I am late to this post, Kevin, but thanks for these videos! I think I'll start with reading Fields' "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America." And I'm glad to know about the other scholars. I will also read Rothman and Fields' article about police brutality--it looks important.
Thanks for highlighting the indispensable Barbara Fields. I think Race as an ideology is more accessible than he co-authored Racecraft. I assign "race as an Ideology" regularly. It is with noting that she is drawing from Edmund Morgan in her video. She is right that the current scholarly obsession with identity discourages thinking about race as a specific historical construct. We see it in the essentializing of people by skin color in today's commentary . Such thinking is so hopelessly flawed and to think that it pervades the historical community at large. It is disheartening
Good to hear from you, Pete. I recommend reading the introduction to *Racecraft* and the first chapter, both of which offer a helpful overview of the concept of racecraft. Good point regarding Edmund Morgan. *American Slavery, American Freedom* is essential reading on the early history of slavery in Virginia.
I am also looking forward to reading Toure Reed's book *Toward Freedom: The Case Against Race Reductionism.*
Thanks for posting the videos. Based on the same line of reasoning, we could talk about "gendercraft" and "ethnocraft" and "religioncraft" and any number of other "crafts" that have no causal effect on character, ability, or acceptable behavior exhibited toward other human beings. I'm with Jane Elliott, too, who has said the concept of "race" is a myth, an artificial separator. I tried to buy Racecraft on Amazon Kindle only to discover I bought it some time ago and never got around to reading it. Thanks for reminding me.
I fundamentally agree with parts of the interpretations offered in both videos. I think it is important to remember that the English in particular but also the Spanish were looking for resources and were out to establish a permanent presence on the landscape as they moved into the Americas. The Sweeds, the Dutch and the French much less so.
The English did so with an economic approach that relied on what today we call industrial farming. To make that work required laborers and in 1619 the Dutch solved the problem with a ready supply. But I think Fields is right about American historians tending to forget that others were also bought and sold in the Americas, especially British North America and the Caribbean. My problem with this "view" is that it also stops short of recognizing that Africans were subject to this practice far longer and in far harsher ways than others. may be she acknowledges this else where but not in either video.
All that said, the industrial farm practice continued primarily in the south and to some degree in the west as the line of settlement moved west. As Europeans moved west, post Revolution, there was however a limit to how far west the plantation could move. I think this was do to some of the reasons discussed int eh Unregistered video but also do to geographical reasons. But its influence in the form of money generated by planation agricultural activities went west well into the Northwest territories and the Louisiana purchase. I think this does generate some if not all the tensions and conflicts discussed in the Unregistered video. For a good understanding of this historical current I recommend "Slavery int he North Star State" by Chris Lehman published by the Minnesota Historical Society.
And, I agree with the three scholars in the Unregistered video; to present the position they take in most contexts today usually gets the presenter less than a positive response.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Michael. I don't think Fields denies the scale of the violence experienced by African Americans; rather, she is concerned with the way in which singling out one date reduces or overly simplifies the early history of slavery. In her view, there was nothing inevitable about Africans becoming the predominant labor force in Virginia. It happened gradually and, most importantly, the stigma of racism was introduced and reinforced through strict slave codes.
I am late to this post, Kevin, but thanks for these videos! I think I'll start with reading Fields' "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America." And I'm glad to know about the other scholars. I will also read Rothman and Fields' article about police brutality--it looks important.
Thanks for highlighting the indispensable Barbara Fields. I think Race as an ideology is more accessible than he co-authored Racecraft. I assign "race as an Ideology" regularly. It is with noting that she is drawing from Edmund Morgan in her video. She is right that the current scholarly obsession with identity discourages thinking about race as a specific historical construct. We see it in the essentializing of people by skin color in today's commentary . Such thinking is so hopelessly flawed and to think that it pervades the historical community at large. It is disheartening
Good to hear from you, Pete. I recommend reading the introduction to *Racecraft* and the first chapter, both of which offer a helpful overview of the concept of racecraft. Good point regarding Edmund Morgan. *American Slavery, American Freedom* is essential reading on the early history of slavery in Virginia.
I am also looking forward to reading Toure Reed's book *Toward Freedom: The Case Against Race Reductionism.*
Thanks for posting the videos. Based on the same line of reasoning, we could talk about "gendercraft" and "ethnocraft" and "religioncraft" and any number of other "crafts" that have no causal effect on character, ability, or acceptable behavior exhibited toward other human beings. I'm with Jane Elliott, too, who has said the concept of "race" is a myth, an artificial separator. I tried to buy Racecraft on Amazon Kindle only to discover I bought it some time ago and never got around to reading it. Thanks for reminding me.
Good point, Vally. Enjoy reading *Racecraft.*
And, I am going to take a look at "Racecraft" wen I have time. Unfortunately I am still back on a couple of books by Carol
Reardon
Can't go wrong with Carol Reardon.
I fundamentally agree with parts of the interpretations offered in both videos. I think it is important to remember that the English in particular but also the Spanish were looking for resources and were out to establish a permanent presence on the landscape as they moved into the Americas. The Sweeds, the Dutch and the French much less so.
The English did so with an economic approach that relied on what today we call industrial farming. To make that work required laborers and in 1619 the Dutch solved the problem with a ready supply. But I think Fields is right about American historians tending to forget that others were also bought and sold in the Americas, especially British North America and the Caribbean. My problem with this "view" is that it also stops short of recognizing that Africans were subject to this practice far longer and in far harsher ways than others. may be she acknowledges this else where but not in either video.
All that said, the industrial farm practice continued primarily in the south and to some degree in the west as the line of settlement moved west. As Europeans moved west, post Revolution, there was however a limit to how far west the plantation could move. I think this was do to some of the reasons discussed int eh Unregistered video but also do to geographical reasons. But its influence in the form of money generated by planation agricultural activities went west well into the Northwest territories and the Louisiana purchase. I think this does generate some if not all the tensions and conflicts discussed in the Unregistered video. For a good understanding of this historical current I recommend "Slavery int he North Star State" by Chris Lehman published by the Minnesota Historical Society.
And, I agree with the three scholars in the Unregistered video; to present the position they take in most contexts today usually gets the presenter less than a positive response.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Michael. I don't think Fields denies the scale of the violence experienced by African Americans; rather, she is concerned with the way in which singling out one date reduces or overly simplifies the early history of slavery. In her view, there was nothing inevitable about Africans becoming the predominant labor force in Virginia. It happened gradually and, most importantly, the stigma of racism was introduced and reinforced through strict slave codes.
I also agree with the interpretations offered of the shifting national attitudes in the 1840s and 1850s.
Thanks for the recommendations! Will gave "Racecraft" a try, as I've been reading around this since seeing Ta-Nehisi Coates write about it.
It's not an easy read, but definitely worth your time.