Exaggerated History

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Freddy

It was the British Department of Education that was reporting on individual teachers who failed to teach history about the Holocaust. It was not that the teachers did not know about the Holocaust, it was that they did not want to be confronted by students who may object to the truth about the Holocaust. Those teachers need to find a new career! I teach history and I never would allow the truth to be hidden from my students. Perhaps some graphic details do not need to be presented. Teaching them that 11 million people, including 5-7 million Jews, were murdered by Hitler and the Nazis is basic historical fact that must be included. My students are taught about the Native American holocaust 1607-1890 and the 400 years of African American slavery. Besides it all is part of MA curriculum and must be taught. Also included is the Hidden Holocaust, where Japan invaded Manchuria, Manchuko, China, The Philippines, and Southeast Asia and proceeded to murder countless millions, more than twice as many as the Nazis did.

Freddy, I have borrowed this from another thread in hopes of having a separate discussion on it here. What I would like to examine is how exaggeration is used in portraying historic events, and how that impacts current day politics. The specific line that I am commenting on is...

Originally Posted by Freddy

the 400 years of African American slavery.

There is no doubt that slavery existed in the United States and that the practice was barbaric. But 400 years is flat out wrong.

Here are some facts for the conversation…

400 years of slavery is the number I always hear. Yet Columbus was in 1492, and Emancipation Proclamation was in 1863. My math has that at 371 years. My research shows the first African slaves coming to the colonies around 1619. That makes 244 years. Calculate to the ratification of the 13th Amendment and you get 246 years. That still splits the burden between the British government and the colonies. From the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 to the ratification of the 13th Amendment is 76 years. Disgraceful, but less than the 400 years proclaimed by activists. In fact there have only been 388 actual years since the first slaves arrived in the Colonies in 1619 (assuming slavery was still being practiced to this very day).

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

[Freddy]

I think because it lasted through 4 centuries they round it off to 400 years.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I think because it lasted through 4 centuries they round it off to 400 years.

OK, but what four centuries? 1600's, 1700's, 1800's. Only 3 centuries. What is the purpose of rounding up? I can only think that it is to accentuate guilt or victimization. That does not serve to keep history accurate, that is bending facts for political purpose. What purpose?

Bill

[Freddy]

Slavery in the Americas began in Hispaniola 1503 and ended in Brazil in 1888. That is only 385 years. I guess 385 years would have been more accurate than 400. African Americans use the 400 years often and refer to slavery in the Americas when they say 400.

[InfiniteNow]

1500s - Slavery occurred
1600s - Slavery occurred
1700s - Slavery occurred
1800s - Slavery occurred

Slavery went on across four centuries. For four centuries, slavery was an issue. You want them to break it down by month too, so you can nit pick that?

[Buffy]

I'm pretty sure the Egyptians used "Nubians" as slaves. There's references to slavery in the Bible. Peoples were regularly enslaved throughout human history, and Africans were easy to exploit, just not get your hands on through large blocks.

I'm not sure why this discussion is significant....

Magnitudes of badness,
Buffy

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

So my question is, where does the "400 years of slavery" come from?
Bill

I think it's just a meme BD. Someone said it at a rally or speech or in a church or wrote it in a paper or other public venue and then it just spreads. Easy number to remember & it's tied to an 'authoritive' source. The 'leader' said it, he said it, she said it, they said it, it said it; must be so.

Centuries of slavery, and the world's not done yet; no Sir. So it goes.

[Boerseun]

Good question, Bill.

And I think one with a pretty easy, simple and straightforward answer.

The victims (or descendants of the actual victims) will round up, which is to their political benefit, and the perpetrators (or descendants of the actual perpetrators) would want to round down for their own political benefit.

We're currently living through the same idiocy in SA, where everything is blamed on "The Legacy of Apartheid". It reaches ridiculous levels. Sure, there are some legitimate issues that can be laid squarely at the old Apartheid government, but you get instances such as a black mayor of a small town being caught with his hands in the cookie jar, and when he gets to court, his very first defense is to blame it on Apartheid. And the moment the "A"-word is used, he's automatically right. But nobody asks how he links an old form of government with the fact that he stole millions from the town council.

It's the same with any discussion having anything to do with Jews, for instance. You can say "Jews in general have black hair", and the next guy will say "Yeah, that's how Hitler started", thereby invalidating everything you have to say on the matter - regardless of whether the majority of Jews do or don't have black hair. If you want to round the slavery years down, you'll be labelled immediately as a pro-slavery racist, and nobody will question the merit of the slander aimed at you. Judges over here are too scared to be labelled racists by questioning the "Blame-it-on-Apartheid" defense, so nobody thinks to ask the mayor what the hell his hand was doing in the cookie jar in the first place.

Politics suck. That's why we leave it to the politicians. They seem to like it.

[Qfwfq]

O. J. Simpson

[TheBigDog]

400 years of African American slavery - or - nearly 400 years of slavery of Black Africans in North and South America. Which statement is more correct?

I don't think that Jamaican's call themselves "African Americans". I don't think that Brazilian's call themselves "African Americans". It is still up in the air if Puerto Rican's call themselves "African Americans".

American as a nation had a 76 year history of slavery that ended in the most brutal war in our history. The sacrifice of those who died in ending slavery in America should not be diminished by political rhetoric of the descendants of those who were freed, or those who sympathize with their ancestor's plight.

That there is a nearly 400 year history of western slavery is one thing to state, to state that African American's suffered 400 years of slavery is false.

Bill