Exaggerated History

[CraigD]

What an interesting thread!

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

400 years of African American slavery - or - nearly 400 years of slavery of Black Africans in North and South America.

Like most people born in the US ca. 1960, my education on the subject of slavery was a combination of vague high-level historic details, strongly emotional personal stories about individuals (eg: John Brown, Harriet Tubman, and Harriet Beecher Stowe), and conflicting accounts on the causes of the American Civil War. I was taught almost nothing of slavery in the Caribbean and South America.

I have no recollection of hearing before yesterday the phrase/claim “400 years of African American slavery”. Like TBD (and wikipedia), I define “African American” as people of sub-Saharan ancestry living now of recently in the United States (note that the term was first widely popularized in the 1960s). By my arithmetic, true slavery in the US and the formerly British colonies that preceded it lasted about 211 years, beginning with the 1645 court case in which Anthony Johnson was determined to be entitled to the “lifetime service” of “negro servant” John Casor.

Although Africans were known to have been brought to the American colonies by at latest 1619, prior to this time they were legally considered indentured servants, who’s services could only be legally commanded by a master for a period defined in a legal contract (usually less than 10 years), at the end of which their masters were required to pay them a predetermined compensation in money, goods, or land. The majority of indentured servants in the colonies were white Englishmen. Like the white majority, black indentured servants became free men after fulfilling their contracts.

Ironically, Anthony Johnson, considered to be the first person in the colonies to legally own a slave (John Casor) was himself a former “negro indentured servant”. Had he been brought to Virginia 40 years later than he was, his contract could have been legally voided by the colonial courts, making him a slave for life.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

So my question is, where does the "400 years of slavery" come from? What is the purpose of exaggerating historical facts such as this one?

I think Freddy, Turtle, Beorseun and others are correct in their analysis that the “400 years” figure was used for rhetorical effect, then repeated, for purposes of emphasizing the injustice of slavery.

Doesn't it serve to build distrust of the historical institutions that perpetuate that information, opening the door for legitimizing arguments like holocaust denial?

I don’t believe so.

No representative of any credible historical institution or advocacy group is really arguing that the “400 years of African American slavery” claim is historically accurate (unless the term “African American” is twisted to mean a person of African ancestry living in South America”), or attempting to present false data showing that this slavery existed much before or after the commonly accepted dates. No reasonable person, I think, believes that the slavery described in most American History texts is inaccurately depicted in terms of dates. Although many histories disagree about the actual number of slaves, the conditions under which they lived and worked, the existence and effectiveness of laws protecting them, and the relationships between slaves and slave owners, nearly all agree on the essential fact that slaves had no legal ability to gain their freedom, or the freedom of their children, and that this was a grave social evil.

People who deny well-researched historic data and analysis for social, religious, or political ends don’t require inaccuracies and slip-ups from legitimate historians and advocates to pursue their disinformational agendas – they need only lie boldly and inflame the passions of people who want to believe the attractive parts of their messages. Arguments that slavery is less a thing to be condemned in the present because it existed for only 200, not 400 years, or that it existed in the Bible, or that the genocide is less a thing to be condemned because only 4 million, not 11 million died in Nazi concentration camps in the 1930s and 40s, or that a greater of lesser fraction of those who dies were Jewish, (which I don’t believe any of the contributors to this thread are making) are, IMHO, trickery that should be exposed for what it is at every available opportunity.

[Buffy]

The issue I think is that it has been discovered by many that "slight exaggeration" is useful in debate. *Everyone* claims to be a victim these days, with even rich white males claiming to be "victims" of the "liberal media elite"!

Victimization sucks. The only way to get out of it is for the objects of the victimization to realize that rolling in it does no good. In the African-American community there has been an increasing recognition that "blaming the police" does not improve the security of their neighborhoods, and that they have to work together to make things better. Ultra-liberal San Francisco has even gotten the community to back legal action to ban gang members from their own turf.

Unfortunately, everyone is doing it, and it becomes a vicious cycle. Speaking out against victimization does seem to fail when one is calling *another* group on their victimization, because its easily turned on as an *example* of the victimization.

Thus, as far as I'm concerned, the only way to battle it is to use your *own* groups victimization as the example.

Be the first to propose that people "just get along." Stop your own group, and you'll embarrass others into doing the right thing.

Lead, follow or get out of the way,
Buffy

[jackson33]

the US, or its government is liable for no more than 80-85 years of legalized slavery, which was a bitterly fought issue from the days the Nation was formed. prior to 1776 under English control, active in slave trade, any blame if required should go there.

the holocaust, not being taught in British schools today, is for pure political correctness. the thought being offensive to its Muslim students. its not taught in any Muslim society, other than being a western society hoax. numbers of Jewish victims are of little value, the acts committed or the idea of ethnic cleansing the only FACT.

history is a simple portrayal of what is thought by most to have happened in the past. i personally am satisfied most of any free society accepts as history is generally correct. exaggeration, may be the exact reverse, in that as time rolls on, offensive or contrary versions are left out.

history and pre-historic versions indicate slavery has existed at least back to 3000 BC, is quite clear all races have been slaves to others and there are some that think Africans were offered better lives elsewhere. this however not my opinion...

[Freddy]

I promise in order to be accurate to say that, "African slavery in the Americas lasted 385 years, from 1503 thru 1888." See I actually learned something by researching the correct dates.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Like TBD (and wikipedia), I define “African American” as people of sub-Saharan ancestry living now of recently in the United States

And yet it seems Vespucci mostly visited the coasts of central and south America (only touching Florida in NA) as well as many of he islands.

I'd say it's reasonable to say that African slavery in America spanned four centuries (which implies at the very least 200 and less than 400 years).

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I'd say it's reasonable to say that African slavery in America spanned four centuries (which implies at the very least 200 and less than 400 years).

I think this is a matter of word usage.

In the common usage of the majority of English-speaking people, “America” is, I think, synonymous with the 48 contiguous states of the United States, “The Americas” with the whole of North, Central, and South America. So Freddy’s statement,

Originally Posted by Freddy

"African slavery in the Americas lasted 385 years, from 1503 thru 1888."

appears to me better and less ambiguous than “African slavery in America spanned four centuries”, which is likely to misinterpreted as meaning that African slaves were present in the colonies including present day Virginia prior to 1600, a serious historical inaccuracy.

In speaking and writing about history, a degree of precision appears important, with which rounding durations to years is compatible, but rounding them down and up to the century is not. Consider the following whimsical example: “200 years of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’” (1992, 1997-2003).

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by CraigD

In the common usage of the majority of English-speaking people, “America” is, I think, synonymous with the 48 contiguous states of the United States, “The Americas” with the whole of North, Central, and South America.

Only 48 of them and not the whole 50? That's worse than I thought!!!

Now I was aware of the widespread toponomastic misappropriation (on which Bill's complaint of exaggeration is essentially based!), which is just part of a trend which I don't exactly agree with. Although it is handy to abbreviate compared to the whole long denomination, I find it wrong to reach the point of America being synonymous with USA and I personally avoid the tendency. I don't think it should be confirmed academically; it would be better to spread an expression such as "US-American" which isn't significantly less colloquial.

Obviously Freddy’s statement is more exact, but that doesn't mean that “African slavery in America spanned four centuries” should be considered misleading.

Originally Posted by CraigD

Consider the following whimsical example: “200 years of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’” (1992, 1997-2003).

Certainly, but that's only because you say "200 years" instead of "2 centuries".

Alright, alright, alright but, still... 200 - 6 = 194, while 400 - 385 is only a measley 15. When I wrote "at the very least 200 and less than 400" I was deliberately showing that one could be formally correct even in some cases where the duration in years was hardly more than half of 400 although that would clearly be hype, whereas in the case of 385 years even saying "400 years" wouldn't be much of an exaggeration.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Consider the following whimsical example: “200 years of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’” (1992, 1997-2003).

I was going to let this one slide, but if Q is going to drag it out: Okay, so I fudge my age some times, but its usually in the *other* direction! I'm no where near 200!

Well Craig's old enough to know who David Grisman is,
Buffy

[sciencegirl94]

I agree. Some people exeggerate history too much.

Like for example, in school we learn that the EUROPEAN people (note, that they say EUROPEAN instead of Spanish, Portugese, etc.) went to South America, and killed many Native Americans. But, they forget to say that 'other European people' (in this case the Brits, who later became AMERICANS, who are now the people teaching these things) went to North America and killed A LOT MORE NATIVE AMERICAN, than the 'Europeans' did in South America. In South America the different kinds of people, natives, blacks, and whites mixed, the 'Europeans' were much 'nicer' to the Native Americans than the 'other Europeans' were in North America.

History is about details. So I don't think that simplifying them, or exaggareting them is a good thing.

No wonder some people think that there is a language called 'European'...

I would write more but my siser wants to play on the computer...

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

So my question is, where does the "400 years of slavery" come from? What is the purpose of exaggerating historical facts such as this one? Doesn't it serve to build distrust of the historical institutions that perpetuate that information, opening the door for legitimizing arguments like holocaust denial?
Bill

Hello TheBigDog,

One of the institutions you refer to is the National Geographic Society. Around 4-5 years ago it had an article on slavery where the US had very few slaves percentage wise (per capita) but had one of the highest number of slaves as any other country in the world. Unfortunately, for your case, the National Geographic Society doesn't legitimise holocaust denial.