a slave talking about singing and dancing at night after a day that he had been whipped particularly inspiring and extremely grateful for the good life I’ve been born into. His ability to be positive in such an awful situation awes me. I think it was really interesting that a majority of slave owners were afraid of rebellion, yet they tried to make it look as if they weren’t. The fact that religion was used as a means to control was particularly disheartening to me. Reading portions of letters from slaves who were separated as a family really got to me; the injustice done during this period is truly immeasurable. I think Harriet Tubman wanting freedom or death, and nothing else, says everything one would need to know about how awfully slaves were treated.

I find it interesting that in the Jim Crow era, the Communist Party was associated with the defense of young black men imprisoned. I think many people would definitely try to use this to their advantage because if there’s anything all Americans hate, it’s Communism. It is disheartening that Truman’s decision to establish a Civil Rights committee was more of an economic decision rather than a moral one. This coincides closely with what we were talking about in class a lot on Thursday regarding various presidential actions that were, in fact, political more than anything else, such as the emancipation proclamation. It seems like everything important has been up to the Supreme Court in recent years, which is sad given the executive power of the presidency. I find it surprising that the scenario regarding klansman attempting to raid Robert William’s house isn’t used more often in the second amendment debate actually. What happened in Birmingham in 1963 sounds so similar to what is currently happening in Hong Kong today, and when taking a closer look, both groups are fighting for very similar things, both of which involve true freedom. It’s sad that dreams have to explode for change to come about, unfortunately, but if explosions are the only things that have the ability to incite change, then so be it.

2 Comments

Apparently, the black revolt of the 1950s-1960s was a surprise, which to me sounds like a bunch of bologna. Due to the nation’s history of discrimination, segregation, and racism, it seems like the Civil Rights Movement should’ve been a given, that it would happen and everyone would know it was happening. Granted, I wasn’t alive when it happened, I wasn’t alive to see both sides, and it isn’t common culture now to discriminate and assume superiority based on race, but to me, it shouldn’t have been a surprise.

Zinn details all of the various forms of art, poems, and songs that conferred ideas of freedom and equality that many black artists wrote and did to convey their discontent and feelings towards their ancestry and history. All of these pieces of art show how their past and their ancestors’ pasts aren’t just memories, they are still parts of their lives and will/should remain parts of everyone’s lives until equality isn’t fought for anymore – it’s a given part of life.

One thing I found particularly interesting in “Slavery Without Submission” was the idea that poor whites only sometimes helped blacks, while blacks risked it all to help the suffering whites around them. I think if someone truly understands the concept of being on the outside or disregarded as a human, they would do whatever works to help another so that that one person doesn’t experience the same things they do. In this sense, I’m low-key shocked that the poor whites, who were also under attack (but for land) by the wealthy whites, did not do more to help the blacks that were truly suffering everyday, the same people who risked beatings and sometimes their lives to help them. The slaves’ values of kinship and community showed through their willingness to help those that sometimes didn’t help them, seen through the one example that Zinn gives the readers, of the slave that was beaten because he gave a sick, poor white neighbor food because the neighbor was sick.

1 Comment

I found both of these readings to be interesting tellings of history that I had heard a little about before, but probably did not know the full story of. It was not until this year that I learned that Abraham Lincoln was a racist. I think he typically has a good reputation because he is remembered for emancipating slaves, but this is not something that he did willingly. He basically just did whatever was in his political favor. When slavery was not as profitable as it had once been he decided that it was then time to emancipate the slaves. It is annoying to watch out politicians do what is in their best interests for gaining power, rather than what is morally right. I saw this repeated through both chapters. I was so annoyed reading about Truman claiming he was going to do something when he was not taking advantage of his powers as president and using legislation that was already enacted.

I think both chapters illustrated how much power the people have. Even if legislation is passed on something, if the majority of people do not agree with it or do not abide by it then it really does not matter. For example, even when there were civil rights laws on the books that should have made violence against black Americans illegal, if the general population still has animosity toward black people these laws will not mean much and not truly be enforced. Another situation of laws existing, but doing nothing  occurs right after slavery was ending. Though all slaves were technically free citizens now, there was no way for them to be successful in America because they were entering a society built on their backs, but not built for them. There was no way for them to acquire land and they ended up being tied to white men by working on their land yet again.

1 Comment